What’s the matter with dark matter?

Comparison of MOND and Newtonian rotation
(Wikimedia)

Nine years ago, I published here a post entitled Dark Matter or New Theory, where I pointed out that the motion of stars in galaxies does not match theoretical predictions. The problem can be solved in two ways:

1.      Assuming that galaxies have much more mass than we can see. The mass we cannot see was called dark matter, where the word dark means that we don't know what it is.

2.      Assuming that Newton's laws should be corrected in the outer part of galaxies, where the acceleration of stars is very small. Various corrections to Newton's equations have been proposed that would satisfactorily solve the problem, which are called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) theories.

Is there a fifth force in Nature?

The standard model of particle physics recognizes the existence of four fundamental forces (their correct name is interactions):

• Gravitation: Newton called thus the force of attraction between any two masses at a distance. For Einstein, according to General Relativity, gravitation is the curvature of space as a consequence of the presence of a mass, which affects the movement of nearby masses. This force, which is always attractive, has an infinite range, although its effect decreases in inverse ratio of the square of the distance, and is the weakest of the four, but its effect is dominant at cosmic and planetary distances, as well as on the Earth's surface.

The mystery of the missing neutrinos

Detection of solar neutrinos in a one mile deep
South Dakota mine (1972)

One of the pseudoscientific hoaxes running in Internet says something like this:

According to the justification of the Nobel Committee in 2015, Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald received their Nobel Prizes for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass. The Nobel Committee donated again Nobel Prizes and 8 million Swedish Coronas for NOTHING, since the numerical value of the frequency, impulse, kinetic energy, and therefore the mass of the neutrinos, are still unknown. Without the numerical value of the frequency, it has not been proved that the neutrinos oscillate and have mass. According to the pseudo-scientific theory of modern physics, one light-year thick layer of lead absorbs only half of the neutrinos, then how is it possible to detect neutrinos and the neutrino oscillation? Since Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald have not one light-year thick layer of lead in their laboratories, therefore the discovery of the neutrino oscillations is only a scam! The neutrino is an invented particle, which comes from the wrong pseudo-scientific theory of modern physics.

This paragraph, which calls pseudoscience the standard theory of particle physics, contains a few glaring mistakes that I will try to detail here:

The theory of everything

In Joe Dacy’s science fiction novel Esquelle and the lost enclave (2015), which belongs to the hard science fiction genre, skillfully combined with espionage, adventure and political fiction, and covers 1500 years of future history, including the invention of time travel and the manipulation of the past, one can find the following quotation:

At this point, the Theory of Everything is actually the Theory of Not Very Much

Is Joe Dacy II right? Do we think we know a lot, but we know very little? What is this Theory of Everything, with such a grandiose name?

This name has been invented by a few physicists and cheered by the press, on the same line as the name of the God particle applied to the Higgs boson, possibly discovered in 2012. Yes, I say possibly, as it is not certain. Although the particle discovered had the predicted mass and decomposed in some of the predicted particles (not all of them), it has not yet been proved that the Higgs field exists.

What is meant by the name of Theory of Everything is that we know everything about the physical fundamentals of matter, that we do not need God.

The God Particle

Peter Higgs

With the discovery of Higgs boson, two years ago, the media and a few scientists have presented the discovery as the final completion of the standard theory of particle physics, in such a way that we now know everything and do not need God. Hence the nickname given to Higgs boson, the God particle, a name, by the way, that Higgs does not like.

The discovery of a particle whose existence was predicted nearly a half century ago is a spectacular success of the standard theory, comparable to the success achieved in 1846 by Newton’s theory of universal gravitation with the discovery of Neptune, whose existence had been predicted by Le Verrier and Adams. Then it was also said that we now know everything. 

Urbain Le Verrier

True, there was still a loose end, a very small discrepancy of just 43 seconds of arc per century in the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Le Verrier tried to repeat his success and predicted that this discrepancy was due to an unknown planet between Mercury and the Sun. He even gave it a name: Vulcan. For 60 years, many astronomers tried to find the mysterious planet in vain, for the problem in this case was in Newton’s theory, which eventually came to be just a first approximation of a new better theory that explained the discrepancy: Einstein's general relativity.

Could something similar happen to the standard theory of particle physics? Will its great success be followed by its first failure? Are there any loose ends still remaining in the theory?

The answer to the last question must be affirmative. The standard theory of particle physics has the following outstanding issues: