- #1
astrorob
- 140
- 0
My question is this:
Why are we (as a community) so eager to disregard modifying Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)? Of course it's incredibly accurate on macroscopic scales, but isn't science meant to be progressive?
Since Zwicky's observation of galactic cluster rotation in 1922 and the consequent studies of galactic rotation curves, DM has been the much favoured resolution to the "extra mass" problem. The invocation of a non-baryonic (and not directly observable) form of matter seems just as ludicrous to me as altering Newtonian law. Indeed it sounds like a bit of a botch..
We even know classical mechanics breaks down on small scales (QM), so what is there to say it doesn't act differently on larger scales also?
Analogous is the search for the Higgs Boson in PP. If the LHC fails to find evidence for this I doubt they'll propose a new unobservable particle to mediate the Higgs field! The standard model, which has been tried and tested for decades, will collapse.
What are your thoughts on this?
Rob
Why are we (as a community) so eager to disregard modifying Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)? Of course it's incredibly accurate on macroscopic scales, but isn't science meant to be progressive?
Since Zwicky's observation of galactic cluster rotation in 1922 and the consequent studies of galactic rotation curves, DM has been the much favoured resolution to the "extra mass" problem. The invocation of a non-baryonic (and not directly observable) form of matter seems just as ludicrous to me as altering Newtonian law. Indeed it sounds like a bit of a botch..
We even know classical mechanics breaks down on small scales (QM), so what is there to say it doesn't act differently on larger scales also?
Analogous is the search for the Higgs Boson in PP. If the LHC fails to find evidence for this I doubt they'll propose a new unobservable particle to mediate the Higgs field! The standard model, which has been tried and tested for decades, will collapse.
What are your thoughts on this?
Rob
Last edited: