As someone who is currently studying dark matter, MOND is currently disfavored in the field of cosmology. It does not as simply or effectively describe galaxies closer to home, or observations of the cosmic microwave background. These galaxies pose a challenge to lambda-CDM, but that does not prove MOND correct.
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
119 points (96.9% liked)
Space
8744 readers
151 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
π Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As someone who watches a lot of PBS Space Time and Dr. Becky, I'm always very suspicious of any news article claiming '"JWST has found evidence for X", especially if it's an alternative to Lambda CDM
However, McGaugh and his colleagues argue that these predictions do not match JWST observations. Instead, the newly observed galaxies appear bright, large, and fully formed, even as scientists peer deeper into the universeβs past. This unexpected brightness directly challenges the conventional understanding of galaxy formation driven by dark matter.
Are you sure these aren't old galaxies? Like, how do we know that we aren't in a relatively small little bubble and there's an infinite universe out there where there isn't a single big bang, but instead small bangs that happen every now and then. Maybe if a black hole gets massive enough then its gravity "overflows" and causes it to vomit everything up; and all those bright, fully-formed galaxies are actually unrelated and proceeded the big bang.
The big bang wasn't an explosion in space, but OF spacetime. Anything that might have existed before would have been fundamentally different, and completely destroyed in the event.
We aren't looking at those old galaxies today. Due to the speed of light and the vast distance involved we are looking at the light from those galaxies when they were very young and early in the life of the universe (that's why we are looking there in the first place). That light is just now reaching us. We have theorized about white holes but never seen one. By looking at closer objects we already know what an old galaxy looks like. And nothing can by definition exist before the big bang. Because before the big bang there wasn't any space for things to exist in. Nothing precedes it.
The last three sentences are not quite accurate. It's not necessarily that nothing existed before the the big bang. It's a singularity event where mathematically we can simply not know what existed at/beforehand that moment. It is somewhat comparable with the event horizon of a black hole.
There is something happening/existing, otherwise a black hole would not be able to occupy space or affect light. We simply do not have the ability currently to understand what that is.
By definition, that is not nothing. It is a that we cannot know/understand it, at that moment. Notably, a lack of evidence is not evidence of nothing.
Not the event horizon of a black hole, but the singularity at the center. The event horizon is only a singularity in certain coordinate systems, but you can select coordinates that are smooth there. The black hole singularity is more comparable to big bang, in the sense that it is an indication of missing physics.
He means the matter we know as galaxies today.
Our current theory implies that our space we know and love (bound by our time, spacetime) expanded at that moment. We know we shouldn't be seeing older galaxies that look younger than others we know to be young. That's what's implied by these findings at least - they could still be explained by other things we have yet to discover, because we haven't finished processing this data.
The title is just for the clicks.
I know not enough physics to tell if this is reasonable but...
What if there's not just 4 base forces but 5, or an infinite class of them? Say something that falls off sub-quadratically but with a significantly lower constant than gravity? Or a whole class of forces that fall off less and less slowly, but have smaller and smaller constants as they do?
The forces, to be a useful modelling tool, need a medium to interact with matter. E.g. an equivalent of charge would always be zero, if matter didn't have the ability to have charge. At that point, it effectively doesn't exist.
Interestingly, the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are also aspects of the same force. They unify at high enough energy levels. They only appear different. The exception is gravity. It doesn't fit the mould. Basically we don't currently have 4 forces, but only 2. Scientists suspect it's actually only 1, but can't yet unify gravity into a theory of everything via a theory of quantum gravity.