It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The team, led by Margot Brouwer, looked at the distribution of matter in more than 33,000 galaxies, and said that what they say could indeed be explained without dark matter if they used Verlinde's hypothesis of gravity.
Testing this involved studying something called gravitational lensing - the way galaxies closer to us bend the light of more distant galaxies. This is a well-established way of measuring the amount of dark matter in galaxies.
But the team found that if they just factored in Verlinde's modified gravity, then their results made sense without them having to add in the idea of dark matter.
"The dark matter model actually fits slightly better with the data than Verlinde’s prediction," Brouwer told New Scientist. "But then if you mathematically factor in the fact that Verlinde’s prediction doesn’t have any free parameters, whereas the dark matter prediction does, then you find Verlinde’s model is actually performing slightly better."
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: 727Sky
That old saying "'Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy" springs to mind.
End of the day through without an understanding of what dark matter/energy actually comprises, 95% of the universe will remain unknown to us.
originally posted by: jappee
a reply to: imjack
Wasn't it anti Trump people who blatantly propose sh!t like this... to suppose that crap like this should mix with political positions???? yeah i mean you..
originally posted by: djz3ro
"His suggestion is that gravity isn't a fundamental force of nature at all, but rather an emergent phenomenon - just like temperature is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the movement of microscopic particles.
In other words, gravity is a side effect, not the cause, of what's happening in the Universe."
So Verlinde decided to look at the problem another way. If we only proposed dark matter to make up for an inconsistency with gravity, then maybe the issue isn't dark matter at all - maybe the problem is that we don't really understand how gravity works.
Dark matter isn't the only gravitational inconsistency, either. The Standard Model of physics - the best set of formulae we have to explain how the Universe works - doesn't explain the effects of gravity.
And gravity and other general relativity theories famously don't gel with our understanding of quantum mechanics, which has led researchers to seek out a new 'theory of everything' that bridges the two.
But Verlinde has taken a different approach, by taking gravity out of the picture altogether. His suggestion is that gravity isn't a fundamental force of nature at all, but rather an emergent phenomenon - just like temperature is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the movement of microscopic particles.
In other words, gravity is a side effect, not the cause, of what's happening in the Universe.