One of the facets of science, or good science at least, is the lack of dogma. Most statements are of the form, “To the best of our knowledge … “ They are theories. Then there are scientific principles that are more secure, called laws. So there is a theory of evolution and there is a law of gravity, for instance. But even then, the scientific process never ends. Laws are always open to scrutiny, no matter how axiomatic they may be.
Gravity is a force that acts on matter. If there was no matter, it would be difficult to detect it. Through that interaction, the nature and size of the force can be calculated. It seems to be a constant. The force of gravity is the same everywhere in the universe. The reverse is also possible. From knowing about gravity, it is possible to determine or predict the movement of matter under its influence.
There are four known forces and gravity is the weakest. Forces are believed to be effected through the action of subatomic particles, like photons that constitute electromagnetism, another one of the forces. Because a force is ultimately composed of units or quanta, it is all part of the quantum theory. Gravity is predicted to be the effect of gravitons, which have not been detected so far, so weak is the force and therefore the effort needed to detect their quanta. Gravity has other peculiarities. Since it acts over vast distances, gravitons, if they exist, are thought to be massless, meaning it could actually be impossible to detect them. The effect of gravity is felt here on earth from all the matter in the universe.
The interesting thing is that the vast expanses of matter, galaxies and gas clouds and such, in the distant universe, seems to move greater than it should through gravity. That is a problem for the theories and the laws, but not a problem for physicists and cosmologists. It is an exciting challenge to do more science. Maybe the law of gravity is flawed or has exceptions, or maybe there is something about matter we do not understand. Or maybe there is something else not known about.
A long time ago Einstein, one of the great theoretical physicists, could not match an equation to the observed results, so he patched it up with a “place holder” until more was known. Well scientists have put in a place holder that seems to cater to the discrepancy between gravity and how the matter in the universe is moving – expanding. Blackjay founder John calls it a “fudge factor” in his post “The Failure of Galactic Dynamics” at https://blackjay.net.au/the-failure-of-galactic-dynamics/
They call it dark matter, and dark energy. Remember matter and energy are the same thing really, interchangeable. No explanation of this dark stuff has been offered and nothing of the sort has been detected. Importantly, not everyone agrees with the concept because with it, it may be necessary to modify the law of gravity. That would mean it is not a fixed and immutable law after all. And that would be messy for Einstein, or at least for his theory.
Scientists released papers on 19 November 2024 on arXiv discussing the 4th year interim results of a 5-year research project to analyse the largest map so far of the cosmos, 6 million galaxies over an 11 billion year timeframe. Their findings support Einstein’s theory of general relativity and its description of gravity. In other words gravity is gravity is gravity, sol!
“General relativity has been very well tested at the scale of solar systems, but we also needed to test that our assumption works at much larger scales,“ says Pauline Zarrouk, a cosmologist at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) who co-led the analysis. They analysed data from DESI, the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument in Arizona.
Another group of astronomers led by McGaugh in a paper published 12 November 2024 in the Astrophysics Journal analyzing data from (JWST), the James Webb Space Telescope, say some of the oldest galaxies in our universe appear much larger and brighter than expected, suggesting they formed early and grew rapidly — potentially without the influence of dark matter. So if not, what? One alternative to the existence of dark matter and dark energy is the so called Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND, which is supported by these JWST findings.
John believes, “Cosmologists have lost the plot but maybe some new unifying theory will pop up although I doubt it. I reckon General Relativity is holding everything back. GR hasn’t come up with anything relevant since the 1920s.“
It is all up for grabs and a great time to be a cosmologist.
Big Bang Initiated Momentum may be the answer.
Thanks for the comment Jacob, I was beginning to worry that my topics are not stimulating enough.
I think the momentum initiated by the Big Bang is the problem, not the answer.
I did well with physics but stopped after 1st year uni to go into medicine, so really I am a lay person, and need to be careful.
I remember that momentum is the product of mass and velocity and that it is conserved.
If it is conserved then the product of the total mass created at the Big Bang and all the velocities of that matter should be constant over time. I’m presuming that the velocities measured are more than predicted from the amount of known matter. Hence the decision to add in some extra matter, unseen so call it dark matter. I’m not a fan of dark matter, so I am keen to see the old equations continue to work as more measurements come to light. Pun intended.
Gravity is a grave matter, and certainly stimulating enough, for me at least. As for physics, few could be more lay, as in uncomprehending, than me. I just try to think logically about it. These days there is also any number of videos on the net with food for thought. But this is an issue which has got the experts stumped.
