"Dark matter" sounds a lot like "we've run out of ideas so we're going back in the direction of 'the ether' and chariots pulling the sun across the sky and the like".
I'd recommend watching a video from PBS Spacetime if you want to learn about it. They have several.
Dark matter has a roughly 50/50 track record.
https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-univer...
Also no WIMPs were found so far.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2445058-another-blow-fo...
Now we're doing Mars shots to prove it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388
I'm not qualified to judge the merit of that theory, really... but my impression is that it doesn't have the explanatory power to be a great candidate.
Einstein and Planck just solved stuff, with a fraction of the talk and resources.
Now Physics seems to be so stagnant it's mostly an exercise in making descriptions for the things it's failing at, as though a problem can somehow match the value of a solution if you give it a cool name and talk about it enough.
Their ideas, solutions, and problems didn't come about from magic.
That's right. There is not yet a definitive answer on what dark matter is, just several theories. WIMPs, MOND, primordial black holes...
> Now Physics seems to be so stagnant
Crapping on modern physics for a lack of progress seems a popular thing amongst us lay people, but despite all the credit you give them (and that they deserve,) I doubt Einstein or Planck would have just intuited the right solution to dark matter.
That would be easy enough to explain away as an incomplete model, except we have observed galaxies which do fit our models. The only way to explain that is if those galaxies are missing this invisible mass. There's no other way to reconcile these observations.
How would you square these observations? Under our models of gravity, most galaxies behave as though they contain much more mass than what we observe. However, some behave exactly as Newton would predict. The misbehaving galaxies can be made to fit the model by adding mass in very particular locations, mainly as a halo or shell around the outside.
We can show how much mass and where it must be to make galaxies behave as expected. These calculations are the same for most galaxies with dark matter, and galaxies without dark matter require no correction. At this point we have two explanations: either gravity behaves radically differently in different places in the universe, or there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered.
We know already that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete, and there are more particles to be discovered. We are also very confident that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and time, and we are very confident that our models of gravity are correct on large scales.
The simplest explanation that fits all available data is dark matter. Positing that there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered isn't really a shocking revelation.
And use things like pi=3=1 and a whole bunch of other simplifications.
It’s a miracle it predicts anything at all.
Besides, this also ignores the fact that we observe galaxies both with and without dark matter. These galaixes have very different structures that cannot arise from the same physics unless we consider dark matter.
If the basic assumptions of your calculations are wrong it’s not surprising if your conclusions are as well.
Here a link for one of the simple explanations they didn’t take into account leading to wrong redshift measurements https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/7/3/41