A new theory of relativity, proposed by Prof. Mordechai Milgrom from the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, offers a possible solution to a long-standing mystery, along with a new and original world view, or, in fact, a universe view
The accepted method for calculating the weight, or, more precisely, the mass of a galaxy, is based on measuring the speed of the stars and the gas clouds contained in it in their orbits, and on measuring the radius of the circular orbit in which they move around the galaxy's core. In a similar way, the amount of matter present in galaxy clusters, whose building blocks are the galaxies, is also calculated, and in this way the amount of matter in individual stars is also calculated, such as "our" sun, "Sol", whose mass is calculated according to the speed of the planets in their orbits and their distance from the sun. The thing is, that with this method of weighing, or calculation, results are obtained that say that there is much more matter in the galaxies, compared to the amount of matter we see in them.
That is, the material we see in galaxies is not enough to sustain the galaxies themselves. According to the calculations based on Newton's laws of motion, if the galaxies contained only the material we see in them, the various celestial bodies contained in the galaxies would have to move away from each other and "break the partnership". In the past, it was believed that this occurrence was prevented thanks to the action of gravitational forces exerted by the components of the galaxies - the stars and the gas clouds themselves. That is, their own gravitational forces force them to stay together. But, as mentioned, in the meantime it became clear that the material we see in galaxies is not enough to exert such strong gravitational forces. Why, then, don't the galaxies break up, and why don't the stars contained in them scatter all over the universe?
The scarcity of material
The lack of answers to these questions threatens our entire perception of the universe. Physicists who seek to resolve this discrepancy between the amount of visible matter in the universe and the signs of the existence of more (or heavier) matter, are divided into two groups, which are not equal in size. The first, larger group says that there is a great deal of "dark" matter in the universe, which so far has not been seen or discovered by various detectors. On the other hand, Prof. Milgrom offers another theory, according to which there is no "dark" matter in the universe, and the reason why the universe behaves as if it is much heavier than our calculations show, is that something in our measuring and weighing methods does not correspond to reality.
At the foundation of this proposed theory is a change that Prof. Milgrom proposes to introduce in Newton's laws, which are the cornerstones of modern science. When this change is introduced, the theoretical calculations, their results and the observations match each other, and there is no need to make assumptions about the existence of "dark" exotic matter. But this is, in fact, only the first step in a journey that continues to the limits of the universe and beyond the limits of imagination.
According to the theory of special and general relativity, Newton's laws are violated in systems where the bodies move at speeds close to or equal to the speed of light, or in cases where the gravitational force of the bodies is very great (for example near a black hole), so that in order to break away from them, the body or the breaking away particle must develop a speed close to the speed of light. Quantum theory also violates Newton's laws in the world of elementary particles. But these accepted violations of Newton's laws cannot explain the galactic mass gap. To resolve this inconsistency, Prof. Milgrom proposed another change in Newton's laws of dynamics.
As in the cases of relativity and quantum theory, here too it is a question of a suspension that only exists in a known field of phenomena. The Newtonian laws of dynamics are still (very approximately) valid in the solar system domain, but they are not valid in the galaxy domain. It is known that the movement of galaxy components (stars and gas clouds) differs in many ways from the movement of the solar system bodies. For example, the orbital speed of the stars in the galaxies is greater than the orbital speed of the planets in the solar system (ten times on average). The distance of the stars from each other, their total weight and their angular momentum, are several orders of magnitude greater than the average distance between the planets, their total weight and their angular momentum. But Prof. Milgrom says that the explanation for the gap between our observations and the way the universe behaves is the difference between the relatively small accelerations of the stars in the galaxies, and the relatively large accelerations of the planets in the solar system. For example, the acceleration of our sun in its orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy is eight orders of magnitude smaller than the acceleration of the Earth around the sun.
New dynamics
According to the model proposed by Prof. Milgrom, Newton's laws of dynamics, which describe the movements of a body under gravitational forces, do not apply to a body whose acceleration is very small. The equation describing Prof. Milgrom's revised law of motion includes a new constant factor: "zero zero", which is a kind of scale for comparison, which also serves as a boundary stone. A body whose acceleration is greater than "is zero" is in the domain of the Newtonian laws of dynamics. A body whose acceleration is less than "is zero" is controlled by different, modified laws of dynamics. In other words, Prof. Milgrom's revised dynamics actually draws a new relationship between mass and acceleration.
One of the difficulties that accompanied Prof. Milgrom's theory was the fact that it referred only to relatively slow phenomena, under conditions of normal gravity. That is, she did not refer to relativistic phenomena, which include high speeds, close to the speed of light, and strong gravity, such as that occurring in black holes. Recently, Prof. Milgrom published an article in the scientific journal Physical Review, in which he proposed a general theory, which integrates the general theory of relativity with his original revised Newtonian laws of dynamics, and places them as one sequence of laws of nature. In fact, the new generalized theory also refers to phenomena that have been discovered in recent years, including the accelerated expansion of the universe that is not fully understood, which is explained, without any choice, among other things, through the existence of "dark energy".
Gravity in the field
The theory of relativity describes the universe as a kind of canvas on which various bodies are "laid" causing the curvature of the canvas. The rate of curvature caused by any body is the gravitational potential of the body's mass. The distribution of the masses in the field therefore creates depressions of varying sizes and "depths". Thus, a small body, passing by a very massive body, "falls" into the "valley" created by the massive body. In other words, the distribution of masses in the field determines the movement of bodies in the universe. According to Newton's laws, the gravitational field is described by only one gravitational potential. According to Prof. Milgrom's new theory, the field is described using two potentials, one of which is the known potential, while the other serves as a kind of "help map" for the movement of the bodies, or a kind of "shadow" or "twin" of the known potential. This "twin" potential participates in determining the normal potential, and influences it.
This can be seen in the reverse order of cause and effect: in general relativity, the gravitational field is described by the curvature of space-time, or, as physicists call it, the "metric". According to Prof. Milgrom's new theory of relativity, the gravitational field is described by two "matrices", or two parallel space-times, which influence each other. All the matter we know is found only in the universe we know, but the gravitational "metric" of the bodies in the known universe is also affected by the "metric" of the bodies in the "twin" universe.
dark energy
In the system of the proposed twin universes, the theory of relativity and the revised laws of motion proposed by Prof. Milgrom exist and integrate with each other. In this way, a complete theory is obtained that provides an explanation for the "mass gap" phenomenon in each of the "twin" universes separately, without the need to hypothesize the existence of any "dark" matter. This generalized theory is also suitable for calculating relativistic phenomena such as the bending of light radiation near very massive bodies, such as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Examining various aspects of the new theory revealed the existence of a natural connection between the new constant proposed by Prof. Milgrom, "Island Zero", and phenomena occurring in galaxies, on the one hand, and in the entire universe (such as the acceleration in the expansion of the universe resulting from what is known as "dark energy"), on the other hand Crimson.
In fact, since the sheets of the twin universes are a kind of "mirror image" of each other, there is a repulsion between matter in the known universe and matter in the "twin" universe. This phenomenon causes matter in the known universe to be located in front of empty areas in the "twin" universe. Therefore, matter in the known universe will attract to it, by the force of gravity, a known light, but will repel a "twin" light. Prof. Milgrom recently proposed ways to distinguish mutual influences between the parallel universes.
132 תגובות
I have a fundamental, essential question here:
Black holes cannot be seen directly.
So what prevents me from asserting that there is no dark matter but only a mass of black holes - much more than people think? And that they are distributed in the galaxy according to the estimated distribution of dark matter?
They say there is more mass than "what we see". Who said that there is a direct and constant relationship between visible mass and the mass of black holes around? Maybe this ratio depends on the environment which is quite random?
There is a theory that claims that our universe is actually a Roman trident that collides once every million million years with a second Roman trident - or is it the parallel universe, the twin mentioned in the article above? - Just an idea and what do you think?
ghost moon,
Maybe share with us how you come to your conclusions?
I hope you already understood just stories is not exactly the domain of this site.
Maybe if we understand your way of thinking we can take you more seriously.
Oh!
he goes on!
Noam
Antiparticles were also theoretical until their existence was proven.
I think that a more thorough study of the momentum of the photon will lead to a 'tip of the thread' regarding the question of whether the photon
There is an antiparticle, or the photon is both a particle and its own antiparticle (which seems wrong to me).
I believe that in the results of the LHC we will know more details about the theoretical particles (maybe even
observations will be received that will prove their existence).
