Team of international collaborators detect ‘external field effect,’ a prediction unique to MOND, rival dark matter hypothesis.
An international group of scientists, including Case Western Reserve University Astronomy Chair Stacy McGaugh, has published research contending that a rival idea to the popular dark matter hypothesis more accurately predicts a galactic phenomenon that appears to defy the classic rules of gravity.
This is significant, the astrophysicists say, because it further establishes the hypothesis — called modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), or “modified gravity” — as a viable explanation for a cosmological dilemma: that galaxies appear to buck the long-accepted rules of gravity traced to Sir Isaac Newton in the late 1600’s.
The mystery: For decades, we’ve measured more gravitational pull in space than we think we should have — that there’s not enough visible or known matter to account for it all.
So, dark matter proponents theorize that most of the known universe is actually made of material that doesn’t interact with light, making it invisible and undetectable — but that this material accounts for much of the gravitational pull among galaxies. It has been the prevailing theory for nearly 50 years.
MOND theory, a counter explanation introduced by physicist Mordehai Milgrom from Weizmann Institute (Israel) in the early 1980s, says this gravitational pull exists because the rules of gravity are slightly altered.
Instead of attributing the excess gravitational pull to an unseen, undetectable dark matter, MOND suggests that gravity at low accelerations is stronger than would be predicted by a pure Newtonian understanding.
In addition, MOND made a bold prediction: the internal motions of an object in the cosmos should not only depend on the mass of the object itself, but also the gravitational pull from all other masses in the universe — called “the external field effect” (EFE).
Milgrom said the findings, if robustly confirmed, would be “the smoking gun proving that galaxies are governed by modified dynamics rather than obeying the laws of Newton and of general relativity.”
150 galaxies tested for EFE
McGaugh and his collaborators, led by Kyu-Hyun Chae, from Sejong University in South Korea, say they detected this EFE in more than 150 galaxies studied.
Their findings were published recently in The Astrophysical Journal.
“The external field effect is a unique signature of MOND that does not occur in Newton-Einstein gravity,” McGaugh said. “This has no analogy in conventional theory with dark matter. Detection of this effect is a real head-scratcher.”
The team of six astrophysicists and astronomers includes lead author Chae and other contributors from the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States.
“I have been working under the hypothesis that dark matter exists, so this result really surprised me,” Chae said. “Initially, I was reluctant to interpret our own results in favor of MOND. But now I cannot deny the fact that the results as they stand clearly support MOND rather than the dark matter hypothesis.”
Analyzing rotating galaxies
The group analyzed 153 rotation curves of disk galaxies as part of their study. The galaxies were selected from the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) database, created by another collaborator, Federico Lelli, during his postdoctoral studies at Case Western Reserve, McGaugh and co-author James Schombert, of the University of Oregon.
In addition to Chae, McGaugh, Lelli and Schombert, the authors of the research were Pengfei Li from Case Western Reserve and Harry Desmond from the University of Oxford.
The scientists said they deduced the EFE by observing that galaxies in strong external fields slowed (or exhibited declining rotation curves) more frequently than galaxies in weaker external fields — as predicted by MOND alone.
Lelli said he was skeptical by the results at first “because the external field effect on rotation curves is expected to be very tiny. We spent months checking various systematics. In the end, it became clear we had a real, solid detection.”
McGaugh said that skepticism is part of the scientific process and understands the reluctance of many scientists to consider MOND as a possibility.
“I came from the same place as those in dark matter community,” he said. “It hurts to think that we could be so wrong. But Milgrom predicted this over 30 years ago with MOND. No other theory anticipated the observed behavior.”
Reference: “Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies” by Kyu-Hyun Chae, Federico Lelli, Harry Desmond, Stacy S. McGaugh, Pengfei Li and James M. Schombert, 20 November 2020, The Astrophysical Journal.
Case Western Reserve University is one of the country’s leading private research institutions. Located in Cleveland, we offer a unique combination of forward-thinking educational opportunities in an inspiring cultural setting. Our leading-edge faculty engage in teaching and research in a collaborative, hands-on environment. Our nationally recognized programs include arts and sciences, dental medicine, engineering, law, management, medicine, nursing and social work. About 5,100 undergraduate and 6,200 graduate students comprise our student body. Visit case.edu to see how Case Western Reserve thinks beyond the possible.
Dark Matter is actually Light Matter.
Literally Photon Matter.
Photons have mass or they wouldnt be limited to the speed of light. Speed limits are assigned to matter.
I believe the current understanding was that a photon was the heaviest amount of mass which could achieve the speed of light (C).
Dark matter is unlikely to be anything else than cold, i.e. massive particles.
“Using a supercomputer at the University of Cambridge, Iršič and co-authors simulated the IGM — and calculated what type of dark matter particle would be consistent with the quasar data. They discovered that a typical particle predicted by the fuzzy dark matter theory is simply too light to account for the hydrogen absorption patterns in the IGM. A heavier particle — similar to predictions of the traditional cold dark matter theory — is more consistent with their simulations.
“The mass of this particle has to be larger than what people had originally expected, based on the fuzzy dark matter solutions for issues surrounding our galaxy and others,” said Iršič.
An ultralight “fuzzy” particle could still exist. But it cannot explain why galactic clusters form, or other questions like the paucity of satellite galaxies around the Milky Way, said Iršič. A heavier “cold” particle remains consistent with the astronomical observations and simulations of the IGM, he added.”
[“Dark matter is likely ‘cold,’ not ‘fuzzy,’ scientists report after new simulations”, UW News]
Re the universal speed limit (commonly named “light speed in vacuum”) it was instituted by Einstein to describe physics of relative reference frames. The more illuminating [sic!] way of expressing that is that it describes how signals progate.
And Mike is morally right, signal propagation by particles is confined to what physicists calls “light cones” where light – or other massless particles – sets the maximum speed [“Special relativity” @ Wikipedia].
As LT mentioned before me, a massless particle has zero invariant mass m_0 – but it obeys Einstein’s result E^2 = (p*c)^2 + (m_0*c^2)^2 [“Energy–momentum relation” @ Wikipedia]. In general relativity it follows gravity’s geodesics which are analogous to other field’s field lines (since gravity is a tensor field while other forces are vector fields) which means that if they curve the photons follow them – obeys gravity (though not as much as a massive particle).
‘I’ll see it when I believe it.’ – Schrödinger
The most logical and simple solution to everything would require people to actually listen to what others are trying to tell them . Solving that problem far more difficult then answering the 1st problem. The answer too the first is the universe is spinning. There is no such thing as anti gravity because the phenomenon already has a name it’s called inertia.
The universe is spinning and is the reason for the expanding accelerating universe. Maybe that is.
Does consensus mean ‘correct’ or does it mean ‘average’ as a Bell Curve suggests? The notion that Einstein (exceptional rather than average) was wrong about relativity while some new dark matter “map” “drawn” by a computer proves it when dark matter doesn’t actually exist is laughable. Likewise, one exceptional person knew MOND was correct 30 years ago while the vast masses (with their relative average outlook) believe in a form of matter that was created to fix (or should I say “fudge?”) what appears to be an observation error in predicted gravity.
Sadly, one of the reasons Science is moving slower than it needs to is the inability for rational people with massive egos to admit they were WRONG and start over with a new hypothesis rather than trying desperately to “fix” one that is increasingly obviously incorrect (I’ve got to love String Theory also, especially since it’s largely unprovable either way). But rather than hear what I have to say, the same people will label my words “asinine” (or worse) and continue to draw maps of matter that does not exist.
But hey, it must be invisible, non-interacting, possibly extra-dimensional “dark matter” (and worse yet dark energy) causing the errors, not human ignorance and our inherent inability to admit we don’t have a clue why our predictions don’t match observations (better to fudge the math with a made-up form of matter that conveniently can’t be detected except by the very observational error we made it up to explain in the first place! That’s called circular logic and it’s the basis of Dark Matter). Poor Albert is spinning in his grave right now, probably pondering why Walter Matthau’s ‘Grumpy Old Einstein’ was the best they could do to represent him in a Hollywood movie! (at least he was better than Yahoo Serious). Wahoo!
I agree that “dark matter” looks very much like an error in the way we understand how gravity works. The circular reasoning arguing for dark matter reminds me of the ether hypothesis before Maxwell’s equations. When Michelson–Morley experiment couldn’t find “ether drift”, we turned to alternative hypotheses that gave us a better model, unlike today, where we keep repeating experiments and justifying the failures.
MOND itself is not the absolute truth, as it can’t explain all the observations either. A new theory of gravity is waiting to be discovered, but the intense focus on finding dark matter may definitely be a huge distraction and a resource drain.
Light is energy and momentum. No mass.
This is interesting. And it makes more sense than there being a mysterious, invisible matter everywhere. Perhaps acceleration produces something like a Doppler Effect on gravity making it weaker and more fleeting than with the gravitational pull of matter that is stationary or moving more slowly.
Since classical MOND failed 2018 – see my long comment – it makes little sense IMO.
Also, why would a gravitationally interacting particle be mysterious?! We have the veritable graviton in the first place, and neutrinos are 0.2 % of dark matter observations. Few people have worried about the lack or delays in detecting them.
Instead it is fashionable . but factually wrong – to criticize dark matter and dark energy both in the general public. It was also fashionable to criticize black holes for similar reasons, but such critics among the public moved on to the new fashionable “field” – even before we got the first black hole shadow image.
When scientists discover something new, the cycle will repeat again of course. I seem to remember that there was also a spawn off fashion to criticize the “dark genome” outside of protein genes, but that too died off about the same time as black hole criticism became unfashionable. So it goes.
Like you I prefer the simple answer as it’s usually right. Unfortunately this may be not a simple problem and the answer might be some of all of the above including something we haven’t even thought to ask. We will see and that’s the fun!
In some cases parsimony is more likely to be correct. For instance the likelihood ratio test tells us that if hypotheses aree nested by applying constraints the unconstrained one is the more likely [“Likelihood-ratio test” @ Wikipedia]. In complex phylogenetic trees parsimony methods fail often and dramatically, so maximum likelihood or bayesian methods are preferable.
Here of course we can use maximum likelihood methods of confidence intervals to compare results. Given that MOND fails [see my long comment on why] what is different? LCDM is still the most likely theory by predicting the most data the best.
But it would make many physicists happy if something new and better came along. No sign of that at the moment though.
No, it doesn’t “challenge” LCDM cosmology.
It is the old cottage industry of trying to predict spiral galaxy disk rotation, which LCDM does better than competitors since 2015 [“The Labor of Outflows against Dark Matter Halo” @ astrobites]
But there is a long list of predictions that an alternative to general relativity must predict, and predict better (add more predictions).
“However, it has proven very challenging to develop a satisfactory alternative to General Relativity (GR). Any successful modified gravity theory will need to reproduce the successes of ΛCDM and GR:
1. Provide an explanation for the flatness of galaxy rotation curves at large radii, the distribution of hot gas in elliptical galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and match the gravitational lensing shear measurements;
2. Satisfy the classical tests of GR, including the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and other solar system tests, the Shapiro time delay, and the timing of binary millisecond pulsars .
3. Provide a consistent fit to LIGO’s gravitational wave signals. These measurements provide strong constraints on the tensor content of any gravitational wave theory [14–18].
4. Predict an expanding universe and provide an acceptable fit to measurements of the distance-redshift relationship. This constrains the homogeneous cosmological solution of the alternative theory [c.f., 19].
5. Provide a satisfactory fit to measurements of both the CMB fluctuations and the large-scale structure.”
[“What is the price of abandoning dark matter? Cosmological constraints on alternative gravity theories” @ arxiv]
Good luck with that.
And this particular spin factory uses a hypothesis that has been rejected – “killed” – by observation 2018 [“Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity” @ Wuanta Magazine]
“New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.”
By the way, McGaugh has worked with this failing industry almost as long as Milgrom [“Stacy McGaugh” @ Wikipedia].
Gravity is what it is and does what it does. Why can’t the center of gravity of the Universe be at the extremities appearing to attract everything outwards?
There isn’t any ‘center of the universe’, that was the whole point with big bang cosmology already a century ago. Such ideas are pre-big bang cosmology. The adage goes that “big bang is a moment in time, not a point in space”.
In big bang cosmology all of space expands uniformly, so you can pick your “Milky Way observer apparent center” and someone in Andromeda can pick another slightly different observable universe “Andromeda observer apparent center”.
