Dark Matter: A Baseless Hypothesis? | Pavel Kroupa, Francesca Chadha-Day, Bjorn Ekeberg
Summary
TLDRこのスクリプトは、量子重力の理解への道を開く新しい重力理論の議論を展開しています。Einsteinの理論とは異なる解釈で、重力は空間の情報を内容によって生じる現象や、粒子の波動性と真空の屈折指数の変化から生じる可能性があると示唆しています。重力波の検出は、重力の理解を狭め、Milgramian Dynamics(修正された重力の法則)がこれに応える方法を提供していると主張しています。ダークマターの存在が検証されていないことから、宇宙モデル全体が疑わしくなる可能性があることを指摘しています。
Takeaways
- ✨ 重力の量子論的理解に向けた道を開く可能性があるため、コミュニティはこの点を無視している。
- 🌌 重力は、空間の異なる領域の情報内容が異なるために生じる発現力である可能性がある。
- 💡 重力波の検出により、重力の理解に関する可能性が狭まった。
- 🔬 ミルグロムの定数により、非常に平坦な時空での加速度が大きくなることが説明される。
- 🌠 ミルグロムの理論は、量子真空が原因で加速度が変わると提案している。
- 🌌 ダークマターは存在しない可能性が高く、エインシュタインの重力理論がギャラクシー規模では無効であることを示唆している。
- 🔍 科学者は、ダークマターの存在をテストして無効とされた場合、その仮説を放棄しなければならない。
- 🌀 ミルグロムの予測はすべて実証されており、ダークマター仮説に対する強力な対抗仮説となっている。
- 🔭 天文学者たちは、ダークマターが存在しないという観察結果を無視していると批判されている。
- 🌌 現在の宇宙モデルは正しくない可能性が高く、新しい理論の開発が必要である。
Q & A
量子重力の理解を開く道は何ですか?
-量子重力の理解を開く道は、空間の情報を異なる地域で異なると見なす重力の概念です。これは、重力が空間の情報をエンコードするため、空間の情報が異なる地域では異なる力として現れる可能性があります。
重力の変更された理論とは何であり、どのように異なるですか?
-変更された重力の理論は、空間時間の変形だけでなく、重力が現れる他の可能性を考慮します。例えば、情報内容の違いや粒子の波動性、または真空の屈折指数の変化による重力の誘導などが挙げられます。
重力波はどのようにして重力の理解を狭めていますか?
-重力波は、重力の理解を狭めるために、特定の速度(光速)で伝搬する必要があることを示しています。これは、重力波が異なる速度で伝搬する理論を排除する理由です。
Milgramの理論とは何であり、どのように重力を説明していますか?
-Milgramの理論は、重力が空間の量子真空のエネルギー密度の変動によって変化するという考え方です。この理論では、空間の曲率が非常に小さくなると、物体の加速度は異なると見なされます。
Milgramの理論が成功したとされる観測とは何ですか?
-Milgramの理論が成功したとされる観測は、1983年に彼が発表した3つの研究目的に基づいて行われ、その理論が正しいとされる銀河の動きに関する予測が、驚くべき精度で検証されたことです。
ダークマターモデルとMilgramの理論の主な相違点は何ですか?
-ダークマターモデルは、見えない物質を postu late して宇宙の動きを説明する一方で、Milgramの理論は重力の法則自体を変えることで、ダークマターの存在を必要としません。
ダークマターが存在しないという仮定はどのようにして宇宙モデルに影響を与えますか?
-ダークマターが存在しないという仮定は、Einsteinの重力理論の有効性を銀河やそれ以上の規模で否定し、宇宙モデル全体が間違っている可能性があることを示します。
宇宙学者がダークマターモデルを維持する理由は何ですか?
-宇宙学者はダークマターモデルを維持する理由は、他の観測を説明する成功と、銀河の動きに関する計算が非常に複雑であるため、ダークマターモデルの不整合を完全に理解することは困難だからです。
Milgramの理論が示す宇宙の空洞とは何ですか?
