8 May 2009

You must be at least this smart to develop new theories of gravitation

| johnboy
Join the conversation
33

ANU informs us that the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, lead by Dr Helmut Jerjen, has debunked that hack, Sir Isaac Newton:

    “Our studies of satellite galaxies have revealed some astonishing phenomena,” said Dr Jerjen. “First of all, there is something wrong about their distribution. Standard Cold Dark Matter theory tells us the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we see. In fact, they all lie more or less in the same plane – they are forming some sort of disc in the sky.”

    ….

    “A possible solution to this contradiction would be to reject Newton’s classical theory of gravitation. We might live in a non-Newton universe. And if this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter. This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics and for cosmological theories,” he said. “The Stromlo Missing Satellites Survey project at ANU will perform crucial tests to verify this subtle hint nature threw at us.”

I realise I am not a Doctor of Astronomy and Astrophysics. But I’d be having another look at the newer and less tested “Standard Cold Dark Matter theory” before worrying too much about living in a non-Newton universe.

Join the conversation

33
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

ScienceDaily has more of an explanation, and fewer disparaging remarks.

Bonn, Universitaet. “Study Plunges Standard Theory Of Cosmology Into Crisis.” ScienceDaily 5 May 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/05/090505061949.htm

Nicely done Emlyn @ 21, proving my point beautifully. Did I dare to question the inviolable theory of climate change, better tell him to shutup quickly because he’s just wrong. I actually prefer Spectra’s idealism.

And in fact I didn’t question it, just an example of lack of open minded review IMHO.

farnarkler said :

Why is there such curiosity about space, planets, stars, etc??? Yes it looks pretty through a telescope, yes there might be little green men out there and yes sometimes stars explode. The $6 billion already spent on Hubble could have funded quite a few hospitals in the US.

Of course the Hubble telescope was not only funded by NASA. The European Space Agency chipped in a bit.

The technology and medicine used in the hospitals are based on knowledge derived from pure research.

farnarkler said :

Why is there such curiosity about space, planets, stars, etc???

Its a search for truth, and observation of (and research into) exotic phenomena can pay off dividends.
While its nice to be a shareholder in commercial research (_especially_ if you are a shareholder in a product that pays off big), pure research has unintended consequences in applied sciences and engineering, in that the scientific research requires better tools to have more precise and accurate observations, which in turn lead to more need for calculation, etc.

DARPANET wasn’t much more than a military research network originally, then it grew to eventually become used with US Dept of Energy, then CERN in Europe helped create the modern World Wide Web on it to facilitate research, and was still similarly academic when Australia first connected to it.
The Internet was the name of researching Out There.
The mankind-built Large Hardon Collider is an attempt to research down here on earth the things we’ve observed Out There and theorised about.

Won’t happen in our lifetime.

farnarkler said :

Is it though? Can you imagine the meltdown if we knew we were all going to die from a meteor impact. I would rather not know, look up and go “oh f…”

True, but the movie industry have already given us some really farfetched scenarios, like the sun expanding, etc.

Emlyn Ward said :

Bundybear said :

…just making the point that your definition of science is a tad idealistic. I’m not sure all theories are subjected to this ongoing process of open-minded review, so much as the “Theory of biggest bucks/popular culture/loudest yellers/pushiest media becomes the accepted and if you don’t agree shutup”. Another good example is global warming/climate change.

Yes, “global warming/climate change” is another good example of observed facts being accumulated through experiment and observation into a theory.

Amazingly, scientists do not develop their theories according to your “loudest yellers/pushiest media” methods, because those are the methods of Dogma – usually religious – to push Opinions (such as Creationism/Flat-Earthism/Climate-Denialism) which are most certainly not science-based and hold no water in the world of science.

sorry, could you repeat that in smaller and easier words to understand?
lost me at dogma.

Is it though? Can you imagine the meltdown if we knew we were all going to die from a meteor impact. I would rather not know, look up and go “oh f…”

farnarkler said :

Why is there such curiosity about space, planets, stars, etc??? Yes it looks pretty through a telescope, yes there might be little green men out there and yes sometimes stars explode. The $6 billion already spent on Hubble could have funded quite a few hospitals in the US.

we have to be able to see what is coming, but we can’t move out of the way when it hits the earth. Nice to know when it is coming, isn’t it?

Why is there such curiosity about space, planets, stars, etc??? Yes it looks pretty through a telescope, yes there might be little green men out there and yes sometimes stars explode. The $6 billion already spent on Hubble could have funded quite a few hospitals in the US.

“Be smarter than Newton before daring to tell me he might be wrong!” is a really strong appeal to authority though, Jb.
Scientists can be, and frequently are, wrong.

Darwin helped refine evolutionary thought, but science moved on to the point that we started looking at chromosomes and inheritance as well. And yet, some people still refer to things as Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (and still call it Darwinism, strangely), even though is now been refined to a point far beyond what Darwin would recognise.

Back on topic though, good on Dr Jerjen for attempting to redefine the theoretical model.
Not being an astrophysicist either, if his work gets peer review, is procedurally reproducable, and the end result of which is that Newton’s more than three centuries old theory gets another update…

Good for him.

Bundybear said :

…just making the point that your definition of science is a tad idealistic. I’m not sure all theories are subjected to this ongoing process of open-minded review, so much as the “Theory of biggest bucks/popular culture/loudest yellers/pushiest media becomes the accepted and if you don’t agree shutup”. Another good example is global warming/climate change.

Yes, “global warming/climate change” is another good example of observed facts being accumulated through experiment and observation into a theory.

Amazingly, scientists do not develop their theories according to your “loudest yellers/pushiest media” methods, because those are the methods of Dogma – usually religious – to push Opinions (such as Creationism/Flat-Earthism/Climate-Denialism) which are most certainly not science-based and hold no water in the world of science.

johnboy said :

You mis-represent me Skid.

It’s the ANU claiming existing modern science still describes a “newton universe”

To be fair, the article does state:

“It would not be the first time that Newton’s theory of gravitation has needed to be modified over the last century. It has previously happened three times; when high velocities are involved (Special Theory of Relativity), in the proximity of large masses (theory of General Relativity) and on sub-atomic scales (through quantum mechanics).”

As a layman, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

You mis-represent me Skid.

It’s the ANU claiming existing modern science still describes a “newton universe”

I am still amused that Jb is clutching to the Newton model as the be all and end all of gravitation.
Einstein broke it open and rebuilt it in 1908, giving us general relativity and somewhat vindicating the _other_ independent developer of calculus, Leibniz.
Leibniz was way ahead of his peers in saying time, space and motion were relatives instead of absolutes as Newton held dearly to, but because his system was more complicated at working out 17th century (ie:human-scale) problems, he was sidelined by history.
And Leibniz had the added benefit of not being as mad as a hatter (literally, Newton was a fantastic abuser of mercury).

But I am not saying Helmut Jerjen is the next Leibniz, as he’d have to do a lot more before he died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_von_Leibniz

anatoli said :

If he’s “wrong” about gravity too then it will be a similar deal – not wrong so much as innaccurate. The sort of innaccuracy that only matters on cosmic scales (hence not being noticed until now).

Not like putting a hotel in the wrong place.

Oh, it’s certainly idealistic – no question that any number of factors affect its implementation in real life. My point was merely that this story is simply an example of that process in action.

@#9 Spectra, Keep it light, just making the point that your definition of science is a tad idealistic. I’m not sure all theories are subjected to this ongoing process of open-minded review, so much as the “Theory of biggest bucks/popular culture/loudest yellers/pushiest media becomes the accepted and if you don’t agree shutup”. Another good example is global warming/climate change.

BerraBoy68 said :

who he happily sent here to be nailed to a stick.

That’s two sticks, heretic.

HOLY WAR!!!

I often wonder why people think that gravity is unchanging. Just because it works consistently here (ie, our local solar system) doesn’t mean that it works this way elsewhere. We’re only testing in our own local domain.

Skidbladnir said :

As every bible-believing humanoid knows, there is no ‘gravitation’, only ‘intelligent falling’.
Skybeard says so.

LOL. But don’t ridicule my omnipotent deity of choice, Skid. The old bloke that lives in the sky loves you too. If you doubt this just ask his son, who he happily sent here to be nailed to a stick so you too can be happy floating in the sky one day.

This is no big deal.

We already know that Newton was wrong about classical mechanics – Einstein suggested that with special relativity, which was subsequently proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Newton’s theories still work at everyday speeds though, so his equations of motion are still used.

If he’s “wrong” about gravity too then it will be a similar deal – not wrong so much as innaccurate. The sort of innaccuracy that only matters on cosmic scales (hence not being noticed until now).

I think the qualifier “a possible solution” covers your concerns, Johnboy.

The part of the story headlined “astronomers observe unusual activity that may contradict Newton’s theories” is the interesting part of the story for this kind of publication. The alternative explanations, including that they may have just forgotten to clean the lenses that day are much less interesting. (Unless that one turns out to be true, of course.)

Indeed. ‘Peer review’ isn’t scientific method.

I have no idea whether you’re being sarcastic or not (or perhaps making a pun with “peer”?), I’m afraid. I was talking in the broadest possible terms – it was a comment on a story, not an essay on scientific method I was writing. Having said that, I’d consider peer review to be essentially covered by “compare observations with theory”.

Really? Classic example being Theory of Evolution I guess?

Yes. I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.

Clown Killer10:42 am 08 May 09

Remembering of course that the term ‘theory’ describes an explanation for a suite of observed facts.

Really? Classic example being Theory of Evolution I guess?

I would have thought that they was a classic example. Has someone disproved it recently?

As every bible-believing humanoid knows, there is no ‘gravitation’, only ‘intelligent falling’.
Skybeard says so.

That’s what science is all about: develop theory, compare observations with theory, modify theory, rinse, repeat.

Indeed. ‘Peer review’ isn’t scientific method.

“No scientific theory should be held up as unquestionable

That’s what science is all about: develop theory, compare observations with theory, modify theory, rinse, repeat.”

Really? Classic example being Theory of Evolution I guess?

johnboy said :

… peer … great distance away …

Perhaps you would also get your eyes checked, or use better glasses.

Agreed spectra,

But when trying to peer at things a great distance away and seeing them behave in unexpected ways my first reaction would be to wonder what I wasn’t seeing.

I was lucky enough to have Dr Jerjen as an astrophysics lecturer while I was at ANU – very bright fellow.

The problem with astrophysics at the moment is that there’s a bunch of stuff being observed that isn’t adequately explained by any current theory – this particular case is just one example. The cold dark matter theory has its own pretty significant questions – most notably “what the hell is it and why does it seem to have no observable effect beyond the gravitational one?”. No scientific theory should be held up as unquestionable – indeed, Newton’s fundamental stuff has long been known to not hold when you’re dealing with relativistic speeds. That’s not to say that any heed should be paid to crackpots who start off their arguments with “Einstein was wrong!”, but nor should we ignore the possibility of needing to modify long-held theories just because they were developed by someone really really smart. That’s what science is all about: develop theory, compare observations with theory, modify theory, rinse, repeat.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.