And maybe along the way we will also discover some new particle or discover new things about the photon.
It may even turn out that the 'anti-photon' is 'something' that only interacts with the Higgs boson, and does not
with other bosons. That is, the Higgs boson and antiphoton are two 'special' particles that interact
the most basic (perhaps gravitational - and only it) and constitute a kind of 'bridge' for the interaction of the other particles among themselves in our universe (bosons and everything else), and in the parallel universe (anti-photon and the other particles that have not yet been discovered).
Maybe…
Correction / Clarification:
Michael drew my attention to particles called tachyons which according to the theory should always move at a speed faster than the speed of light.
There is no unequivocal experimental or theoretical proof of the existence or non-existence of these particles, and in fact even if they exist, it is not certain that they can be defined as actual particles.
Michael - Thank you
For all the less knowledgeable readers: Faster than light particles is science fiction for now.
There is no evidence of their existence, there is no theory that allows this, on the contrary - it goes against the theory of relativity
In response to 123
Unless they do, they will build a device (in the future) that is able to detect particles that move at a speed higher than speed
the light.
And I think it will happen (even if in many, many years) and it will be part of the technological development
In the world.
N. Zemach:
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but various hypotheses about parallel universes have been accompanying us for decades.
Besides, when we talk about a parallel universe - we are talking about a universe that you will never see (on loan - parallels do not meet). Everything you will see in the future will be associated with the same universe we live in. Maybe this will require a certain change in cosmology - like a conclusion that there were a number of large compensators in our universe, but I don't believe that will happen.
Beyond all this - our viewing range is limited by the duration of the existence of the universe more than it is limited by the power of the telescopes; We will never see objects that, in light of their propagation, did not have time to pass the way from them to us.
About three years ago or more I made this hypothesis:
The science of astronomy progressed in stages: XNUMX. At first they believed that the earth was the center of the universe.
B'. Later they believed that the sun and the planets (known then) were the entire universe and the rest of the stars had no explanation.
C. The next step was that they discovered that we are part of one galaxy and the rest are "nebulae".
D. The next step was that they discovered that the Milky Way galaxy is one of thousands and billions of galaxies, which are arranged in "families" and "clans"...
The next step will be for them to discover (or not) that our universe is one of hundreds or thousands of universes and at a later stage that the universes are also arranged in groups, etc.
...
Assumption: If at a certain stage, in a hundred years, a telescope is sent into space a thousand times stronger than Hubble, which can see a trillion light-years into space, will it see infinite space, or will it discover additional universes? My hypothesis is, if we rely on the progress of astronomy, that it will turn out that there are millions more universes.
or not……
light
According to what claim?
I generally think that the parallel universe has more matter and our universe has more antimatter.
According to the claim, then the amount of matter in the twin universe is equal to the amount of matter in our world?
Does it solve the matter problems because of the applied forces or simply because of the total mass of the two universes?
Uncle:
Good riddance.
Since you prefer to be a troll you must be happy that you got to be a troll.
And here is also the time to say hello, as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over right now!
You are free to respond as you wish, chances are I won't bother watching them anymore.
Bye!
The gentleman from response 103 (because my response 115 is still censored) says this -
Please always speak for yourself only!
It's more respectful of you!
Regarding trolls - in the spirit of Bolshevism here, anyone who disagrees with your opinion is first of all delusional, then stupid and finally a troll - between being a troll and being like you, I'd rather be a troll!
Uncle
spirit of nonsense:
It turns out that not everyone - David of Nazareth Illit did not understand yet.
On the other hand, I already spoke in another comment about the bunch of clappers.
Does he mutate and turn from just a clapper into a troll in his own right?
Uncles will say.
Silly spirit, the second part of your name suits you!
Note that already in response 63 I understood who that ghost is. I hope everyone understands this now. Father, why don't you block the troll?
Thank you Ehud for your comment (92), very interesting.
Since the universes are constructed as a universe that is 'connected' through a 'string' to a corresponding universe and to each 'string' a universe is connected,
and maintain a kind of 'network' - which consists of locations and their corresponding universes that are connected through 'strings'.
In such a situation, the corresponding universe to which information can pass (via the antiparticle) can be
A universe of the past or a universe of the future. That is, the antiparticle can be created either in the "twin universe in the past"
or 'in the twin universe in the future'.
With your permission, father, I would like to expand on my words regarding response 39
When I say that the photon reaches the speed of light in a vacuum from that critical point it undergoes annihilation
which 'launches' the anti-particle -or anti-photon- created into the twin universe and with a minimal change (because
change in frames). The same anti-particle because it is a much more energetic particle than visible and invisible light
Maintains no interaction except gravitational, in its ability to move at a speed higher than the speed of light in a vacuum
and to even be at speeds that would make it possible to go as far as moving to another dimension or a twin universe and there to be created -
In a collision in the same space with a corresponding particle - as a light particle back with a minimal change.
Machel
I see that my comments are being censored so I would like to contact you one last time
As Noam wrote in response 67:
"Well, the physicist answered him, the theory of general relativity is understood by only three people on earth (and I am one of them)."
It would be more than likely if you are not included among the 'three people' who understand some theory.
But I'm not ready for you to discredit the nickname I chose. It's a ridiculous act.
my father
Due to the fact that you censored my response, I would like to contact you please:
I didn't curse anyone and if I hurt someone then let them say, I ask that you don't censor my comments.
Freedom of expression is a candle to the feet of the leftists, you are one of them, when you 'shut your mouth' to someone,
Basically stepping on the principles you advocate.
My defense against the attacks on me should not be a problem for you.
My responses to attacks on me are not a reason to censor me and then say that I "take over the article"
or "troll".
I didn't curse anyone and I don't hurt anyone (unless they deserved it).
Leave Michael alone. And between us, postmodernism does not lead to any scientific development. You can be sure of it, you just want to upset.
incidentally,
I am not ready to continue these arguments. This leads nowhere scientifically.
You only like to argue about yourself, so you think others like to argue about themselves too
Or at least have to argue about you.
Ori
The bruises of some of the cities in Israel are also problematic.
And to someone like you I certainly wouldn't recommend it,
deal with one of them.
Ghost:
You are simply amazing!
I have nothing to say!
Ghost:
I wanted to warn you that the Spanish bruises you mentioned are quite problematic.
For your personal safety, it is not advisable to mess with you excessively.
Especially on the dangerous unitary side. Unless you speak good Spanish.
Machel
As David of Nazareth Elite wrote: "Ahhhhhhh the sin of hubris!!!"
This fits most of your comments.
It turns out that with all your knowledge you didn't contribute anything new. Besides helping to explain something known.
Did you learn everything you know to be able to help and contribute to science? What did you contribute?
It doesn't seem to me that you have contributed anything significant (if at all) to science.
So what does that say about you?
That you understood what others understood before you but got stuck in it. You did not advance and did not contribute beyond knowledge
Known.
For you to understand:
The leading people don't get stuck in the back.
Ghost:
You are disrespectful and disturbing.
Maybe stop?
You did not give an example of a case where science was promoted by a non-scientist and you will not be able to give such an example.
A doctor of physics is a scientist and in addition to that - Lizzy did not promote science at all but just made a joke.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/001505.html
You are constantly talking about things you have no idea about and using scientific terms with private meanings that you have decided to give them - meanings that have nothing to do with the true meaning.
The result is a text that no one wants to read. You should understand that. Even if you think you have wonderful ideas - no one believes you and will not invest the necessary effort to extract any meaning from your mountains of words.
Ori
According to the context, you can understand that what I wrote meant:
Theory of Everything whose acronym is TOE.
The specific theory E8 is also called this and sometimes by its full name:
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything
You keep dragging me into an argument that has nothing to do with anything.
Now I understand how Makhal feels when he argues with people of your kind.
ghost moon:
You should learn English so that you can read and understand what is written there.
TOE is not a specific theory these are acronyms of 3 words in English.
which have a generic meaning.
You don't have to try too hard to know what they are. Go to Google
these three letters TOE
Ori
The physical theory E8
Called by a different name TOE so that they don't confuse her with the lee-supra groups she uses
The theory to prove itself.
The theory is physical with the help of mathematics.
Noam
You're right, I'll correct myself:
1) It means what he actually does in life (as I understood from the articles about him). That is, the inventor does not work as a scientist. Maybe he really is a scientist.
2) I should have written: "that not only a scientist is needed to promote science". In other words, science has progressed and is progressing even without
Help from scientists. Science is like an explanation of nature, an explanation of something that exists. The scientists only explain.
The words: "The physical theory E8"
meaningless there is no such theory.
ghost moon:
By the way, the mapping of the E8 cluster is an exceptionally complex matter.
By comparison, it is much more complex than the mapping of all human genes.
It took about 10 years for 20 mathematical researchers to build.
Enter the following line into Google
AIM math: Representations of E8
Ori
The E8 physical theory is based on mathematical concepts that are also called that.
There are mistakes in my theory that I don't know yet and when I know I will correct them.
It has nothing to do with E8.
that's enough.
You are trying to drag me into a debate about E8 to prove that I am wrong in my theory (which is not related to E8).
It's ridiculous.
Noam
There is another story about Einstein,
They said he believed in God.
But they say that this story was invented by religious people.
In general there are many stories.
ghost moon,
I lost you completely.
In response 78 you gave an example of this, "that a scientist is not needed to promote science, I brought a link to an article, which is about a surfer who invented a theory"
In response 88 you wrote:
"We are not talking about a doctor of physics but a surfer with the title of professor of theoretical physics"
So I want to understand:
1) A professor's degree in theoretical physics is not defined as a scientist for you?
2) Is there or is there no need for a scientist to promote science?
questionnaire
Your question concerns the sociology of science, a field in which I am far from an expert. Nevertheless, I will try to answer and thank you if you take my words as a limited guarantee.
The basic scale for the examination of theories is the scientific experiment, this is the first tool in the world to confirm a theory. The more a theory undergoes experimental tests, the more well-founded it is considered to be. If I'm not mistaken, Popper's criterion for a scientific theory is that it lends itself to refutation. This requirement is also not always met, as evidenced by Boltzmann's theory of atoms, which at the time believed that it would not be possible to observe or measure them.
In general, the more general a theory is, the more experiments it must pass to confirm it, and thus if it passes them, it gains more respect. It is therefore desirable that a theory predict the results of possible experiments that have not yet been performed and not only be used to explain experiments that have already been performed.
A trivial requirement is mathematical consistency but there are a number of physical theories based on unproven mathematics.
Regarding your question, another requirement that is not always met is that scientific theories should fit the body of existing knowledge, meaning that two theories should not contradict each other. (This situation did not exist for many theories in the past).
For example, the theory of evolution did not fit in terms of estimating the age of the earth with the physics of that time, and indeed some time later nuclear energy was discovered in physics. In physics or science, the butterfly effect for theories usually does not exist since the separation of energy scales allows theories to be written for different objects. For example, Newton's equations can be written without knowing that the world consists of atoms. Atomic theories can be written without knowledge of the quarks, etc...
In short, almost every example I gave has an exception, so there are no definite rules for what a scientific law is, but a decent scientific theory should meet most of the rules I described.
ghost moon:
Unfortunately the facts are not true.
I suggest you read a bit about the guy. He first became a doctor in physics and then he got tired of the string trends. And again (with patience) E8 is one of the exceptions of the sporadic Lee bunch. The field is pure mathematics.
The approach Lizzie was trying to present is that a TOE (theory of everything) can be created using a pure geometric pattern as it is done in relationships. Li bunches star in particle physics because of their continuum transformation properties.
which allow displaying all interactions within a calibration field where the various conservation laws are continuously maintained.
Read the article he posted
Google the next line and go to the second line
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything PDF
Ahhhhh the sin of hubris!!!
The skeptic
I certainly don't understand everyone and I didn't say I understood everyone either.
for example
I don't understand you. I don't understand why you write nonsense and slander instead of talking about things.
If you have nothing to say, don't say anything. - I hope you at least understood that because it's not a sentence
that I invented
Ori
Read again and pay attention.
We are not talking about a doctor of physics but a surfer with the title of professor of theoretical physics.
The E8 theory belongs to the field of physics. There are other concepts called E8 that are related to mathematics.
And regarding your last paragraph:
This is what I do, I have been 'working' on my theory for a few years now, and maybe in another 40 years you will learn
Something new related to what I write here.
sympathetic,
In the same matter, there is another story, from the biographer Shach Einstein:
He says that one evening he happened upon a small town in Germany, and went into a well to drink something. One of the locals saw him and asked him who he was and what he was doing. He told them about Einstein and the Torah he developed, and that was his occupation.
The local said to him: You there in the big city think you are great sages, but you should know that here in our small town, there is an old man who developed the theory of relativity a long time ago, long before your Einstein.
Einstein's biographer was interested and asked for further explanation.
The local said to him, do you see the drunken old man sitting at the edge of a well?
Well, every night after he drinks several glasses he sighs and says "everything is relative in the world"
And that's basically what your famous professor Einstein discovered..
Holy Ghost, enough please, open your theory and go back to laughing at everyone here, okay?
No one understands you (yes, neither do I, it actually sounds to me like Uri answered you matter-of-factly, the surfer in the article you brought is a professor).
And you understand them all (let it be)…
In any case, you need to understand that you are doing nothing but digging a hole for yourself in each and every response of yours on this topic because you are so smart that no one understands...
ghost moon
Read again and pay attention. This is not a surfer, this is a doctor of physics who deals with basic physics.
with considerable years of experience.
And pay attention again to E8 you need to know math not physics.
It's good and nice to get excited about ideas that seem interesting but so that you can say something intelligent about the field
Considerable work must be invested over a considerable number of years.
Anyone can come up with ideas but without a mathematical basis these are stories! David, I would appreciate it if you could give at least one example of a person with no scientific education who made a physical scientific discovery. A lot of damage has been done by the popularization of science that makes people think they understand something that is actually much more complex.
One of the most beautiful stories in this context tells that a socialite approached Einstein at a party and asked him to explain the theory of relativity to her in a few sentences. Einstein answered her that the subject was too complex but he wanted to tell her a story about a blind friend of his. According to Einstein's story he asked his blind friend "if he wants a glass of milk?" The friend replied "I know what a cup is, but what is milk?" Einstein answered patiently "Milk is a white liquid" to which his friend replied "I know what a liquid is, but what is white?" Einstein replied "white is the color of the swan" when his blind friend asked "I know what color is, but what is a swan?" Einstein impatiently replied "a swan is a bird with a crooked neck" so his friend asked "I know what a bird is, but what is crooked?" Here, according to the story, Einstein lost his composure, grabbed the friend by the hand and twisted it "It's crooked he said!". "Oh, now I understand what milk is!" replied his friend.
Ori
First of all, you don't have to be a surfer at all to say something about E8. For this you need knowledge of physics.
Second thing, I didn't say a word about E8.
Third thing, in response 78 as an example that a scientist is not needed to promote science, I brought a link to the article
which is about a surfer who invented a theory.
I'm not surprised that it's hard for you to understand what I'm writing, and I also won't be surprised if it's hard for you to understand
Things written by others.
Noam,
The problem does not start with science which supposedly prevents recognition or study of theories
news, but in those people themselves who didn't bother to conduct experiments, to break down a phenomenon
to the factors, make measurements, make calculations and at least get to know the subject in its form
current scientific knowledge and perhaps also make predictions or set up a "working model".
There the first obstacle is brewing for him - between a person or a researcher and himself.
Of course, if he didn't do his homework, he would later have problems proving it
his words, except that it is easy to point the finger of blame at science. even if the man
He's a genius, it's not enough, even if he happens to "score a ball" it's not enough.
That's why I suggest that those who have claims that "block him", check first
Himself.
Regarding Yehuda, it would be more decent to visit him where he can
to respond.
And one last thing, that there are problems with people who come with new theories and not enough
established, does not exclude science from being eligible in other fields because there are contradictions
In the way he conducts himself, but we will leave that for another time.
ghost moon:
Relax, the surfer has a doctorate in physics and worked for quite a few years in the field of strings that he didn't really like, even though it's trendy. To be able to say something intelligent about E8 is not enough to be a surfer even if you are a professional surfer. It takes quite a lot of mathematical introductions to understand this matter even at the beginning of chapters.
I don't know on what basis you infer that I suggest that theories of uneducated people with relevant degrees should be exempt from the empirical rules of science?
I'm just saying that anyone can suggest ideas!
It may be that that one does not have the tools to express it in mathematical language and prove it empirically, but that does not mean that his idea is necessarily wrong!
On the same weight, Professor Milgrom's theory, no matter how formulated, still does not have a shred of proof! It is simply more distilled than a raw theory of "just" one.