-Milgramの理論が示す宇宙の空洞は、宇宙の特定の領域でダークマターの密度が低いため、銀河や銀河クラスターの数が少ないことを指しています。これは、Lambda CDMモデルと矛盾しています。
宇宙学者が理論を検証する方法は何ですか?
-宇宙学者は、異なるデータセット間で一貫性のあるパターンを検出することで理論を検証します。これは、他の科学分野では一般的ではない独自の証明基準です。
ダークマターの存在を示す観測的な証拠は何ですか?
-ダークマターの存在を示す観測的な証拠の1つは、重力透鏡効果です。これは、ダークマターが光を曲折させる能力があることを示しており、実際に観測されています。
Outlines
🧬 修正された重力理論について
修正された重力理論は、従来のアインシュタインの時空の湾曲という概念を超え、重力が情報の内容や粒子の波動性に基づく可能性を示唆しています。重力波の検出により、理論が制約されることがあり、新しい理論が必要とされています。ダークマターの存在が否定されることで、アインシュタインの重力理論が否定され、新しい宇宙モデルの必要性が高まっています。
💡 モンド理論の概要とその影響
モンド理論(修正ニュートン力学)は、銀河の速度場の観測に基づき、重力が量子真空のエネルギー密度の変動に影響を受けるという仮説を提案しています。この理論は、重力が異なる宇宙空間で変化するという新しい視点を提供し、ダークマターの存在を否定する証拠として機能します。モンド理論の検証は、多くの観測結果と一致しています。
🌌 宇宙論とダークマターの議論
ダークマター理論は多くの観測を説明できるとされていますが、一部の科学者はそれに異議を唱えています。例えば、私たちが住むKBCボイドと呼ばれる巨大な低密度領域は、ダークマター理論と矛盾しています。一方、モンド理論はこの観測結果と一致しており、科学的証拠の評価基準が変わりつつある中で、どちらの理論が正しいかを見極めるための実験と観測が重要です。
🔭 宇宙観測と理論の検証
宇宙論では、唯一の宇宙を観測することしかできないため、他の科学とは異なる証拠の基準が必要です。例えば、ダークマターの存在を仮定した重力レンズ効果の観測などがありますが、計算には多くの前提条件が必要で、理論の予測と整合性の区別が難しいことがあります。このような背景の中で、モンド理論とダークマター理論のどちらが正しいかを判断するためには、さらなる研究と議論が求められます。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡量子重力
💡修正された重力の理論
💡暗物質
💡重力波
💡Milgramの理論
💡量子真空
💡5シグマ検出閾
💡宇宙のモデル
💡KBC空洞
💡宇宙の微細構造
Highlights
探索量子引力理论,以理解自然界,这是科学界一直忽视的领域。
修改引力理论,提出引力可能是一个从信息内容差异中涌现的力。
提出引力可能是由于粒子的波动性质和介质中的折射率变化而产生的。
引力波的发现限制了对引力的理解,排除了某些理论。
Milgramian Dynamics(Milgram动力学)作为牛顿动力学的等效理论提出。
Milgram注意到在星系中,当空间时间几乎平坦时,物体的加速度似乎更大。
Milgram提出量子真空可能是改变引力的因素。
量子场理论中,真空具有不断波动的能量密度,这可能影响引力。
Milgram提出真空中粒子的加速可能由于真空的量子波动而受到阻碍。
Milgram的理论预测了尚未发现的星系的行为,这些预测已被验证。
科学界对暗物质的信念可能导致对Milgram理论的忽视。
Milgram理论提供了一种不同的理解重力的方式,与爱因斯坦的相对论不同。
Milgram理论认为在宇宙的不同部分,重力可能会以不同的方式表现。
科学界需要对暗物质和Milgram理论进行同等的测试和验证。
Milgram理论预测了星系的运动速度,这些预测与观测结果一致。
当前的宇宙模型可能不完全正确,需要探索新的理论来解释宇宙的构造。
科学界对于证据的定义可能需要重新评估,特别是在宇宙学领域。
Milgram理论提供了一种新的视角来理解宇宙的大尺度结构。
Transcripts
because it opens the pathway towards a
Quantum gravitational understanding of
nature which the community has been
entirely ignoring
[Music]
can you tell us more about the modified
theory of gravity how is it modified and
how does it make the theory different
from how we've understood it it was
already weird bending space time that's
already pretty darn weird from from
Einstein what else do you need to
account for dark matter
well I am the idea with spending
space-time is brilliant and that
formulation is disciple thesis so it's
one way to hopefully understand what
gravitation is but it doesn't mean that
that theory is correct there are other
ideas what gravitation could be and that
is where Linda's concept that
it's gravitation is an emergent Force
because the information content
different regions of space is different
another possibility is that you get
gravitation because particles have wave
nature and gravitation just comes about
because of changes in refractive index
which their parties themselves because
they are oscillating in a
vacuum that Medium coated ether and that
changes refractive index and that
induces gravitational forces so they are
very different in the interpretation of
what gravitation could be we don't know
what is that um gravity waves which
recently have been detected well the
gravitational waves
um collapse the possibilities of how we
understand gravitation so if any
gravitational Theory does not
accommodate gravitational waves or it
doesn't accumulate accommodate them
traveling with a speed of light that
theory is ruled out yeah and this for
example has narrowed
the possibilities in mind so the
original version of a relativistic
formulation of Mont had gravitational
waves
propagating with a different speed and
that has been now of course falsified
but now there are other theories which
accommodate it but that's still
interpreting gravitation as a
geometrical effect which again itself
might not be correct I'm very
pragmatical what I rather rather than
spending much of my time thinking about
what gravitation could be in terms of
its deepest origin
I want to put into the computer a law of
gravitation with which we can study the
law of gravitation by looking at what we
observe out there and I know now and
that is a uh in physics we call that a
