Editing 1758: Astrophysics

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 15: Line 15:
 
One such alternative theory which gets proposed regularly is {{w|modified Newtonian dynamics}} (MOND). In MOND, gravity doesn't simply follow the {{w|inverse square law}} but has more complicated behavior. Usually, the extra behavior is either to say that gravitational force can be affected by the acceleration of the particle, or that it goes from inverse-square to just inverse at large distances. It can be appealing because it's relatively simple and seemingly more logical — it just changes our understanding of Newton's law of gravitation, rather than requiring entirely new forms of matter or unknown stars to exist — and because it has some nice side-effects, such as explaining why there seems to be a limit on the density of galaxies.  Unfortunately, physicists have explored this avenue and cannot reconcile it with all existing data. One famous counterexample is the {{w|Bullet Cluster}}, where two colliding galaxy clusters are ripping through each other.  The mass distribution within the cluster can be inferred through gravitational lensing, and appears to show dark matter and ordinary matter being separated to a certain extent which cannot be explained with MOND.  Another counterexample is MOND's incompatibility with observations of the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters. More generally, MOND isn't compatible with general relativity — which has a huge amount of experimental data in its favor — and a MOND-compatible general relativity would be very complicated and ugly.
 
One such alternative theory which gets proposed regularly is {{w|modified Newtonian dynamics}} (MOND). In MOND, gravity doesn't simply follow the {{w|inverse square law}} but has more complicated behavior. Usually, the extra behavior is either to say that gravitational force can be affected by the acceleration of the particle, or that it goes from inverse-square to just inverse at large distances. It can be appealing because it's relatively simple and seemingly more logical — it just changes our understanding of Newton's law of gravitation, rather than requiring entirely new forms of matter or unknown stars to exist — and because it has some nice side-effects, such as explaining why there seems to be a limit on the density of galaxies.  Unfortunately, physicists have explored this avenue and cannot reconcile it with all existing data. One famous counterexample is the {{w|Bullet Cluster}}, where two colliding galaxy clusters are ripping through each other.  The mass distribution within the cluster can be inferred through gravitational lensing, and appears to show dark matter and ordinary matter being separated to a certain extent which cannot be explained with MOND.  Another counterexample is MOND's incompatibility with observations of the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters. More generally, MOND isn't compatible with general relativity — which has a huge amount of experimental data in its favor — and a MOND-compatible general relativity would be very complicated and ugly.
  
This comic illustrates physicists' exasperation for people who constantly try to challenge the existence of dark matter without considering all the evidence and theoretical foundation that support it.  Apparently members of this department are so tired of hearing the same old ideas being repeated to them, that they have adopted a motto and even erected a sign in an attempt to clear the dissuasion.  The specific impetus for this comic may be the press coverage around [https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 this publication] by {{w|Erik Verlinde}} (see popular description of the paper [http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html here]). It was released online three days before the release of this comic and got a lot of coverage exclaiming "this will prove Einstein wrong".  While Verlinde's work on {{w|entropic gravity}} is a serious theory derived from {{w|thermodynamics}} and {{w|quantum information theory}}, it is important to keep in mind that it's just a {{w|pre-print}} and hasn't been peer-reviewed or experimentally verified yet. Verlinde's theory also doesn't match all available data - it [https://web.archive.org/web/20170115045049/http://motls.blogspot.de/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html disagrees with experimental results showing how particles interact with gravity].  Thus, it is still a far cry from being a contender for replacing dark matter.
+
This comic illustrates physicists' exasperation for people who constantly try to challenge the existence of dark matter without considering all the evidence and theoretical foundation that support it.  Apparently members of this department are so tired of hearing the same old ideas being repeated to them, that they have adopted a motto and even erected a sign in an attempt to clear the dissuasion.  The specific impetus for this comic may be the press coverage around [https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 this publication] by {{w|Erik Verlinde}} (see popular description of the paper [http://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html here]). It was released online three days before the release of this comic and got a lot of coverage exclaiming "this will prove Einstein wrong".  While Verlinde's work on {{w|entropic gravity}} is a serious theory derived from {{w|thermodynamics}} and {{w|quantum information theory}}, it is important to keep in mind that it's just a {{w|pre-print}} and hasn't been peer-reviewed or experimentally verified yet. Verlinde's theory also doesn't match all available data - it [http://motls.blogspot.de/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravity-cant-be.html disagrees with experimental results showing how particles interact with gravity].  Thus, it is still a far cry from being a contender for replacing dark matter.
  
 
The title text alludes to a similar issue faced by the Department of {{w|Neuroscience}} from popular misconceptions of {{w|Mirror neurons}}.  Mirror neurons are brain cells which trigger when watching someone else do something. Experiments claim to have found mirror neurons in humans and apes, and there are theories that make mirror neurons the foundation of learning, empathy, language and consciousness itself. However, {{w|mirror neurons#Doubts concerning mirror neurons|the evidence for mirror neurons is still patchy}}, and even if they exist, it's very simplistic to try to attribute so much of human behavior to a single type of relatively simple cell. In light of this, the motto of the neuroscientists at the department rightfully reflect their frustration. [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/flipping-tables Flipping tables] is a common depiction for expressing extreme outrage. It is used here also as a pun because mirrors flip the image in front of them.
 
The title text alludes to a similar issue faced by the Department of {{w|Neuroscience}} from popular misconceptions of {{w|Mirror neurons}}.  Mirror neurons are brain cells which trigger when watching someone else do something. Experiments claim to have found mirror neurons in humans and apes, and there are theories that make mirror neurons the foundation of learning, empathy, language and consciousness itself. However, {{w|mirror neurons#Doubts concerning mirror neurons|the evidence for mirror neurons is still patchy}}, and even if they exist, it's very simplistic to try to attribute so much of human behavior to a single type of relatively simple cell. In light of this, the motto of the neuroscientists at the department rightfully reflect their frustration. [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/flipping-tables Flipping tables] is a common depiction for expressing extreme outrage. It is used here also as a pun because mirrors flip the image in front of them.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)