Home / news / Astronomers simulate galaxy formation without dark matter and find it still works. The research bolsters a controversial claim that dark matter doesn’t exist, and is instead the result of the laws of gravity working differently on different scales.

Astronomers simulate galaxy formation without dark matter and find it still works. The research bolsters a controversial claim that dark matter doesn’t exist, and is instead the result of the laws of gravity working differently on different scales.

Astronomers simulate galaxy formation without dark matter and find it still works. The research bolsters a controversial claim that dark matter doesn’t exist, and is instead the result of the laws of gravity working differently on different scales.

View Reddit by clayt6View Source

12 comments

  1. All this time they just needed to consult redditors it seems. Silly scientists.

  2. > For his part, Kroupa admits their simulation still needs significant work before it can fully capture galaxy formation and evolution. At the moment, the MOND universe inside their computer can only capture the initial phase of galaxy formation. His team wants to build on the model until their galaxies can grow and evolve.
    >
    > “Once this is understood, and once we have understood how galaxy groups and clusters of galaxies form in MOND, we will begin developing a cosmological model which embeds MOND,” Kroupa says.

    Yeah, this simulation has the first step of at least 10 major observations that can be explained by Dark Matter in order to have a serious dark matterless theory. Come back after it can simulate the evolution of galaxies afterwards.

    Dark Matter does not depend purely on the formation of galaxies, it was first proposed to explain current behavior afterall, and if the simulation can’t do that while simultaneously explaining formation, it is dead from the start. I’ll give that it is a work in progress, but don’t boldly claim that Dark Matter is dead when the article itself state that this is a serious WIP and no true theory has been devised yet. How many “New theory proposed radically changes everything you know” are proposed each day, and how many last longer than a month before people find more holes in it than your average Swiss Cheese?

    Current MOND theories have the worst of both worlds. They all require some dark matter to function, because the Bullet Cluster has gravity in one place, and visible matter in another. There is no way around that. They also postulate gravity works differently, in such a way that we have not observed even a shred of that using our most sensitive instruments, making them on even footing in terms of direct evidence as Dark Matter theories have. They also have yet to come up with a way that isn’t fine tuned to different galaxies at the same length and distance scale, meaning that they are doing more hand waving than Dark Matter theories do, asking us to believe without evidence that the laws of physics work differently based on where you are in the universe, which also have serious implications for conservation laws.

  3. Unless there’s something I’m not getting here, the existence of the Bullet Cluster makes this simulation worthless.

  4. This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://astronomy.com/news/2020/02/controversial-simulation-creates-galaxies-without-using-dark-matter) reduced by 58%. (I’m a bot)
    *****
    > He cites a handful of real-world properties seen in galaxies that don't make sense with dark matter.

    > Scientists who support this model believe that the most puzzling aspects of the cosmos – the ones that led astronomers to discover dark matter and dark energy – can actually be explained with slight modifications to Newton's laws describing gravity.

    > "This is clearly an important study, because MOND was often criticized for not being able to describe galaxy formation in the same successful way as models based on dark matter," says University of Amsterdam theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde, a prominent dark matter critic who was not involved in the research.

    *****
    [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/f5elzn/astronomers_simulate_galaxy_formation_without/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ “Version 2.02, ~469320 tl;drs so far.”) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr “PM’s and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.”) | *Top* *keywords*: **dark**^#1 **model**^#2 **galaxy**^#3 **matter**^#4 **MOND**^#5

  5. This might be unrelated but I wonder about how the universe might be affected by light/radiation travelling through space.

    For example, imagine an empty universe, completely void of matter. Just empty space, except with just 1 typical star right in the middle. The star goes supernova after 10 billion years and explodes

    but let’s say at 9 billion years, with only 1b years left before its explosion, the star has burned for 9 billion years, and so 9 billion years worth of energy has been emitted in various forms of electromagnetic radiation.

    The radiation emits outward in all directions at the speed of light, and in a universe with only the 1 star, that radiation will continue to travel outward at the speed of light, theoretically, forever, forming a gigantic sphere of electromagnetic radiation, surrounded by complete void. After 9 billion years, this radiation sphere will have a radius of 9 billion lightyears and a diameter of 18 billion lightyears.

    So what it really is that I wonder is: In this hypothetical empty universe, with nothing but a sphere of radiation, with one dying star in the centre, would this simple universe experience any effects from the radiation sphere ? Does radiation have any gravitational effect, or any other effect?

    Now imagine in our universe, stars have been burning and supernovas have been exploding for 14+ billion years. Could our universe be experiencing any effects from all of that radiation suspended in space ?

  6. Could it be a misunderstood property of light affected by gravity that causes the perceived anomalies when viewed from these extreme distances?

  7. Einstein was right before he was wrong – gravity is a two-fold force

  8. So you fudge the laws of gravity to make your theory work? Hows that scientifically sound?

  9. Wait until you hear about redshift.

  10. I once heard that gravity pushes rather than pulls. We must change our perspectives if we’re ever to graduate and evolve from our current understanding of physics when it comes to the vast sea of unexplored space time physics.

  11. Thats what i always thought. Their theories sound like fairytales. Yet there they are getting millions in subsidies etc.

Leave a Reply