The modified theory of gravity explains the structure of the Universe in its own way

• Popular Science,
• Physics,
• Astronomy

Professor Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam has developed a new hypothesis for gravity. The scientist recently published his findings in several scientific publications. He proposed the main part of the hypothesis back in 2010. Its main message is that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature; rather, it is a random phenomenon.

According to Verlinde, gravity results from changes in the master bits of information stored in the very structure of space and time. He argues that gravity is explained by a certain difference in entropy density in the space between two bodies and in the surrounding space. Thus, he explains the attraction of two macroscopic bodies by an increase in total entropy with a decrease in the distance between the bodies. In other words, the system simply moves into a more probable macrostate.

In his 2010 paper, the scientist showed how Newton's second law can explain apples falling from a tree or a stable orbit artificial satellite The Earth may be a particular manifestation of the interaction of these elementary blocks of matter. “Newton's laws don't work at the micro level, but they work at the level of apples and planets. You can compare this to gas pressure. Gas molecules themselves do not create any pressure, but a certain volume of gas does,” the scientist said in 2010. According to Verlinde, the behavior of stars in galaxies that many scientists believe are inconsistent with generally accepted ideas about space-time can be explained without introducing an additional factor like dark matter.

Dark matter in astronomy and cosmology, as well as in theoretical physics, is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit electromagnetic radiation and does not directly interact with it. This property of this form of matter makes its direct observation impossible. The conclusion about the existence of dark matter was made on the basis of numerous, consistent with each other, but indirect signs of the behavior of astrophysical objects and the gravitational effects they create. Clarifying the nature of dark matter will help solve the problem of hidden mass, which, in particular, consists of anomalously high speed rotation of the outer regions of galaxies.

The fact is that the outer regions of galaxies rotate much faster around their center than they should. Scientists have long ago calculated the rotation speed of galaxies if stars, planets, nebulae, that is, visible matter, is all the matter that exists in the Universe. In fact, something is greatly enhancing gravity, which is why the outer regions of the galaxy are spinning faster than they should. To designate this “something,” scientists have suggested the possibility of the existence of invisible matter, which, nevertheless, has a significant impact on all objects in the visible part of the Universe. Moreover, according to calculations, there should be several times more dark matter than ordinary matter. More precisely, it is believed that 80% of the matter in our visible part of the Universe is dark matter.

The first to conduct accurate and reliable calculations that indicated the existence of dark matter were astronomers Vera Rubin of the Carnegie Institution and Kent Ford. The measurement results showed that most stars in spiral galaxies move in orbit at approximately the same angular velocity, which leads to the idea that the mass density in galaxies is the same for those regions where the majority of stars are located, and for those regions (at the edge of the disk) where there are few stars.

Despite the fact that the existence of dark matter is accepted by most scientists, there is no direct evidence of its existence. All this evidence is circumstantial.

According to Erik Verlinde, everything can be explained without adding modern model the existence of a universe of mysterious matter that cannot be detected. Verlinde says his hypothesis has been tested and accurately predicts the rate of rotation of stars around the center of our galaxy, as well as the rate of rotation of the outer regions of other galaxies around a common center.

“The new vision of the theory of gravity is consistent with the observations of scientists. By by and large"gravity simply doesn't behave as well on large scales as Einstein's theory predicts," Verlinde said.

At first glance, the basic principles of Verlinde's hypothesis are similar to those of other hypotheses, including MOND (modified Newtonian Dynamics). But in reality this is not so: MOND simply modifies the generally accepted theory using its principles and provisions. But the Dutch hypothesis works with new principles, the starting point is different.

The hypothesis found a place for the holographic principle formulated by Verlinde's teacher Gerard 't Hooft (received in 1999 Nobel Prize) and scientist Leonard Susskind (Stanford University). According to this principle, all information in the Universe can be described as a giant imaginary sphere around it. The theory at the boundaries of the region of space under study must contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area. Verlinde argues that this theory does not take into account the fact that some of the information in our universe is not just a projection, it is quite real.

And this Additional Information This is precisely the reason for the faster rotation of the outer regions of galaxies compared to calculated values. Real information in our Universe can explain one more additional factor - dark energy, which is now generally believed to be main reason non-stop expansion of the Universe. Moreover, as shown in 1998 Nobel laureates Saul Perlmutter, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess, the rate of expansion of the Universe is not constant, as previously thought, this rate is constantly increasing. The generally accepted theory is that dark energy accounts for about 70% of the contents of the Universe, and scientists are trying to find traces of it in the microwave background radiation.

The professor claims that many physicists are now working to revise the theory of gravity, and some progress in this area has already been made. According to the Dutchman, science is on the verge of a revolution that can change people's ideas about the nature of space, time and gravity.

At the same time, many physicists continue to believe that dark energy and matter are real. Thus, Sesandri Nadathur from the University of Portsmouth (UK) published their work last month in

Professor Erik Verlinde from the University of Amsterdam has developed a new hypothesis for gravity. The scientist recently published his findings in several scientific publications. He proposed the main part of the hypothesis back in 2010. Its main message is that gravity is not a fundamental force of nature; rather, it is a random phenomenon.

According to Verlinde, gravity results from changes in the master bits of information stored in the very structure of space and time. He argues that gravity is explained by a certain difference in entropy density in the space between two bodies and in the surrounding space. Thus, he explains the attraction of two macroscopic bodies by an increase in total entropy with a decrease in the distance between the bodies. In other words, the system simply moves into a more probable macrostate.

In his 2010 paper, the scientist showed how Newton's second law, which can explain apples falling from a tree or the stable orbit of an artificial Earth satellite, can be a particular manifestation of the interaction of these elementary blocks of matter. “Newton's laws don't work at the micro level, but they work at the level of apples and planets. You can compare this to gas pressure. Gas molecules themselves do not create any pressure, but a certain volume of gas does,” the scientist said in 2010. According to Verlinde, the behavior of stars in galaxies that many scientists believe are inconsistent with generally accepted ideas about space-time can be explained without introducing an additional factor like dark matter.

Dark matter in astronomy and cosmology, as well as in theoretical physics, is a hypothetical form of matter that does not emit electromagnetic radiation and does not directly interact with it. This property of this form of matter makes its direct observation impossible. The conclusion about the existence of dark matter was made on the basis of numerous, consistent with each other, but indirect signs of the behavior of astrophysical objects and the gravitational effects they create. Finding out the nature of dark matter will help solve the problem of hidden mass, which, in particular, lies in the anomalously high speed of rotation of the outer regions of galaxies.

The fact is that the outer regions of galaxies rotate much faster around their center than they should. Scientists have long ago calculated the rotation speed of galaxies if stars, planets, nebulae, that is, visible matter, is all the matter that exists in the Universe. In fact, something is greatly enhancing gravity, which is why the outer regions of the galaxy are spinning faster than they should. To designate this “something,” scientists have suggested the possibility of the existence of invisible matter, which, nevertheless, has a significant impact on all objects in the visible part of the Universe. Moreover, according to calculations, there should be several times more dark matter than ordinary matter. More precisely, it is believed that 80% of the matter in our visible part of the Universe is dark matter.

The first to conduct accurate and reliable calculations that indicated the existence of dark matter were astronomers Vera Rubin of the Carnegie Institution and Kent Ford. The measurement results showed that most stars in spiral galaxies move in orbit at approximately the same angular velocity, which leads to the idea that the mass density in galaxies is the same for those regions where the majority of stars are located and for those regions (at the edge of the disk) where there are few stars.

Despite the fact that the existence of dark matter is accepted by most scientists, there is no direct evidence of its existence. All this evidence is circumstantial.

According to Eric Verlinde, everything can be explained without adding mysterious matter that cannot be detected to the modern model of the existence of the Universe. Verlinde says his hypothesis has been tested and accurately predicts the rate of rotation of stars around the center of our galaxy, as well as the rate of rotation of the outer regions of other galaxies around a common center.