five Sigma detection threshold that's
how the Higgs boson was finally accepted
to be uh to be valid to be there is by
reaching the five Sigma detection limit
as the dark matter doesn't exist this
falsifies the validity of einsteinian
gravitation on the scales of gravity of
galaxies and Beyond this means that the
whole model of the universe is probably
not correct and that's where we are at
this very moment to investigate which
new theories could one develop just to
try to help explain how it is ismon
something the first time I came across
the description of it it was something
that seemed to have with have to do with
very distant phenomena in the universe
but in fact I've come to understand that
Monde is very much closer to home if
it's correct yeah right so say something
about it so where does Mont kick in you
would say right so in the solar system
can you encapsulate what Monday if I
understand it's kind of gravity varies
yes okay so tell us a little bit about
mom so
um um as
um Francisco said before Einstein and
gravity has been tested and verified
extremely well in the strong field
regime which means around within the
solar system and stronger fields around
black holes it seems to be working very
well it's an excellent mathematical
description and that uh so any other
Theory would have to accommodate that
but that is always one of the working
principles now now Mont
originally uh um as a description of um
as an acronym for modified internal
Dynamics I prefer to call it milgramian
Dynamics in equivalence to Newtonian
Dynamics so megromian Dynamics comes
about because Milgram noticed where the
measurements of the this galaxies came
in in the early 1980s when for the first
time the velocity field in galaxies were
mapped out to distances of
thousands of light years
that gravity changes and how does it
change well he he noticed that there
seems to be an acceleration scale which
means that in Einstein's view or
description when the when the curvature
of space
becomes very very small that's the
milgram's constant which describes this
curvature a critical curvature beyond
that once we go to nearly flat space
time the um accelerations of objects
appear to be larger
in 1999 Milgram wrote a very interesting
research paper which was more like a
conjecture we suggested that this change
comes about because of the quantum
vacuum the way we under the sustainable
of particle physics is today based on
Quantum field Theory and in there the
ideas the ideas that particles are as
we've heard before excitations in the
fields and there are many fields which
are constantly fluctuating of quantum
mechanical
property of the vacuum and so the vacuum
is constantly has an energy density
which is fluctuating another problem
with that is that the what the energy
density what the astronomers need is 120
orders of magnitude below what the
quantum field theoretists would like the
if I'm if I'm correct then even empty
space is full of energy it's full of
energy and particles pop out of it so
exactly and then disappear exactly
perfectly empty space it's still got
stuff and this is what's modifying and
gravity in this well exactly so the idea
of Milgram was that when you move
through this vacuum you have a larger
pressure
because of the bubbling in front of you
being a little more energetic because of
the blue shift and be rather than behind
and this exerts a force against you and
that's basically why acceleration is not
quite as big this Pro this effect is
more pronounced in a gradient so when
the space time is curved so you over
here you've got squash space time over
the last squash space and then this
effect is simply what we describe as
Newtonian gravitation if you're in the
regime where you're basically a symmetry
so you have the particle which is
accelerating and the vacuum here is as
unsquatched as over there then you
effectively have a large acceleration
because the effect largely disappears
yeah that's a point and so this paper is
a very remarkable research paper because
it opens the pathway towards a Quantum
gravitational understanding of nature
