>"there's still mass it just exists in other dimensions"
What? Dark matter is there. Leading models consider it to be particles that don't interact with e/m field and interact weakly with gravity so is undetected in low-density regions. That doesn't make it other-dimensional.
>Sounds like sci-fi crackpottery
Like the prediction of particles in standard model? Is Higgs boson that went undected for 50 years sci-fi crackpottery?
There're issues with dark matter but it also (sadly some may say) happens to be the best explanation of the observed phenomena since all alternative models fall (plus although simpler at first sight quickly get more complex) in more ways than dark matter.
>I suggest reading more into emergent gravity
Emergent (either entropic or induced) gravity has nothing to do with the comment. It's obvious what GP meant. The correct should've been intrinsic property but this is nitpicking.
Being able to fit models is very far from being able to say "it's there", especially the kinds of models that are being fit. See my responses to sibling comments. "Leading theories", especially given the human impulse toward consensus, got the charge of the electron wrong for a long time before the culture readjusted and decided to look fresh at the problem with new experiments.
> happens to be the best explanation
The people who repeat this in popular science are just repeating what they hear from academics who, surprise!, have invested their entire career and reputation in the scientific community on that being true. Science demands more skepticism and interest in the truth than parroting status quo. It's also technically true only if you assume that explanations built on fitting extremely flexible nonparametric models are theories, but that doesn't seem like a mindset that's very interested in those theories representing truth per se.
> Like the prediction of particles in standard model? Is Higgs boson that went undected for 50 years sci-fi crackpottery?
It would be better to rearrange this to "interact gravitationally, and maybe non-gravitationally at the scale of the weak nuclear force".
In the standard cosmology \Lambda-CDM, cold dark matter ("CDM") is allowed to interact at the scale of the weak nuclear force (wnf), which may allow participation in nuclear interactions. This motivates the search for direct detection in various track and scintillator experiments, where a WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) could take recoil energy from an atomic nucleus, the latter leaving behind a trail of charged particles and/or emitted photons. There are of course other hypothesized interactions between WIMPs and normal matter which do not literally engage the wnf, but instead have some new interaction at no more than the same energy scale ("weak scale"). And for completeness, there are CDM models which have stronger but rarer individual interactions which average out to the weak scale (or effective collisionlessness) across volumes comparable to the size of galaxies or galaxy clusters.
(In the standard cosmology what matters is that the equation of state for dark matter is 0 or close to it so that expansion dilutes it away like cold baryons; in structure formation and galactic dynamics it's more important that most dark matter is in a halo outside the luminous structure. Both are incompatible with decays or collisions which emit relativstic particles (w > ~ 1/6 leads to early evaporation of overdensities; galactic dynamics is less tolerant of (non-radiative) clumping and other mechanisms which concentrate/gravitationally-collapse halos).
> interact ... with gravity
In a system of coordinates that absorbs linear and angular momentum, all matter -- dark or otherwise -- interacts gravitationally in proportion to its mass (or energy-density).
In General Relativity, this is the universality of free fall, which descends from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
Unless we modify or abandon General Relativity, a dark matter particle and an alpha particle occupying the same starting point and having the same initial velocity will follow the same trajectory together forever barring some interaction (examples: intrinsic: one of the particles decays emitting radiation, or there is some weak scale interaction between them that imparts a recoil on one or both of the initial alpha or DM; extrinsic: scattering of a photon off the alpha, or the alpha captures electron(s) imparting a recoil -- a force that shoves the alpha onto a different trajectory, a non-gravitational acceleration). This is the weak equivalence principle (WEP), <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#The_weak...> from a somewhat Fermi-Walker perspective; the "weak" in WEP is unrelated to the weak nuclear force.
Finally, dark matter and baryonic matter (and all other matter and radiation) interact the same way with the curvature of spacetime. If dark matter and baryons interact non-gravitationally at all, the (averaged) interaction is at no more than the weak scale. \Lambda-CDM does not require any non-gravitational interaction between CDM and baryons.
What? Dark matter is there. Leading models consider it to be particles that don't interact with e/m field and interact weakly with gravity so is undetected in low-density regions. That doesn't make it other-dimensional.
>Sounds like sci-fi crackpottery
Like the prediction of particles in standard model? Is Higgs boson that went undected for 50 years sci-fi crackpottery?
There're issues with dark matter but it also (sadly some may say) happens to be the best explanation of the observed phenomena since all alternative models fall (plus although simpler at first sight quickly get more complex) in more ways than dark matter.
>I suggest reading more into emergent gravity
Emergent (either entropic or induced) gravity has nothing to do with the comment. It's obvious what GP meant. The correct should've been intrinsic property but this is nitpicking.