Was Einstein wrong?
Discussion
New map of dark matter suggests he might be and is puzzling scientists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-572...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-572...
mmm-five said:
Not wrong, just right with the available data at the time 
This. I am alternately amused and appalled by the use of terms like 'the science' these days, as if the entire mass of scientific explanation is internally consistent. Theories to explain scientific phenomena are often described as place markers a idea which covers all the know facts until it can be replaced with something better or more refined based on more or better informed research.
Scientific research is (or should be) a dynamic process whereby existing theories are tested or challenged in respect of their validity, especially when new data becomes available.
They seem to think there is a problem because it’s 1 or 1.5% out vs the projection.
So measurement error of current data, or projection error based on model, or original measured data.
There is no mention of how robust all this side of things is, and if it could cover the issues raised.
It feels a bit click baity to me.
You can’t have this kind of article without going into enough depth to at least cover a basic readers obvious first queries.
So measurement error of current data, or projection error based on model, or original measured data.
There is no mention of how robust all this side of things is, and if it could cover the issues raised.
It feels a bit click baity to me.
You can’t have this kind of article without going into enough depth to at least cover a basic readers obvious first queries.
skeeterm5 said:
Given it is incredibly hard to actually detect, let alone accurately measure, dark matter then my money is on experimental error and Einstein being proven correct.
Given it has not been directly observed yet it is more of a hypothetical material being used to explain observed effects. Similarly dark energy. I take them in the same terms as The Dark Ages is about the lack of information not what a description of what life was like. Mr Whippy said:
If I’m reading this correctly, there is a deviation from the simulated distribution of today’s dark matter using CBR reference from just post big bang/ big expansion, and today’s dark matter using presently measured data.
So the simulation could just be wrong?
Well, that's basically it.So the simulation could just be wrong?
The CMBR has fluctuations measurable, which are believed to be the remanants of quantum fluctuations in the early universe. By current understanding of cosmology, these fluctuations everntually develop into gaps and clusters of matter in the current universe.
The issue is that measurements of matter density, incuding dark matter, show that it is too smooth compared to the predictions of the simulation of the major theory of big bang cosmology - Lambda-cold dark matter
So, yes, the best model of the physics (L-CDM) as programmed into the simulations might, in some way, be wrong.
This discrepancy between dark matter surveys via weak gravitational lensing and other methods (CMBR, Baryon acoustic oscillation and supernova surveys), has been fairly consistent and has been known about for a couple of years.
The discrepancy has never been large enough to be considered "statistically significant" - and the current study doesn't change that. However, even though the discrepancy has been known for some time, the multiple different experiments using different data sources and methods mean that simple explanations like simple experimental error or calculations errors don't currently seem likely candidates for the discrepancy (if indeed, it really is a discrepancy, as it is still, just, within the range of measurment error).
For this reason, some theoretical physicists have been looking at other theories of big bang cosmology which better fit all the experimental data. For example, one theory competing with LCDM allows dark matter to decay (with an extremely long half life), whereas in LCDM, dark matter is eternal - and this model potentially gives a better fit to some of the older data than does LCDM.
HighwayToHull said:
digimeistter said:
Well if he is, could faster than light travel be possible?
I certainly hope he is or we're going nowhere, not even in our own galaxy!Einion Yrth said:
HighwayToHull said:
digimeistter said:
Well if he is, could faster than light travel be possible?
I certainly hope he is or we're going nowhere, not even in our own galaxy!you're talking about time I guess
Mr Whippy said:
They seem to think there is a problem because it’s 1 or 1.5% out vs the projection.
So measurement error of current data, or projection error based on model, or original measured data.
There is no mention of how robust all this side of things is, and if it could cover the issues raised.
It feels a bit click baity to me.
You can’t have this kind of article without going into enough depth to at least cover a basic readers obvious first queries.
Article I read was so bad that it talked of dark matter and dark energy as if they were the same.So measurement error of current data, or projection error based on model, or original measured data.
There is no mention of how robust all this side of things is, and if it could cover the issues raised.
It feels a bit click baity to me.
You can’t have this kind of article without going into enough depth to at least cover a basic readers obvious first queries.
cymtriks said:
No mention of MIHSC yet?
MIHSC does not rely on mysterious substances that can't be detected but absolutely definitely exist in exactly the right amounts everywhere to make your pet theory work.
The blogg on MIHSC is Physics from the edge which makes interesting reading.
Dr.. McCulloch tends to call it Quantised Inertia these days, easier to say, and more memorable. I like his stuff, but, well some of what falls out of the maths could be considered extraordinary, so the evidence level required is a consequently high bar; which I feel he has yet to reach. Having said that his criticism of the Dark Matter hypothesis is refreshing in any event. Oh, the blog's been renamed as "Physics with an edge" BTW.MIHSC does not rely on mysterious substances that can't be detected but absolutely definitely exist in exactly the right amounts everywhere to make your pet theory work.
The blogg on MIHSC is Physics from the edge which makes interesting reading.
Edited by Einion Yrth on Thursday 1st July 20:32
Thanks for that. It'll take me years to read his book - and I probably won't understand it anyway. But I do like the idea that there is a more elegant theory than "Dark Matter" or the cosmological constant. Dark Matter has always felt (I know, a feeling is meaningless in science, but you understand what I am trying to say) a bit like "Luminiferous Ether".
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff