• Home
  • Articles
  • Bio
  • Law

Cervantes

News, Law, Politics, Science, Health, Literature…

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Five Best Books That Evoke Time and Place
Will E.T. Look Like Us? »

Tweak Gravity: What If There Is No Dark Matter?

November 6, 2009 by ab

Modifications to the theory of gravity could account for observational discrepancies, but not without introducing other complications.

Theorists and observational astronomers are hot on the trail of dark matter, the invisible material thought to account for puzzling mass disparities in large-scale astronomical structures. For instance, galaxies and galactic clusters behave as if they were far more massive than would be expected if they comprised only atoms and molecules, spinning faster than their observable mass would explain. What is more, the very presence of assemblages such as our Milky Way Galaxy speaks to the influence of more mass than we can see. If the mass of the universe were confined to atoms, the clumping of matter that allowed galaxies to take shape would never have transpired.

Dark matter was theorized into existence to account for the missing mass. The prevailing view holds that dark matter contributes five times as much to the mass of the universe as ordinary matter does.

But some researchers have taken to approaching the problem from the other direction: What if the discrepancy arises from a flaw in our theory of gravity rather than from some provider of mass that we cannot see? In the 1980s physicist Mordehai Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, proposed a modification to Newtonian dynamics that would explain many of the observational discrepancies without requiring significant mass to be hidden away in dark matter. But it fell short of describing all celestial objects, and to incorporate the full span of gravitational interactions, a modification to Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is needed.

A review article in the November 6 Science checks in on the status of these modified-gravity theories, including a proposal put forth by physicist Jacob Bekenstein of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2004. Pedro Ferreira, a University of Oxford cosmologist and one of the review paper’s co-authors, says that there is good news and bad news for proponents of such models.

The bad news is that in order for modified versions of general relativity to work, some sort of unseen—or “dark”—presence must be in play, which in some cases can look a lot like dark matter. “If you try and build a consistent, relativistic theory that gives you modified Newtonian dynamics, you have no choice but to introduce extra stuff,” Ferreira says. “I don’t think it will be described by particles, in the way that dark matter is described—it may be described in a more wavelike form or a more fieldlike form.”

In other words, a theory of gravity can do away with dark matter but cannot describe the universe simply as the product of a tweaked Einsteinian gravity acting on the mass we can see. “The old paradigm where all you were doing was modifying gravity simply doesn’t hold,” Ferreira says. “You modify gravity, but through the backdoor you introduce extra fields, which means that the distinction between dark matter and modified gravity isn’t as clear as people thought before.”

The good news? According to Ferreira, “all is not lost.” Observational campaigns now in the works, such as the Joint Dark Energy Mission planned by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy as well as an international radio telescope project known as Square Kilometer Array, should allow astronomers and cosmologists to test competing worldviews in the next decade or so.

By cross-correlating large-scale surveys of galaxies and observations of how galaxies distort background light in a relativistic process known as weak lensing, Ferreira says, the true nature of mass and the forces acting on it can be tested. “Whether gravity is modified or not will greatly affect the result,” he predicts.

Although Ferreira works on theories of modified gravity, he is careful to note that the new paper does not advocate for those theories’ correctness over the prevailing model. In his personal view, Ferreira says, “by far the simplest proposal is normal gravity plus dark matter.”

John Matson, Scientific American

__________

Full article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-modified-gravity&sc=physics_20091106

About these ads

Like this:

Like Loading...

Posted in Physical sciences |

  • Recent Posts

    • Poem of the week: Autumn at Taos by DH Lawrence
    • Teaching Good Sex
    • Neutrino experiment repeat at Cern finds same result
    • This Is a … Oh, Never Mind
    • When Heaven Freezes Over
    • Into Thin Air
    • Poem of the week: Trenches: St Eloi by TE Hulme
    • Ten of the best sentences as titles
    • Poem of the week: Square One by Roddy Lumsden
    • Readmill Networks Lonely Bookworms
    • Salt of the Earth
    • ‘Berlusconi Is a Joke, Behind Him Is a Void’
    • Dutch Scientists Drive Single-Molecule Car
    • Poem of the week: Stone by Janet Simon
    • Poem of the week: Tiny Pieces by Billy Mills
  • Pages

    • Articles
      • Entertainment
        • - Pearls Before Breakfast
      • Newspapers
        • - How to read a column
      • Photo Galleries
      • Poetry
      • Strange but True
      • This Day in History
    • Bio
    • Law
      • - Constitutional Law
        • - The Queen becomes a kingmaker if no party is overall winner
      • - Contracts
      • - Criminal law
      • - Criminal procedure
      • - Evidence
      • - International law
        • - The Many Sources Governing Warfare
        • - The Nuremberg Judgment
      • - Legal dictionary
        • - Common law in French
        • - Parliament
      • - London Times
        • - One hundred cases that changed Britain
        • - Questions that have changed the course of criminal and civil trials
        • - Ten amazing courtroom scenes
        • - Ten literary classics
        • - The 10 most shocking jury indiscretions
        • - The Queen’s Privy Council
        • - The weirdest legal cases
        • - The weirdest legal cases of 2008
        • - The world’s strangest laws
      • - Others
        • - ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2007)
        • - ABA Journal Blawg 100 (2008)
        • - Cracking the Spine of Libel
        • - Decline is a choice
        • - Defending (some) sex offenders
        • - Fatwa Overload
        • - Free to Offend
        • - How to Build a Better Law Blog
        • - Let’s kill all the lawyers (Shakespeare)
        • - Mortimer Rests His Case
        • - Politics and the English Language (George Orwell)
        • - The Potato and the Law
        • - The Trouble with Military Tribunals
        • - Tips for Writing a Successful Legal Blog
        • - What’s a Liberal Justice Now?
        • - Why People Believe in Conspiracies
      • - Property
      • - Torts
      • - Trusts and estates
  • Categories

    • Animals
    • Arts
    • Arts and Entertainment
    • Biological sciences
    • Birds of America
    • Computers
    • Conflicts and wars
    • Economy and business
    • Editorials and opinion
    • Energy and Environment
    • Entertainment
    • Entertainment Today
    • French
    • German
    • Health
    • History
    • Human rights
    • Italian
    • Language
    • Law
    • Literature
    • Living
    • Mathematics
    • Media
    • Natural sciences
    • Notable and quotable
    • On Language
    • Other
    • Pepper and salt
    • Photo galleries
    • Physical sciences
    • Poetry
    • Politics
    • Popular culture
    • Practical advice
    • Religion
    • Social sciences
    • Space
    • Spanish
    • Strange but true
    • Summer Thrillers
    • Supreme Court decisions
    • The Ink Tank
    • The Week ahead
    • The Word
    • This day in history
    • Today's Papers
    • Travel and Transportation
    • Uncommon knowledge
    • Weird cases

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: MistyLook by WPThemes.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Powered by WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: