Science

[affreca]

This is definately an attractive answer to a question that is bothersome in physics. As it is in the very early stages (still being reviewed, and rebuttals already in process), I don't want to say that it is the final answer, but definately interesting. As is the Slashdot discussion thread.

Oh, and in case anyone else was worried, my place is about a mile away from the big apartment fire.

So where should I go for Christmas break, if I'm not helping Mo move?

Comments

Uhhh...?

[ninja-tech.livejournal.com]

Wow. I read the first sentence and knew I did not have the proper base knowledge to understand anything more. Sometimes I wish my mind could process that kind of stuff. It sounds fascinating--but my brain just turns off when it sees the word combination of "non-luminous baryonic matter". *shrugs*

Anywho--hope you are having a dandy day!

Re: Uhhh...?

[affreca.livejournal.com]

Basically, astrophysists had calculated how fast the stars in the galaxy should rotate depending on where they are in the galaxy based on the mass of the ones we see. It didn't match what was seen. After much grumbling, someone proposed that the is lots of matter that we can't see, and doesn't do anything other than have weight. It sounds like a overly simplistic answer, but it has been proven out in other problems of making observations match (such as predicting neutrinos, which later were observed). Well, the problem might be that everyone was assuming that you could use the simple way to calculate these curves, using Newtonian gravity. Turns out that the general relativity affects are big enough that you should use the more complicated, post-Einstein equations, and that matches what is seen. Much headslapping ensues, as everyone says "but I assumed". We'll see if it holds out. I can't follow the math, so I'll wait for the astrophysists.