Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID isn’t so complicated afterall!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

MOST of the small satellite galaxies around the Andromeda galaxy are lined up in a single plane that slices through its spiral disc, an alignment that suggests the satellites are floating on a river of dark matter.

Seeing regularities in the midst of a huge number of other possibilities is, really, suggestive of something other than chance. Seems like scientists do it all the time. In fact, it appears easy to do. Keep reading.

Using the Hubble Space Telescope, Eva Grebel of the University of Basel in Binningen, Switzerland, and her colleagues found that nine of Andromeda’s 14 satellite galaxies lie in a relatively thin plane about 52,000 light years wide.

“It’s unlikely such a plane would arise by chance,” Grebel says, who presented the results at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Washington DC. The satellites in the plane also have similar characteristics – most are faint, low in mass, and no longer form stars.

According to Grebel, one of the more intriguing explanations for this observation is that the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations have shown that such filaments can form a cosmic “web” along which galaxies flow, and maps of the universe’s large-scale structure reveal thousands of galaxies lining up along intersecting streams. “One question is, could we see such filaments in our immediate surroundings?” says Grebel.

Two other articles on the subject of dark matter, gravity, relativity, etc:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8631&feedId=online-news_rss20

Gravity theory dispenses with dark matter

New Scientist 11:01 25 January 2006

A modified theory of gravity that incorporates quantum effects can explain a trio of puzzling astronomical observations – including the wayward motion of the Pioneer spacecraft in our solar system, new studies claim.

The work appears to rule out the need to invoke dark matter or another alternative gravity theory called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). But other experts caution it has yet to pass the most crucial test – how to account for the afterglow of the big bang.

Astronomers realised in the 1970s that the gravity of visible matter alone was not enough to prevent the fast-moving stars and gas in spiral galaxies from flying out into space. They attributed the extra pull to a mysterious substance called dark matter, which is now thought to outweigh normal matter in the universe by 6 to 1.

But researchers still do not know what dark matter actually is, and some have come up with new theories of gravity to explain the galaxy observations. MOND, for example, holds that there are two forms of gravity.

Above a certain acceleration, called a0, objects move according to the conventional form of gravity, whose effects weaken as two bodies move further apart in proportion to the square of distance. But below a0, objects are controlled by another type of gravity that fades more slowly, decreasing linearly with distance.

But critics point out that MOND cannot explain the observed masses of clusters of galaxies without invoking dark matter, in the form of almost massless, known particles called neutrinos.
Quantum fluctuations

Now, Joel Brownstein and John Moffat, researchers at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, say another modified gravity theory can account for both galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The theory, called scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG), adds quantum effects to Einstein’s theory of general relativity. As in other branches of physics, the theory says that quantum fluctuations can affect the force felt between interacting objects.

In this case, a hypothetical particle called a graviton – which mediates gravity – appears in large numbers out of the vacuum of space in regions crowded with massive objects such as stars. “It’s as if gravity is stronger” near the centres of galaxies, Brownstein told New Scientist. “Then, at a certain distance, the stars become sparse, and the gravitons don’t contribute that much.” So at larger distances, gravity returns to the behaviour described by Newton.
Pioneer 10 anomaly

Brownstein and Moffat tested the theory in several ways. They estimated that their gravitational change occurs 46,000 light years out from the centre of a large galaxy and half that distance for a small galaxy. They applied these estimates to 101 observed galaxies, and found that both their theory and MOND could account for their rotations. “The point is that neither of the two theories had any dark matter in them,” says Brownstein.

But the theories did diverge when the pair tested them against observations of 106 galaxy clusters. MOND could not reproduce the observed cluster masses but STVG accounted for more than half.

Furthermore, the team tested the theory against observations of NASA’s 34-year-old Pioneer 10 spacecraft, which appears about 400,000 kilometres away from its expected location in the outer solar system. Brownstein says the theory fits observations of the so-called Pioneer anomaly (see New Scientist feature, 13 things that do not make sense), while MOND cannot address it because Pioneer’s acceleration is above a0.
Big bang’s afterglow

“At three different distance scales, we see answers that agree with experiment,” says Brownstein. “They are claiming they can solve all the world’s problems,” agrees Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago in Illinois, US. But these experiments are “not what most cosmologists would first think of if they were going to test a new theory of gravity”.

He says any theory must also explain the development of large-scale structures in the universe, and most importantly, the afterglow of the big bang. Called the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, this afterglow was produced about 370,000 years after the big bang when the first atoms formed and has been studied in great detail by satellites, such as NASA’s WMAP probe.

“The dark matter model is not perfect, but it made a very specific prediction for the microwave background that seems to be coming true, and it fits galaxies and clusters and large-scale structure and gravitational lensing,” Carroll told New Scientist. “Nobody would be happier than me if it turned out to be modified gravity rather than dark matter, but it’s becoming harder and harder to go along with that possibility.”

Brownstein says the team is currently testing its theories with work on CMB studies.

Sorry about editing your post, PaV, but I figured it was better than creating an entirely new one and dividing the conversation.

–Patrick

Comments
A book I'd like to recommend: http://www.privilegedplanet.com/ Because it touches on some of the issues being discussed here.Bombadill
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
well, i think these are open questions in physics which people are trying to explore. nobody has the full answer right now. it might be argued that these ideas are currently `untestable', but i think it's unduly pessimistic to assume they will always remain so.physicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
ftrp11: I don’t understand what you mean by something being “brought about by mere chance” or something “exhibiting a true pattern.” The two are not exclusive of eacother. Well, this is exactly what ID is about. You might try reading some papers that Dembski has written. http://www.designinference.com/PaV
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
physicist, What you might want to add, for completeness, is that that they (cosmologists) are exploring untestable (and therefore pseudo-scientific) multiverse theories, such as the string theory landscape, because they recognize that the only alternative to a multiverse-powered anthropic principle is design. There are either lots of universes, with different constants, and we naturally are in a habitable one, or the universe was designed. Both are untestable. Therefore, to the extent that the fine-tuned CC supports multiverses, it also, just as rigorously, supports ID. See, for more details, Susskind's Sophie's Choice.David Heddle
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
Hi David I'm fairly well aware of the issues surrounding the smallness of Lambda. It is not an easy discovery to explain. As you say though, cosmology is eschewing design in trying to find an explanation of this. I certainly wouldn't regard it as evidence for ID. all the bestphysicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Sorry, comment #11 was intended for "physicist".David Heddle
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
If I'm reading this correctly, the analogy is that evolution is the equivalent of 'mere chance'. Why is this a good characterization of evolution? Isn't selection performed non-randomly? It seems to me that the way in which they explained an apparent pattern with natural, non-designed causes is very much like the way evolution explains the apparent patterns in life.Tiax
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
ftrp, Because it is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than expected, but yet it's not zero. If it were zero, or a little bigger, there would be no life. Cosmology, though eschewing design, is heading into the land of multiple universes to address this incredible fine tuning.David Heddle
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
ftrp i basically agree with you but there can be a distinction between dim-ness (conventional matter sources which our sensitivity isn't good enough to detect) and dark-ness (matter which interacts very weakly or not at all with photons). however, i agree from the observational POV people have thought about both possibilities. anyway, neither possibility is very mysterious. David Heddle---agree with you that MJ's comment makes little sense. why do you think the cosmological constant is important evidence for ID?physicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
MJ wrote: “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” are band-aids for the fact that the ToR breaks down the farther we get out into the galaxy. That comment makes no sense on many levels. First of all, ToR does not break down the further we get out in the galaxy. (ACtually we are far out in the galaxy, if you mean distance from the galactic center.) Secondly, these are quantities that span the universe, not just our galaxy. And, most perplexing of all, if my assumption that you are pro-ID is correct, is that dark energy, aka the cosmological constant, is currently ID's premier piece of evidence.David Heddle
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Dark matter is just whatever matter in the universe that is not light emitting. From the viewpoint of the nearest star Earth is dark matter until at that local has equipment sensitive enough to detect it. Any gas in the universe not illuminated by nearby stars is also dar matter. Whether dark matter truly exists or not is not at all in doubt. The only problem is that for current theories to work there must be so much of it that we do not have a solid guess as to what it is all comprised of.ftrp11
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
PaV I don't understand what you mean by something being "brought about by mere chance" or something "exhibiting a true pattern." The two are not exclusive of eacother.ftrp11
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
oh and i'll add to that Ia supernovae evidence for dark energy/lambdaphysicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
M J Gr certainly is not the final story. but whether it breaks down in the ways you mean i'm not so sure. since you haven't really explained what you mean it's difficult to know, but i'd be interested in what theory you know that consistently explains galactic rotation curves, spectrum of primordial fluctuations in CMB etc without dark matterphysicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are band-aids for the fact that the ToR breaks down the farther we get out into the galaxy.M J
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
PaV "It’s sort of like an ‘Unmoved Mover’: we don’t see it; can’t detect; don’t know its nature; yet we can detect its effects in our world." I think you overstate the case against dark matter as `real' physics here. there is quite a lot of evidence for dark matter from astronomical observations. i could go into it in detail. as to your specific thoughts above: whether we can `see' something just depends on the strength of its interaction with photons. there's nothing too mysterious there. as to detection, well apart from the gravitational detection in astronomical observations, I also hope we will see direct evidence for such new particles at the LHC in the next couple of years. i would wait and see before deciding that `we can't detect' it. i'm also not sure what your last comment really means. if we can detect its effects in our world, that is detection, right?physicist
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
ftrp11: You seem to miss the point. Nature obviously caused this 'plane' to exist; no one disputes that. But this was an unexpected structure. When the scientists began trying to understand it, they had to distinguish between this being an object brought about by mere chance, or that it was something exhibiting a true 'pattern' (ID is afterall about 'pattern' detection). They easily dismissed it as chance and now attribute it to 'dark matter'. Think about that: 'dark matter'. They don't know what it is; they don't even know if it really exists; yet, based on the 'pattern' they see, the attribute this planar phenomena to 'dark matter'. It's sort of like an 'Unmoved Mover': we don't see it; can't detect; don't know its nature; yet we can detect its effects in our world. Does this sound familiar at all?PaV
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
"Seeing regularities in the midst of a huge number of other possibilities is, really, suggestive of something other than chance. Seems like scientists do it all the time. In fact, it appears easy to do. Keep reading." Nature causes order and regularity all the time. Is it divine providence that hurricanes can make such tight spirals or tornadoes make perfect funnel shapes? OR when geology creates right angles in rock creating the appearence of steps? How do planets for such neat rings. Regularities are not peculiar when they are the only possible outcome given the forces and material involved..ftrp11
January 25, 2006
January
01
Jan
25
25
2006
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply