MMND wins by Webb

[Dennis P Brown]

Dark matter failed big time and frankly, is so wrong it is a dead theory now. MMND agrees with the Webb data and predicted said data*. That is a huge win. Good old Hossenfelder post's and she wonders why no is pointing this out?

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AagyRrIm2W0


* Relative to early large galaxy formation

[David Kunkle]

Hilarious. Just more proof that as soon as someone wants to believe something, the facts don't matter.

[Aidan_Roy]

Dennis,

I have been following your threads on the dark energy/matter topics on and off for some time and am ceaselessly fascinated by the work continuing to be done. While it is absolutely true that JWST has and will continue to fundamentally rock the foundations of cosmology, I feel its still far to early to claim to have the answer.

There is just so much data that has gone into our current “best models” and MOND may well be approaching a similar point, but it has yet to really go the distance. I for one am a huge fan of the idea that gravity is an intrinsic effect brought about by the very nature of the universe, and am really struggling to see any viable path for an answer hidden in particle physics. I think that the growing propensity to jump on an us vs them mentality is a bit dangerous though and is a huge issue I have with Hossenfelder’s more recent (past few years) videos. Tempting as the rhetoric is we must try (and I do recognize the politics and futility of truly achieving this) but try to stay clear headed and focused on the science.

Your criticisms of lambda CDM are not unfounded and I personally cannot claim enough knowledge or experience to argue too much, however I have always been one to throw my hat in with establishment science, as long as it remains evidence based, globalized, and generally very good at staying on the right track.

MOND is undoubtably coming close to garnering my support but my biggest issue with it is that, to me, its fiddling with the math far too much. Some criticism youve raised for dark matter, mainly the issues with its conception, remain just as true for the early models of MOND. That is just part of good science. Currently our strongest evidence for dark matters comes from bullet cluster data, baryonic acoustic oscillations and cosmic microwave background anisotropy data.

I have to respect you for your explorations as well and truly wish the best towards your personal efforts to work out a solution.

I submit the following towards my case:

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/133 ... ersion%3D3

https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14804

I would like to note too that the second article comes from a team who had access to the same JWST data as the group Hossenfelder is talking about, as well as a much more developed data set, since they were the team that actually applied for the survey that found the galaxies argued to be heavier than expected in the paper Hossenfelder references.

Aidan

[Dennis P Brown]

I always rejected MOND and dark matter. The former because as you said - its just an arbitrary additive value done ad hoc. The later because there are zero particle candidates and we must then believe in imaginary particles to make that theory work. I really felt there was a QM answer - somehow.

Finally, while working on learning Field Theory I discovered a critical and essential mechanism that can link gravity in GR to QM. It is easy to derive, 100% based on existing science/math and so simple it was too hard to believe that that anyone missed it* (hence I spent some years trying to convince myself it could be true because I felt it simply couldn't be.) But more and more observational evidence supports my approch and not dark matter or dark energy. Am I correct? I'll stop here while I laugh a good bit about really believing something that seems impossible to solve by the entire community; well, maybe I have a solution but that has been said about a lot of approaches and to date, all have failed. Certainly my idea could be in the same boat - self delusion via trying to convince one's self about an idea. The issue is I just can't find a flaw or error in my approch and it predicts a lot of existing astronomical data - i.e. agrees with reality. So, unless all Field Theory (FT) is wrong, this idea is hard to falsify.

So, my approch provides a complete and physical solution to what space-time curvature really is, what is causing the so-called gravity force to vary from a "1/r^2" effect (local) to a "1/r" effect (galaxy) and frankly, is also extremely straight forward. I say these things because I have a solution based on the very foundations of FT and this answers these questions and even fixes the insane zero point energy paradox problem in FT. Further, I also agree that the local expansion will vary compared to the cosmic standard expansion rate - in fact, my approch requires this to occur.

The data for dark energy is not something proven by a long shot (nor necessarily dis-proven); that's due to more accurate surveys that invalidates their original observations. As for dark matter there has been zero evidence for it other then the galactic rotation curves; however, current dark matter theories do NOT give the correct answer for any galaxy if one looks at stars or distant light rays well pass its outer edge of motion. These are facts and science works on facts; physicist of late, seem to now depend on make believe - like the interior of a black hole (that is so unhinged as to be laughable - how did we get there? This isn't science.) That BH interior stuff is just mathematical make believe and ANYONE saying otherwise has zero understanding of the concept of empirical science - period. Hawking and Penrose not withstanding (they certainly should have known better but fame exceeded honor.)


*This brings up relativity. Just after Maxwell published, everyone missed that in those equations, C is a constant. Then people worked (for over 40 years) to fix this 'defect' and developed 100% of the math for relativity. Einstein came along and all he really did was take existing math, give a "c is constant" statement and made the theory we call special relativity. That its it. (GR is very different and has absolutely brilliant insights & math - which someone else had to teach him - lol.)

[Daniel Harrer]

I find the claim that there are zero particle candidates unfounded. Slow neutrinos for example are excellent candidates except one very critical thing: we don't know where they would come from. But it is quite possible that we missed some process in the early universe, the same way we still don't know why there is an matter-antimatter imbalance. There is simply too much left to uncover to rule out a missed, or completely new, interaction.

As mentioned, MOND has the very same flaw as dark energy: instead of trying to find something that causes the observation via known forces, it instead adds borderline random terms until it fits the data. While there can be merit to this, it has to be in a way where the corrections have to be very simple compared to the amount of data. Dark matter on the other hand at least tries to use actually known physics to explain things. The other two don't, they just adapt formulas.

Lastly, only a year ago there was a huge discussion about Webb supposedly disproving MOND. I expect the current debate to go the same way: ending up not that significant and/or at best leaving us with no candidate. I definitely wouldn't put my money on MOND either.

(Edit: maybe I sounded a bit too much in favour of CDM. I also see significant problems there, especially with effects that are not just explained by gravity. Most attempts to fix those are not much better than what MOND does.)

[Dennis P Brown]

If I recall correctly from my past readings on that subject neutrino's do not work as dark matter - be nice if it did but apparently that has major issues and is not accepted. Certainly, we do not detect this staggeringly large (5 x the mass of the observable universe) numbers of neutrino's. That means they are very warm and that leads to all sorts of modeling issues that can not reproduce the existing universe as observed.

So there really is no known candidate for dark matter using the Std model - except an unknown non-interacting (via EM) particle that has only a gravitation effect. Lots of made up ideas but zero detection.

I fully agree about MOND 'fitting' and said as much that MOND simply adjusts its parameters. That I find suspect. Fortunately, that I do believe I can account for using existing and well understood Field Theory concepts that are proven (experimentally.) So MOND does appear viable within that framework.

Dark energy simply was based on bad assumptions and those assumptions have been further shown to be in worse error as better data is observed. I feel that dark matter has so many issues relative more recent observations as to be simply unworkable.

[Dennis P Brown]

As a side note: it is sterile neutrino's that they need in order for a proper neutrino model to work; these have never been detected, and are only a rather made up idea that really has issues fitting into the std model of particles, if I recall correctly on this later issue.

I am not saying dark matter is impossible just that there are zero possible candidates (as in detected.) Frankly, the bases of that approch is only an ad hoc idea on how to explain observation of galactic stellar orbital curves compared to (very well known) planetary orbital values. It too is fitted to match observation just like MOND. The difference is MOND is so small a correction it can't be measured for planetary systems. Rather convenient for that theory ... cough. So skepticism is warranted for both models.

I do hope to change that problem as well as a few others in physics, as well. Famous words that often fail