Slashdot Mirror
Einstein's Theory Improved?
skaet writes to tell us that A Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews claims to have fine-tuned Einstein's theory of gravity. Dr Hong Sheng Zhao has created a 'simple' theory which could "solve a dark mystery that has baffled astrophysicists for three-quarters of a century." This new law seeks to discover whether Einstein's theory was correct and if dark matter actually exists.
Even if that is the worst graphic accompanying a well-written, intelligent article I've seen in my lifetime.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Would people please stop using the word "Law" when referring to scientific theories. It confuses the creationists.
I'm sure that there are lots of people that are far more clued up on this than I am that can find holes in what I am about to say but I always felt like dark matter was a bit of a fudge because we don't understand what is happening.
My problem with dark matter is that it's almost as difficult to believe in as God. The only real proof we have is that the universe doesn't appear to move correctly without it. If that's as good as we can do then we might as well say God (or the FSM) is holding the universe together. To my mind it is a big leap from "the universe isn't moving as we expect" to "90% of the universe is made of something we can't see". Surely if the universe was full of this stuff we would be able to detect it because it would block radiation from distant galaxies - or is dark matter conveniently transparent?
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
What a clear and well-written article. And what a pleasant, unassuming statement from Dr Zhao:
"A non-Newtonian gravity theory is now fully specified on all scales by a smooth continuous function. It is ready for fellow scientists to falsify. It is time to keep an open mind for new fields predicted in our formula while we continue our search for Dark Matter particles."
Even if the theory turns out not to stand up, words like this take us back to what makes science interesting and important. That "falsify" is worlds away from the publicity hounds and egomaniacs who so often represent science to the lay reader.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
My problem with dark matter is that it's almost as difficult to believe in as God. The only real proof we have is that the universe doesn't appear to move correctly without it..... or is dark matter conveniently transparent
I have to disagree with that, I have no problem believing in the existance of dark matter. In fact I don't have to 'believe' in the existence of dark matter at all, I found some between my toes this morning and it was most certainly not transparent.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Unfortunately, like Cambridge, St. Andrews has suffered from negative publicity as a result of its taking occasional pupils from failing schools and admitting them with A level scores which would not normally allow a student to be admitted. But at least it meant that some of the Windsors got access to higher education, so perhaps the policy is defensible.
Anyway, I'm very pleased that the astrophysics tradition is continuing. But I'm still left with a question: Why are the nicest British Universities (Cambridge, Durham, St Andrews) in such bloody cold places?
Pining for the fjords
Not necessarily, but God's orders to the Israelites when they invaded the Promised Land went far, far beyond the killing of enemy soldiers. God wanted everyone killed - although ISTR that on one occasion he relented a little and allowed the Israeli troops to take some of the young women of the cities they were destroying for themselves. For the Lord is a merciful god.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
f you check the equations, you'll find that light from a star causes its gravitational field to fall off as 1/r, whereas its mass causes it to fall off as 1/r^2.
Where on Earth you found that light has so much gravitational field? And why would be constant: shouldn't it vary with the luminosity of the star (which goes like mass^4, so it's highly nonlinear)??
Galaxy spanning in fact.
Ah, I see. You are off by four orders of magnitude. Come back when your astronomy is a little better.
It was Kepler who realised that ellipses could be the correct model for orbits, and even there, to try and keep the Church happy, he tried to fit the major and minor axes into the shapes of the "Platonic solids".
History suggests that the example you are quoting is the opposite of what you want to show. It is better to let scientists come up with initially ad hoc explanations because they lead to the truth. Making initial unscientific assumptions and treating them as dogma suppresses and delays progress. Scientists are ambitious and a good way to become important is to replace someone else's theory - so scientists can be relied on to do that. For every established Dark Matter theorist there are probably several PhD students who would love to annihilate Dark Matter.
The line of argument in the parent annoys me because it tries to suggest that scientists left to themselves will produce ridiculous non-explanatory theories and then cling to them forever. It's the anti-scientific agenda of the Creationists who want to discredit science. Creationists and their like want to confuse the public as to the explanatory status of different scientific theories so they can claim their snake oil is on an explanatory par with plate tectonics, quantum electrodynamics or evolutionary biology.
Pining for the fjords
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512425 The phenomena customly called Dark Matter or Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) have been argued by Bekenstein (2004) to be the consequences of a covariant scalar field, controlled by a free function (related to the MOND interpolating function) in its Lagrangian density. In the context of this relativistic MOND theory (TeVeS), we examine critically the interpolating function in the transition zone between weak and strong gravity. Bekenstein's toy model produces too gradually varying functions and fits rotation curves less well than the standard MOND interpolating function. However, the latter varies too sharply and implies an implausible external field effect (EFE). These constraints on opposite sides have not yet excluded TeVeS, but made the zone of acceptable interpolating functions narrower. An acceptable "toy" Lagrangian density function with simple analytical properties is singled out for future studies of TeVeS in galaxies. We also suggest how to extend the model to solar system dynamics and cosmology, and compare with strong lensing data (see also astro-ph/0509590).
As a side note, the "ancient language" remained very consistant for a very long time. There is very little difference between the hebrew spoken then versus now. Only when you get far enough in the past to aramaic (spelling??), you get an actual different language.
First off, I want to say a few words about dark matter. I think it's kind of irritating when people rant on about how dark matter is ad hoc fudging, etc. etc. Well, "fiddling around with the laws of gravity" isn't any better on that account. The fact of the matter is that all of theoretical physics is creating new models that fit our observations, and both dark matter and MOND fall into that category. The very existence of MOND as a theory shows that it is not easy to distinguish "matter that primarily interacts gravitationally" from "modifications to the laws of gravity". Historically, both "unseen matter" and "modifications to gravity" have been valid solutions to anomalous gravitational behavior (in the cases of Neptune's orbit and the perihelion precession of Mercury, respectively).
As it stands, dark matter models can pass many experimental tests, and they're still the way to bet. That being said, MOND is not a bad idea either. It's not as well supported by dark matter, and it has serious problems with galaxy clusters, but it can still account for a surprising amount of data (for a nonrelativistic theory!). The flaw of non-relativistic has been "corrected" by Bekenstein's TeVeS theory (the one that Zhao and Famaey's work is based on).
Unfortunately, TeVeS appears to be rather ad hoc (even compared to dark matter). Z&F's work does not appear to be much better in this regard. In addition, solar system observations appear to place serious constraints on such MOND-like theories, leading to anomalous non-inverse square forces in the outer solar system (and no, it doesn't seem to be of a form that can be attributed to the Pioneer anomaly, though the jury is still out).
The TeVeS/dark matter debate should be definitively resolved by the Planck mission, which will be capable of resolving the third acoustic peak in the the cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum. TeVeS and dark matter make very different predictions for the structure of this peak. Of course, if TeVeS fails this test, maybe some other MOND-like theory could be put forward (if the entire class of theories hasn't already been ruled out by other means, such as solar system dynamics, by then).
No, that's not what happens. Laws say what happens, theories say why and/or how it happens. Laws don't try to explain behaviour, they just state it. Hence the laws of thermodynamics are laws, while the theory of relativity is a theory and always will be.
:-)
And the law of gravity? Observations say what happens. Theories say why and/or how it happense. Laws are what we call theories we think will never be falsified, and it's probably a word that should be dropped from any kind of scientific discussion, since we all should have learned by now that even the most basic assumptions and most obvious conclusions drawn from the most irrefutable of observations have a way of requiring revision from time to time, as better observations are made (Newton couldn't look at gravitational motion, and we cannot yet see into the higher folded dimensions of string theory, assuming such in fact exist).
The "laws" of thermodynamics are as theoretical as relativity. Both have been observed, both are mathematically modelled to great precision, both make useful predictions, both are falsifiable, and no one outside of a few religious wackos expects either to be falsified. That doesn't mean they won't be.
Someday we might find conditions in which entropy in a closed system decreases (candidates for something like this include the time leading up to the big bang--if such is found to have existed--and certain theories of the internal workings of black holes, etc.). Not that I or anyone else realistically expects this (but then, who expected the anomalies that would lead to the dark matter/energy vs. non-newtonian gravity debate, either), but the "laws" of thermodynamics are as falsifiable as the theory of relativity and, as it turns out, the "law" of gravity.
Theories do have a habit of becoming "laws" when they are basically considered irrefutable. They shouldn't--we should probably refer to gravity as the theory of gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics as the theories of thermodynamics. It might stop the "big bang theory" and "theory of evolution" rhetorical nonsense we've all been subjected to by communications majors coasting through college with a "C" average only to become network anchors...and help all of us to think clearer. That having been said, I imagine my calls to refer to the laws of thermodynamics as the "theories of thermodynamics" would fall on my old physics professor's deaf ears. Most of us like keeping our language the way it is, no matter how cumbersome or confusing it becomes--but that's a rant for another day.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
A word about semetic languages like Hebrew, Arabic, and Amaharic: they have a rich infix morphology. What this means in practice is that various inflections of Hebrew words (an English example of inflection is the addition of -s to the end of a verb in the third person, for example, I say versus he says) involve swapping the vowels in a word (but the consonants stay the same).
Indeed, most verbs in Hebrew have a three consonant "root" (some have two). Depending on the tense, person, number, and gender of a verb (Hebrew verbs, unlike say, French verbs, agree with the subject's gender as well as number), the vowels in a Hebrew verb will change (and a prefix or suffix may be added as well).
All of this is just a roundabout way of saying that any word with say, a k-t-v root will have to do with, in this case, writing, whether it's katav or kotev or what have you.
This is why all semetic languages evolved writing systems where the vowels are generally not written: vowels simply don't have much semantic value in semetic languages. It may seem weird at first, but it's actually rather logical if you're exposed to it for a while.
Now, I'm not Jewish, so I don't know exactly, but I remember reading that the religious texts in fact were marked with the vowel diacritics -- that in fact, the vowel diacritics were invented for the sole purpose of reminding Rabbis how the texts should be read, as Hebrew was a dead language for a millenium or more.
Native speakers have little need for them, as it is clear from context what the vowels should be. Thnk abt t, vn n nglsh y cn ndrstnd lrght, and in English the presence or absence of vowels can actually change the root meaning of a word!
Anyone who is actually Hebrew-speaking and/or Jewish feel free to correct me. My Hebrew is very bad.
The problem is that as a result physicists really, really like very elegant theories when there's no particular reason to believe that the Universe itself has the same bias. Similarly, we like to take theories that work on scales and locations that we know and can easily interact with, and assume that they smoothly apply in the places that we can't get to know quite so easily. It's reasonable even if it isn't logical - we have to go with what we already have. It's a decision born of practicality.
In Cosmology, there's even a phrase for this: we assume homogeneity and isotropy. That is, that there's nothing special about where and when we are, and that the universe is pretty much the same (in physical laws) everywhere. The first time I heard about "dark matter," it was in the context of closure of the Universe. Physicsts really really wanted the universe to have enough mass/energy in order to be "closed," but we simply weren't finding enough matter. There was no reason to believe that the universe is closed (curvature 1.0), but it just seemed more elegant. So, they started to look for the "missing mass."
These are not logical assumptions, they're just assumptions that we have to make in order to get anywhere. Again, there's no reason that the universe will cooperate on this matter.
My own bias is to reject dark matter in favor of a revised theory of gravity, but that's just my own love of elegance - a different gravity feels more elegant than dark matter and dark energy, and in fact would hint at much more interesting cosmologies. But that's just how I am seduced by elegance...
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny