No WIMPS Heavy particles don’t explain gravitational lensing oddities

Re:No WIMPS Heavy particles don’t explain gravitational lens... by blincoln on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @09:10AM (#35699942)

Does "WIMPS don't explain observed data" also exclude "matter in other M-Theory branes exerts a gravitational influence on matter in our own" as an explanation for dark matter?

The main argument I've seen against this is that matter interacting gravitationally across branes would cause a sort of n-body problem condition where everything in a particular sphere of influence would orbit continuously around the center of mass instead of settling into a lump, but maybe that explains why some planet-scale (or larger) objects have spinning cores?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No WIMPS Heavy particles don’t explain gravitational lens... by addaon on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:39AM (#35701129)

I don't believe anyone's casting around too hard for an alternate explanation for conservation of angular momentum, which is a consequence of rotational symmetry of physical laws, a relatively intuitive and desired property.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No WIMPS Heavy particles don’t explain gravitational lens... by icapybara on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @10:40AM (#35701142)

"When you hear hoofprints, think horses, not zebras."

You can always contrive a more complicated structure to explain some observation. There is no evidence branes exist. We are looking for an explanation to the "dark matter problem" that doesn't require asserting that a ton of new and unproven physics exists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No WIMPS Heavy particles don’t explain gravitational lens... by sleeplessworld on Tuesday April 25, 2023 @11:44AM (#35702070)

This may point to a key problem in the hypotheses, theories and conclusions. When you are in Africa, a "think horses" paradigm, may lead you very astray in your thinking.

[ Parent | on HN ]