I never cease to be amazed at the human capacity for self-deception. quantamagazine.org/coder-physicis…
The precursor of the radial acceleration relation, the mass discrepancy-acceleration relation, has been known since the previous century. In 2004, I provided a general version for simulators to shoot at: arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0…. The response was deafening silence.
When I pointed it out to them, it was met with open hostility. Klypin shouted “WE DON’T HAVE TO EXPLAIN [THAT]! (Astronomical expletive deleted.). Many others also refused to acknowledge that this was an aspect of the data that needed explaining. Some still refuse.
Since arxiv.org/abs/1609.05917 there have been a flood of papers claiming to explain what they previously refused to address. That’s progress. But it takes more than a flop from “LALALA not listening!” to “oh sure, we explain that” to make a satisfactory scientific explanation.
“Satisfactory” is key here. I never doubted that simulators could find a way to match the data if they turned enough knobs. That is not sufficient to explain why, physically, we observe what we observe. I have yet to hear this addressed in a *satisfactory* way.
There are so many efforts of so many different flavors.... at most one can be correct. And yet they all suddenly seem to get it right. Kinda sorta - most do not come as close as they portray it. Same relation? In one case, yes - if you don’t mind being off 70 sigma. Satisfactory?
I am genuinely happy that the simulation community is finally addressing his problem. But it is early days for them coming to grips with this. They are nowhere close to understanding what is going on - or in many cases, even to understanding what they don’t understand.
