Bad news for dark matter: This data doesn't fit at all

One of the biggest ongoing dramas in science is whether or not dark matter is real. A new update speaks strongly against dark matter and gives a boost to its alternative: Modified Newtonian Dynamics. Let’s have a look.

🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜

#science #sciencenews #physics #astrophysics

[Nick-yzfd]

Honestly, this channel and Anton Petrov's channel are the best for the latest in science news. I've learned so much over the last couple years. Thank you, Sabine.

[amaze]

Flip flopping is good. It means you’re not married to an idea, you let new information, new data, new ideas influence your “best guess.” This is true science. Nothing is sacred.

[pensive]

"We have alot of evidence for dark matter, which may not exist."

I love this statement. I wish we treated all fact finding missions this way - being honest about what we do and don't know.

[elustran]

I really like it when YouTubers respect our time. Content like this that is concise and to the point is great, and I also like that Sabine has some longer form content as well.

[BillySugger]

MOND’s fatal flaw is that not all galaxies have the same rotation curves. Some are almost as predicted by GR models. Others are extremely flat. If gravity was wrong, all galaxies would be equally wrong. And they’re not. There must be differences in their composition, and those compositional differences are what we call dark matter. None of the models fit all of the predictions, so we need to look for a better explanation than either DM or MOND.

[arctic_haze]

I would wait for studies trying to reproduce this result. MOND has problems in both larger and smaller scales than galaxies. I think the solution will be something more complicated and probably surprising

[_abdul]

Newton: You can't escape Inverse Square Law.
Some Physicist : Don't MOND if I do.

[bunkerhill]

Science is like inverse politics:
In science lots of things work, but we don’t know why
In politics nothing works and we know why
Scary

[acasualviewer]

The MOND vs Dark Matter race is like watching the Olympic trial races, in really really reaaaally, slow motion.

[goodspellr]

5:04 "Theoretical Physics is keeping us all on our toes"

I'd say that it's actually Experimental Physics that is keeping us all on our toes ... as it should. And I say this as a theorist!

[myfriendscat]

Open-minded, not prone to conformation bias. That's amazingly refreshing!

[Kokally]

MOND is the tanky end-game boss that absolutely refuses to die.

[rapid]

I always figured “dark matter” was just a place holder term for the unexplained phenomenon that has been observed.

[therealjammit]

For me my interpretation for dark matter/energy was as a placeholder name for an effect we didn't understand, not an actual "thing".

[r.i.p.volodya]

I studied Theoretical Physics at university 25 years ago and I hated the idea of 'dark matter' even then. I was convinced that our understanding of gravity was incomplete. I'm over the moon to see this vid!

[BigZebraCom]

I was going to modify gravity--but then things got really busy at work.

[michaelleue]

I feel like both of these theories have so many points against them that rooting for one or the other at this point is like debating whether it's going to be Zaire or Canada that wins the next World Cup. Once we figure out the real answer, both of these are going to sound so obviously insane.

[laposgatti]

GR may be wrong, but DM is still needed to have large structures, explain observations such as bullet galaxy, the barionic acoustic oscillation signature in the cmb and much more

[sinisalazarek]

I always had a worry (maybe wrongly), that the problem is not in missing mass or that GR is wrong, but in our inability to actually solve GR field equations properly for a complex system such as a galaxy. When I say properly, I mean actually do the nonlinear partial differential field equations with all the bells, tensors and whistles for all the masses etc in the galaxy. Maybe we'll never have computers with enough memory and processing power to do it. But just wondering if by making assumptions (i.e. these terms are not important in this case, this doesn't/shouldn't influence that.. etc) and simplifying calculations to something which we can actually calculate, that we don't see the full picture. In other words, that there wouldn't be any discrepancy between observation and calculation, if we could actually do the GR as intended by field equations.

[zdayz]

Would still be really nice if someone would just come up with an entirely different idea. Like magnetism has an effect. In that case the center of the Galaxy can be rotating slower than it should be which means it matches the outside speeds. Your curve isn't actually quite right when I was researching this a few months ago the acceleration curve actually goes up from the center and has a peak towards the center and then flattens out... But then I think there's so much light from the galactic core that it becomes hard to measure what that rotation rate actually is and why it's close to zero