Isn’t that just a paraphrasing of dark matter? Our math is wrong and something is up/missing from the calculations. Call it dark matter or an incorrect gravitational field, or whatever you like.
I always took dark matter to just refer to the observed phenomenon that doesn’t line up with the calculations, and that gap definitely exists.
I mean, dark matter specifically refers to mass of some kind that interacts gravitationaly but not electromagnetically. It posits a real, actual material floating around in space. MOND is another attempt to explain the gap, and it isn't dark matter at all.
> But more importantly, if you look at the mathematics, modified gravity and particle dark matter are actually very similar. Dark matter adds new particles, and modified gravity adds new fields. But because of quantum mechanics, fields are particles and particles are fields, so it’s the same thing really. The difference is the behavior of these fields or particles. It’s the behavior that changes from the scales of galaxies to clusters to filaments and the early universe. So what we need is a kind of phase transition that explains why and under which circumstances the behavior of these additional fields, or particles, changes, so that we need two different sets of equations.
The article makes the point that any evidence we have makes it difficult to disentangle the two, but the conclusions specifically calls for a third path. If dark matter was just any explanation for the mass gap, that third path would just be 'dark matter'.
Apparently not, as judged by the downvotes I get when I write such opinions. Yet, nobody refutes the opinion in any way, which to me suggests either hubris or naivety neither of which are science or objective.
I always took dark matter to just refer to the observed phenomenon that doesn’t line up with the calculations, and that gap definitely exists.