Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cosmology: Crisis of the month – Gravitation

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Cleaning out the In box, I noticed “Study Plunges Standard Theory of Cosmology Into Crisis” (ScienceDaily (May 5, 2009), in which we learn:

“The only solution would be to reject Newtońs classical theory of gravitation,” says Pavel Kroupa. “We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter.” Such approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in Europe, too.

It would not be the first time that Newton’s theory of gravitation had to be modified over the past hundred years. This became necessary in three special cases: when high velocities are involved (through the Special Theory of Relativity), in the proximity of large masses (through the theory of General Relativity), and on sub-atomic scales (through quantum mechanics). The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a “modified Newton dynamic” must be adopted. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories.

Astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen declares: “The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite.”

Well, this is a nice change from speculation.

See also: “Time for a New Theory of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Challenge Newtonian Model” (ScienceDaily, Apr. 23, 2009) where some of the same cast of characters note e this problem:

The team of scientists looked at the distribution of these satellite dwarf galaxies and discovered they were not where they should be. “There is something odd about their distribution”, explains Professor Kroupa. “They should be uniformly arranged around the Milky Way, but this is not what we found.” The astronomers discovered that the eleven brightest of the dwarf galaxies lie more or less in the same plane – in a kind of disk shape – and that they revolve in the same direction around the Milky Way (in the same way as planets in the Solar System revolve around the Sun).

Professor Kroupa and the other physicists believe that this can only be explained if today’s satellite galaxies were created by ancient collisions between young galaxies. Team member and former colleague Dr Manuel Metz, now at the Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft- and Raumfahrt, also worked on the study. “Fragments from early collisions can form the revolving dwarf galaxies we see today” comments Dr Metz. But he adds that this introduces a paradox. “Calculations suggest that the dwarf satellites cannot contain any dark matter if they were created in this way. But this directly contradicts other evidence. Unless the dark matter is present, the stars in the galaxies are moving around much faster than predicted by Newton’s standard theory of gravitation.”

Most interesting, but I’m not clear on what the “crisis” is.

Oh never mind. By fall, a different crisis.

Comments
Of course, dark matter and dark energy are just a pile voodoo science. It is the sort of BS that physicists conjure up whenever one of their most idolized theories (Einstein's general theory of relativity), is squarely and mercilessly falsified. Of course, when push comes to shove, they would rather blame it on long gone Sir Isaac rather than admit to the world that Einstein was dead wrong. And God forbid anybody should mention that everything else in cosmology (black holes, Big Bang, accelerating expansion, etc.) is automatically suspect and should be jettisoned with the rest of the hogwash. What a marvelous house of cards these these savvy gentlefolk are building! But how can their theories not be wrong? They have absolutely no clue as to what causes gravity. They are willfully ignorant of and uninterested in foundational issues. Relativists will even tell you with a straight face that science is not about the why of things but the how. In other words, we don't know, we don't want to know and neither should you. We tell you what's important and what to think about because we are the lords of physics. And don't you forget it. Gravity physics is not really science. It's more like everyday engineering. It's just a bunch of mathematicians adjusting coefficients, constants and equations until their theory somehow agrees with observation. It explains nothing in terms of particles, their properties and their interactions, which is what real physics should be about anyway. Science is in dire need of a Kuhnian revolution, in my opinion.Mapou
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
So this must be a slow-acting crisis, which seems to some of us like a contradiction in terms.
Yes, the journalists choice of words are quite poor in that regard, but then headlines are meant to grab attention, scientists usually couch things in more modest and provisional terms than the journalists who report on them.BillB
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Frost, Yes but gravitational lensing can be observed and, if true, what else can explain it?Jehu
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Materialists hate gravity...
That has got to be one of the strangest comments I've seen in a while.tyke
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Jehu, Dark matter is a postulate used to explain gaps within statistical models of the universe. The observations used to support it are obviously not of the dark matter itself because dark matter cannot be seen. Since dark matter is not directly observable and relies on mathematical models it is a synthetic theory. It is let to be proven whether it exists and how much of the astro-physical puzzle can be attributed to its existence- that is we don't know how much dark matter there "actually" is if any. The other possibility is that we have a fundamental misunderstanding or gravity- which is true since we cannot explain that fully wither- or that universe is not as we think it is under the modern model. As of now Dark Matter stands as the ultimate "materialism of the gaps" hypothesis.Frost122585
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Materialists hate gravity because it is a fundamental force which is not embodied in energy or matter. Electro magnetism for example is actually carried though weak electrical fields. Gravity as far as I can tell is more of a curvature of space based upon the relationship of matter, density and relative motion. I think gravity is one of those fine tuned dimensions of the universe that strongly fits into your Privileged Planet thesis.Frost122585
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
I thought dark matter had been established through observation of gravitational lensing. You know I hear about these hypothesis that are going to do away with dark matter from time to time. But let's be real. A revolution on that scale will happen in cosmology when the astrophysicists that believe in dark matter are dead. Old ideas never die, just the people that believe them.Jehu
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
I read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time (glam edition, 1996), and gathered then that gravitation does not accord well with the other three fundamental forces of nature. So this must be a slow-acting crisis, which seems to some of us like a contradiction in terms.O'Leary
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Having watched Sean Carroll's Teaching Company course on Dark Matter and Dark Energy and am currently watching Mark Whittle's Cosmology course, the crisis is that a lot of work will have to be re done. Just what, I haven't a clue but the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are weaved into everything. So I can see it is very disconcerting for them. But it is an intellectual crisis not a practical one. The same sort of crisis exists in evolution but they dare not say it. Evolution (macro evolution) is not essential to biology as dark matter and dark energy are to cosmology today so they can go on operating in the biology world as if it didn't exist. (just to clarify they do use micro evolutionary processes all the time in biology related fields) For practical purposes, the same could be said for cosmology because there doesn't seem to be anything essential to our lives today that depends on it. It is just an interesting phenomena.jerry
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
I was taught that evolution is a long gradual process that took place back in the eons of time, and we cannot observe it...Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Well, now. After being told that evolution is as certain as gravity, we now hear that gravity is not quite as well-understood as previously thought.
I don't think this piece is actually casting doubt on the existence of gravity, just that our current descriptions of it are incomplete. If they say evolution is as certain as gravity I think they mean that it is observed to exist, not that it is totally understood.BillB
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Well, now. After being told that evolution is as certain as gravity, we now hear that gravity is not quite as well-understood as previously thought.EvilSnack
July 15, 2009
July
07
Jul
15
15
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply