←back to thread

James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence for alternate theory of gravity

(thedebrief.org)
355 points jchanimal | 4 comments | 16 Nov 24 18:33 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
samsartor ◴[16 Nov 24 20:21 UTC] No.42158987[source]▶
My hangup with MOND is still general relativity. We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold. Any model of gravity based on an inverse law is simply wrong.

Another comment linked to https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/, which is an excellent read. It makes the case that GR has never been tested at low accelerations, that is might be wrong. But we know for a fact MOND is wrong at high accelerations. Unless your theory can cover both, I don't see how it can be pitched as an improvement to GR.

Edit: this sounds a bit hostile. to be clear, I think modified gravity is absolutely worth researching. but it isn't a silver bullet

replies(7): >>42159034 #>>42159161 #>>42159582 #>>42159774 #>>42160543 #>>42160861 #>>42165272 #
meindnoch ◴[16 Nov 24 21:39 UTC] No.42159582[source]▶
>We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold

[citation needed]

The consensus is that gravity - outside of extreme mass/energy environments - works just as Newton described it to many many decimal places.

Emphasized part added because people in the replies thought that I literally think that General Relativity is somehow wrong. Don't be dense. All I'm saying is that gravity at galactic scales works as Newton described it. General Relativity has extremely tiny effect at those scales.

replies(7): >>42159646 #>>42159734 #>>42159753 #>>42159761 #>>42159764 #>>42159815 #>>42160651 #
samsartor ◴[16 Nov 24 22:01 UTC] No.42159734[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Pe... is the example I learned in school. You don't need to be around a black hole for GR to suddenly switch on.

Newtonian gravity is an approximation. A perfectly acceptable one in many contexts, but still measurably incorrect.

replies(1): >>42159855 #
meindnoch ◴[16 Nov 24 22:15 UTC] No.42159855[source]▶
Nobody said that general relativity is "switched on" around black holes.

But ok, let me put it this way: outside of extreme energy/mass environments, gravity is described by Newton's law of gravitation with very high precision. If you look very hard, you may notice differences on the order of 10e-MANY. But for all intents and purposes, gravity is Newtonian in 99.99999% of the universe.

replies(5): >>42159893 #>>42159925 #>>42159932 #>>42160112 #>>42160210 #
1. samsartor ◴[16 Nov 24 22:25 UTC] No.42159925[source]▶
Not for all intents and purposes.

If we are asking whether MOND is useful, then the answer is probably yes. You might use it for simulations of galaxy formation where Newtonian gravity is considered a reasonable approximation today. But MOND is not a correct model of the universe. There is no place in the universe that Newtonian gravity applies, only places where the error is an acceptable trade-off for simpler calculation.

replies(1): >>42159981 #
2. meindnoch ◴[16 Nov 24 22:32 UTC] No.42159981[source]▶
By the same logic, there's no place in the universe that general relativity applies either, since it breaks down at the quantum level. There's no place in the universe where any theory other than the one true grand unified theory applies, because everything else is just an approximation. At which point we're just arguing about semantics, and I don't see a reason for continuing it on my part.
replies(1): >>42160218 #
3. radishingr ◴[16 Nov 24 22:57 UTC] No.42160218[source]▶
There are vastly different scales where the approximation is correct for newton vs general relativity. Perhaps you can define the scales that you are calling relevant so we understand what you mean.
replies(1): >>42160427 #
4. meindnoch ◴[16 Nov 24 23:18 UTC] No.42160427{3}[source]▶
The scale of galaxies? Which the original article is about? I feel like I need to spell out everything, but ok:

The article is about modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), which is a theory that modifies Newtonian gravitation to fix some observed differences in galaxies' motion, without invoking dark matter. The original commenter then proclaims "haha, MOND cannot be right, because we know that Newtonian gravity is incorrect". Yeah, no shit Sherlock; it is "incorrect" because it is just a limiting case of general relativity. But that's completely besides the whole point of MOND, which tries to "fix" gravity at galactic scales, which is a Newtonian regime even with general relativity. MOND is trying to tweak the Newtonian formula at those extreme distances, and if it works, then maybe it can be worked out to be a limiting case of a "modified general relativity", just as Newtonian gravity is a limiting case of GR. Got it?