In a detailed study to be published in the November 21 issue of the Monthly of the Royal Astronomical Society, the two say that the updated theory of gravity (MOG) can explain the observation of the bullet cluster - a huge cluster of galaxies whose gravitational influence is apparently greater than all the visible matter in the colliding galaxies that make it up
Two astronomers from Canada believe that there is reason to believe that dark matter, that mysterious substance that does not emit light, which most scientists believe constitutes most of the matter in the universe and which has not been directly discovered, does not exist."
The existence of dark matter is hypothesized to explain how galaxies stick together. The visible material alone in galaxies - stars, gas and dust - does not even come close to the amount sufficient to hold this whole mass together, therefore scientists have concluded that there must be something invisible at the center of every galaxy in the universe whose gravity affects the entire galaxy.
Last August, an astronomer at the University of Arizona in Tucson and his colleagues reported that a collision between two giant clusters of galaxies, 3 billion light-years away, known as the Bullet Cluster, caused a giant mass of dark matter to separate from normal matter. Many scientists claim that his observation is proof of the existence of dark matter and a heavy blow to the alternative explanations that try to get rid of the need for dark matter through updated gravity theories.
Now two astronomers from Canada - John Moffat from the University of Waterloo and his research student Joel Braunstein - say that the announcement was premature.
In a detailed study to be published in the November 21 issue of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, the two say that the updated theory of gravity (MOG) can explain the bullet cluster observation.
.
The two combined photographs of the Bullet Cluster taken by the Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer space telescopes and the Magellan Telescope in Chile, and analyzed the way the cluster bends the light from the background galaxies - an effect known as gravitational damping. The duo concluded that dark matter does not necessarily explain the result.
"Using the updated theory of gravity shows that the 'normal' material in the bullet cluster is sufficient to explain the under-observation of gravitational dusting" says Braunstein. "The continued search and analysis of merging galaxy clusters will help us determine whether the dark matter theory or the updated theory of gravity are the best explanations for the large-scale structures in the universe."
. "
For previous news about the Bullet Cluster - the biggest collisions in the universe
Comments
To Yoram Tomer and Sabdarmish Yehuda from responses 18 and 19:
As I wrote in my previous response, I'm not really a great genius in the field (or at all...) and I assume that when you read my words, you'll burst out laughing... my consolation is that you probably won't read this (after all, it's been almost two years (-; ).
I read your comments and it sounds good and logical!! (Forgive you. I'm not condescending and I don't intend to portray myself as someone who has the right to give you a guspanka. You don't need me of course) The wonderful lines of thought you come up with sound like "the simplest and most obvious solution that has been lying all this time right under our hands and just waiting for us to discover it". Although I stand (or only think I stand) on the differences between the two versions you brought up in your comments, I still see the connection between them. The time has come to look for a theory that will find the connection (as opposed to a theory that unites all the forces, and I'm actually talking about a kind of "joint" or "multiplier factor" etc.) between the various forces operating in the universe, whether they are physically related to each other or whether they stand alone on its own. (There is a point here, if you haven't noticed, that is, a sentence ends and a new one begins). -L-H-B-D-I-L-A-L-F-A-L-F-Y-H-B-D-L-W-T- (or maybe only a few tens), these forces that They "go around" in the universe/universes, reminding me of the type of connections typical of the members of an engineering column, or of more complex columns. In my opinion, the types of forces operating in the universe are related to each other in a distinctly mathematical way, at the very least, and in my opinion their general mathematics is "much simpler" (everything is relative of course...) than the terrifying calculations I was exposed to during my studies at the Technion... looking at it with an unprofessional eye (very!!!) my failures, I manage to see the simplicity, beauty and cleanliness in the equations that describe the nature of the forces known to us today, as well as the important and central theories that "spin" to them in the physics market of our time.
I do not know the state of the observations and I have no idea how much accumulated knowledge exists regarding the movement of the galaxies/clusters/stars in them, etc., so that we can build a computer simulation with it. If there is such a possibility, I would build a visualization of "members" in a distributed series, with the smallest member describing the weakest force known to us today, the second member being the next strongest force and so on (the electromagnetic force, gravity, etc... and I'm sorry I'm not precise). And now all that remains is to rack your brains and try to test this theory. Is there really such a "joint" or another mathematical connection that can jump us another step in evolution...!
Just like Dragon Ball!
(-:
Yoram Tomer from response 20:
I am in possession of "Bor and the people of Haaretz" and read your every word eagerly
And yet I thought to myself: maybe clusters colliding with each other are a normal phenomenon that occurs between star clusters arriving each from a different location? Maybe we are surrounded by other universes like ours and they spread into each other?
I'm answering your question almost XNUMX years after it was asked by you and you most likely won't see this nonsense I've scribbled. I guess scientists have a better answer.
According to the accepted theories, the universe is expanding. In other words, masses disperse towards "infinity" ie move away from each other. What is not clear to me then, is how it happens that two clusters collide and thus also produce dark matter.
I have a feeling that conflicting theories are forming that create "dark knowledge".
I carried out your suggestion to change the formulas and this appears in the article I wrote: Proposal for an exchange gravitation formula, a mental exercise (two parts). The article is here in the science website archive.
But I don't think this is the solution and in fact the thought must be to explain the movement of the galaxies without the help of gravitation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
These things are written from the thoughts of my heart, without having sufficient knowledge of physics and astrophysics, but nevertheless I would like to reflect on the pages of science with the following thoughts:
Remember Newton's laws?
Remember the concepts of ether and caloric that came to fill spaces in fiction and not in reality?
Remember Einstein's theory of relativity which did not rule out (in a good approximation) Newton's laws at speeds much smaller than the speed of light, but expanded the formulas of speed time and space, where the speed of light is a limiting speed and thus the concept of time and the equality ratio between the energy and the product of the mass and the speed of light was generalized in a square?
So what do you think about the fact that the laws of gravity apply (in a good approximation) to small masses like the solar system but do not take into account the limiting mass of the size of the universe, and we will change the gravity equations so that they are also true for large masses of galaxy clusters, equations that will explain more accurately and comprehensively the The laws of gravity, assuming that the mass of the entire universe is a limiting mass, then will the concept of dark matter disappear like the theory of the ether? The word "nonsense" will also be considered an adequate response.
to marco
The honor of Professor Yaakov Bekstein, laureate of the Israel Prize, is placed in his place, but the problem with the missing mass does not arise because of relativity problems, but because of an inequality between the centrifugal force and the gravitational force as seen in spiral galaxies.
I refer you to two articles I wrote here on the knowledge site - "On spiral galaxies, gravitation and dark mass, part A and part B.
There you will see, in my opinion, an exhaustive explanation of the problem.
http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/dark-mass-severmish-0605075/
All the best and good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
As someone who has been to several lectures by Prof. Jacob Bekenstein...
The theory of dark matter is intended to explain gaps between predictions of general relativity, when they saw that the behavior of galaxies does not correspond to the amount of matter seen in the universe (as written above).
One way to solve the problems is to invent some kind of material, and another way is to change the theory...
In general relations there is a very basic mathematical concept of "matrix" - which indicates the geometry of space. Mass tends to change the geometry, when we start from the assumption that there is a relatively simple geometry. If you play with the geometry (matrix) and complicate it a bit (a lot), you can find such a geometry that on the one hand corresponds to the laws of physics on normal scales (which we see with the eye), and on the other hand will explain the gaps that existed before on large scales (galaxies).
I'm not sure how advanced these theories are, but in a lecture I heard about two years ago (again, from Prof. Beckenstein), he was able to find an explanation (in the above manner) that saved 30% of the mass of dark matter!!! And in this way, it is apparently believed that any need for dark matter can be dispensed with.
For all those interested -
MOG is an acronym - MO DIFIED G RAVITY a theory that is similar in principle to MOND
An explanation of the subject
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305996,00.html
This is the theory that does to spacetime what quanta did to matter:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
At the beginning of next year, a new satellite will take off that may confirm the theory and thus push string theory to the dustbin 🙂
The name of the satellite is GLAST satellite
Why do I get the feeling that some weird/dark commenters have infiltrated our site?
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In practice, it can be considered that from here gliopectic oscillations on both sides of the barrier, in the cosmogalactic aspect of course, are the cause of the stereoplication of the dark matter,
Moreover, the MOD theory is not the prevailing theory since it is a circumstantial analysis of 3 dimensions with variable surface contracts,
Presumably, is it possible to establish that there is quantum movement in the cybernetic modules?... and if not, then there is an unequivocal contradiction to the DGH of my most senior colleagues in the field!!!
Elijah, I agree with you very much...
After all, it is known that they are looking for about 80 or maybe 90% of the mass that disappeared after the big bang.
According to string theory or the M theory, the vibration of the strings at low frequencies creates the most compressed physical reality observed by us with our eyes and through various telescopes and by any other physical means in our reality in the 3rd dimension. The vibration of the strings at higher frequencies creates realities (universes) in parallel dimensions 4 to 10 or 11 According to different versions of M theory.
It is known according to Planck's law that the higher the frequency of the vibration, the more energy is invested in the particle, and therefore it makes sense that everything that cannot be observed with the physical eye - and referring to the "dark matter" had the most energy invested in it, which is perhaps the explanation for the large mass that disappeared after the big bang.
The article did not need to be mentioned at all and surely and certainly took an honorable place in the Royal Journal
Not to mention deforestation and printing inks.. blah blah blah... the quality of the environment...
which should have been caused by thousands of copies as a result of the bunch of nonsense said by the two aforementioned clowns
After all, every reasonable person understands that dark matter is a substance that is not directly observed, and its existence is deduced indirectly, from its gravitational effects.
mond, Yani: MOdified Newtonian Dynamics
For those interested:
As far as I know, it means MOND.
This is a theory from 79 by the Israeli professor Mordechai Milgrom (from the Weizmann Institute), which years later was developed by another Israeli professor: Jacob Bekenstein (the one who claimed - before everyone else, including Hawking - that black holes have radiation, and for some reason the Nobel Prize committee has not addressed it to this day properly).
For more information: April 2007 issue of sky&telescope.
A. It doesn't work for me with the MOG acronym.
b We will all be happy if you enlighten us on the subject.
See you in the evening on the site.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Isn't this about quantum loop gravity which, by the way, was supposed to be confirmed or rejected this year with the help of a satellite?
Ami Bakr Good morning!
Like you, I tried to understand their explanations on the subject and also to search on Google what the MOG theory of gravity is but I couldn't find it. They referred me to MOF. But there was no explanation either.
Nevertheless, since my explanation excludes gravity as the dominant force in large bodies such as galaxies and their clusters, I imagine that their explanation would not be compatible with mine.
It is also a shame that Avi Blizovsky did not give a reference to the source.
And by the way Ami, you are of course invited to my lecture,
You and all the people of Israel.
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Can someone give the explanation itself? Chotsamza, theoretically could it be that in this case there is no dark matter in the system and therefore the behavior can be satisfied by gravity alone? As they found cold regions in the universe or empty regions in the universe - maybe there are regions without dark matter? Mr. Sabdarmish gave beautiful scientific explanations for other options that can cause the spiral-galactic motion, what explanation is used in this article and is there anything special about it or can it be used in other systems?
The lecture at the observatory in Givatayim.
I agree with them that there is no dark matter, but I do not agree with their explanation of gravity as the cause of the movement of galaxies. Other simple forces cause the motion of the galaxies.
And if anything, then this Thursday at 21.30 I'm going to give a lecture at the observatory on the topic: - Building a simple universe. Anyone who wishes is welcome. As part of the lecture, we will examine whether there is really a need for all the complication created in explaining the activity of the universe, and whether there is a need for concepts such as dark matter, dark energy, and more. The lecture does not require special knowledge.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The Israeli Astronomical Society.