Worse, if space is flat as it seems, space has definitely no center but is infinite in all directions.
meme of the moment- “…gravity at low accelerations is stronger than would be predicted by a pure Newtonian understanding…….” 👉 https://www.instagram.com/chemicalgorithms/
Pseudoscience link, as well as self promotion.
… no, just another example of hardships to understand others…
That is teenish…
I’ve always thought to myself that dark matter never existed in the first place. This isn’t based on any science, it is merely a premonition of my own that the math surrounding gravity was wrong. Simple as that. Peace and be well!
As you say, your opinion, of no interest to any other.
Earth and Moon attract each other. There is no action at a distance. Both Earth and Moon influence the vacuum which vacuum conduct/propagate this influence from close to close between the two. This means that the vacuum is influencing itself in this propagation. The vacuum could therefore self influence and clump together, given the right conditions. In doing so, it would appear as if some other mass was acting locally on the vacuum. The vacuum can act on itself giving the same effect as the presence of additional mass would.
The vacuum IS Dark matter. No Choice!
Takes too much effort to untangle that, suffice to say that in modern cosmology the vacuum (energy density) is dark energy.
I believe that gravity gets altered when objects in a vacuum are close enough to have their gravitational fields entangle with each other. Also, maybe dark matter is actually matter from other dimensions 🤔
In general relativity there is only one gravitational field, of varying strength.
And if space is flat it is purely 3D – no extra dimensions.
So the actual fabric of space carries no mass?
Why is outer space so weird man ?
Nothing exists. You will realize this eventually. I didn’t make the rules, they made themselves.
Pretty muc – eBOSS galaxy survey 20 year result shortlisted Weinberg’s “anthropic multiverse” as the simplest explanation for the low vacuum energy density, meaning that the rules (of habitability) picked this universe to live in.
And space being flat means all the energy and the work of the universe bot sum to zero. The universe is a big fat zero. 😀
What I dont undestand is how this disproves relativity, because EFE is just a many body solution rather than very simple two body as per Newtonian gravity solution. What I think this data may show is that while we can think of the universe as homogenous at very large scales, it is a very bumpy structure at the scales of galaxies and clusters. Dark matter and dark energy is just what we use to describe the positive and negative curvatures that otherwise dont interact with matter, the stuff we see at near zero curvature (aka special relativity).
Just as electromagnetism can have external fields that influence charges, so must our theory of gravity. Aka we must generalise to many body solutions, not just the simplistic two body solution for the full picture.
I look at curvature of the universe like a circle, the flat special relativistic universe is at 0deg, then dark matter would be rotated 90deg anticlockwise to +i, dark energy would be the opposite as clockwise 90deg to -i, missing antimatter 180deg to -1.
So the stuff inside black holes would be mostly dark matter, the stuff right outside mostly matter, and the event horizon being the light-like event at 45deg mark. Think of these as inner black holes, next we have dark energy which would be the outer black hole that we are in, the light-like event being vacuum energy.
E.g. the universe we are in (the box) is between (-45deg) vacuum energy and (+45deg) light, think maximum up and down spin possible – both light like events. Matter is the time-like events that must lie between them both, dark matter and energy are the space-like event that can only effect matter via overall rotation, which is what we see as gravity and expansion.
To understand DM/DE we need to stop thinking matter must be real only, it can also be imaginary numbered – where space and time, energy and momentum swap places from our perspective. But from their perspective, we are imaginary and invisible they are real.
If you can quantify that meaningless verbiage, predict something seen and get it peer reviewed published, you may have gotten something – besides apparent confusion.
The simplest way . and what killed it – to see that is that MOND suggest light and gravity travel at different speeds [see my long comment for a link to an article that describes how that did it in 3 years ago]. That breaks under observations, while general relativity doesn’t.
The background added mass field sound like Mach’s principle, which explicitly breaks relativity. “The Gödel rotating universe is a solution of the field equations that is designed to disobey Mach’s principle in the worst possible way.” [“Mach’s principle” @ Wikipedia]
You are right, nothing “exists”. This is because existence cannot come from non-existence. Only a spontaneous dynamic process, neither existence nor non-existence, could come from nothingness without failing the rule of non-contradiction. So, everything is made of this dynamic spontaneous process, we should call Time. THEREFORE, nothing “exists” per se, because everything is actually “happening”, e.g., moving, vibrating spinning … Just as QM says it is. Every point of the Universe is new at every moment, which is what Time does.