I try to think logically about it all too.
The problem though is that there is nothing logical about subatomic particles and quantum physics. Our logic is based on our macro level experience. Our brain logic mechanism has probably evolved to be that way. For instance our brain calculates where to put our hand to catch a ball because it knows the consequences of velocity, mass, gravity and so on that makes the curved arc the ball travels in.
That is why it took so long to make progress in understanding the subatomic world. All the great historical philosophers and scientists used the same logic: Aristotle, Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Newton. It was the Diracs and the Bohrs and the Schrodingers and the Heisenbergs that put their minds into what must have seemed illogic. Even Einstein as we know refused to accept the illogic of quantum physics.
I liked your Gravity is grave.
Nice to see someone sharing my scepticism about dark matter. Any chance gavitomaganetism (see https://blackjay.net.au/challenge-to-dark-matter/) is a solution?
I remember reading your blog back then, being intrigued, but making no comments, partly because the science is beyond me. Now I’ve read it again and have a couple of comments. Firstly, I was pleased to see your appropriate use of speed versus velocity (scalar versus vector). Secondly, if in fact the mass that accumulates in a black hole reduces to a point, then the angular momentum must indeed be zero. Like a massless flywheel. That depends though on whether our knowledge of the centre of a black hole is accurate. One of the problems with general relativity equations is what happens when denominators become zero.
In the evolution of our knowledge of mechanics, no new “stuff” has needed to be invented, “fudged factored” in to use John’s expression, and which I now see he may have adopted from you. Although John is his own man and probably had the same thought. Newton simply (not so simply) thought differently about what was happening under forces, and modified Socrates (earth wind fire water). Einstein simply (not so simply) thought differently about time and space, and modified Newton. Schrodinger thought differently about the properties of matter as small as subatomic particles (seeing them as also waves) and modified Einstein. Dirac simply thought about subatomic particles as not a continuum but as quantified and modified Schrodinger. Each time existing knowledge, observations, theories were re-evaluated, and thought process twisted in novel ways, resulting in explanations for deeper and deeper measurements, of the smaller faster heavier vaster kind. No new fudge needed to be factored in.
So yes, I am not a fan of dark matter. (Sounds like yes we have no bananas.) The work I referred to in my blog shows that unlike the work you refer to in your 2017 blog, which is galactic in scale, they extended to a universal scale, and see a different result, particularly that some measurements seem to be reconsidered. It may be a measurement thing, or it may be a need to think of the existing stuff differently. The statement by McGaugh that the oldest galaxies seem to be much larger and brighter than expected, fits with your summary statement about the presumed momentum effects of gravitomagnetism, “Perhaps this rotation affects the brightness of stars within the galaxies or the red shift of their light.”
It is not necessarily the smarter minds, it is the minds that question and think and think and think.
About historical philosophers, Allan, Patanjali mentioned atoms (Sutra 40)- paramāṇu = parama + āṇu. In so-called esoteric writings, long denied or derided by modern science, there has been evidence of a different kind of knowing-by-observation. Observations which cannot be readily shared, like those in modern science can.
In the 19th century one HP Blavatsky wrote about atoms before modern science was onto it.
This kind of evidence is not obtained by mechanical means, but attested to by individual observers with specialised meditational skills.
The personal is the universal and vice-versa, but the personal can only be shared with difficulty and then only if the other (in transmission usually one other) is on the same wavelength. This, modern scientists find difficult or impossible to acknowledge. Yet, it is in the science of ancient philosophy that the answers to our modern conundrums lie, not in the philosophy of modern science. Anathema, of course, to most scientists today.
One more personal/universal observation; material manifestation, down to/up to the finest grained and most ephemeral, like quantum moments/pulses, is only possible by means of opposing forces. That should be most obvious to modern scientists, yet they reject the notion that manifestation is inherently obtained by means of opposites. Modern science has a one-track mind. Its opposite is ancient philosophy and now the twain have met, but modern science is averse to meeting it.
In my list of scientists and philosophers I almost added in names from the East, such as you have identified, but I thought the topic was esoteric enough. Maybe it is people like me doing things like that that perpetuates the lack of awareness and acceptance of the contributions from outside Europe?
There is a difference between the philosophic concept of matter being atomic, versus empirical knowledge of such a thing. I can think without any knowledge that stuff may be either continuous ad infinitum or is comprised of infinitesimally small and indivisible units. No science in that though.