Dark Matter vs MOND. Does Dark Matter Exist?

A new preprint claims that a niche gravitational theory explains the rotation of galaxies better than the dark matter hypothesis. Has the existence of dark matter been disproven?

#darkmatter #milkyway #stars

Story:

MOND problems piece:

Host:

[BadBoyofScience]

Do you think we will find Dark Matter in the next decade? 🤔

[andrewclimo]

Great video, Thank you.

This debate is usually summarised as an either/or, single problem, issue, but it seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse.

There is no reason to believe that the problem of lensing at super galactic distances and galactic rotations are tge same problem, or even related to each other.

There is also the problem of voids and filaments, which may also be an entirely separate problem.

The Tully-Fisher Law is sooo striking, that very definitely we should be looking a more fundamental approach, such as MOND. Personally I doubt MOND is correct as it is still very much an empirical law, but at least it is highly predictive, which is way better than DM.

But, there's something going on at larger scales that suggests cold DM permeating clusters. It seems to me it will win out in this domain eventually, but only when we can nail what it actually is!

As for cosmic scales we've got DE to worry about (whatever that is), but again our thinking is hopelessly immature and we seem to be lacking something in our framework of cosmology still.

So, no. I'm not keen on the massive jumping to conclusions on all sides, and LCDM is still full of massive holes. I guess it's trying to encourage people not to be so impatient!!!

[BluesManPeich]

To me, dark matter feels like a more natural solution to the discrepancies between the observed amount of regular matter and its gravitational effects. MOND feels like making your model more complex to explain certain observations (while failing to explain everything else). Give me 5 parameters and I can fit an elephant.

By the way, even though Sabine Hossenfelder did say in her video something along the lines that "both are correct", I think it was pretty clear that she favors dark matter. What she says there (correct me if I am wrong) is that in the environmental conditions of a galaxy, dark matter may exist in a different phase (superfluid dark matter), and that would explain why gravity _appears_ to be modified in these conditions, not that the law of gravity changes.

[theaurorachannel]

Excellent overview. I still favor some flavor of MOND. Not sure why other than it "feels" right.

[sadderwhiskeymann]

Dude that was a great video. I wonder why it has so little views and likes.
I just found your channel, I'm gonna look around at your other vids

[emperorpicard]

I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder with this, they probably both are right, because they probably just 2 sides of the same coin.
I think its a theory of MOND that produces a new particle, and we most likely need a theory of quantum gravity to explain it.

[psychohist]

Thank you for providing the summary of MOND - the transition from inverse square to inverse linear - that so many other "physics" videos leave out. The reminder about lensing was super useful too.

[tracyh]

So I assume that the reverse engineering of gravitational lensing near the end of the video is done with standard GR, correct? Are there MOND theories that have a feature of gravitational lensing?

If there are, it would be interesting to know what their reverse-engineered matter distribution of the universe looks like. It seems like this would be an easy way to disprove MOND, or put heavy restrictions on it. If there are no MONDs with gravitational lensing, I really don't get what the hype is about. Gravitational lensing is a direct observation that we can make. Any theory without an account for the effect seems pretty weak to me, compared to GR.

[csehszlovakze]

Sabine Hossenfelder disagrees with you. :)

[BerraLilltroll]

Clear video, but dark matter is still strange.

[readea]

Nice video, if possible can you make an explainer on Newton's Gravitational constant, on how it is determined

[tomasgavino]

Mind needs not be right for it to show that dark matter is nonsense.

[MrConstitutionDay]

Speculation is interesting for novel gravitational methods to calculate what's going on in dark matter circled.

I would prefer less "accurate" methods, and more physical ones.

I'm sticking with hard dark matter solutions.

The evidence of dark matter is overwhelming. Sadly the evidence for the standard model particle of dark matter is completely lacking. Here's the problem. Dark Matter has been around for far longer than standard model particles. Since they are so old and slow moving and neutral and massive they are not found just anywhere. In fact they tend to be found only at the centers of large massive objects like stars and planets and moons and the like. Otherwise, they are found in the halos of galaxies. The exception would seem to be large massive yet fragmented objects, such as the asteroid belt protoplanet between Mars and Jupiter. The masses of dark matter particles may well have several varieties from the least massive and youngest to the most massive and oldest. The least massive and youngest may well fall into the logarithmic scale proportional to that between Gravity and Electromagnetism. This is the hierarchical scale with Hadronic and Leptonic quarks at one end, the bottom end of this scale. This spans 10^36 in a scale proportional to the relative number of dimensions applying to this scale. Clearly there must be several dimensions in this scale. Approximately 7 dimensions seems to be the least massive divisision of this logarithmic scale that makes any sense. Applying a natural scale suggests that at minimum 1/18 of 36 or about 10^2 times as massive as quarks for the least massive initial stages or types of forms of dark matter, while 1/7 of 36 or about 10^5 or more times as massive as quarks for the most massive forms of the initial stages or types of dark matter. Consequentially, small quantities of this novel form of dark matter should be able to be detected, then found, isolated, formally discovered, transported, refined and manufactured. Obviously research and developments in the asteroid belt are going to be instrumental in this discovery. The slow pace of space exploration seems to mean that it's going to be a while before we get this discovery at long last. Of course, the future of dark matter doesn't really begin until its formal discovery, so we'll have to wait till then, whenever that may be.

