Thread: Anti-Dark Matter

I know I am old, but when I read about CDM theory, all I can think of is the aether of the 17th century. I have read much of the stuff about MOND theory and I like it much better, but I am very interested in any current research being done to refute CDM. Or, you can convince me I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by physicsfanepii1

I know I am old, but when I read about CDM theory, all I can think of is the aether of the 17th century. I have read much of the stuff about MOND theory and I like it much better, but I am very interested in any current research being done to refute CDM. Or, you can convince me I'm wrong.

Welcome to the forum.

With greetings out of the way, I must take you to task for the title of your post, Anti-Dark Matter. CDM is most certainly not anti-dark matter. To the contrary, it is Cold Dark Matter, a hypothesis of dark matter. On the other hand, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is an alternative to dark matter theories.

Quite frankly, I have several issues with MOND:

• Not the least of which is the modification of Newtonian dynamics. Newtonian dynamics explains Tycho Brahe's observations, taken us to the Moon and returned us safely home, and taken space probes beyond the Solar System. You don't throw that away willie-nillie.
• MOND appears to be designed to solve one problem, the problem of galactic rotation. It is a very important standard of science that a new theory must account for everything that the old theory explained plus at least one new thing.
• The MOND modifications are not based on first principles, but empirical fits to observations.

It is important to understand that there is no theory of dark matter. What we have are unknown sources of gravity. As yet undetected matter is a hypothesis of these sources. Until the sources are found, we must leave open the possibility that their discovery may require a new paradigm of the structure of the Universe [or Multiverse]. Whether the new paradigm involves unseen matter or something else, we will not know until the new sources are discovered.

One other thing: It is my understanding that the aether is a 19th Century paradigm of the electromagnetic medium. Most of what we know about electricity and magnetism did not exist until the 18th Century. Not until the late 19th Century did James Clerk Maxwell show that the electric and magnetic fields propagate through space as waves.

i think einsteins idea of a repulsive cosmological constant was heading in the right direction...to me, the fundamental laws of physics should only apply where there is matter/energy present to observe the affects of time, in "space/time." the absence of matter/energy in space, equals the absence of all the rules we hold so dear. just as the space the universe has yet to expand to, there can be no fundamental laws as there is nothing to enact them upon. dark energy and dark matter both seem to be the affect of nothing...essentially stating that "nothing" has an affect on the "something." that's the easy road to take anyways...

Dick, I am really looking forward to our conversation. I have joined the correct group to help me understand. I am on the road for a few more days, and will respond as soon as I can. Regards, Jeff