I take this to be a nail in dark matter's coffin. The more I learn about it, the more it seems an outrageous placeholder for failing to correctly model and describe gravity. We've searched... fuck all has come out of collider research, etc. I can't believe anymore there is a "particle".
"Dark matter" is not its own idea. It is literally the name for the unknown observed effect, NOT an explanation for the effect.
Most physicists hate the term "dark matter" too, because it sounds like an explanation when it is literally the opposite.
"Dark matter" could be one or several things at once, because it is the name for the observed phenominon, not an explanation for it.
We know something is there, we just don't know what. That je ne sais quoi is what's called "dark matter", which again, is not an explanation of anything, but the name of the observed phenomenon.
It might not even be matter at all, though observations like what's cited in the OP lean toward it being something that exists as opposed to a difference in the mathematical models, which should apply to all of spacetime in order to be called accurate. Since it is a local effect that we see is different in different areas, that makes it far less likely to be a general disagreement.
LurkingLuddite Yeah, it's kind of wild that this discussion is happening on this post in particular. This is a galaxy that has multiple times more extreme gravity than other galaxies, and someone wants to use that finding as a reason to sell the idea that dark matter isn't stuff?
If it were a modling issue, then wwe'd see this everywhere. This is the opposite of evidence against dark matter.
The sucky thing is, it could be a modeling issue, but the answer would have to be a model that agrees with all observations. For example, it could be that spacetime can get permanently warped such that gravity-like effects remain, but then how would a model represent that? If the model represents it as a field that is held in effect by some localized particle, then that 'something' might still be called "matter" even though it could be nothing more than an artifact of that particular model.
For a similar happenstance with current models, see the "graviton". If spacetime 'changes' due to the presence of matter (at least, insofar as locality and position itself is real) and nothing more, there might not actually be a graviton to discover, yet that's what the models demand to become closer to observed reality.
Pretty sure things have actually been going the opposite way and we've only found more and more evidence that it's a real thing that is there, rather than finding anything that challenges that
Right, but real thing or effect <> dark matter
We've found absolutely ZERO evidence, only peculiarities with observations which point to bad models and DM is the fill in. The more we look, the less likely it seems to be as described.
LHC produced no evidence... LUX none... PandaX-II none.
So it's time to give up the particle chase IMO. We gave it our best shot at collecting evidence to support the conjecture, none found. New JWST data reveals just how bad the concept of DM is... so actually as time goes on the DM conjecture becomes weaker and weaker, not stronger as you think.
We've found absolutely ZERO evidence
Well that's completely untrue. There's loads of observational evidence in many many many different contexts that all agree and very strongly support the existence of dark matter.
which point to bad models and DM is the fill in.
So there's not really any real faction in cosmology that denies the existence of dark matter. The most skeptical of scientists are only proposing minor tweaks to existing models and still require dark matter. Do you actually know of any credible cosmologist that claims that dark matter does not exist?
And like, yeah, of course we know the models aren't 100%, we still have more science to do and likely always will.
Plus, the measure of scientific models is usefulness, not 100% "correctness". There are several old, outdated cosmology models that we know are "wrong" and yet still use today for science, even in favor over newer "more correct" models, because they're really great at matching observations within specific conditions and constraints, which makes them very useful and valuable within those constraints. We just don't use them outside of those constraints where we know they break down.
The more we look, the less likely it seems to be as described.
Again, this is absolutely false. The more we look, the stronger the evidence we find to support dark matter.
EDIT: looks like you significantly edited your comment. The bottom line is that no one really agrees with you, despite the impression you might get from pop science articles, and I question whether you can name any credible scientist who is proposing a dark-matter-free model, rather than just a slightly modified model that literally still includes dark matter of some form.
A community for sharing astronomy-related news, content, research, photographs, etc.
When sharing photographs and articles, please make an effort to include source URLs.