61–70 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. You'd be correct given hidden variables. But we know pretty convincingly that quantum anything does not have hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
It doesn't have local hidden variables. That's an important distinction. I'm not sure a non-local hidden variable explanation of QM is any distinct from superdeterminism though.
Like, global variables?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MOND does amazingly well at galactic rotation curves, less well at anything else. If you think it started with Vera Rubin in 1966 MOND seems natural, but if you know that it started with Fritz Zwicky in 1933 than dark matter is easier to believe.
MOND only really does well on galactic rotation curves because it has free parameters that are tuned to "predict" the correct answer for galactic rotation curves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dark Matter : supposedly makes up a big amount of the mass of the universe, but cant be seen, does not emit, absorb, or reflect light. Also it can 'pass through' other normal matter, and other dark matter. It's basically magic aka not actually real, just something in vogue to pretend is real at the present moment.
I mean it's easy to say it's fake, but to counter this, why can a particle that only interacts with gravity not exist? The neutrino is a good example of a particle that almost doesn't exist. They are produced in solar reactions in spectacular amounts. Trillions of them are flitting through you right now as if you don't exist. You'd need a light year block of lead to ensure you could stop one. Mind-boggling amounts of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have local hidden variables. That's an important distinction. I'm not sure a non-local hidden variable explanation of QM is any distinct from superdeterminism though.
> non-local hidden variable Like, global variables?
When I see dark matter in the news I'm always reminded of the story of Vulcan. In the 1800s, detailed observations of the planet Mercury showed that its orbit was slightly different than Newtonian mechanics predicted-- a difference of about 43 arcseconds per century. The study was rigorous enough to rule out any observation errors. Le Verrier, the astronomer who made these observations, wondered how to explain the di…
100%. It's important to realize our understanding of "dark matter" is fuzzy because we only understand it through data anomalies. Dark matter is a classic catch-all concept that we use as a crutch while we try to understand the underlying system better. Similar to how we used to believe in "aether" to explain how light could travel through empty space. It is important to understand how these crutches help and hinder…
If you have one galaxy that's acting heavier than you can eyeball, measured by things like light bending around it, then maybe you have some weird phenomenon. When every galaxy calculates out to be about 6x fatter than you'd expect, something else is going on.
If you follow Sabine Hossenfelder's channel, she has a MONDOmeter. With MOND (modified Newtonian gravity) on one side and dark matter on the other side. As new papers come out the needle goes back and forth, and I guess that she will make a new video if she hasn't already, with the needle moving one step towards dark matter. I find it interesting how it doesn't seem to settle. Dark matter is still the favorite, but t…
MOND does amazingly well at galactic rotation curves, less well at anything else. If you think it started with Vera Rubin in 1966 MOND seems natural, but if you know that it started with Fritz Zwicky in 1933 than dark matter is easier to believe.
My understanding is that these observations are a fatal blow to any serious MOND models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dark Matter : supposedly makes up a big amount of the mass of the universe, but cant be seen, does not emit, absorb, or reflect light. Also it can 'pass through' other normal matter, and other dark matter. It's basically magic aka not actually real, just something in vogue to pretend is real at the present moment.
I mean it's easy to say it's fake, but to counter this, why can a particle that only interacts with gravity not exist? The neutrino is a good example of a particle that almost doesn't exist. They are produced in solar reactions in spectacular amounts. Trillions of them are flitting through you right now as if you don't exist. You'd need a light year block of lead to ensure you could stop one. Mind-boggling amounts of…
Not that I am saying it does not exist. Only that we do not have the means of falsifying it if it is false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. It's important to realize our understanding of "dark matter" is fuzzy because we only understand it through data anomalies. Dark matter is a classic catch-all concept that we use as a crutch while we try to understand the underlying system better. Similar to how we used to believe in "aether" to explain how light could travel through empty space. It is important to understand how these crutches help and hinder…
It's kind of weird in this case, though. All the math acts like there's something invisible and heavy everywhere that we find clumps of visible matter. When we look at the motion of galaxies, they behave as if they're much more massive than the count of stars and such in the would have you believe, and in ways that otherwise jibe with our understanding of physics if only that galaxy were heavier. If you have one gala…
* NGC 1052-DF2
* NGC 1052-DF4