“The new vision of the theory of gravity is consistent with the observations of scientists. "By and large, gravity simply doesn't behave as well on large scales as Einstein's theory predicts," Verlinde said.

At first glance, the basic principles of Verlinde's hypothesis are similar to those of other hypotheses, including MOND (modified Newtonian Dynamics). But in reality this is not so: MOND simply modifies the generally accepted theory using its principles and provisions. But the Dutch hypothesis works with new principles, the starting point is different.

The hypothesis found a place for the holographic principle, formulated by the teacher Verlinde Gerard 't Hooft (received the Nobel Prize in 1999) and the scientist Leonard Susskind (Stanford University). According to this principle, all information in the Universe can be described as a giant imaginary sphere around it. The theory at the boundaries of the region of space under study should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck area. Verlinde argues that this theory does not take into account the fact that some of the information in our universe is not just a projection, it is quite real.

And this additional information is precisely the reason for the faster rotation of the outer regions of galaxies compared to calculated values. Real information in our Universe can explain one more additional factor - dark energy, which is now generally believed to be the main reason for the non-stop expansion of the Universe. Moreover, as Nobel laureates Saul Perlmutter, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Riess showed in 1998, the rate of expansion of the Universe is not constant, as previously thought, this rate is constantly increasing. The generally accepted theory is that dark energy accounts for about 70% of the contents of the Universe, and scientists are trying to find traces of it in the microwave background radiation.

The professor claims that many physicists are now working to revise the theory of gravity, and some progress in this area has already been made. According to the Dutchman, science is on the verge of a revolution that can change people's ideas about the nature of space, time and gravity.

At the same time, many physicists continue to believe that dark energy and matter are real. Thus, Sesandri Nadathur from the University of Portsmouth (UK) published their work last month in

The new theory of gravity, formulated in 2010 by University of Amsterdam researcher Erik Verlinde, is still hotly contested in scientific circles. Perhaps no idea would cause such heated controversy as the absence of dark matter in the Universe. It seems that Verlinde's theory now has the opportunity to receive new evidence. This was made possible thanks to ongoing observations by astronomers.

Convincing evidence

The current research by astronomers has been hailed as strong evidence for the idea of ​​emergent gravity, where gravity can arise spontaneously rather than be a spontaneously ordered entity of nature. While the collected evidence is at the verification stage, and the results of the study have not been published in scientific journals. However, if this theory receives official confirmation, the world will once again stand on the threshold scientific revolution. Only now will the assumptions of Newton and Einstein be refuted. On the other hand, this can dot the i's, because classical and quantum mechanics cannot be used simultaneously.

Is gravity not real?

According to Erik Verlinde's hypothesis, gravity is not real. It is an effect associated with entropy, or the irreversible dissipation of energy in the Universe. The evidence obtained does not refute the theory of cosmological constants, which argue that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter. These fundamental substances do not interact with visible light and cannot be detected using ground-based instruments.

What is the essence of the dispute?

Adherents of the theory of gravity are convinced that dark matter is a theoretical particle defined by several parameters. However, the theory of emergent gravity comes from extended physical formulas. Thus, both theories may not contradict each other, since in new version More variables were taken as the basis for calculations.

Gravitational lensing

Astronomical observations are made possible by gravitational lensing. This phenomenon is usually associated with the deflection of light rays in the gravitational field. Lenses can be used to explain the formation of multiple images of various astronomical objects. Light refraction directed at heavy objects has previously been used in extended tests of the standard cosmological model.

Although there are still no direct references to lensing in cosmological experiments, scientists can estimate the expected lensing signal in relation to the redshift of galaxies. Probably their grouping occurs under the influence of attractive forces.

New theory could change understanding of time, space and gravity

Thus, emergent gravity wants to do away with general relativity and dark matter. Thus, when testing, you can understand how individual objects can interact with each other. If general relativity predicts the model real universe, That new idea applicable to isolated, spherical and static systems.

According to Carl Sagan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In the meantime, let's be patient and wait for confirmation of the emerging theory of gravity.

Gravity is believed by historians to be the first force described mathematical theory. It doesn't matter that Aristotle was wrong when he said that objects with different masses fall from at different speeds. The important thing is that gravity was under the radar of ancient scientists.

In the 17th century, thanks to the teachings of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and other associates of science, a qualitative breakthrough occurred in the study of the problem of gravity. The culmination of the study of the phenomenon of gravity was the discovery of the Law itself Universal Gravity, which we will refer to more than once.

Nowadays, theorists also do not sit with their chins resting on their fists, they hammer on the keyboard keys every day, hour after hour, and have already written so much that the hypotheses alone have exceeded well over a hundred, and the written volumes amount to thousands and thousands of volumes.

Today, as Wikipedia says, three promising directions have emerged for solving the problem of quantizing gravity: string theory, loop theory quantum gravity, and causal dynamic triangulation. But to put it even more generally, we will highlight two main directions of theories of gravity - field and geometric.

Let me briefly remind the reader what these directions are and where scientists are looking for those elusive gravitons.

Galileo's experiments and mathematical laws Kepler's movements of celestial bodies laid the foundation for Newton's theory of gravity. With some stretch, one can attribute this theory to the first field theory. Why is it a stretch? There is only one reason - electromagnetic waves were discovered much later, after Newton's death. In the middle of the 18th century, Faraday experimentally substantiated and developed his concept of the field nature of matter and the unity of the physical forces of nature. Then Maxwell could only, as Hertz figuratively noted, “dress Faraday’s theory in the aristocratic clothes of mathematics.” Maxwell's first paper on theory electromagnetic field it was called: “Oh power lines Faraday."

The other half of theorists who draw on constructs in their ideas theories of gravity geometry, they believe that today any fundamental physical theory contains at its core a certain complex of geometric ideas. A whole trend has emerged and has already taken shape. geometric description gravity and others fundamental interactions in the multidimensional Kaluza-Klein scheme.

Today, the most famous and one might even say recognized theory of gravity is the general theory of relativity (GTR) by A. Einstein. According to this theory, gravity is caused by the curvature of space created by gravitating bodies, where the geometric properties of space act as real active forces. Any mass bends space-time around itself, another mass, falling into this area curvature, experiences the force of gravity.

Einstein started with 4-dimensional space-time. Then T. Kaluza in his classic work 1921 proposed to geometrize electromagnetism, combining it with gravity by increasing the dimension of space-time by one. Kaluza postulated the independence of geometric quantities from the 5th coordinate, called the “miracles of Kaluza.”

Then physicists began to get used to the wonders of physics and the coordinates began to multiply. After a relative decline in the middle of the last century, interest in multidimensional geometric models increased again in the 70s and 80s. This is correlated, first of all, with the progress of research into electroweak and strong interactions.

Subsequently, there were attempts to construct multidimensional field theories, which were supposed to combine general relativity with the theories of electromagnetic, electroweak and even strong interactions. A 6-dimensional model of gravielectroweak interactions has appeared, containing the main elements of the Weinberg-Salam model of electroweak interactions. Next is a 7-dimensional model of gravielectroweak interactions, which describes the basic elements of classical (not quantum) chromodynamics. And finally, an 8-dimensional model of gravitational interactions in the metric version was constructed, in which the bosonic and fermionic sectors are mutually consistent.

Einstein can be classified as a pragmatic science fiction writer. His work began at the beginning of the last century, and at that time the population of the Earth was much smaller, there were fewer science fiction writers, and accordingly there were fewer of them among physicists. At the beginning of the 20th century, the global population of the Earth was 1625 million people. Today this number is 7 billion people. It grew not only total people, but the number of physicists also grew. Apparently for this reason, as scientists themselves believe, there is an obvious overabundance of gravity hypotheses. But the problem remained unsolved, and the search for truth with each new hypothesis expanded into geometric progression, and this further aggravates this problem.

The ideas of so-called “pushing” continue to be discussed with greater intensity. Not finding a direct answer, some physicists go behind matter and begin to push and push it, to create the appearance of attraction. But where does such energy come from? Unless you can attract God again, atheism doesn’t allow you to do that.

Ether is incomprehensible, endless and never-ending! Despite the fact that at the turn of the century the ether was excluded from energy suppliers, physicists, seeing that all the arguments of matter in terms of gravity have been exhausted, again turn to the vacuum, i.e. to the air. And in order to materialize it, they came up with the idea that the vacuum is not empty, but “physical”, and if physical, then also material, substantial, and, accordingly, energy-saturated.

Ether began to be used by both “pushers” and “attractors”. They attacked the ether, everyone began to need it, like a saving straw when there is nothing left to grab onto.

Ethereal theories reject general relativity because this theory denies the existence of the ether itself; accordingly, the Big Bang and the existence of Black holes are rejected. Thus, the act of the emergence of the Universe 13.7 billion years ago is rejected. The universe is thus recognized as eternally existing. Then, based on the recognition of the eternity of the Universe, two prohibitions arise: 1) one cannot postulate that gravitons are irreversibly transformed into any other type of energy or matter, 2) one cannot postulate that any type of matter is irreversibly transformed into gravitons. In the first case, after some fairly large time, all gravitons will disappear, and in the second case, all matter will disappear, and only gravitons will remain.

What will we choose? But there is no choice!

Almost all graviton theories of gravity based on Le Sage's hypothesis. In 1756 Lesage proposed a simple kinetic theory gravity, which provided an explanation for the force in Newton's equation. The law of gravitation as formulated by Newton followed from Le Sage's hypothesis. In addition, from Le Sage's hypothesis it follows that the radius of action of gravitational forces is finite, since at a distance greater than the free path of a graviton, gravity practically disappears. Le Sage's hypothesis is based on the assumption of the existence in nature of particles chaotically moving at high speeds, which very rarely collide with each other, easily pass through bodies, occasionally being absorbed by them, or losing some of their energy when colliding with body particles. Later, such particles began to be called gravitons.

A little more and you can completely get confused in the jungle of gravitational hypotheses, so you need to finish this short review of the field and geometric systems of approach to the problem of gravity, but there is another very popular direction - the idea of ​​string theories and M-theory, which should also be briefly mentioned.

The history of strings (string theory of gravity), its origin dates back to 1968, when two young theorists from CERN, Gabriele Veneziano and Mahiko Suzuki, were working on mathematical analysis pion collisions. Such quantum collisions are described using a scattering matrix, which allows one to find the probabilities of transitions of colliding particles from initial to final states.
In every specific case it is usually calculated only with some approximation.

Veneziano and Suzuki found that the amplitude of pair scattering of high-energy pions with high accuracy can be calculated using the beta function, which was invented by Leonhard Euler in 1730. This function is rarely used and Cernov physicists stumbled upon it by chance while looking through mathematical reference books. The event aroused considerable interest among other physicists, because It was found that the amplitude of pion-pion scattering is given by expansion into an infinite series, the first and main term of which exactly coincides with the Veneziano-Suzuki formula.

Once you got hooked, and as they say, “off we go.”

In 1970, a quartet of physicists: Yochiro Nambu, Tetsuo Goto, Leonard Susskind and Holger Nielsen discovered an interesting coincidence. They derived the same formula, suggesting that the interaction between colliding pions arises due to the fact that they are connected by an infinitely thin oscillating thread that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. This unexpected result gave impetus to the invention of models representing elementary particles in the form of supermicroscopic one-dimensional tuning forks vibrating at certain notes. They began to be called strings.

String theory developed rapidly in the 80s and 90s, and it was expected that on its basis the so-called “unified theory” or “theory of everything” would be formulated. But, despite the mathematical rigor and integrity of this theory, those same gravitons have not yet been found in experiments to confirm string theory. A theory that seemingly arose to describe hadron physics, but in fact turned out to be unsuitable for this; it ended up in the experimental vacuum of describing all interactions. At the beginning of string theory, it was assumed that it was mathematically correct only if the space-time continuum was 26-dimensional. But then spin was introduced into it and its space-time was reduced to 10 (nine spatial dimensions and one time). Here physicists were surprised that the theory itself chose the dimension.

But something was again missing for triumph, then, solving the string equations, the open ends of the strings were closed and rings were obtained, which corresponded to massless particles with spin 2 unknown to science.

In 1974, physicists Schwartz and Sherk declared that the mysterious and massless particle of the string model was the graviton! These same gentlemen also calculated the length of this string; in their opinion, it should be 10 -33 cm! Science has never encountered objects of this size before.

Despite all the collisions and difficulties, the development of string theory, as theorists say, has allowed for a deeper understanding of the structure of previous theories of quantum gravity.

Well, thank God, at least something went well. Therefore, this theory continues to be developed further, delving into the abyss of mathematical and musical metamorphoses. Membranes appeared, then for the sake of brevity they began to be called simply branes, and again a quantitative countdown began: 2 branes, 3 branes, p-branes, etc. String theory began to turn into the theory of branes of arbitrary dimensions - from 1 to 9.

The membrane is obviously a resonator where the musical sound produced by the strings is amplified. Next, we wait for the bow or pick, after which the long-awaited melody of gravity should sound.

No, it won’t sound, it’s missing itself important element- musician.

We are waiting... for both.

Theorists in this direction have high hopes for experiments at the LHC; perhaps God particles with a dimension of 10 -33 cm will fly out.

Judging by the latest experiments, it seems that something similar has failed.

In the physics of theories on gravity, an elegant, I would even say, pretentious style of mathematics and exotic terms has emerged. The authors are trying to outdo each other with an excess of theoretical subtleties, sometimes not at all related to gravity. The creation and development of a mathematical apparatus for describing physical interactions contributed little, as time shows, to the development of the theory of gravitation itself. But what beautiful and incomprehensible names: curvature of space-time, geometric and gauge concept of physical fields, energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field, fermion vibrations of strings, chameleon field, etc. In a word, scholasticism and the world of theories far from reality already exists on its own.

In this article I did not set out to cover the whole world. theories on gravity, existing in the field and geometric shape, and this is not possible, I only briefly outlined the scope of the problem and its proposed solution approaches that exist in physics. Let me tell you right away that they are not suitable for me.

The temptation itself ancient riddle gravity, with its vast field for scientific fantasies, pushes theorists to the “Sisyphean labor” of writing new hypotheses. After which new directions appeared: geometrodynamics, etherodynamics, etc.

To conclude this review of theories of gravity, I will add one more phrase. Humanity has lived and existed since its inception in the gravitational field, but has not yet found a clear explanation for this physical phenomenon; this only means one thing, that all existing theories of gravity, in fact, not theories, but only hypotheses, with little approximation to the truth. To the trivial question posed in the title of this article “ field or geometric - which one will take?“, I can answer: it won’t be a draw!

As the quantum physics scientists are learning more about black holes, dark matter, dark energy and others cosmic phenomena. New discoveries are becoming increasingly difficult to fit into the concept of gravity.

Below are alternative views on gravity from nine scientists.

1. Thomas Townsend Brown and the Gravity-Defying Device

Physicist Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985) conducted research for the American navy and the Ministry of Defense. He later worked as a consultant in the aviation industry.

He created a device that was patented under the name "gravitator". According to him, his invention refuted gravity, and some scientists agree with this statement. Under the influence of a high-voltage charge, it moved in such a way that it cannot be explained based on modern understanding gravity.

In the patent application, Brown wrote that the gravitator operates at rest relative to the universe. This contradicts Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity, according to which a force must act the same in relation to any frame of reference. The gravitator also disproved Newton's third law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In 1930, Colonel Edward Deeds wrote: “Some of the scientists saw the gravitator, and they were amazed at its action, honestly saying that the movements of the gravitator are completely impossible to explain known laws physics."

Some have said that the gravitator's movements are driven by ionic wind, meaning that ionized particles create force. Paul A. LaViolette was among those who disagreed with this explanation.

“Measurements of thrust showed that the force lifting Brown's electrified disk was nearly 100 million times greater than the ion wind would produce,” LaViolette wrote in his book, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

2. Paul A. LaViolette: Is the government secretly building an anti-gravity ship?

LaViolette received his doctorate from the University of Portland and is currently president of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary research institute. He writes in his book: “Over the past several decades, secret aerospace programs in the United States and other countries have been creating aircraft, capable of overcoming gravity. These exotic technologies are relatively few known area research called electrogravitics."

LaViolette traces the development of the industry from the era of Tesla to Brown in the first half of the 20th century. According to Brown's theories, electrostatic and gravitational fields are unified, LaViolette explains.

The electrogravitational effect is ignored because “such a phenomenon is not expected by classical electrostatics or general relativity,” LaViolette writes.

3. NASA on dark matter

This image shows the distribution of dark matter, galaxies and hot gas at the center of the Abell 520 galaxy cluster, formed by a massive galactic collision. Photo: NASA, ESA, CFHT, CXO, M.J. Jee at the University of California, and A. Mahdavi at San Francisco State University

Scientists know that the Universe is expanding at an increasing rate. They believe dark matter is causing this expansion, but they don't know exactly what it is. It is believed that it can disprove Einstein's theory of gravity.

A NASA report on dark matter says there is a possibility that "Einstein's theory of gravity is wrong."

“It not only influences the expansion of the Universe, but also determines the behavior of ordinary matter in galaxies and galaxy clusters,” the report says. - Maybe, new theory gravity could be a solution to the problem black matter. We can observe galaxies forming clusters. But if it turns out that a new theory of gravity is needed, there is no telling what form it will take.”

4. Tom van Flandern on the problem of the speed of gravity

Tom van Flandern (1940-2009) received his PhD in astronomy from Yale University in 1969. He did not completely reject general relativity, but he believed that it had problems. Einstein's theory was “incomplete rather than wrong,” he wrote in the article “The Speed ​​of Gravity. What do the experiments say?", published in Physics Letter A in 1998.

He raised the issue of the speed of gravity. In Newton's classical theory of gravity, the speed of gravity is undefined. And in general relativity, gravity has the speed of light, Van Flandern explains. He says that in academic circles they prefer to sidestep this controversy.

“The exact same dilemma arises in many issues,” he writes. - Why do photons from the sun move in a direction that is not parallel to the direction of the Earth's gravitational acceleration relative to the Sun? Why full eclipse Does the Sun and Moon peak before the gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon equalize? How do binary pulsars predict their future position, speed and acceleration faster than the light time between them allows? Why do black holes have gravity even though nothing can overcome them, because that would require speeds faster than the speed of light?”

5. Wilian H. Cantrell: Einstein's theory does not go beyond the logical circle

Dr. William H. Cantrell is a member of the technical staff at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. He is a former associate professor in the Department of Electronic Engineering at the University of Texas.

He presented an unconventional view of the theory of relativity in the journal Infinite Energy, published by non-profit organization New Energy Foundation (NEF).

Cantrell writes: “The theory of relativity had a huge influence on 20th-century physics, this is an indisputable fact. Einstein's theory is admired throughout the world for the brilliant discoveries it led to. However, there are groups of dissident scientists who openly reject it, and even larger groups of researchers who are hostile to it, although they are not aware of alternative approaches.”

“The reason for this hostility is that Einstein borrowed the mathematics of Lorentz and Poincaré, and this allowed him to modify the system of measuring length and time by making the speed of light be constant for all observers.”

“In such a situation, rational thinkers would have to rush to find alternative ideas. But why try to refute such a successful theory? Well, firstly, in order to understand and describe how nature actually works. And secondly, to make a new breakthrough after the unintentional barrier is removed.”

Cantrell and scientists like him believe that Einstein's theory does not go beyond the logical circle. He explained it following example: “One might hypothesize that the Earth has a second Moon made of a special green cheese that is transparent to light.”

“Of course, this sounds like stupidity, but this statement cannot be refuted experimentally. Einstein’s theory of relativity has the same problem.”

6. Ruggero Maria Santilli: the theory of relativity contradicts quantum electrodynamics

Ruggero Maria Santilli studied at the universities of Naples and Turin, he worked as a visiting teacher at Harvard, then founded the Institute theoretical research. Santilli lists nine discrepancies between Einstein's general theory of relativity and current scientific knowledge. Some of them pose problems for the classical understanding of gravity.

One of the main contradictions is that Einstein's explanation of gravity does not agree with quantum electrodynamics, Santilli writes in his 2006 paper, “Nine Theorems on the Inconsistency of General Relativity.”

“It should be remembered that quantum electrodynamics is one of the most significant and experimentally proven scientific theories in history. Clearly, the widely held view that Einstein's view of gravity is definitive is an unscientific approach,” he writes.

The journal publishes articles that question Einstein's general and special theories of relativity. The journal's editorial policy is formulated as follows: "The journal pays attention to reports that confirm that Einstein's theories are overly complicated, confirmed only in narrow areas of physics, and lead to logical contradictions."

Tom Bathell

Tom Bathall is not a scientist, but he has explored alternative theories as a senior editor at the American Spectator. In the article “Rethinking Relativity,” he writes: “When choosing acceptable theories, simplicity is often the main criterion. The Ptolemaic system of the world in a more complicated version can accurately predict the position of the planets. However, the heliocentric world system is much simpler, so we prefer it.”

He cited Clifford M. Will of the University of Washington, a leading proponent of relativity. “It’s hard to imagine life without the special theory of relativity... Just imagine all the phenomena in our world in which it occupies great place. Atomic Energy, the famous equation E=mc2, showing how mass is converted into colossal amounts of energy.”

Bathall says restrictions "play a role." Bethell writes: “If a new theory looks ‘irreplaceable,’ it will immediately be labeled wrong.”

7. Joseph Polchinski: doubts and questions

Joseph Polchinski. Photo: Lubos Motl

Joseph Polchinski, a theoretical physicist at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, discusses the idea of ​​gravity in relation to black holes. According to Eintain's theory, black holes should have enormous gravitational force.

The famous scientist Stephen Hawking stated in the 70s that matter can leak out of black holes, which is a paradox.

As mentioned in the first part of the article, van Flandern asked the question: "How do black holes have gravity despite the fact that nothing can overcome them, because this would require speeds faster than the speed of light?"

Polchinski told PBS after Hawking discussed some of the new theories about black holes: "It's possible that some of our beliefs about quantum mechanics and gravity are wrong, and we're trying to figure out which ones."

“This is a difficulty, but we hope that this difficulty will allow us to move forward,” he said.

8.Eric Verlinde: “bad hair day” theory

Professor Erik Verlinde is a theoretical physicist in the field of string theory and professor at the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam.

He views gravity as a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics and the influence of factors such as temperature, pressure and structure. The perception of gravity, such as an apple falling from a tree, is associated with nature's disorder-maximizing property.

A 2010 New York Times article describes his idea as the "bad hair day" theory. Hair becomes frizzy in heat and humidity, for hair there is more possibilities make your hair curly than make it straight, and nature loves variation. Similar principles apply to the distribution of objects in space, Verlinde believes.

“We've known for a long time that gravity doesn't exist,” Verlinde told the New York Times. “It’s time to announce this publicly.”

9. Juan Maldacena: “Einstein’s theory should be replaced by something quantum mechanical”

Juan Maldacena. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena, now a professor at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, developed a theory that views the universe as a collection of very fine vibrating strings. It is these strings that create gravity. The strings are a kind of hologram projected from a lower dimensional space system, which is simpler, flatter and has no gravity.

In an interview posted on the educational resource Learner.org, Maldacena said: “We believe that Einstein's general theory of relativity should be replaced by something quantum mechanical when topics such as the beginning of Big Bang, or the structure of black holes, where the decay of matter occurs in a very small region of time-space, and the things that happen there cannot be described using classical theories. In such cases you should use quantum mechanics. String theory is in the process of development, it was created to describe quantum mechanical time-space."

*Photo by man jumping rope from Shutterstock

English version

Would you install an application on your phone to read articles from the epochtimes website?