Also touching on what modern cosmology may say, quantum physics or not.
If space is flat the expansion is adiabatic free and spontaneous, no specific impetus needed to start it.
And under that process (under inflation specifically) it produces habitable pockets with structures of a cosmic web of gas and galaxies which is generated by (okay, quantum physics) fluctuations at an earlier stage (of inflation).
However, “non-existence” is a superstitious idea (from small children learning object permanence, no doubt). It isn’t observed, and we would have no means to test it.
The Universe is well described by maths because, like maths, it is based on logic and Works by logic. “Existence” has no logical value but with respect to non-existence. The universe was created from a logical operation and evolves according to simple logical operations … Maths can follow that…
We may see the standard meter all at once in a moment of perception. The universe has no perception, only interactions. For the universe to perform some interaction between the two ends of the standard meter, it takes time. In other words, for the universe, both ends of the standard meter are not at the same moment. Actually, no two points in the universe are at the same moment. And the universe is the final judge in the matter. “Space” is about considering a bunch of points all at the same moment when they are in fact not at the same moment. So, there is no “space”, and we knew that the very moment we realized there was a speed limit in the universe. Spacetime is but a concept we created in order to keep doing physics. So, “flat space” means what?
“For the universe to perform some interaction between the two ends of the standard meter, it takes time.”
Time and moments are a human concept and don’t exist, so how about replacing time with motion in your statement above?
Again assuming that time doesn’t exist, isn’t it meaningless to use the word moments when describing the universe? In other words the universe or space doesn’t have moments it’s in continuous motion.
Since moments are a human concept it needs an observer to designate a moment to each end of the meter in their own mind.
“Space” is about considering a bunch of points all at the same moment when they are in fact not at the same moment. So, there is no “space”,”
Why is the existence of space dependent on how you consider it? IMO space consists of something ie quantum field or quantum foam etc, and that an empty space or void is only a mathematical concept. I think flat space just means there’s no overall distortion, on average, of this ‘something’ due to gravity.
Would love any further thoughts on this interesting topic.
Actually, “flat space” means you are doing physics; “no space” means I am doing metaphysics. Our knowledge of the universe requires that we be acutely aware of both.
Even if it was true that superstition such as philosophy would be involved by way of math or handwaving, you yourself admit that we need physics science.
But philosophy has been resorting to handwaving for millenniums – often supporting other nonsense like religion – since unlike science it has no means to discern facts. It makes arrogant demands to explain everything else (“philosophism”) when science of philosophy is clear that it doesn’t work. In fact, science is the only know method to arrive at knowledge we know of and personally I don’t expect that to change since we have experienced that nothing else works.
Which brings me to math. Science use math as a tool that like statistics helps quantify obsrevation and theory, the more important tools. We know from physics that math can’t predict it. You can’t axiomatize quantization in quantum field theory, say, but have to check which theories come out relativistic and match observations after. And in fact basic physics itself can’t predict theories due to renormalization theory.
“When describing space-time as a continuum, certain statistical and quantum mechanical constructions are not well-defined. To define them, or make them unambiguous, a continuum limit must carefully remove “construction scaffolding” of lattices at various scales. Renormalization procedures are based on the requirement that certain physical quantities (such as the mass and charge of an electron) equal observed (experimental) values. That is, the experimental value of the physical quantity yields practical applications, but due to their empirical nature the observed measurement represents areas of quantum field theory that require deeper derivation from theoretical bases.”
[“Renormalization” @ Wikipedia]
So we need statistics of observations and algorithms of applying values to derive well-defined theory at various scales, even if we have theoretical bases.
Turning math on itself yields a worse result. Gödel showed that it can”t derive itself starting from aritmetics and up [“Gödel’s incompleteness theorems” @ Wikipedia].
If you from this conclude that I care a great deal about science and not a wit about superstition you are on the right track. You may not agree with my arguable characterization of philosophy – you may even assert that same as religion some scientists embrace philosophy – but I do have supplied what tests needs to be applied – philosophy must be able to regularly publish science results under science peer review. I’m waiting, but I don’t expect philosophy or even the dreadful philosophism will make more progress on that than it did during the earlier 3 milleniums.
