A snip making fun of the concept of dark matter- why is this incorrect?

Click For Summary
The discussion critiques a mock encyclopedia's portrayal of dark matter, arguing that it inaccurately simplifies the concept to a mere "fudge factor" akin to the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. In reality, dark matter is essential for explaining various astronomical phenomena, including cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy and galaxy formation, with consistent predictions across multiple observations. The theory has not only survived scrutiny but also remains the simplest explanation for the observed universe, despite ongoing exploration of alternative theories. While modified gravity and other forces are being investigated, they have yet to provide a comprehensive framework that matches all existing data as effectively as dark matter does. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of dark matter and the possibility of multiple types, highlighting that current models still favor dark matter due to their predictive power.
  • #31
twofish-quant said:
The trouble with these extra particles is that they all come from supersymmetry, and there is not the slightly shred of experimental evidence in favor for supersymmetry, and the theoretical reasons for supersymmetry aren't IMHO that compelling. Replacing one unknown particle with a bizilion unknown particles doesn't see to me to be that much of an improvement.
Even without supersymmetry for specific suggestions, I don't see how extra particles are in any way unexpected regardless.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K