EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

    • PixelAlchemist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re not wrong. According to the current scientific understanding of the universe, that’s exactly what it is. They just gave it a badass name.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeh, that’s how the scientific method works.
      Observations don’t support a model, or a model doesn’t support observations.
      Think of a reason why.
      Test that hypothesis.
      Repeat until you think it’s correct. Hopefully other people agree with you.

      People are also working on modifying General Relativity and Newtonian Dynamics to try and fix the model, while other people are working on observing dark matter directly (instead of it’s effects) to further prove the existing models.
      https://youtu.be/3o8kaCUm2V8

      We are in the “testing hypothesis” stage. And have been for 50ish years

    • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Other way around, the math model worked fine without dark matter, and it was experimental observation that revealed DM. And yes, the term dark matter is a catch all by design because we don’t have a single theory on it yet.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Do you think solutions to dark matter are tied up in a unified GR + quantum mechanics theory?

        • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I would be surprised. Quantum Gravity becomes relevant in very extreme energy conditions, while dark matter is relevant in the normal universe.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The experimental observation did not reveal Dark Matter. Nobody has seen or proven Dark Matter, actually. That’s why it is called Dark Matter. The observation just showed that the math model was flawed, and they invented “Dark Matter” to make up for it.

        My personal take is that they will one day add the right correction factor that should have been in the fomulas all the time.

        Just like with E=mc² not being completely correct. It’s actually E²=m²c⁴ + p²c². The p²c² is not adding much, but it is still there.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I know, I was so hype a few years ago when a new gravity well model supposedly eliminated the need for Dark Matter, but recently it’s been in the news as a scandal that also doesn’t fix everything.

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). It’s been the dissenting voice in the modern Great Debate about dark matter.

        On one side are the dark matter scientists who think there’s a vast category of phenomenon out there FAR beyond our current science. That the universe is far larger and more complex than we currently know, and so we must dedicate ourselves to exploring the unexplored. The other side, the

        On the other you have the MOND scientists, who hope they can prevent that horizon from flying away from them by tweaking the math on some physical laws. It basically adds a term to our old physics equations to explain why low acceleration systems experience significantly different forces than the high-acceleration systems with which we are more familiar – though their explanations for WHY the math ought be tweaked I always found totally unsatisfactory – to make the current, easy-to-grock laws fit the observations.

        With the big problem being that it doesn’t work. It explains some galactic motion, but not all. It sometimes fits wide binary star systems kind of OK, but more often doesn’t. It completely fails to explain the lensing and motion of huge galactic clusters. At this point, MOND has basically been falsified. Repeatedly, predictions it made have failed.

        Dark matter theories – that is, the theories that say there are who new categories of stuff out there we don’t understand at all – still are the best explanation. That means we’re closer to the starting line of understanding the cosmos instead of the finish line many wanted us to be nearing. But I think there’s a razor in there somewhere, about trusting the scientist who understands the limits of our knowledge over the one who seems confident we nearly know everything.