part 2
Ok. So the Chrysanthemum or Mum, sometimes called the Mon when depicted in art, can now be understood in terms of highly temporary but sometimes long lived quark models.
It is sometimes well established that early versions of the mum were constricted within 2 dimensions. They were strongly limited, apparently limited to about 21 petals, as predicted by Fibonnacci. However, in later Mon depictions, full blown 3 dimensional mums have been depicted and are apparently grown and are flourishing. These are much larger than previous 2 dimensional models.
In counterpart, quark models in the standard model have far exceeded the dark matter models contemplated. For instance, Charm quarks are over 600 times larger than standard Up quarks, and Bottom quarks are over 400 times bigger than standard Strange quarks.
In previous models of the Fibonacci model of quark expansion, the numbers (10^2 to 10^5) are well known and within the known potential of this dimension of dark matter.
We can expect this dimension of dark matter stable components within isolated dark matter, such as within isolated galactic halos. However, trapped dark matter components such as within stars, planets and moons may be decaying quickly, as exhibited by our own Moon, which has shut down and become locked in its gravitationally stabilized orbit, and the planets Mercury and perhaps even Mars, which apparently have also slowed down, and headed for stopping. This energetic model is shocking, and further dark matter and similar quark models, may be decaying or already gone, so the Mum/Mon model will be an important strategic exploration and investigation.
I like the Chrysanthemum model for quarks anyway. It depicts the exponential growth of standard model quarks that we have already seen. However, I think we will see a plateauing of such quark expansions, I think the upper limit of further discoveries such as within the Cern Large Hadron Collider may be reached at about 10, 000 times the mass of standard model Up quarks.
Spoiler Alert: There may be some new quarks within this range. However, some dimensions or ranges of dark matter quarks may already have expired and would only be available at galactic scales of discovery and investigation.
So dark matter research may still have local frontiers to discover, but may stall at this range.
The good news is that we have an extremely long time to do this research and discovery of standard model quarks before dark energy expansion catches up with us.
Relax. It's cool.
I hope that you have enjoyed this Fibonacci mathematical Chrysanthemum experiment in both quarks and dark matter.
Thank you for reading.


part 3

Ok. So we are now assuming the Fibonnacci based Chrysanthemum model of hyperdimensional dark matter and quarks.
Or we still have sluggards or Luddites who can't keep up.
In this assumptive model, this structure suggests that such matter would be in the range of 10^5 to 10^8 times the mass of standard model quarks. For regular folks this is from 10, 000 times to 100, 000, 000 times this mass.
That is really close to the neutron star category of matter.
While this may be amusing consider where this is going, the next phase of dark matter and as yet undiscovered quark masses would have to be in the range of 10^13 to 10^21, or 1, 000, 000, 000, 000 to 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 quark masses. Is this in the range of black holes yet? Or are we still stalled at very large neutron stars? Again we must pause and consider where we are.
The first stages of dark matter is from 10^2 to 10^3 masses, the 2nd stage would be from 10^3 to 10^5 masses, the 3rd stage would be from 10^5 to 10^8 masses, and the 4th stage would be from 10^8 masses to 10^13 masses. Whew. Theoretically the 5th stage of dark matter would be 10^13 to 10^21 masses. That still leaves us with the 6th stage of the mass of dark matter and quarks. This is the staggering number of 10^21 to 10^34 masses for quarks and dark matter. Wow. This is clearly the end of our Chrysanthemum dark matter models. It is also the end of our hierarchical mass models. What comes after the end of our Electromagnetism model? I dare not postulate. But I suspect outer space models of dark energy. This is the incredible range of from 10^34 to 10^55 masses, a gut wrenching number
times the mass of standard model quarks.
This is the amount of masses that represents the beginning or the ending of the universe.
It's not just a black hole.
It's the end.
Sorry - not sorry.

[BaseSixBasics]

My opinion: Rel MoND is the truest model of gravity that we currently have, but there are more universal constants to be discovered which make up for the discrepancies in Rel MoND. Dark matter seems to be a mathematical hack to confirm our assumed laws and observations, not a system underlying the workings of the universe itself. We NEED dark matter/energy as a reference point for our alterations to equations in order to make them more accurate. But I don't believe that there is a true halo of dark matter around all galaxies which causes them to spin faster than expected.

[benmcelwain]

Does the 6 new massive galaxies between 700 and 500 million years after the big bang conflict with dark mater theory?

[thomasheimer]

Maybe MOND does not finally solve the puzzle but i nonetheless prefer a modified Gravity theory over the Dark Matter construct. There's still a lot to discover.