Alright I’ll bite. I don’t think this is AI drivel, I do think this article comes from a place of a serious lack of understanding of the standard model and quantum mechanics.

Yes, prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics some physicists realized that if they made certain assumptions, the math “just worked out”. They did not understand why this was the case, and being good scientists they sought to. They were also clear about their lack of a model to justify this math.

The development of quantum mechanics not only solved all these problems, but also predicted additional physics that has since been verified (solid state mechanics for example is just applied quantum mechanics, and predicted and described the transistor).

The reason quantum mechanics and the standard model of particle physics are treated as the best description of reality we currently have is because they are in fact. Attempts to describe cosmology and observational physics based in alternative models all do a worse job, either failing to account for observations or making unphysical predictions.

A quote from the article:

While MOND successfully predicts many galactic phenomena, often with greater simplicity than dark matter models, it faces its own challenges, particularly in galaxy clusters, and has often been dismissed by the mainstream physics community, sometimes explicitly because it is perceived to “lack mathematical elegance” or deviates too far from the established framework of General Relativity, suggesting theoretical preference can overshadow empirical parsimony.

This is incorrect. MOND is generally dismissed because as the article admits, it fails to account for all observed behavior. If you have to pick a model that describes more observed phenomena, which do you choose: the model that matches nearly all empirical data, or the one that only matches a subset but maybe could do better if someone could come up with the right formalism? If one insists that MOND is the path forward, then it is they who are dogmatically blinded by their choice of model.

[+] qnfo@futurology.today -16 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

Thanks for validating my existence as a human! So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously) say they don't like something and get it removed it seems.

Make no mistake, I am not a MOND apologist (I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is). As you allude, my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation. If these theories made sense other than on paper as math equations we wouldn't be having this discussion. And I would note that no one could possibly argue with the central tenet of my "drivel," which is that there are legitimately shaky bases to both quantum mechanics and legitimized (not legitimate) theories like dark matter and Dirac's equations that led to the preposterous notion of "antimatter" (i.e. "Dirac Sea") and dark matter/energy. How can one claim any kind of superiority with physics when 95% of it can't be explained by your model. Invent a more complex (post-hoc) model say the physicists!

I can add 1 + 1, then subtract 3 and call it a magic number but that doesn't make whatever story I concoct around it any more real, especially when the story (theory) is made up after the math works. That's not science: that is a fraud. It's no different than what a scammer like Bernie Madoff did he made the books look good and then concocted a story about his incredible investment returns. And spare me your ridicule: a key flaw of scientific tunnel vision is failing to look outside your own discipline and see that the same themes reoccur in the wider world, whether you admit it or not.

[–] macarthur_park@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation.

I believe this reveals a real lack of understanding of how modern science is done. I’ve heard similar complaints about scientists being blinded by orthodoxy from anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and from people promoting their alternate models of physics (e.g. “everything is made of photons”). In every case the complaint is based on their own ideological blindness, misunderstanding of the science, or both.

The idea that scientists are unwilling to interrogate modern theories or entertain alternatives is ridiculous. The most interesting results aren’t those that reaffirm the standard model or expectations, it’s those that are in conflict with our best understanding of reality. These are the observations and theories that reveal new physics. This is the stuff of Nobel prizes.

Searches for physics beyond the standard model are commonplace; physics conferences generally have at least a few sections devoted to them. There are large collaborations doing experiments that search for physics that’s inconsistent with the standard model, for example searches for neutrinoless double beta decay or the neutron electric dipole moment.

Even experiments that ultimately reaffirm the standard model began as attempts to interrogate it and discover things that challenge it. At the LHC, Atlas and CMS both observed the Higgs boson and found its properties were consistent with the standard model. If you talk with any of the physicists involved, they were actually disappointed that no new physics was observed. This was the most boring possible result.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 11 points 17 hours ago

I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is

Maybe if you weren't consistently snooty and rude while promoting your scientific conspiracy theories, people would be more tolerant. But the theories still wouldn't be good.

load more comments (1 replies)