Am I the only 14 year old here tk read this article just out of curiosity and thinking I might find something about aliens here????
Dark matter used to rape people. Its made of synthetic energy that is even found outside this universe. Take it from a Seleakkan Queen 😀
Its like a wormhole that doesn’t exist.
Perhaps space or more precisely space-time is a self-propagating entity. Reproducing itself similar to what basic electromagnetic radiation does. Than the wave form at the ‘edge of the universe’ would constantly be creating more space, and this ‘wave-front’ has a pull (perhaps quantum in nature)on the rest of matter. (Please forgive a Bio-scientist for such speculation, but I’m told everything is basically photonic in nature, so why not space itself?)
Besides my physics training, I have bioinformatics – always been interested in biology – and now that converges in astrobiology and hence cosmology interest.
I think you mean to say that “everything is quantum” in nature as the cheap moniker goes, but it is a fact that quantum field theory successfully married classical field theory with quantum mechanics of particles by applying relativity [“Quantum field theory” @ Wikipedia].
General relativity is a classical field theory of a force, but applied on a tensor field instead of a vector field (think magnetism field lines) as the other fields. In fact, the step from netwonian gravity field theory to einsteinan field theory can be seen as the change from a vector to a tensor field – gravity has more degrees of freedom, such as both energy and stress used in the Einstein field equations. In principle you can quantize gravity same as the other fields at energies beneath the universal energy density limit (Planck energies) by using the linearzied equations and see if the non-linear effects can be predicted – that seems to work [“Quantum gravity as a low energy effective field theory” @ Scholarpedia]. If Planck collaboration was right 2018 they saw a simple Higgs like scalar field naturally eternal “slow roll” inflation process befote the hot big bang, meaning the universe on large scales lives well under the Planck scale. (Black holes may not be an exception, solutions like GEODE lives there too. You have to search up those papers though, I don’t follow that right now.)
The result could be Nobel Prize winner Wilzcek’s “core theory” [“The World of Everyday Experience, In One Equation” @ Preposterous Universe]. There the relativistic Lorentz metric of space if a multiplicative factor while gravity is an additive factor, agreeing with cosmology that vacuum of space is 3D flat.
But even if relativistic space is expanding – self-propagating – as described by a cosmological scale factor it is then a more complex entity filled with fields including the one that makes it self-consistent – gravity. The vacuum expectantion value [VEV, “zero-point”; “Vacuum expectation value” @ Wikipedia, “Zero-point energy” @ Wikipedia] of energy density is very low, but it still sums all quantum field contributions.
There is no edge to the universe, even if the observable universe has one (that depends on each observers location). The general relativistic description is self contained – there is no extraneous space to ‘expand into’, it just expands.
“netwonian gravity” = newtonian gravity.
“Wilzcek’s “core theory”” = Wilczek’s “core theory”.
I also forgot to note that Wilczek use the Feynman path integral formulation of fields like particle physicists. I think it makes explicit that space “curvature geodesics” may be a practical mathematical fiction in tensor field theory like “field lines” is in vector field theory – they don’t exist even of you can seemingly paint them in some experiments (such as magnetic iron fillings or superconductor flux tubes can do in magnetic fields). But that is over my paygrade.
Dark-matter-doesn’t-exist is a fictive object because today scientists use Newton’s physic if will use Einstein’s relativity, they will understand. Weight is relative, you need to count every object in the galaxy, so the external field effect” (EFE) is the only application of relativity. Weight in the center is smaller than on the edges and is necessary to count the delay thanks to lightspeed.
As far as I understand the suggested EFE would break relativity, se my previous response to Anthony Dean.
That – breaking and replacing relativity – was also the idea with MOND when they tried it in the first place. But now it is “killed” in the eyes of the physics consensus, see my comment on that, since it made predictions that observations don’t agree with.
This observation contradicts conventional dark matter but you’re okay with that?
MOND is an only a mathematical construct, for calculating galaxy is necessary to first understand relativity, dilation of time and space, and weight. The same objects have bigger weight on the edges of the galaxy. Gravity cause curvature of time-space.
