To which McGaugh et al. had this delicious reply:
One does not simply turn all the available baryons into stars.
Comment on vibes-based astrophysics
BB84@mander.xyz 1 month agoI’m still far from convinced about MOND. But I guess now I’m less confident in lambda CDM too -_-
I’m inclined to believe it’s one or many of the potential explanations in your second link. But even then, those explanations are mostly postdictions so they hold less weight.
_different_username@lemmy.world 1 month ago
porl@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I love the idea of MOND but it does seem like evidence is not in its favour overall. I remember getting an (I think) Scientific American magazine that featured it and I thought the idea sounded awesome. Unfortunately the universe doesn’t care what we think haha
_different_username@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Did the SA article come out before or after the article above? Because the JWST has been creating problems for lambda CDM. Take, for example, this Quanta Magazine article. The purport of the article is that, even though the data from the JWST seems to contradict ΛCDM, it really doesn’t, if we just apply post-hoc modifications.
Why are the galaxies so bright at very high red shifts? Oh, the initial mass function was higher. Or it was super efficient star formation. Or the density of dark matter was higher in the early universe. Or the density of dark energy was higher, so the universe actually wasn’t that young after all. Or a linear combination of these things, and maybe a few others, that we can fit to the data. You don’t reconsider old theories in the light of new data, just apply more terms so that the old theory matches the new data.
For me, if the data starts to deviate from my model, it probably means that I need a different model