Webb Falsified Dark Matter Prediction – And No One Cares

Data collected by NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is in conflict with predictions based on the hypothesis of dark matter and instead confirmed predictions made with Modified Newtonian Dynamics, MOND. While the failure of dark matter has been widely discussed as galaxies that are “too big” or “too old”, little has been said about the success of MOND. In a paper that just appeared, we have an excellent summary of the present situation, and it doesn’t look good for dark matter at all.

🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜

#science #sciencenews #physics

[bipmix]

For those who missed it, Sabine did an interview with Subir Sarkar, regarding data collection, and the interpretation of it, from the LIGO observations 4 years ago. I cannot do it justice here so please watch the video; its excellent, and digs into the the subject matter discussed here. Sarkar is a Prof at Oxford U.

[MisterMisanthropeEsquire]

This video isn't long enough, and doesn't go into enough detail. More, we needs it.

[amanofnoreputation]

I don't think Einstein would be upset that his theory would be in danger of being discredited. If anything, he'd ask us what took us so long.

[mikeok]

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

Richard Feynman

[barrystockdoesnotexist]

I have been able to precisely calculate the age of the Brilliant promo by calculating the difference in Sabine's hair length from the main video. Was the sudden jump in hair length more precisely predicted by MOND or Dark Matter? I'll be publishing my results soon.

[Lord_Volkner]

I went to college as a physics major back in the 90s. I was extremely excited when I began, but totally disenchanting by the end. What I found was that modern physics is assumption built upon assumption built upon assumption. The only argument for the existence of DM is that it needs to exist for our theory of gravity to be correct. When a theory requires that 97% of the universe be made up of something that we can't find any evidence of other than it needing to exist for the theory to be correct, the theory is probably wrong. It's ridiculous how few physicists are even willing to consider this possibility.

[lewiswray]

Max Planck wrote this in his autobiography:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."

The behavior of human scientists has not changed in the last 100 years.

[Mallchad]

All I'm gonna say. That despite the slow news of a big correction.
I'm just glad JWST exists. It's a big technological step for astornomy and would like to see more of this so we can see the universe as it is. Not as we predict it is.

[p_sg]

Spending huge amounts of money and time looking for something, convinced that it exists when it it seems increasingly likely that it doesn't, is not just peculiar to physicists.

[JK_Vermont]

My hot take is that Dark Matter sounds sexy and mysterious and MOND sounds like boring mathy stuff so there’s no incentive for the science press to cover MOND when they can just continue to hype up the mystery of DM.

[CaptainNormal]

Nice one, thanks! Like you say, I've heard about how the big, old galaxies "shouldn't exist", but didn't hear much about how with MOND instead of dark matter they should exist. Every day where I learn something new is a good day 😊 - thanks for making my day (good).

[katalytically]

I saw one video about 3 super-massive galaxies forming earlier than the models predicted, which may be what Sabine was talking about. I found it interesting that the read on the speed of formation of these galaxies was not that they formed faster than the dark matter predictions, but that they formed stars "more efficiently", i.e. faster than we expected and we have no way of explaining. That was followed up by saying that newer galaxies, ones that formed after the super-massive galaxies, form stars less efficiently, without offering any explanation for how that could happen. They are apparently working on explaining how dark matter behaved differently in the early universe, thereby making star formation "more efficient" I can't wait to hear they explain it.

Good call Sabine. It is an example of how scientists will stubbornly hold on to a theory because they don't want to say it is hopelessly broken.

[tonikoqi]

This is exactly the kind of content that made me subscribe to and follow Sabine. I hardly hear anything about MOND on other "scientific" channels here, and even when they do mention it, they treat it like those speculative models of cyclic universes or multiverses. But science isn't a religion. Newton was wrong, even though people believed for 300 years that he was right. And being slightly wrong didn't take away anything from Newton's greatness.

[blinkingmanchannel]

Here's a dumb question, but I love the way you handle these, so here goes:

What else is there, except matter and energy? I mean, if mass arises from (I'm not sure that's even the right way to say it?) energy, does that mean there are just the two states? Like... (1) "heat" or (2) mass? At this point, I'm not even sure what "heat" would be, if it's different from "energy"... So I'm questioning not just my understanding but also appropriateness of my vocabulary...? Help?

[oldwaysrisingfarm]

I am a scientist, I love the philosophy of science, and would offer that the problem with self correction in science is not the philosophy of science itself, but the fact that science is conducted by people. And, true facts, becoming a scientist does not falsify the human ego.

[icebulletice]

MOND predicts this correctly, but from my understanding fails elsewhere. Both theories seem to be a bit off

[Excuzerr]

Great video. Though I felt like it ended abruptly without enough depth on the topic. I want to hear more!

[simonpayne]

Part of the problem could be that every sports journalist in the world has heard of Dark Matter. For Dark Energy this is certainly less the case. MOND is something they have all never heard of. Apart from that, Dark Matter makes up a nice mystery story - something invisible that nobody can see, hiding away like some sort of shimmering phantom slipping through our fingers and then disappearing through the castle wall. MOND, on the other hand, is more like having to go back to school to get your algebra right. 🥰🥰🥰

[brucealcorn]

Well done Sabine, I read Stacy's paper, amazing and detailed work. I have been following the dark matter and MOND debate for awhile, and the JWST discoveries have consistently confirmed the MOND predictions while refuting the LCDM predictions. Stacy and his team have done a great job analyzing the data and showing how this works in MOND'S favour.

[jttcosmos]

While the original data was aligned to MOND in some respects, it also conflicted with the theory in other regards. We now have more data from JWST than that original limited set, and multiple research groups are working on it. They are well aware of MOND, but neither MOND nor Dark Matter can perfectly explain the results, so with more data they can hopefully get a bit closer to the correct approach. This is very much work in progress. To claim that the preliminary data represented some clear-cut “MOND is right” statement is disingenuous. Press articles are not research papers after all.