Because objects on edges are heavier, therefore our sun swinging in the galactic disk. Now is in the center, but after will be on the border will be everything heavier, and we will need to walk on four again.
… “What if Dark Matter Doesn’t Exist?”
is this like a option that is considered! WoW, … that is a change…
… an spin network, or perhaps … I kan’t say that one. Well, jet…
… well, answering that question could help in order to figure out what it is, or if we have just a glitch…
When they realize that 1=0=∞ it will all make sense to them.
The smallest particle is nothing in the face of the universe, and yet holds everything in the universe at the same time. Has something to do with string theory.
It is clear that observation (using your eyes) in space and lab based experiments demonstrate that the missing force is electricty, aka Plasma universe, electric universe, magnetic universe.. call it what you like, but this never ending chasing the tail to try and validate the impossible with gravity is and always will be a dead end.
Sorry but how would this discovery invalidate Einstein and Dark Matter?
Las Vegas odd says it doesn’t.
I think it’s a ‘fudge factor’ cooked up by Cosmologists ( stars not hair ) to CYA to explain something they messed up on.
… by the way, it is possible to describe the orbit of Mercury with some adjustments to a Newton’s physics…
However, I have not seen it, so I can’t say for sure, though…
Gravitational pressure is what I rbelieve is dark matter it is what stops all matter from collapsing instead of expansion
… Well, this is line of comments is proof that people like “Torbjörn Larsson”(this one here, not the real one) are wrong.
If it was a math, well then it would be acceptable approach, this way it is just an example of wrong shot all the time.
Well, the first of all we all know about the differences from real world and scientific way of trying to make a sense of it. That is for sure, some of us have some examples, some other other ones, and that is the way modern physics is working.
There is a world of Newton, Alberts, Mahs etc. Then there is a world of: Niels, Erwin, Plank and others.
Those worlds are able to explain the real world to a point.
With approach “Torbjörn Larsson”, suggest with her/his/its examples it is just not possible to see the get proper view and to look for a real thing that will do the job better, the real improvement that will raise the level of the science to deeper and wider understanding of, world we live in.
and away from pseudo science …
1) How can YOU tell the difference between the “Torbjörn Larsson”(this one here, not the real one) ????
2) xABBAAA >>>> ABBA = Music group more Swedish than Volvo itself.. !!!
… phd scientist don’t think like that. The phd professor has more deep views of nature of the physics, if that is real “Torbjörn Larsson”, then that is just so … I have no word for that.
… and ABBA, no that is just so out of the picture, …
If there is such a thing as gravity I’ve yet to hear a real expla. It’s a matter of perspective that’s what I think Einstein ment up to the Observer. Then I heard gravity could also be repulsive poppycock. NO Gravity. If the universe was flat then the spinning idea would make sense like a merry go round down force. I think we should be careful to put fact to a lot of what is said and the math don’t fit. If the math don’t fit it’s wrong is wrong. We are humans being we are a part of the universe we are observers and what we observe is what is real weather the math fits or not it’s fun to make stuff up so the math can fit like dark matter or energy. I say let’s observe first and if the math doesn’t fit what we observe then the math is wrong it’s that simple. The universe is vast obviously and we are in a small part of it. Clumping of galaxies could just be angular momentum and the spin and rate of said galaxies. It is true in fact that the milkyway is the center of the universe from our perspective. The galaxie that’s the farthest is the center of it’s universe. So let’s start by using that as your galactic center and use whats local to get best perspective of whats happening else where. Until it’s proven that it’s not the same everywhere we must assume that it is. Now maybe the universe is expanding or maybe it’s an optical illusion that’s created by momentum. If it is expanding then it is being fed and if it’s being fed then from where. Lots to discover and lots to debate I love reading and writing about it and love all the comments. Merry Christmas to all
Remember it’s ok to be wrong that’s how science is supposed to work. I believe all the answers lye right in the milkyway galaxie and we should concentrate most of the work in our galaxie it’s close lol. Blacksphere’s hold the magic let’s work on them. Everything we know started from the creation of the blacksphere at the heart of our galaxie. I understand that it’s easier to observe other blacksphere’s at distance and that’s fine but I think all the answers are there.
