10.7 C
Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Why We Need To Dump Dark Matter For A New Gravity Theory

Must read

Video shows Virginia deputies and medical personnel appearing to pile on top of him

Video capturing some of the last moments in the life of Irvo Otieno — whose death led to murder charges against seven Virginia sheriff's...

Instagram Brings Ads to Search Results and Launches ‘Reminder Ads’

Meta is introducing two new tools to Instagram designed to open up additional advertising opportunities as the company struggles with weak advertising demand. ...

Daily Crunch: Bing allows users to generate images using ‘cutting edge DALL-E models’

To get a roundup of londonbusinessblog.com's biggest and most important stories delivered to your inbox every day at 3PM PDT, register here. Happy Tuesday Crunch,...

Why resilience is essential for founders and startups

In today's business landscape, where the speed of disruption is accelerating and the fickle nature of consumer preferences leaves little room for error, a...
Shreya Christinahttps://londonbusinessblog.com
Shreya has been with londonbusinessblog.com for 3 years, writing copy for client websites, blog posts, EDMs and other mediums to engage readers and encourage action. By collaborating with clients, our SEO manager and the wider londonbusinessblog.com team, Shreya seeks to understand an audience before creating memorable, persuasive copy.

We can model the motions of planets in the solar system quite accurately using Newton’s laws of physics. But in the early 1970s, scientists noticed that: this didn’t work for disk galaxies — stars on their outer edges, far from the gravitational pull of all matter at their center — moved much faster than Newton’s theory predicted.

This led physicists to suspect that an invisible substance called “dark matter” added gravity, causing the stars to accelerate — a theory that has become hugely popular. However, in a recent reviewmy colleagues and I suggest that observations across many scales are much better explained in an alternative gravitational theory proposed in 1982 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom, called Milgromian dynamics of Monday – no invisible matter needed.

Mond’s main postulate is that when gravity becomes very weak, as happens at the edge of galaxies, it behaves differently from Newtonian physics. In this way it is possible to to explain why stars, planets and gas in the outskirts of more than 150 galaxies rotate faster than expected based on their visible mass alone. But Mond doesn’t do it alone to explain such rotational curves, in many cases, predicts them.

Does your fintech have global ambitions?

Before you think about expanding, check out our handy checklist

Philosophers of Science have argued that this predictive power makes Mond superior to the standard cosmological model, which states that there is more dark matter in the universe than visible matter. This is because, according to this model, galaxies have a very uncertain amount of dark matter that depends on details about how the galaxy formed – which we don’t always know. This makes it impossible to predict how fast galaxies should rotate. But such predictions are routinely made with Mond, and so far they have been confirmed.

Suppose we know the distribution of visible mass in a galaxy, but not yet its rotational speed. In the standard cosmological model it could only be said with some certainty that the rotational speed at the edge will be between 100 km/s and 300 km/s. Mond makes a more definitive prediction that the rotational speed should be in the range of 180-190 km/s.

If observations later show a rotational speed of 188 km/s, then this is in line with both theories – but it is clear that Mond is preferred. This is a modern version of Occam’s razor – that the simplest solution is preferable to more complex ones, in this case that we have to explain observations with as few “free parameters” as possible. Free parameters are constants – certain numbers that we have to plug into equations to make them work. But they are not given by the theory itself – there is no reason why they should have a certain value – so we have to measure them observationally. An example is the gravitational constant G in Newton’s theory of gravity or the amount of dark matter in galaxies within the standard cosmological model.

We introduced a concept known as ‘theoretical flexibility’ to capture the underlying idea of ​​Occam’s razor that a theory with more free parameters is consistent with a wider range of data – making it more complex. In our review, we used this concept when testing the standard cosmological model and Mond against various astronomical observations, such as the rotation of galaxies and the motions within galaxy clusters.

Each time we gave a theoretical flexibility score between –2 and +2. A score of -2 indicates that a model is making a clear, accurate prediction without looking at the data. Conversely, +2 means “anything goes” – theorists would have been able to fit almost any plausible observation result (because there are so many free parameters). We also assessed how well each model matches the observations, with +2 indicating excellent agreement and -2 reserved for observations that clearly show that the theory is wrong. We then subtract the theoretical flexibility score from that for the agreement with observations, since a good match of the data is good, but being able to fit everything is bad.

A good theory would make clear predictions that are confirmed later, ideally getting a combined score of +4 in many different tests (+2 -(-2) = +4). A bad theory would get a score between 0 and -4 (-2 -(+2)= -4). Accurate predictions would fail in this case – unlikely to work with the wrong physics.

We found an average score for the standard cosmological model of -0.25 over 32 tests, while Mond achieved an average of +1.69 over 29 tests. The scores for each theory in many different tests are shown in Figures 1 and 2 below for the standard cosmological model and Mond, respectively.