Remix clone Hacker News

I’ve always felt like (as neither a mathematician nor a physicist) that “dark matter” is simply just something that suddenly makes a math problem work to model the universe-—and that in reality, that math problem just doesn’t work.

Is my theory even _possible_ here, or am I missing something. Really fundamental?

▲

luma 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Dark matter is a proposition put forward to explain observations. It’s not a result of pretty math, it’s the result of a lot of different observations which don’t align with the current math unless you stick something like dark matter into it.

	▲	jvanderbot 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So yes. It is a missing term that balances our models of physics against observations. The implications of that term and hypothesis as to its physical reality are what we are trying to figure out right?

▲

Hikikomori 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well you have things like the bullet cluster that can't be explained by math being wrong.

	▲	naasking 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Of course they can. The whole reason you think they can't is just more math.

▲

mr_mitm 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I posted this literally yesterday:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43726217

▲

tekla 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

99% of the evidence points to dark matter being a real thing. And yes, many many phds have thought of the "what if we're just completely wrong" aspect. It's not interesting

	▲	naasking 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 99% of the evidence points to dark matter being a real thing If you mean particle dark matter, that's an exaggeration: From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331