Regarding Yehuda, did you think maybe he was biting as an act of self-defense in the face of all the attacks he receives from you and your friends? (eggs and chickens...)
Uncle
Uncle,
The scientific method (and not any other person) dictates strict rules for the inclusion of a certain theory under the wings of science. This is not opacity, nor the lack of mental flexibility, nor being bound to rigid ideas - this is a method that has proven itself to be the best and most successful for the advancement of human knowledge
The example you gave about Einstein only emphasizes your lack of understanding.
From your words, one might think that Einstein only had a "spark of genius" - but not so - Einstein developed two genius theories, formulated in precise mathematical language that meet the strict criteria of the scientific method, that stood up to endless experimental and observational verifications, and provided many testable predictions.
To correct Einstein, one must first understand well what his teachings say. In order to understand Einstein's teachings, you first need to study physics and mathematics for many years, and that is of course not enough, you also need a spark of genius.
The only rigidity I support is adherence to the rules of the scientific method.
The comparison you made between the left and peace and science again illustrates how far you are from understanding the scientific process.
In politics, (or in the working youth) everyone's opinion counts and everyone is allowed to have their say at the ballot box. The right to vote and influence has nothing to do with one's education or status.
In science, what to do, the situation is different. We don't go to elections and everyone's opinion is not considered (although of course everyone is allowed to chatter his opinion without any need for substantiation).
I do not respect people who take shortcuts, propose theories without any mathematical basis, and present themselves as great and brave innovators who fight valiantly against the scientific establishment that is closed to their genius.
Those who read how Yehuda presents himself, may think that this is really a martyr, who does not flinch in the face of the forces of darkness that want to silence him.
Yehuda's story does not meet any criteria of a scientific theory, it is not formulated in a quantitative mathematical way, it does not offer any predictions and does not offer any way to test/refute it - in short, just a story.
Moreover, Yehuda himself does not hesitate in his debates to bite, to tell jokes at your expense, to disparage scientific theories that he clearly has no understanding of, and even to cite misleading quotes for his own convenience.
Talking about Einstein, Professor Milgrom and Judas in the same breath is more than ridiculous - it's pathetic.
Noam
I disagree with your opinion that science can only progress with the help of scientists.
I know of at least one case where the inventor was not a scientist and came up with a breakthrough theory.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/surfer-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything-1911071/
A. Ben-Ner:
Milgrom's new theory does not give a mathematical description of dark matter. It vainly postulates the existence of dark matter of the Bemus type (ordinary matter found in a different coordinate in a new dimension).
In other words - in order to calculate something based on which you have to make assumptions about the location and mass of bodies in the dual space - data that itself is not a contract.
Uncle:
Contrary to the impression they are trying to create here, no one is prevented from saying what he has to say - even if it is completely wrong.
At most they ask those who have a theory who is not willing (and unable) to publish in any scientific journal - not to hijack the discussions every time and act as a troll.
Noam,
And I'm trying to explain to you that in most cases you are indeed right, but not always! This is not an axiom!
Even someone who is not a professor or a doctor, but just someone with a fertile imagination, can come up with ideas that will turn out to be correct, and it will not necessarily be a discussion of the working youth (ahha sorry - viewers).
If there will ever be one - or then the role of all the scientists and greats in the field will be to develop, perfect and apply this theory in practice (just as the nuclear bomb resulted from Einstein's theory).
The fact is that even with all the very scholarly discussion of a lot of professors and we still haven't reached rest and possession - the fact that they are scholars and have an appropriate education still does not guarantee that they will be the ones to say the word - "Eureka"! - Sometimes all it takes is a spark of genius that you have no idea who has it.
My message is simple - keep an open mind and mental flexibility, do not bind yourself to rigid and uncompromising classes and sectors, and most importantly - respect and tolerance for everyone, unless they hurt you!
Uncle,
You are missing the main point. Science does not belong to anyone - neither to physicists nor to "just humans", and no one has a monopoly on it, neither the big nor the small.
You use the arguments of democracy and everyone's right to express their opinion, but science is not a discussion among spectators.
No important scientific theory will emerge "from one who has an idea", without any appropriate knowledge.
Anyone is allowed to come up with and publish ridiculous ideas and believe that he is the new Newton of science, but this will not promote scientific knowledge as such.
What to do, in order to contribute to scientific knowledge, objective criteria must be met but difficult to achieve.
Please read carefully again Ehud's comments (55) which explains the point very well.
Lahud, Shalon, A Ben Ner, David of Nazareth and others
It's "a little" unfair that I can't respond here to the insults and jokes about me, but we will honor my father in his will.
With my father's permission, if someone seriously wants to ask and receive a response from me, all he has to do is click on my name at the top of the response and he will go to my private website "Mada ve Teva" where there is a section for comments concerning the science website and he can leave his comments there and I will respond to him there.
Again, this was done with the consent of Avi Blizovsky.
I would love to confront anyone there
I hope that a day will come when I can freely comment on the "science site" about gravity and dark mass and energy.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To my commenters.
In my opinion, there is not, and cannot be (for the time being!), a fundamental contradiction between the remaining "dark matter" and "dark energy" in Bain, Fr. Milgrom's theory of the dipole universe. After all, the terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" describe knowledge that all scientists agree is only partial (for now).
The same partial knowledge is also described by Milgrom's dipole universe theory.
It seems that the advantage of Milgrom's theory is that it provides a possible mathematical-theoretical description of the known facts called "dark matter" and "dark energy", in a way that is consistent with general relativity.
As far as I understand, Prof. Milgrom's dipole universe theory still does not have the power to bridge the gaps between general relativity and quantum theory.
(gaps that also exist in the parallel universe). There is more to explore.
Noam,
Even if Yehuda "just" offers different theories, this does not detract from the majesty of any qualified and documented professor! Everyone has the right to suggest ideas! And everyone else's right to refute them or simply ignore them (and all only with courtesy and mutual respect) - their right!
On the other hand, surely it is no one's right to kill or humiliate anyone else, no matter how "just" Yehuda or just David or just stupid!
The highly respected professor offers a theory that, as far as my little understanding reaches, is also not proven at all, and the fact that he is a professor says nothing about the truth of this theory!
To remind you, even in the old days there were very respectable and upstanding professors who advocated all kinds of theories that today bring a smile to the face of every child in elementary school! (without offending the honor of our professors!)
Don't disqualify anyone!
You can't tell where the theory of theories - the holy grail of physics - will emerge.
If there is someone who has an idea that is "the idea" and he will be afraid to speak just because someone like you will make him a rag and zero in the plural, we will all just lose!
You do not have a monopoly on science!
Science shoes for everyone big and small alike!
Best regards,
Uncle
Thanks,
Can it be said that there are "classes" for physical theories, which are different
In the amount of predictions that have come true, or who created them or how many other theories they support
or supported either by the amount of confirmed observations or by the level of accuracy of the supporting calculations
In them, or other parameters?
If I'm not mistaken, there is a "butterfly effect" which, for example, will make a small change in one area
of physics it may resonate in all fields of physics, biology and other fields…….
In the same way, when a model is obtained on a certain subject, it should be compatible with other theories
which measure to a certain extent its truth.
Is that how it works?
questionnaire
There is no methodical method to check which change is more correct, this is one of the cool things in science. People come up with all kinds of ideas and a bit like evolution the "strong" survives. If I have time I will add more on the subject.
sympathetic,
After it became clear that the rotation of the galaxies quickly disappeared, how did they know
In which direction to look, is it a fault in the red shift and in the distance calculations
and the speeds or in the gravitational distillation ("which works" even in areas where there is none
stars), or matter is missing or E=MC^2 works differently under systems
Attributing variance, or mass distorting time/space is not the cause of intensity
Gravity or twin universes?
In other words, did they follow the priorities of probabilities
Of what is probably "more correct" and what is probably less certain? And how anyway
In physics, when an anomaly is discovered, do you know which direction to go?
Thanks
Yehuda,
In response 41 you wrote:
"But of course he is Professor Milgrom and I'm just Yehuda Sabdarmish"
It reminds me of what Thomas Mann said about a Hollywood producer who is "condescending":
"He is not so big to make himself so small"
Think about it…
It is said that after Professor Einstein published his theory of general relativity, a young man came to a famous physicist and presented his own innovative theory in the field of physics.
The famous physicist carefully examined the innovative theory and said: "It seems to me that you are smarter than even Professor Einstein"
Please explain, the young man asked excitedly.
Well, the physicist answered him, only three people on earth understand general relativity (and I'm one of them).
Your theory no one understands and will never understand...
And this is about the theories of Rafaim and Yehuda Sabdarmish.
To quote Wolfgang Pauli - "Not even wrong".
Ghost, it has already been said that genius is 99 percent perspiration and 1 percent inspiration, it seems that you have one percent in your pocket 🙂
ghost moon,
When you say "within my hypothesis", what are you basing it on?
Mathematical analysis? A broader physical theory? Or just because it seems "logical" to you?
It seems to me that this ghost moon is actually a computer program for artificial blah blah
incidentally,
Machel
Too bad you don't understand my comments.
I would like to add (within my hypothesis) that the antiparticle 'behaves' like the new soliton that was discovered not long ago (if I understood the article in the link correctly)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/physicists-predict-new-form-of-soliton-in-ultracold-gases-2912091/
That is, the anti-particle moves between spaces and is never limited to any point in space, whereas the normal particle
Moves only in a frame (envelope) and is limited only to that frame. The ordinary particle can appear in a twin universe
Only if there is an interaction with an anti-particle, which transmits the particle's information to a twin universe
in a slight change due to a change in frames.
Some structural and mathematical change of the concept of 'time' is necessary in order to have a solution to the problem of transition speed
For the speed of light, I believe that 'time' goes through a certain process like 'going back in time' when light reaches up to
to a certain point in its speed. That is, when light passes the speed of light in a vacuum, the 'light' is the same
A point is annihilated into an energetic particle in several counters, the 'time' at that moment, as we know it,
stopped (in terms of the 'time of the particle'), but in practice what happens is the 'moment' that time slows down to change
Point it in the opposite direction to accelerate again (only in the opposite direction). That means time for us will gradually return to the 'past'
But this is only for us because in the universe, present, future and past are different states that all exist at the same time,
The existence that exists is only with the living (humans) the universe has no meaning for time.
sympathetic
The book sounds interesting, thanks for the recommendation, I will read it sometime.
It will be difficult for me to answer the questions you asked for the reasons I have already stated, and I want it to be clear that I am not
intend to change no science. All in all, I expressed a private opinion about how I see certain topics in physics.
You will be judged.
ghost moon
By the way, Thomas Kuhn's book "The structure of scientific revolutions" the Hebrew translation includes an afterword by Prof. Itamar Pitovsky, one of the greatest philosophers of science who arose in the State of Israel. Prof. Pitovsky passed away
Recently (about two weeks ago) may his memory be blessed.
Joseph
I agree with you. While MOND was a leap forward and a paradigm shift in the theory of
Prof. Yilgrom is withdrawing from this position in my opinion.
Students
Thanks for the compliment. As you can imagine I like the format of things as they are now.
Ghost:
Too bad you didn't understand my response
ghost moon
On the meaning of "paradigmatic revolution" I recommend you read Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The beauty of scientific revolutions is that they cannot be predicted and in particular you cannot know how science will look after the revolution. Science frequently faces problems that need to be explained and the vast majority of these problems can be solved within the existing scientific framework. From time to time problems arise for which no explanation can be found within the existing scientific framework. Problems of this type require a change in the dominant scientific paradigm. The scientific community does not change its paradigms easily and rightly so they will often try to solve the problems that cannot be solved using the dominant paradigm by expanding the theory without changing its paradigms for example the invention of the "web".
Regarding the theories you put forward, a test condition for them is your ability to formulate them mathematically. All the concepts you talk about are fundamentally mathematical and only later were they popularized (mathematics is the language of science). Are you able to mathematically define what an antiparticle is? Do you understand the mathematical definition of temperature? Do you know how to define a particle mathematically? If the answer to these questions is no, I would advise you to refrain from proposing new theories in physics. Science is written in a language that needs to be learned. I am not aware of a case where a person without a formal scientific education fundamentally changed science. Your attempts to explain through theory questions that physics has been dealing with for several decades is similar to the attempt of something without a mathematical education to try to prove Fermat's theorem. There is no guarantee because it is impossible, but the probability of this is very close to zero.
Uncle,
I am precisely against bringing up all kinds of different and strange theories. A scientific theory is not a story that is told among the scouts, or among society: "Wow, what an interesting theory I thought of tonight."
Sometimes, when I read some of the comments on the website, I get the impression that there are quite a few people who don't even understand what is behind a real scientific theory. Yehuda brings up an outdated theory that was disproved a long time ago, not because Yehuda came up with it (he didn't), but because it did not meet the strict criteria of a scientific theory. It has no theoretical foundation, no mathematical foundation - just an interesting (or not interesting) story, and lo and behold, it already has supporters, just as if it were a social debate among scouts, and the one who has better articulateness than others wins the debate.
Cheers such as: "Yasu Yehuda", "Yehuda I am with you" only illustrate the absurdity.
The attempt to explain complicated scientific theories in a simple way, without mathematics, makes people think that the theory of Einstein, Milgrom and our friend Yehuda are equivalent. There is nothing further from the truth, and one should not get confused - on the one hand there are complicated and mathematically based theories, which without in-depth knowledge of both physics and mathematics cannot be understood at all, and on the other hand we have a story that "seems logical".
It is possible that the fault lies in trying to popularize science, which makes some of us feel that they too can invent new theories of their own, no less good than all the famous physicists - after all, paper tolerates everything.
"...there is a repulsion between matter in the known universe and matter in the "twin" universe."
As I wrote between the two universes there is an interaction of antiparticles.
Because I explained that my hypothesis is that antiparticles travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum
So they are invisible to the eye and barely detectable in measurements but they are mathematically proven.
Because an anti-particle has a very high energy (in several orders of magnitude from the energies known up to now)
So is its speed very high and the temperature.
It is similar to two magnets that connect them to each other in such a way that the magnets repel each other. In this way, certain particles (except the known ones) that move between the two magnets are constantly in motion, and that is why they are also very energetic (beyond the known energies).
sympathetic
Can you please give a more detailed explanation about the "paradigmatic revolution"? That is
How exactly will this be done? And what is that revolutionary theory? I can not understand you.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not against bringing up different theories (that's the only way we'll get to the truth in the end), but I'm against the fact that without a single proof it's already established that this is the divine truth and there is no denying it, and anyone who thinks differently (like Yehuda Svardamish for example) is immediately delusional , lacking education and certificates, stupid and all kinds of reasons like that!
Hahahaha what fun it is to have the dark matter or all kinds of twin parallel galaxies to blame when the theories don't add up!
God forbid they say simply - "We still don't know, and we have no green idea!"
All kinds of respected professors come and blow up theories that only they understand what the connection is between a needle and... - hmmmmm this reminds me a bit of the new king's clothes (well, it's also the era! Achashvarosh and all that kind of thing)
Judah, I'm with you!!!
Happy Purim and a good week everyone!
Uncle
Machel
Your response makes me laugh.
Instead of writing everything you wrote, you could just write the word "beep".
: )
Lahud: Your explanations are amazing! You don't know how much you contribute!
In every article of astrophysics and physics, your explanations are important and very interesting and understandable!
So why don't you identify yourself by your full name? And what do you do?
Thanks also to Michael Rothschild who always comes up with reasons and explanations.
Lahud, what you claim is reasonable and indeed possible and we are on the verge of a paradigmatic revolution, but note that what Malgrom is proposing is exactly what is known as 'rescuing the phenomena' and not a paradigmatic change. The assumption of the existence of a twin universe is the 'episcal' required so to speak in order to preserve the existing principles of gravity and not a fundamental paradigmatic change in the conception of the concept of gravitation. The assumption of another universe is consistent with and reconciles the principles of contemporary physics, but at a heavy ontological price.' Universe' as a concept, it is not 'site'. To assume the existence of a twin universe is to assume a great deal. That is why I argued that we should not rush to expand our ontology in another universe. Your proposal, for a conceptual paradigmatic change, seems to me to be a more reasonable scientific change.
Joseph
I believe that the theory of gravitation is on the verge of a paradigmatic revolution. Even when the Michelson-Morley experiment was carried out, it was believed that the results could be reconciled through the invention of the "website"...
The indications that Gravitation is facing a paradigmatic change in my humble opinion (forgive all those who are not the first or second time reading these things):
1. There is no quantum theory of gravity and it is not possible to produce such a theory today. The situation today is that these two important theories are irreconcilable.
2. Observations of the velocity field of stars at the edge of the galaxy do not correspond to the laws of gravitation as these are derived from the mass seen in the aforementioned galaxies.
3. The universe is expanding but the cosmological constant is too small to be explained by vacuum energy.
Therefore, in my humble opinion, we are on the verge of a revolution in the theory of gravitation, which they are trying to reject by introducing dark mass and dark energy, all this in order to preserve the existing paradigm.
Lahud, I completely accept your response except for your reference to Cohn's position. Kuhn does speak of a scientific revolution, but a scientific revolution for him is a total paradigmatic change. For example (worn that you probably know) the Newtonian concept of mass is incommonsorbile to Einstein's concept of mass. Professor Milgrom's proposal is not a scientific revolution but is based on all the principles of contemporary physics. As I mentioned, I did not claim that his position was false (since I have no tools to substantiate such a claim). All I claimed was that in the range of possibilities for solving the gravity issue there are a variety of possibilities that can be explored even before 'jumping' into a weighty ontological assumption such as the existence of a twin universe. Kuhn claims that a paradigm shift occurs only when there is a 'scientific discovery' or scientific fact that does not fit in any way with the existing paradigm. In my humble opinion, this is not the state of affairs.
Ghost:
I repeat: usually - when you explain something related to the article that appears here - you explain something that is already known at least to the author of the article.
This is usually true. not always. For example - some of the things I explained to you in the past on the subject of a logarithmic spiral were related to dispelling common myths that the majority of the public believes in and I don't know if there is anyone who stood up to their error before I pointed it out.
In any case - I don't know what you wanted to express in your words. It must not have been a compliment and it must not have been true.
Another thing that I think should be understood is that saying something that no one knows is not the goal of the scientist.
The goal of the scientist who wants to innovate is to say something that no one but him knows and not something that no one - including himself - knows.
The stories you tell belong to this category of saying things that really no one, including you, knows.
Such things have exactly the same value as what a monkey would type when he was seated next to a typewriter.
If you are already inventing another theory then one more is allowed.
Instead of dark matter/energy and twin universes.
It is possible that the world was really created about 6000 years ago.
And the universe inflated at once.
And light that appears to come from a distance of thousands and millions of light years was actually created only 6000 years ago.
And when time and space were determined, so was the speed of light.
All the electromagnetic radiation that reaches us needs corrections in the equations that will express the rapid propagation.
It is very possible that the expansion was also in stages, meaning that the relatively unified space was not unified at all.
And when he was created the elements of space and time and energy spread out and were put together to eventually give what you see today. After all, all the findings of astrophysics have their only source in the different types of radiation that are absorbed
Here in the corner where the earth is.
So here's another theory.
Yehuda:
Why spoil?
I am not authorized to give you or deny you any permission.
I didn't do that, I just expressed my opinion.
To Michael
My family and I thank you for your condolences. I appreciated my mother-in-law and even though she passed away in good health, we all miss her.
And if I may add regarding your words from comment 34:
"I must point out that your comments that are not related to this topic, which showed eloquence, humor and humanity, are missing here." . End quote.
I do not accept the permission you give me to comment on any matter on this site except on gravitation.
Honest permission must be given to the commenter (like me) on any topic I want to comment on.
It is true that I sound delusional or strange in my claims that there is no gravitation in distances and another force moves the galaxies, but it sounds all the more delusional to me to talk about a parallel twin universe that arranges the data for us, but of course he is Professor Milgrom and I am just Yehuda Sabdarmish.
So it's true that it was fun to confront you with riddles and debates, and it's even interesting to see that we sometimes agree with each other, even in our "love" for the dark mass. But you can't tell me what I'm allowed to talk about.
If anything changes in approach I would love to know.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I would also like to add that in my opinion there is an anti-particle to the photon - which can be a particle of dark energy.
Machel
First of all I am not disrespecting you or your knowledge. I apologize if you were offended by my words, you probably did not understand my intention.
When I said that you explain what is already known, I meant that when you explain something about physics, for example,
So you explain what Newton already thought and knew and like him others who came after him (including you) that is
You didn't bring new topics to physics, you just understood what others explained and you explain what you understood to another.
Chotsamza I definitely learned a few things from some of your comments and got a little educated. And I hope you continue this way.
I want to clarify both to you and to Ehud and others who did not understand me properly:
I am clearly not presenting a theory that can be confirmed in the laboratory or by observations, rather it can be disproved
The same as of now maybe even at 99%. I don't even know if it is considered scientific or not.
I purposely wrote it down briefly so that my father wouldn't block me from responding (because I don't want to write it down here
A complete article and certainly not in the comments and certainly not considering that I have no background in physics).
All in all, I wanted to express my idea about the subject and I did it as briefly as possible
that the topic can be 'clarified' more through the questions.
hmm
I don't think the universe knows how to distinguish between matter and energy (man does), as far as I know matter and energy is 'the same lady in a change of glory'.
I wrote my reasoning about a speed higher than the speed of light before, but I will write it again
As clearly as I can:
I think in the theory of supersymmetry there are some answers regarding the explanation of antiparticles.
I think an anti-particle is a normal particle, but one that moves at a speed that exceeds the speed of light by some
orders of magnitude because of this it does not have the characteristics that would allow it to be seen with the eye through a measuring device (but it exists
mathematical proof of its existence). But this is not the only explanation for not seeing him, there is another explanation
That the particle moves at a speed higher than the speed of light is therefore "invisible". There were already results
In experiments that proved that it is possible to exceed the speed of light
https://www.hayadan.org.il/photons-challenge-the-light-barrier-1708070
(What's more, a particle moving at a speed faster than light appears in the detector before it is measured, and it responds before time)
My hypothesis is that when a particle moves at the speed of light in a vacuum, then its antiparticle moves faster
higher than that on a 'string' through an orbit that passes from the point where the particle is in our universe
to that point in space in a corresponding universe. And when the antiparticle arrives (appears) in a compatible universe it collides
An antiparticle that is at that point becomes a particle, and the resulting antiparticle moves back
(as an anti-particle) to our universe and in the same way (as in a compatible universe) became a particle.
Regarding the law of conservation of energy - it exists in our universe and will not necessarily exist in a compatible universe.
Assuming that the compatible universe is like "anti" then it is likely that the laws of conservation of energy will not hold either
between the universes.
age:
I will not bother you anymore because you are not ready to study.
I'm also sure that with all your determination to teach the world you won't even be able to get accepted to study physics at the university.
A linear speed that increases with the distance from the center, will weaken with the distance to the edges due to the weakening of the gravitational force.
Space does rotate inward, but the force of gravity also weakens with distance.
Sounds very interesting, and even with a little promise.
You just have to create a number of observational experiments that can put the theory to the test.
Eddie, it seems to me that we understand Occam's razor in a different way, for me it is simply a principle that says that given two possible explanations for the same phenomenon, the simpler explanation should be preferred first,
The reason for this is not our desire to create a reduction to the natural phenomena but because of two main reasons
1 that the simple explanation uses fewer basic assumptions - which also require an explanation
2 The simple explanation is usually easier to disprove - and science as we know progresses by disproving or confirming theories.
Einstein said it beautifully (as always)
"The ultimate goal of any scientific theory is to present the basic elements required to establish it as simply as possible, without giving up any piece of information acquired through experience"
I agree with you that this is only a recommendation and it does not necessarily point to the correct explanation, but I think that this must necessarily be science's way of progress, after all, the human imagination can produce infinite explanations for any phenomenon, science being an orderly method
Must start with the simplest and move up the scale of complexity as much as it is required and only if it is required.
Yehuda:
Please accept my condolences and give them to the rest of your family as well.
We have argued more than once on matters of gravitation, but I must point out that your comments that are not related to this issue, which demonstrated eloquence, humor and humanity, are missing here.
age:
I must point out that there may be some correct things in your response that you do not understand, but it is clear that it stems from a lack of understanding and not from understanding.
We - the Earth - are very far from the black hole and for us there is no difference if there is a black hole or an ordinary (much larger) star with the same mass. Why do we - as well as stars far away from us rotate the center of the galaxy at the same (linear) speed as stars much closer than us do?
Why doesn't the same thing happen to the planets that orbit the sun?
In general - the fact that the stars move at the same linear speed does not equate to the rotation of space at all. The rotation of space would result in a constant angular velocity and a linear velocity that increases with the distance from the center!
please!
Ghost:
You were not offended, but you found it appropriate to insult.
Even if your words were true - there is nothing wrong with my behavior - the fact that others know something you don't know doesn't help you as long as one of those others doesn't come and tell you this. What's wrong with me volunteering to be that someone? Is this a reason to underestimate me? In the past you actually knew how to thank me for my explanation. They are also probably necessary and I remember several statements from people here on the site who said that they learn from my comments much more than they learn from the articles themselves.
But the truth is that your words are not true at all and quite a few things I said here to you and others are not things known to others. I mean - I don't know all the "others" but they were not known to the "others" I know before they heard my words.
By the way - who do you think knew first what I wrote in the articles I wrote?
It is true that even in my comments there are often original ideas, but it should be remembered that the role of the comments is indeed to clarify the topic discussed in the article and the way in which the topics discussed in the article should be known at least to the author of the article.
Regarding your words about religion - they are just kidding me.
I want to tell you that I am in favor of incarcerating thieves in prison even if there are groups that cultivate a tradition of theft for thousands of years. Thief is no different in this regard.
Ghost, your theory seems unclear to me
How exactly does the universe know to distinguish between matter and energy?
And in general to say that something happens faster than the speed of light requires proof or at least logical reasoning.
You have many other things that seem really illogical and clear and I did not respond to them because they are worded in a very unclear way to me. In the explanations of the anti-particles and the particles in general it seems as if there is no existence of the conservation of energy, and if you make such statements you must find evidence for the non-existence of conservation of energy in the universe that indicates what you say is true.
I replied to you so that you would understand that they are not telling you the things here just to show off
In any case, if you intend to take the matter seriously as they said here before, you must study things in depth.
Yehuda,
Your stories about your mother-in-law are certainly amusing, but it must be admitted that your attempts to present yourself as a brave new Newton, presenting an innovative theory in front of the entire opaque scientific establishment that refuses to recognize your greatness, are much more amusing (and ridiculous, I must say).
Please continue to entertain us with stories, although you should consider whether the science site is the right place.
Joseph
I completely agree with your response to the ghost moon, it must be understood that science is different from the popular fiction that is presented to the general public. Within the framework of this understanding, I think that Prof. Milgrom's theory should also be treated accordingly: what is written in the article is a popularization of the scientific work done by Milgrom.
To me, too, Milgrom's current work seems to detract from the beauty of his MOND theory. The MOND theory certainly fulfills the condition of Ockham's razor - a single parameter (characteristic acceleration scale) is enough to describe a set of observations that do not fit according to the classical theory of gravity and there is no need for the arbitrary addition of dark mass.
Note: By the way, Ockham's razor is indeed not a criterion for truth, but it symbolizes the ambition of science in my opinion. To the extreme: if we were to find a scientific law for every phenomenon that explains it, it would not be science.
Another note: I do not agree with your claim that "it is more reasonable to look for more modest answers before jumping to a far-reaching theoretical assumption of this kind" In my opinion science advances in two ways (according to Thomas Kuhn) in a systematic way and in scientific revolutions. The current state of contemporary gravitation and cosmology is problematic (as I have already formulated this several times in the responses) and therefore one must try and find radical solutions, especially since this is a theoretical research field that does not require a huge investment of financial resources.
Holy shit, I think you're completely missing Michael's valid criticism. You have to distinguish between serious science based on experiments as well as research hypotheses that can be confirmed or disproved and between unfounded speculative imagination which is pretty much what you are doing. You are making a 'conceptual salad' out of a mistaken thought as if you have built some coherent scientific theory and that is not the case. You cannot, on the one hand, adopt professional scientific jargon that has developed under strict rational assumptions and, on the other hand, develop theories that lack any rational basis.
Machel
It's OK. I was not offended. But it is also impossible to learn anything from your response because you reveal nothing
a new thing. In general, at most you know how to explain what others already know.
incidentally,
You don't think your reference to religion, which people have been learning for more than two thousand years, is insulting
Are you serious about it? Or are you intentionally insulting the religious?
(I don't really expect an answer because it will slide into stupid arguments without content)
There is no comparison between a star system and a galaxy system
The black hole at the center of the galaxy attracts everything including the void
Therefore the system behaves as one piece, there is no difference between the margins and the center.
Like a vortex that spins when you open the cap in the bathtub.
To all Man Dibai
I am sorry to inform the science readers that my dear mother-in-law, who starred here on the website in one of my comments on the dark mass, has finished the true life allotted to her - a little over 90 years and has moved to a world that is all good - a parallel universe.
I hope that the science readers will not see this as proof of the dark mass or the existence of a parallel universe - as Professor Milgrom says in this article.
I hope that my father Blizovsky, out of respect for my dear mother-in-law, will not censor this response of mine.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Ghost:
Of course these are nonsense - as you expected him to say.
The practice of physics is not a matter for storytellers.
It is about formulating laws and testing them through observation and experiment.
In order to deal with the subject, you need to understand it deeply and not suck it out of your mouth.
It is clear that even if I ask you what the trajectory of a missile I send in a certain direction and at a certain speed will be, you will not be able to calculate it, so there is no reason for anyone to take your words seriously on the subject of parallel universes.
I am not writing this to insult, but only so that you understand that your treatment of the subject insults those who deal with it seriously.
What is the problem with the assumption that there is a compatible universe or more? Although it has not been proven yet.
It actually seems logical to me that our universe is also in mutual relations with other universes, which all exist
inside some kind of envelope (dimension).
My hypothesis, as I have already written before, is that our universe has a corresponding universe that interacts
with our universe.
I believe that our universe has more antimatter than matter.
The anti-particles destroy the particles in our universe. Every particle that is destroyed in our universe passes at a very high speed (several orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light in a vacuum) to the corresponding universe and appears in the exact same place in space,
thereby essentially 'replacing' the particle that was there, that is, a particle in our universe becomes an anti-particle and an anti-particle 'moves' to a corresponding universe and becomes a particle. And in our universe, that 'point' in space occupies an antiparticle, i.e. created
A situation where in a compatible universe matter was created from the matter that existed in our universe, and antimatter was created in our universe
instead of the material that was. Because our universe is 'destroyed' then it also eventually reaches the most point
Small as a marble - a kind of singular point and the corresponding universe has grown up to 100% in volume from matter.
When the compatible universe becomes all matter it 'explodes' (under the pressure) and all the matter is transferred
to the universe of the singular point and as a result of the large mass that is transferred to the singular point is created
the big Bang.
I also think that between our universe and its counterpart there is a 'line' ('string') on which all information passes and the string allows
Interaction between universes. And to each universe is connected a string that connects to a corresponding universe that enables creation
An infinity of universes in a grid-like pattern. (line-dot-line)
So when a 'big bang' takes place it is possible to transfer material from one location to the second and to the third and so on.
In my opinion, such a condition enables the creation of permanent 'big compensations'.
Of course, this is just my hypothesis, and I am ready to answer any question that is asked about the hypothesis
But I'm also sure that there will be some physicist who will claim that what I wrote is nonsense like the claim that a rabbit rummages.
To my witness (comment 8) Even if Professor Milgrom claims that there are ways to confirm this kind of theory, this very far-reaching claim still needs to be examined. Read response 9 which only offers a small fraction of the truth in this kind of theory.
For Eddy(21), the requirement for theoretical parsimony is not absolute and indeed not decisive, but there is an abysmal difference between treating light with duality and assuming an entire universe, billions of galaxies, a big bang with a history similar to our universe, and much more, just to explain gravity issues. It is more reasonable to look for more modest answers before jumping to a far-reaching theoretical assumption of this kind, which, as mentioned, needs to be offered in a scientific way to confirm or refute it, because if so, it remains clearly speculative. As mentioned, this still does not mean that it is a false theory, it just means that before that, more modest alternative theories must be eliminated and only then can far-reaching alternatives be examined.
In the context of response 18
I mention again my theory for the formation of spiral galaxies.
The theory answers the questions about the rapid rotation of the arms,
And regarding the uniform movement along the arms of the spiral.
http://www.kaspit.com/assil2/
http://www.kaspit.com/assil2/index.htm
I mentioned earlier that the subject of dark energy is new here, but it is not true that it is not meant to solve the problems that dark matter is meant to solve.
Beyond that, this is, as mentioned, a theory of dark matter - with all the limitations that you pointed out in the accepted dark matter theory, with, with a limited guarantee as long as I haven't read the things for sure but at least as it seems to me at the moment, privacy problems that are unique to it, and with an interesting proposal regarding to dark energy.
Nad,
I am not sure that Ockham's Razor confers the status of rational truth only when a statement performs a maximal or more extreme reduction.
Beyond that, Ockham's razor is nothing sacred. It's just a recommendation.
And for example the physical theory that explains light has a dual statement, it is not economical, but we are already used to it.
We need to get used to the fact that our perceptual abilities are not capable of reducing things to one element, and it is possible that physical reality itself is not the product of an extreme reduction to one element.
Milgrom's new theory comes to address the question of dark energy, not dark matter, and it unites both under one roof. In this respect the theory is a cosmological extension of MOND. This is also a partial answer to the fresher who asked how the theory is superior to the dark matter that does not explain and is not related to dark energy. This also has an answer to nad who asked about Ockham's razor.
sympathetic:
But it's clear that the new theory is Milgrom's convoluted way of admitting that he, too, can't do without dark matter.
That is - even Milgrom admits that MOND (physical or not) simply does not answer the problem.
There are several ways to "shade" a material and one of them is to put it on another coordinate in another dimension.
Since both Nadav and Ra'anan referred to the new theory (and not to MOND which was refuted) - I don't think you answered them.
age:
Please don't think everyone is stupid.
None of the facts for which they concluded that there is dark matter and for which they also try to find alternatives to dark matter do not fit with this assumption.
Just not once.
I will not list all the reasons and will be content with the original reason for assuming the existence of the dark matter - the way the galaxies rotate.
The problem with the data in this regard is not that they rotate too fast in general (there is no such thing as - too fast - the speed indicates the size of the mass around which they rotate) but that as you move away from the center of the galaxy - instead of the speed of rotation fading - it maintains its size.
A black hole in the center of the galaxy - no matter how big it is - will not solve this.
In the last comment, Anonymous is me (Ehud)
Yossi, M## El, Ra'anan and Nad
I see MOND as a physical theory. Unlike the dark matter theory, MOND was able to make predictions and these were later confirmed by observation. In addition, MOND combines many physical phenomena under a simple rule, which cannot be said about the dark matter hypothesis. On the other hand, the extension of MOND to a theory that agrees with general relativity is problematic for me in both Bekenstein's roughness and Milgrom's roughness described in the article. These are two extensions that destroy the simplicity of MOND, one by assuming an additional scalar vector and tensor field in Bekenstein or by Milgrom's assumption in another universe. In contrast, even with these changes, these theories are much more physical than the "dark matter" hypothesis.
BTW I'm not sure why the twin universe is equivalent to another dimension as stated in the link you linked from ## to
All the missing mass is found in the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy.
Most of the matter in galaxies is in the center of the black hole.
And that's why they get strange data when measuring the total matter in a galaxy.
The central black hole is like a vortex created by a hole in the universe.
The power of the black hole can be estimated from the missing mass difference in the galaxy.
A. By what experiment can the theory be disproved?
B. How much better is a theory that explains the mass gap phenomenon without using dark matter, if it does
By using a "twin universe", which is as mysterious and unknown as dark matter.
An interesting theory, but it seems a bit overkill to me, to assume the existence of an entire universe just to explain gravitational differences, I understand almost nothing about it, but it seems to me that Occam is turning over in his grave 🙂
Sorry, I forgot to mention my name in the previous comment.
Twin universes and dark matter have in common that they are both transparent to us
And both come to answer Newtonian deviations. What they lack is a physical explanation
As waves (for example) are explained or as they can be produced in the laboratory or observed
through detectors.
Maybe this uncertainty will explain that mass is only a part of the characteristic of gravity and not the whole story?
The assumption of parallel universes as an explanation for dark matter is not new.
See for example here:
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/~kaloper/siegfr.txt
This idea came up because those universes moving in another dimension are in terms of our universe……dark mass!
The inventions of the other universes in another dimension allows matter in universe A and matter in universe B to pass "through" each other without hindrance.
In my opinion, however, the idea is wrong, as it ignores the observation that dark matter does not interact with itself either.
It also seems necessary in the mirror images that Milgrom talks about. Although there is no problem with empty space passing through another empty space, but in order for this to happen, it seems that full spaces also have to pass through each other, and in fact, the passage of one empty space through another empty space in universe A requires the passage of matter through matter in the corresponding universe.
It also doesn't really explain the spherical structure of the galactic halos and doesn't quite fit with M94
Obviously, it's hard to judge the things without reading them as they were written by Milgrom and I assume that over time a more learned consensus will be formed on the subject.
The number of innovations here is not great except for the matter of the mirror image which may really explain dark energy.
sympathetic:
What is beautiful about your words is that even though it is simply dark matter and even though it is a less parsimonious theory and even though it is a theory according to which you will never find a particle from the parallel universe in an experiment, you prefer to accept it.
What it means?
It seems that the theory has not been fully explained. It is not explained how the parallel universe was formed (Big Bang 2 - the sequel?) If there is an interplay of gravitational forces between the universes, does an extremely massive black hole create a black hole in the parallel universe?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is an effect of gravitational forces between the universes, shouldn't there be a possibility to move between them?
And how can the theory be tested?
If the formulas for the total mass of the universe give a result that does not fit with what we know about the universe, it can be assumed that the formulas are incorrect or that we do not know enough about the universe. It is also likely that in the future theories will emerge regarding what we do not know (dark matter) and explanations for what we do see, new formulas
Joseph:
It is written at the end of the article that the professor has recently proposed predictions that will allow the theory to be tested.
On the face of it, this seems like a very uneconomical theory. Although the assumption of the existence of dark matter has its problems, but to assume a parallel universe that will both be a twin and have an affinity to our universe by gravitational forces, all of this requires a lot of assumptions and therefore according to Ockham's razor, it is a very unthrifty theory in theoretical terms. While this does not make it a false theory, it does make it an improbable theory, and also, a theory that is very difficult, even impossible, to prove its truth.
Amit
It has nothing to do with the "parallel universes" theory in quantum theory, which is often referred to as the "multiple worlds" theory
In the "multiple worlds" theory, the universe splits every time a quantum experiment is performed as described in the article. It is not about any experiments and it is only about two twin universes (if I understood correctly - by the way, the word twins indicates only two) while in the multiple worlds theory there are countless universes.
Yasu Yehuda! (Savardamish of course)
Hezi
You are completely wrong Prof. Milgrom is one of the few scientists who presented an alternative physical theory to that of dark matter.
The main problem with Prof. Milgrom's theory, as also written in the article, was the fact that there was no extension to general relativity for it. This problem was tried to be solved by Prof. Bekenstein who presented a generalized MOND theory which he called TeVeS. Now Prof. Milgrom also succeeds in representing his theory so that it fits into general relativity.
Contrary to what was previously written on the site by commenters, it seems that the human brain is capable of producing alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis.
For me, Milgrom's theory is much more physical than the claims of the dark matter and dark energy side (although this does not necessarily mean that it is true). In Milgrom's theory there is a new and unique energy constant that allows the physics of a0 galaxies to be described in contrast to the dark matter hypothesis which for each galaxy should produce a different distribution for the dark matter. Milgrom's theory also (according to the article) includes suggestions for experiments so that it can be confirmed or refuted, unlike the dark matter hypothesis.
Any connection to the "parallel universes" theories in quantum theory?
Or is the "twin universe" actually a mirror universe created from the antimatter of the big bang???
In any case, the "punch line" here is not understood enough. I would appreciate clarification
If I'm not mistaken,
Prof. Milgrom was among the followers of the "dark matter" theory.
Anyway,
It seems to me that the explanation of "missing matter" should be in our understanding of the laws of physics
As they express themselves in a space that is not familiar enough to us...
It is much more natural and much simpler than continuing to look for what is not there...
"In general relativity, the gravitational field is described using the curvature of space-time, or, as physicists call it, the "metric". According to Prof. Milgrom's new theory of relativity, the gravitational field is described by two "matrices", or two parallel space-times, which influence each other. All the matter we know is found only in the universe we know, but the gravitational "metric" of the bodies in the known universe is also affected by the "metric" of the bodies in the "twin" universe.
"In fact, since the sheets of the twin universes form a kind of "mirror image" of each other, there is a repulsion between matter in the known universe and matter in the "twin" universe. This phenomenon causes matter in the known universe to be located in front of empty areas in the "twin" universe. Therefore, matter in the known universe will attract to it, by the force of gravity, a known light, but will repel a "twin" light.
Looks similar to something I wrote on this site..
In general I definitely agree with these views.