This is what people don’t understand about gravity: (From Physicist Bill Unruh) ‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place… “ arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993
So, as I understand this, the vacuum=Time=SUBSTANCE and CAUSE=difference in rate of Time.. This is the metaphysical basis for all of physics.
… if Albert had a pick that would have helped, but just a hammer, bad, bad, … day for physics…
… Gravity is bit different than other forces, we know for that, and outcome might be the same, however the things in play might be important, too…
My Leonine Lecturer,
I Thank You for your interest and the depth of your reply. I must confess I will be spending some time studying the concepts you have introduced. (And here I was, clearing room on my bookshelf for a “Nobel” :).
If you can abide a term in remedial physics; I was taught that space is deformed by mass, therefore, an object will ‘fall’ toward a larger mass due to it’s greater deformation. Hence gravity is simply a term we use to describe the phenomena of said deformed space. But if this is correct, what are gravitons ? Why the need for a unique particle?
… and what would be the resonant frequency of the space time, it is a thing, or not a thing…
… the way space time is explained to have some properties it more looks like a some pseudo science thingy..
… The angle is important, too. It provides different perspective, but that is just a chess player’s trick that work in many things…
and entropy of back ticking one…
An object falling in a gravitational field is falling toward a place where time is slower. Since the speed of light in m/s should remain constant during the fall, to the longer seconds should also correspond longer meters. In other words, the object falls into a larger “space”, which is dispersion, the hallmark feature of entropy???
… the Gravity… an odd cookie, though…
… It seems to be more different that other “forces”, there is a spot for a graviton in the string theory, but that doesn’t mean that it is just like that.
There are some other ways to explain the gravity, and it is good to consider all of them and look for the one that covers most of the known issues, without exceptions, and it needs to have all: who, what, when, where, why and how right, and it needs to emerge from something, or …
… Now I think about one that will explain it like a giant see of HB, and tide is a gravity…
We already realize that our classical concept of gravity, and our quantum understanding of the force, are not currently compatible. Maybe, just maybe we don’t understand gravity as well as we might expect and should start with our lack of understanding the force rather than invent invisible entities to explain what we don’t understand. Isn’t that part of what separates science and religion?
I will just say this if gravity actually exists the effects would be the same on a pebble or the moon there would be absolutely no difference. It’s the actions of the object that determines the pull not gravity itself. It’s the only way for gravity to exist the only way.
There’s been a lot of stuff happening in the universe over the course of billions of years and all the destruction has to leave a trace or the information that these events have taken place. I believe that dark matter may exist but it’s the information from billions of years of destruction. Something has to be left over from all that and I believe that’s what you call dark matter. Like a fire has smoke well when stars die they leave evidence of the existence and it’s called dark matter. Same as blacksphere’s when their created something has to be left over from such an event and it’s dark matter. Should think about that. Whatever isn’t used up after events like that will tend to stick around.
Once your done gathering the mass info post it please and we can see what’s next.
but every galaxy having a constant velocity across it is very unbelievable. And I guess MOND cannot prove it
Surely there is matter beyond the visible matter beyond the point where light would reach us, still exerting a pull
Here is a paper using general relativity to determine what galactic rotation curves should look like for a disc galaxy and concludes that extra mass isn’t required.
Congratulations to bòth the groups of scientists fòr dèdcribing the
relative motion of gaĺaxies unanimously approching a good approximatin to real resùlt in terms òf ròtation.Thanks for ŕèplacìng dark matþer/energy to observations.Ño dìspute present among scientist groups except to share credit in òwn favòur.
Congratulations to bòth the groups of scientists fòr dèdcribing the
relative motion of gaĺaxies unanimously approching a good approximatin to real resùlt in terms òf ròtation.Thanks for ŕèplacìng dark matþer/energy to observations.Ño dìspute present among scientist groups except to share credit in òwn favòur.Sole fark matter scientists can proceed in own path to sèt up simìllar examples.
Congratulations to bòth the groups of scientists fòr dèdcribing the
relative motion of gaĺaxies unanimously approching a good approximatin to real resùlt in terms òf ròtation.Thanks for ŕèplacìng dark matþer/energy to observations.Ño dìspute present among scientist groups except to share credit in òwn favòur.Sole fark matter scientists can proceed in own path to sèt up simìllar examples.Dark matter/energy has eqùeal emphasis