These physicists like the new theory of gravitation

Dark matter was suggested as to why stars at the far edge of the galaxy could move faster than Newton’s prediction. The alternative theory of gravity may be a good explanation.

Using Newton’s laws of physics, we can accurately model the movements of the planets in the solar system. However, in the early 1970s, scientists discovered that this did not work for disk galaxies – stars at their outer edges, far from the gravitational force of all matter at their center – predicted by Newton’s theory. Moves much faster than.

As a result, physicists have suggested that an obscure substance called “dark matter” provides additional gravitational force, which causes the stars to accelerate – a theory that is widely accepted. However, in a recent review my colleagues and I suggest that widespread observations are best explained in an alternative theory of gravity called Milgromian dynamics or Mond – requiring no hidden matter. It was first proposed in 1982 by Israeli physicist Mordehai Melgram.

Moon’s first position is that when gravity becomes too weak, as it gets closer to the edge of the galaxy, it begins to behave differently from Newton’s physics. Thus, it is possible to explain why stars, planets and gases move faster than expected on the edges of more than 150 galaxies based on their visible weight. However, Mond is not alone Description This type of rotation curve, in most cases, it Predicts They.

Scientist philosophers have argued that this power of prediction makes the moon better than the standard cosmological model, which suggests that there is much darker matter in the universe than visible matter. This is because, according to this model, galaxies contain a very small amount of dark matter that depends on the details of how the galaxy formed – which we do not always know. This makes it impossible to predict how fast galaxies should rotate. But such predictions are regularly made with Mond, and so far it has been confirmed.

Imagine that we know the mass distribution of sight in a galaxy but do not yet know the speed of its rotation. In the standard cosmological model, it would only be possible to say with some confidence that the rotation speed would be between 100km / s and 300km / s outside. Mond very accurately predicts that the rotation speed should be in the range of 180-190km / s.

If later observations reveal a speed of movement at a speed of 188km / s, it is consistent with both theories – but apparently, the moon is preferred. This is a modern version of the Okam Astra – that simple solutions are better than most complex solutions, in which case we have to explain the observations with as few “free parameters” as possible. The free parameters are fixed – some numbers that we have to spend in the equation to work. But they themselves are not given by theory – there is no reason why they should have any particular value – so we must measure them by observation. One example is Newton’s theory of gravitation in the theory of gravity, G, or the amount of dark matter in galaxies in the standard cosmological model.

We introduced a concept known as “theoretical flexibility” to get the original view of the Occam razor that a theory corresponds to a wide range of data with many free parameters – making it very complex. In our review, we used this concept when examining the standard cosmological model and the moon against different astronomical observations, such as the rotation of galaxies and movements in galaxy clusters.

Each time, we gave a theoretical flexibility score between -2 and +2. A score of -2 indicates that a model makes clear, accurate predictions without looking at the data. Conversely, +2 means “everything passes” – theorists will be able to match almost any possible observation result (because there are so many free parameters). We also evaluated how well each model matched the observations, with +2 indicating better agreement and -2 reserved for observations that clearly show that the theory is wrong. Then we reduce the theoretical flexibility score from it to agree with the observations, because matching the data is good – but the ability to adapt to anything is poor.

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

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

Figure 1. Comparing the standard cosmological model with observations based on how much the data is theoretically consistent (progress from bottom to top) and how much flexibility it had in the right (from left to right). The empty circle is not counted in our evaluation, as this data was used to organize the free parameters. Reproduced from Table 3 of our review. Credits: Arxiv

Figure 2. Similar to Figure 1, but for moons with hypothetical particles that only interact through gravity are called sterile neutrinos. Note the lack of obvious errors. Reproduced from Table 4 of our review. Credits: Arxiv

It is immediately apparent that no major problem has been identified for Mond, which at least agrees with all the data (note that the following two rows indicating the error are blank in Figure 2).

Problems with dark materials

One of the most striking failures of the standard cosmological model relates to the “galaxy bar” – the rod-shaped bright regions made up of stars – that the spiral galaxy often has in its central regions (see lead photo). Bars move over time. If galaxies were placed in large halls of dark matter, their loads would slow down. However, most, if not all, of the observed galaxy loads are fast. This falsifies the standard cosmological model with the highest confidence.

Another problem is that the original models that suggest galaxies have dark matter halos make a big mistake – they assumed that dark matter particles provide gravity to the surrounding matter, but are not affected by the gravitational pull of normal matter. It simplifies the calculation, but does not reflect the reality. When this was considered in future editions it became clear that the dark matter around the galaxy Halos did not reliably explain their properties.

There are many other failures of the standard cosmological model that we have explored in our review, with Monde often being able to explain observations naturally. The reason why the standard cosmological model is so popular, however, may be the limited knowledge about computer errors or its failures, some of which have only recently been discovered. This may also be due to people’s interest in the theory of gravity which is very successful in many other areas of physics.

Mond’s great guidance on the standard cosmological model in our research led us to the conclusion that Mond is strongly pleased by existing observations. While we don’t claim that the moon is perfect, we still think it corrects the big picture – the galaxy doesn’t really have dark matter.

Written by Andrew Bannick, Post Physicist Doctoral Research Fellow of Star Physics, University of St. Andrew.

This article was first published in the conversation.

Reference: From the Galactic Bar to Hubble Pressure: Weighing the Physical Evidence of Stellar Gravity
June 27, 2022, by Andranel Banik and Hongxing Xiao Simultaneous.
DOI: 10.3390 / sym14071331