General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 20 comments
  • 1,462 views

Dotini

(Banned)
15,742
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.2272
"Excess Clustering on Large Scales in the MegaZ DR7 Photometric Redshift Survey

We observe a large excess of power in the statistical clustering of Luminous Red Galaxies in the photometric SDSS galaxy sample called MegaZ DR7. This is seen over the lowest multipoles in the angular power spectra C_{\ell} in four equally spaced redshift bins between 0.45 < z < 0.65. However, it is most prominent in the highest redshift band at ~ 4 sigma and it emerges at an effective scale k ~ 0.01 h Mpc^{-1}. Given that MegaZ DR7 is the largest cosmic volume galaxy survey to date (3.3 (Gpc h^{-1})^3) this implies an anomaly on the largest physical scales probed by galaxies. Alternatively, this signature could be a consequence of it appearing at the most systematically susceptible redshift. There are several explanations for this excess power that range from systematics to new physics. This could have important consequences for the next generation of galaxy surveys or the LCDM model. We test the survey, data and excess power, as well as possible origins. "


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/clumpy-universe/
The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

“Maybe on very large scales, Einstein’s general relativity is slightly wrong,” said cosmologist Shaun Thomas of University College London, lead author of a new paper in Physical Review Letters. “This potentially could be one of the first signs that something peculiar is going on.”

The universe appears to be clumpier than astronomers expected, according to the largest galaxy survey to date. The extra clumps could call for a redesign of the standard model of cosmology, and maybe a new understanding of how gravity works.

The result could mean cosmologists need to reassess their understanding of dark energy, the mysterious force that drives the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate. Dark energy itself is supposed to be almost perfectly smooth, but clumps of dark energy could draw clumps of visible matter around them.

The extra lumps could also mean dark energy doesn’t exist at all. Instead, gravity could behave differently on very large scales than it does on smaller scales, meaning Einstein’s theory of general relativity needs an overhaul.


Respectfully submitted for GTP member comments,
Dotini
 
Their lingo doesn't make a lick of sense to me. The idea of gravity does make pretty good sense though. Mass has gravity; less mass has less, more mass has more. What's so wrong with clumps of matter happening to converge in certain areas where there happened to be a little more mass? Must the universe's mass be evenly distributed?

As far as I'm concerned, the most complicated question that really needs answered is "what is light?" It bends. It's affected by gravity. Therefore, it is something.

What are the basic questions that have prompted scientists to completely rethink physics as we know it?
 
What are the basic questions that have prompted scientists to completely rethink physics as we know it?

Hi, Keef, thanks for your post. Your usual good question is going to take a lot more than me to answer it. If I had to pick only my top two of several, I would say, in my opinion only,
(1) The ongoing inability to explain gravity or mathematically reconcile it in any accepted way with the other known forces of nature.
(2) Observed rotation of all spiral galaxies is seen to demonstrate a uniform angular velocity. Since this defies Newton's laws of gravity, it drives the postulation of dark matter, which has never been observed. Strictly in order to make the math work, dark (unseen) matter and dark (unseen) energy must comprise ~94% of the universe, and may theoretically never even be detectable, leaving a very unsatisfying state of affairs.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini
 
Since this defies Newton's laws of gravity, it drives the postulation of dark matter, which has never been observed.
Not directly, but I was under the impression it was observed indirectly in 2006 or 2007 by means of a gravitational lens?
 
It was... but then... was it? Was it Dark Matter or simply... dark matter? There's an important difference there...

Still... it's very early to say what you can conclude from this... models can't take into account everything, and it could be that the assumptions used to generate the simulations are lacking some important factor...
 
General relativity has been known to be "slightly" wrong since the discovery of quantum mechanics 70 or 80 years ago.

Light has mass so it's expected that it would be affected by gravity.

As for dark energy and dark matter, I'm a bit suspicious of the whole concept. It's as if they're saying hey our equations don't balance, so rather than trying something else to make them balance we're just gonna say there's a whole bunch of totally indetectable stuff out there that automagically balances the books. Imagine if Einstein had tried to explain irregularities in the orbit of Mercury by saying there must be an invisible indetectable planet causing the irregularities rather than devising a new theory that explained it (theory of relativity).
 
That's how we discovered the other planets. You see an irregularity in a planet's orbit that can't be explained by existing planets... then go looking for it.

Spend a long time looking for it... (and a lot of people spent a long time looking for it)

Then someone finds it, fanfare ensues.

Then a century later, a bunch of know-it-alls get together and decide that this fantastic discovery isn't worth the name planet. Boooo....

-

Dark Matter is a good method of explaining gravitational anomalies... the problem is that there are no other means of detection besides gravitational lensing...
 
Last edited:
How else would it be affected by gravity? Unless gravity has nothing to do with mass.

You do realize photons are widely considered to have no mass? Like, experimentally and theoretically.
 
Since when has light had mass?

You do realize photons are widely considered to have no mass? Like, experimentally and theoretically.

Photons along with neutrinos have a rest mass of zero. Meaning, if you had one that wasn't moving its mass would be zero. But, for reasons having to do with this zero rest mass, photons (and neutrinos) can only exist traveling at the speed of light.

I'm sure you'd agree with the statement "light has energy". Well, mass is energy. When you walk across the room your mass is slightly greater than it is when you're sitting in a chair, because of the kinetic energy your body possesses. Sure it's not much, and you'd find it pretty much impossible to measure, but it does.

A reference was made to gravitational lensing by niky. This is basically light rays being bent by the gravity of a large mass the light ray passes close to. The light ray wouldn't be bent if it didn't have mass.

Physics on the atomic and subatomic scale can make your head hurt.
 
Photons have to have zero mass, because otherwise they would have infinite mass at lightspeed... and to go out in the sunlight would be suicide... :lol:

And yet gravitational lensing and black holes do affect light. Not because light has mass, but because large objects tend to warp space so badly that the straight line the rays tend to take is no longer straight.

This is one illustration of how General Relativity is superior to Newtonian Physics... which can't explain why massless objects are affected by gravity.

Photons cannot travel at anything other than light speed. Increasing or decreasing their energy doesn't speed them up or slow them down, it merely shifts them up and down the spectrum. Pour enough energy into a photon and you end up with some very nasty x-rays and gamma rays. Take enough away and you end up with radio waves...

This is why we have redshift... photons emitted from objects moving away from us cannot lose speed, like we'd expect them to... (photon moving at light speed, subtract 1/10th light speed because the object emitting it is moving away at that speed... photon is still at light speed!)... instead, they lose energy and shift downwards in the spectrum towards the red...

Makes you wonder... if, when falling into a black hole, you will die in a sleet of X-Ray particles before the gravity crushes you...
 
Last edited:
If space is nothing, but it is warped by a massive object, then obviously space is something because nothing can't be warped by anything. I suppose this leads to the idea of everything that isn't detectable being "dark" matter.
 
Niky, would you say that Gravity is just the effect of Magnetism?
ie, I mean more like the particles are affected by electromagnetic energy, they both have different polarities (or maybe the same?), so the magnetic energy causes attraction or the opposite... Sorry if it's so stupid, but I am 14 and gifted and always wanted to ask tis question...
I wish I could elaborate a bit more on my idea, but I have to go to a Montreal Trip with my class tommorrow... at 6:00... AM... crap... :) Have a great night guys! :D
 
Niky, would you say that Gravity is just the effect of Magnetism?
ie, I mean more like the particles are affected by electromagnetic energy, they both have different polarities (or maybe the same?), so the magnetic energy causes attraction or the opposite... Sorry if it's so stupid, but I am 14 and gifted and always wanted to ask tis question...
I wish I could elaborate a bit more on my idea, but I have to go to a Montreal Trip with my class tommorrow... at 6:00... AM... crap... :) Have a great night guys! :D

If it is it's an extremely weak version of it. If you had a magnet with the mass of the sun it would pull in half the Galaxy!
 
If space is nothing, but it is warped by a massive object, then obviously space is something because nothing can't be warped by anything. I suppose this leads to the idea of everything that isn't detectable being "dark" matter.

Nope. Space doesn't have mass. Dark matter can be demonstrated to have mass. And to not interact with regular matter in any other way except through gravity.

Niky, would you say that Gravity is just the effect of Magnetism?
ie, I mean more like the particles are affected by electromagnetic energy, they both have different polarities (or maybe the same?), so the magnetic energy causes attraction or the opposite... Sorry if it's so stupid, but I am 14 and gifted and always wanted to ask tis question...
I wish I could elaborate a bit more on my idea, but I have to go to a Montreal Trip with my class tommorrow... at 6:00... AM... crap... :) Have a great night guys! :D

If you can answer the question of how gravity relates to magnetism and other forces, you'll be famous. Of course, you might drive yourself batty trying. More information here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Thanks for making me feel really stupid everyone! :)

Reading string theory and quantum theory makes me feel like a lobotomized chimpanzee. :lol:

Just because we know the current model and know how to explain it or illustrate it through analogy (thank you Science, thank you, Seed, thank you, American Scientific...) doesn't mean that we can actually model it accurately in our heads... or know what is actually going on... or actually discover these things for ourselves if we had to...

Reminds me of a story by Stephen Baxter where super-intelligent apes deduce the wave-particle nature of photons by observing interference patterns in the edges of shadows... and this is while they're still children. Yes... reading Baxter's stuff also makes me feel like a lobotomized chimpanzee...
 
Its really not a surprise at all to hear that general relativity is 'slightly wrong' its been considered 'badly wrong' on the smallest of scales, and this particular suggest there may be a slight issue with it on the largest of scales.

Gravity not behaving as it should is certainly not new, I wouldn't be surprised to see a complete re-write of gravity in the next 30 years.
 
I actually understand this, thanks to History Channel etc. etc.

I feel smart.
5353.awww-yeah.jpg
 
Back