Juuuust gonna leave this here... http://xkcd.com/1758/
This is different because it's an experiment for this theory.
It's not different because this experiment can't discriminate between Verlinde's ideas and long-known alternatives to dark matter.
First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#22The central equation in this paper is 4.40. It doesn't seem to account for some galaxies recently discovered that are almost entirely dark matter.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#23> String theorist Lubos Motl savaged Verlinde’s ideas in a recent blog post: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.” I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating. There's no justification for this level of nastiness -- not in private, public, peer review, or science as a whole. Seeking out the unknown and creative explanations thereof is the hallmark of good science; ch…
> I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating.
vs all those "I just don't believe in being fake and sugar coating things" folks in every other industry? Not much unique to academia on that front.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#24> String theorist Lubos Motl savaged Verlinde’s ideas in a recent blog post: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.” I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating. There's no justification for this level of nastiness -- not in private, public, peer review, or science as a whole. Seeking out the unknown and creative explanations thereof is the hallmark of good science; ch…
> I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating.
So you'd rather people quietly knife you in review? Because that's what happens if you penalize people for public rudeness. Personally, I'd rather have a loud critique to my face than a polite one behind my back or, even worse, no engagement at all.
I don't need your politeness or friendship when I'm putting forth some new theory. I need accurate, engaged criticism and the number of people who will do that is vanishingly small. And a lot of the ones who will do that have social issues almost by definition.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#25> String theorist Lubos Motl savaged Verlinde’s ideas in a recent blog post: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.” I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating. There's no justification for this level of nastiness -- not in private, public, peer review, or science as a whole. Seeking out the unknown and creative explanations thereof is the hallmark of good science; ch…
> I find this rudeness and pedantry in academia infuriating. vs all those "I just don't believe in being fake and sugar coating things" folks in every other industry? Not much unique to academia on that front.
Like food critics, some have taken the art of shitting on things to absurd heights.
"I find this theory highly disagreeable, it contradicts findings by X and Y et al."
Compared with:
"I once asked my dog for a theory on the nature of the universe, whereupon which he vomited violently on the floor. This explanation has more truth to it than the one presented in this paper, which I can only presume was written by students who, in their youth, were savagely beaten upside the head by their parents much to the detriment of their intellect."
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#26'Kills off dark matter" is probably overstating the case, but I love this theory because it ties together a lot of big ideas. Verlinde's paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
What about the Bullet Cluster[0]? How does his idea address that?
His idea deserves some study but a title will "Kills off dark matter" is very infuriating
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#27'Kills off dark matter" is probably overstating the case, but I love this theory because it ties together a lot of big ideas. Verlinde's paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
What about the Bullet Cluster[0]? How does his idea address that? His idea deserves some study but a title will "Kills off dark matter" is very infuriating [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
If you read the Wikipedia article, it points out what MOND advocates say about the Bullet Cluster: they try to handwave it away. It's likely that Verlinde's theory needs a similar solution. Unfortunately for handwaving, over time, the number of weird dark-matter-related observations is growing.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#28I'd be kind of bummed to lose dark matter as a concept. I want to hold onto the idea that it's just as rich as our matter, with its own quantum chromodynamics and an equivalent to the electromagnetic force, leading to a "shadow" universe with their own planets, life, etc. that exists side by side us, trying to figure out why their gravity measurements are just slightly off...
Sounds like Stranger Things to me.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#29Folks, the observation doesn't test Verlinde's idea, this tests a very general class of models, such as the well-known MOND scheme. > Milgrom, however, supports the work. He also points out that according to his own 2013 analysis of gravitational lensing data in galaxies, MOND produces similarly impressive results as Verlinde’s gravitational model does in Brouwer’s study. (Also: http://motls.blogspot.ca/2016/11/verli…
Seems like it's pretty easy to make dark matter a good fit, because you can just adjust the presumed distribution of dark matter to fit the data.
Re: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
#30You may find the top answer to this SE question helpful (asked 5 years ago, though): http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6561/are-modified... . Especially I think the following comment is spot on: "Galaxy rotation curves are not very good tests for GR itself, since there are so many parameters about mass distribution in a galaxy which are simply not nearly as precisely understood as GR itself"
That says MOND is a non-theory, so now I'm even more confused since this theory "builds on" MOND.
Now I'm confused. What is a non-theory? O.o
Theories by definition, may not be correct. It's still a theory.
How does one become a non-theorist? I suppose by non-theorizing.