• Thank you to Carol and Steve Bowman, the forum owners, for our new upgrade!

The End of Dark Matter Theory

SeaAndSky

SeaAndSky

Senior Registered
There is breaking news on the Dark Matter issue. It appears from recently reported information that an alternate theory ("MOND" = "Modified Newtonian Dynamics" or "Milgromian dynamics" after the person who developed this theory) is correct and Dark Matter is unnecessary in order to explain the various anomalies it was "cooked up" to explain.

There are numerous articles online and a lot of hubbub among brainy physicist types at the moment. Many of them have spent 30+ years pursuing and theorizing about a theory that has (as far as I can tell) just been rendered obsolete, null and void, etc. This can, obviously, be a blow to someone who has devoted a substantial part of his/her lifetime developing ideas on the nature of Dark Matter, etc. Here is a statement from the scientist who gathered the data establishing MOND and a reaction from another scientist in the Dark Matter field:

“I have been working under the hypothesis that dark matter exists, so this result really surprised me,” added lead author Dr. Kyu-Hyun Chae, a researcher in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Sejong University.

“Initially, I was reluctant to interpret our own results in favor of MOND. But now I cannot deny the fact that the results as they stand clearly support MOND rather than the dark matter hypothesis.”

The scientists analyzed 153 rotation curves of disk galaxies from the SPARC sample.

They deduced the external field effect by observing that galaxies in strong external fields slowed, or exhibited declining rotation curves, more frequently than galaxies in weaker external fields, as predicted by MOND alone.

“I was skeptical by the results at first because the external field effect on rotation curves is expected to be very tiny,” Dr. McGaugh said.

“We spent months checking various systematics. In the end, it became clear we had a real, solid detection.”

“Skepticism is part of the scientific process and understands the reluctance of many scientists to consider MOND as a possibility,” she added.

“I came from the same place as those in dark matter community. It hurts to think that we could be so wrong. But Milgrom predicted this over 30 years ago with MOND. No other theory anticipated the observed behavior.”


Here is another fairly straightforward article on the new breakthrough:

Smoking-gun evidence for modified gravity at low acceleration from Gaia observations of wide binary stars
 
Eventually, humanity will have to come to terms with the reality of an infinite Universe, unbounded in space and time. Our monkey brains are very clever in rationalizing away what we find disturbing. I, myself, am perfectly fine with a Universe that we will never be able to understand. We come from, and return to, Infinite Mystery.
The JWST has shown us how wrong we were.
 
I need to read up more on it, but apparently everything is in upheaval now.

My issue though is that many people accepted theoretical answers as facts, despite them not being proven. Not only is proof important, disproof is equally important and forgotten about.

People seemed very satisfied with having theoretical answers that seemed to work, despite not being able to prove it, nor working hard enough to disprove it and rule it out.

I think the last 30 years have been quite complacent in theoretical physics. Im sure no groundbreaking work has led to it in some regards, but so has social media and the rise of the science communicator as religious icon.

Regardless I'm glad the wheels seem to be turning again.
 
Hi Totoro,

Don't be surprised if those that put their reputations and decades of their lives into Dark Matter refuse to give up easily. The myth of scientific objectivity has been dying hard over the last 50 or 60 years, but die it must. Scientists are human, and often have vested interests and prejudices. Still, the truth seems to come out eventually. As long as it does, I have some hope that we will survive as a civilization.

Cordially,
S&S
 
Last edited:
SeaAndSky said:
Hi Totoro,

Don't be surprised if those that put their reputations and decades of their lives into Dark Matter refuse to give up easily. The myth of scientific objectivity has been dying hard over the last 50 or 60 years, but die it must. Scientists are human, and often have vested interests and prejudices. Still, the truth seems to come out eventually. As long as it does, I have some hope that we will survive as a civilization.

Cordially,
S&S
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Totoro said:
@SeaAndSky take a look at the reference articles at the end of this link. You may find them interesting

www.businessmole.com

James Webb Telescope’s Discoveries Trigger Debate on Fundamental Physics and Cosmology

The recent New York Times article titled “The story of our Universe may be starting to unravel” shed light on the potentially groundbreaking discoveries made by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)…
www.businessmole.com www.businessmole.com
Click to expand...
Hi Totoro,

Thanks for the article link. It seems to also link to a lot of interesting stuff showing the current revolution going on, so it will take me some time to go through it all.

I had planned to link an article from an original thinker who has found that the expansion of the universe, red-shift, etc. can all be explained by mass being a characteristic of matter that increases with time (which would probably take us back--with that exception--to the steady-state model again). I'm hoping this will also be covered in what you have linked, but the point of the matter is really the arrogance of science or, perhaps, the credulity of those who popularize it for the rest of us.

When I was young, the steady-state universe was in vogue, then the Big Bang came into vogue (to explain some new data), and everyone jumped on that band-wagon. The popularizers tend, in each case, to act like we NOW KNOW SURELY AND CERTAINLY, when in fact we merely theorize in most cases, and theories are subject to change even when they are not disproved outright.

Cordially,
S&S

PS--I'm not really averse to the Big Bang theory myself, but like other theories, people should not act like it is established "fact", despite its explanatory value.
PPS--The next question is "when can a theory finally be considered to be proved?" This is a good question, and I know of no perfect answer. However, considering how often theories are seriously modified over time (even when not disproved), I'd have to say a few centuries after general acceptance (at least). That is based on how long the Newtonian model of physics prevailed before Einstein came along. But once again, that it is just a personal opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top