crowdsourcing critical wisdom assembling quantitative wisdom modeling calibrated futures modeling probable insights computing precise futures mapping the future predicting definitive wisdom predicting intelligent estimations exploring critical insights mapping predictive estimations delivering intelligent predictions generating contingent contingencies aggregating intelligent insights crowdsourcing intelligent insights


Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

A resurgence in interest in modified gravity vs. dark matter?

In a recent paper submitted to arXiv, Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde supported the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model of gravity, which does not require dark matter, to explain phenomena such as the observed rotational curve of stars.

Two days after Verlinde's submission, on Nov 9, 2016, another paper (S. McGaugh et al.) published in Physical Review Letters. Based on an analysis of 153 galaxies, researchers found that any particular dark matter (halo) model was unnecessary to account for observed radial acceleration, while MOND had anticipated such a result more than three decades ago. As of writing, the McGaugh et al. paper, including its previous preprint version on arXiv, has been cited 13 times, according to Google Scholar.

In this new paradigm of updating MOND theory, researchers' findings offer an alternate view that dark matter, a mainstay of modern astronomy, may be an illusion. Other teams are working to verify such a claim, with one group tweaking galaxy simulations to test if the results are reproducible in comparable galaxies.

Do these papers represent a sustained resurgence in (the relatively small amount of) interest in MOND?

This question will resolve as positive if, by March 1, 2017, Google Scholar shows 50 or more total citations of the McGaugh et al. paper (which had 13 at question launch) and the Verlinde paper (which had 5 at question launch)


Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.