which the community has been entirely
ignoring because everybody knows there
is dark matter for effect essentially
the colleagues are completely convinced
while believing in dark matter and uh
and uh where they ignore the
falsifications of Dark Matter entirely
because it's become a question of belief
in the scientific system so we've got
two theories now which will account for
the same observations one postulates
stuff we can't see
and the other one postulates a shift in
the way we understand gravity that goes
back to Weinstein and says that gravity
will change in different parts of space
so what do you think how do you think
you could distinguish between these two
things it's completely simple uh so you
have to be pragmatic you have to do your
job as a scientist properly
falsification is the key words
you test the one Theory Dark Matter
exists tested is falsified with more
than five Sigma it doesn't exist you
drop it you don't even touch it anymore
ever in Armada search group group you do
not touch dark matter anymore the and
then you look at the other hypothesis it
has to be then a modification of gravity
or not a modification it's just a
different form of gravity I do not like
the to modification because nature does
not modify it right it's just a
different law and then we work with that
loan we try to falsify that equally so
far every single prediction made in 1983
you look at the three research purposes
Milgram has published he puts on a
number of predictions what galaxy should
behave like if that formulation of
gravitation is through every one of them
has been verified to an incredible
amount even galaxies which were not
known to exist at that time
come in and try to explain why we
haven't all stopped working on dark
matter
so the the main kind of disagreement
with the the Dark Matter model that
Pablo's describing is
that there are galaxies that are are
moving faster than we think that they
should be
when you have two galaxies that merge in
particular if they're all full of dark
matter the kind of gravity of this dark
matter should slow them down
and we see galaxies moving
faster than some of our modeling
suggests that they should be
now within the Dark Matter model
and indeed also within modify gravity
I would say we don't actually have a
theory that predicts exactly how fast
all these galaxies should be moving
there's a lot of inputs into that so one
of them is indeed slowing down through
dark matter but you would also need to
really know the the cosmological history
of all of these galaxies the effect of
all of the very complicated physics of
the stars and other kind of regular
matter Within These galaxies should come
into play
so I think within the Dark Matter model
the reason we haven't just all said well
okay this is just inconsistent we're
going to stop working on it
is that it's really quite a complicated
question how fast Galaxy should be
moving and the Dark Matter model has
been so successful at explaining other
observations that I really think we
should just be working on both
well I might interject here because I
hear the statement many times that the
Dark Matter models of course the
cosmological Dark Matter models have
been successful in accounting of a large
variety of observations it is wrong
I don't know any single observation
which has actually been successfully
reproduced by by the Dark Matter models
one case
if you look at the count the number of
galaxies within our surroundings you go
out to hundreds of millions of light
years you can count the number of
galaxies per unit space you have right
and we see that the density of meta
increases out to
um about
um
1500 million light years so that's
already a large distance
um and um which means we live in a
gigantic under density this is called
the KBC void which was discovered by
Keenan bag and koi in 2012 and has been
verified by subsequent studies also
looking at the number of Galaxy clusters
we live in a region of cosmological
space which has a lower mass density a
smaller number of Galaxy clusters
smaller number of galaxies than further
