It can be easy to take hyped - up science paper as fact , especially when they imply the most esoteric conceivable ideas . But scientists are taking issue with a hype - up newfangled composition that claims it can extinguish the penury for dark matter or dingy energy in our Universe .
Observations of our Universe imply that something like 95 percent of it is make up of deep stuff . The math tell it could be explain by an inconspicuous mass called sullen subject , and energy causing the Universe ’s expansion to speed up called dark energy . Here on Earth , no one has directly detected what dark affair and dark vigour are made of , which is stimulate some worry . That includes a new , wide - shared composition proposing an alternative idea . The paper enjoin that one of the problems that is solved by the presence of dark matter and saturnine energy — the dispute between how a Galax urceolata should rotate fit in to the laws of natural philosophy and how galaxies rotate according to our observations — could instead be lick by fine-tune the mathematics scientist have developed to explicate the deportment of space and fourth dimension . Lot of scientists think that this flawed idea did n’t deserve the hype .
The paper ’s hype probably halt from how the net disseminates science news show . The hubbub began with an uncriticalpress releasefrom the University of Geneva aboutresearchfrom their scientist André Maeder . Perhaps , Maeder propose , one of the sum tenet of Albert Einstein ’s theory of world-wide relativity are untimely under sure circumstance — in large voids where there is n’t any mass . Maybe , he declare oneself , reconsidering the math govern the very fabric of the shape of place will extinguish the need for benighted issue and dark muscularity .
Eliminating the most important subject in physics with some mathematics vocalise unbelievable , so a few news sales outlet , most notablyNewsweekas well as the common suspects like theDaily MailandIFLScience , run with the report without calling extraneous sources .
If they had , they ’d likely have found out that many physicists do n’t reckon Maeder ’s thought hold water . Several , including Stanford dark energy physicist Andrei Linde and Yale drear matter physicist Priyamvada Natarajan , told Gizmodo that it was n’t deserving drop a line about ( despite the fact that it ended up in the fair honored Astrophysical Journal ) .
Most notably , science blogger and theoretic physicist Sabine Hossenfelder picked aside the paper on her web log , Backreactions . “ For those of you who but want to know whether you should bear attention to this new strain of modified gravity , the resolution is no,”she write . “ The source does not have a consistent theory . The mathematics is wrong . ”
https://gizmodo.com/thirty-three-famous-physicists-sign-angry-letter-about-1795101181
Natarajan and physicist Jonathan McDowell from the Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics both point out that Maeder does n’t fully explain away some of the other astronomical observations bolstering dark matter , like dark topic in galax clusters bending the itinerary of light rays :
Do n’t see how that explains the Bullet Cluster though
— Jonathan McDowell ( @planet4589)November 22 , 2017
For what it ’s worth , Maeder check that his “ equations are underdetermined , ” in an email to Gizmodo respond to Hossenfelder ’s stake . He pointed out that he felt his interpretation of some cosmogeny ’s essence tenets give away interesting new results .
Re - formulating the mathematics Einstein ’s theory of general relativity is n’t such a Modern thing — lots of scientistshave consideredthat maybe we watch dark matter and/or blue vitality because something is missing , somewhere . Except no matter what come about , experimental evidencecontinues to confirmthat Einstein’stheory of ecumenical relativityis consistent , disregardless of whatscientists give at it .
Also , do you have any idea how hard we ’ve been seek to infract general relativity theory ? That matter is unkillable ! It transcend EVERY test !
— Katie Mack ( @AstroKatie)November 22 , 2017
Why did the under - developed hypothesis get so much press ? The paper , alongside its flashy headline , was promoted to a large audience via the Phys.org press waiver aggregator ( which does sometimes write original stories ) . cognitive content mills pick it up without checking whether or not it was worth write about — or write it no matter .
And also why it ’s not always a good idea to widely disseminate a press release 🙂
— Davide Castelvecchi ( @dcastelvecchi)November 26 , 2017
It ’s important to take exception the scientific position quo , of course . However , scientific advancement requires evidence , robust numerical theory , and a viscidity that scientists do not think Maeder ’s theory offers .
So , for now , dark issue and dark muscularity are both alive and well . Which is to say , we do n’t know what they are — but they ’re still mystery physicist are ferment to solve .
AstronomyPhysicsSciencetheoretical cathartic
Daily Newsletter
Get the safe tech , skill , and cultivation news program in your inbox day by day .
news program from the future , hand over to your present .
You May Also Like
