What do Hossenfelder and Carroll agree on? It was my understanding that Hossenfelder thinks we need both DM and MoND while Carroll is firmly in the conventional DM camp.
You caught me, in that she’s 100% open to new evidence. Kinda why she is so effective.
So, over the past decade, Hossenfelder made a series of videos and talks about “dark matter is real.” And then “is dark matter real?”
Her opinion evolves. But the conclusions are generally that the data points to a measurable thing along many lines of evidence.
I find the cosmic web the most compelling, personally. Like, what else could that be besides a mystery? You can’t draw the web in some other configuration, it’s a real thing somehow.
From my understanding. Her hesitation that she expresses is more linked to an underlying intuition: the universe is completely deterministic—we just can’t see all of the rules being computed, and the initial conditions are intractable.
So, over the past decade, Hossenfelder made a series of videos and talks about “dark matter is real.” And then “is dark matter real?”
Her opinion evolves. But the conclusions are generally that the data points to a measurable thing along many lines of evidence.
I find the cosmic web the most compelling, personally. Like, what else could that be besides a mystery? You can’t draw the web in some other configuration, it’s a real thing somehow.
From my understanding. Her hesitation that she expresses is more linked to an underlying intuition: the universe is completely deterministic—we just can’t see all of the rules being computed, and the initial conditions are intractable.
I also find that pretty compelling.