out now that huge and void is completely
inconsistent with the Lambda CDM model
that lumbarcity model by the Assumption
of how does that mean the Dark Matter
yeah I don't think that's synonymous so
the uh because it assumes homogeneity
and isotropy which is reasonable but it
cannot allow such large discrepancies in
okay so Pavel you're saying that the
current data is inconsistent with
Dartmouth I I thought that modern Dark
Matter were kind of equivalent in that
they're arguing for the same but you're
saying no the data out there is
currently inconsistent with with dark
matter and is consistently modern
absolutely because well the remarkable
thing about this is you can you can test
whether this under density can account
occur in the stock meta model it cannot
Beyond it can okay can you uh Enlighten
us when we've got two a conflicting
accounts of where the dark matter is
still a viable Theory or not it's a note
in the context here about whether a
theory is successful or not or whether
there's evidence of it cosmology uh is
in a very unique uh position as a
science has also develop its own
Criterion for evidence so the goal posts
for what counts the scientific evidence
has also shifted in the 20th century at
the same time there are arguments of
course that if you are looking at very
large scales or in micro like in physics
at the you know theoretical physics
Eugene do need sort of other criteria to
access things but this is a very this is
a very questionable thing I mean uh
Lambda CDM model or the standard model
is sometimes called a concordance model
because this is the principle that was
invented it's something called
concordance is considered evidence in
cosmology no other Sciences has this and
so what it means to for something to be
proven in cosmology is if you can infer
consistent patterns across multiple data
sets that is inferred as evidence that
the theory you used to create it is
correct okay and that means you can you
can claim uh that you have really solid
evidence for dark matter but yet you
have no observational evidence for any
single parameter so Francesca have you
been Shifting the goal posts
I think what Beyond saying is basically
correct in terms of
what is considered evidence within
cosmology is to do with often
consistency within the current model but
there's a very good reason for that
which is that in cosmology are the thing
we're studying is the whole universe so
all we can do is look at the sky with
telescopes we cannot do experiments
because we only have one universe and we
didn't get to choose the starting
conditions if I'm doing an experiment in
biology
I can you know try design the exact
setup that I want in an Laboratory
cosmology and astrophysics are more like
archeology all we can do is look at
what's happened
so in that way we have had to
develop different ways of doing things
now I would say that
there have been you know some things
that are predictions in the more normal
sense
um so for example if Dark Matter exists
and Einstein's theory of general
relativity is broadly speaking correct
even at large scales then we would
expect to observe
um the bending of light around dark
matter this is called gravitational
lensing and then you know indeed we have
observed that
so there are some things where you can
kind of make predictions and see them
but with a lot of science these days and
particularly a lot of fundamental
physics there's so much input that needs
to go into every calculation you have to
make so many assumptions and everyone
has to do that we have to do it you have
to do it if you're calculating and
modify gravity you have to do that to
calculate anything that it can be quite
hard to disentangle exactly what's the
prediction and what's just consistency
within the theory I think there's no
clear-cut line between those two well in
fact that leads us to continue watching
this video click the link in the top
left or in the description below or
visit iai.tv for more debates and talks
from the world's leading thinkers on
today's biggest ideas
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)