Conclusive Evidence for Modified Gravity
scitechdaily.com
scitechdaily.com
Discussed a week ago:
It's certainly not conclusive, but it notes that more data should become available soon, so time will tell.
This paper claims they have filtered out more problematic data and used more data. I think more data will become available over the next few years too.
So it's an interesting result that should be taken seriously, but we should wait for more studies before concluding relativity needs modification, IMHO.
Edit: here is a discussion about these results by cosmologists:
https://tritonstation.com/2023/05/19/commentary-on-wide-bina...
These results are extremely easy to replicate, though. We should know soon enough.
I've studied physics but working in a different field now, just following the news and some science podcasts.
The study was carried out by Kyu-Hyun Chae, professor of physics and astronomy at Sejong University in Seoul, and it used up to 26,500 wide binaries within 650 light years (LY), observed by the European Space Agency’s Gaia space telescope.
“It seems impossible that a conspiracy or unknown systematic can cause these acceleration-dependent breakdowns of the standard gravity in agreement with AQUAL. I have examined all possible systematics as described in the rather long paper. The results are genuine. I foresee that the results will be confirmed and refined with better and larger data in the future. I have also released all my codes for the sake of transparency and to serve any interested researchers.”
This is an interesting physics observation and interpretation for many:
* are the predictions against the data correct,
* does the data deviate from the predictions as claimed,
* If the deviations are real, is it because Newton|Einstein predictions break down in these circumstances, OR
* are there "dark forces" at work here
Could be true, could all be a big misunderstanding/mistake. Time will tell as more people pour over the result.
Think hard and ask yourself why these two cases are different in the eyes of STEM practitioners.
A good starting point is the LK99 observations and claims.
Were these made by the same team or two very different teams?
Were thousands of examples provided in the public domain, or were the LK99 claims based on a limited number of closed experiments.
Exciting if true, but slightly a bummer that I feel hesitant to instantly be like “wao cool I beeleev” because recent academia news.
Bottom line: Is there probable cause here that dark matter doesn't exist?