Didn't know Google error code 404 was that ubiquitous and explanatory about the universeLooks like we've taken a major step forward in understanding dark matter and dark energy see here It certainly explains the halo effect on galaxies.
[It's a pity nobody published my short story, because I could say look at the similarity... grumble, grumble, grumble...]
However, this new approach looks very interesting, a) because it's a theoretical approach that modifies existing theories, and b) initial suggestions suggest it can make valid predictions.Scientists at the University of Oxford may have solved one of the biggest questions in modern physics, with a new paper unifying dark matter and dark energy into a single phenomenon: a fluid which possesses 'negative mass." If you were to push a negative mass, it would accelerate towards you.
...
Dr. Farnes's theory also provides the first correct predictions of the behaviour of dark matter halos. Most galaxies are rotating so rapidly they should be tearing themselves apart, which suggests that an invisible 'halo' of dark matter must be holding them together. The new research published today features a computer simulation of the properties of negative mass, which predicts the formation of dark matter halos just like the ones inferred by observations using modern radio telescopes.
...
In notes dating back to 1918, Einstein described his cosmological constant, writing that 'a modification of the theory is required such that "empty space" takes the role of gravitating negative masses which are distributed all over the interstellar space." It is therefore possible that Einstein himself predicted a negative-mass-filled universe.
Heh! mystery-of-dark-matter-may-have-been-solved-by-oxford-scientistsDidn't know Google error code 404 was that ubiquitous and explanatory about the universe![]()
It's interesting, but an initial reading stirs my caution.This story came up the other day on Phys.org: Bringing balance to the universe: New theory could explain missing 95 percent of the cosmos
Here are a few excerpts:
However, this new approach looks very interesting, a) because it's a theoretical approach that modifies existing theories, and b) initial suggestions suggest it can make valid predictions.
It remains to be seen if it holds up, though - I've seen plenty of similar stories over the years in any aspect of astrophysics where a new model has some initial success but runs into difficulties when applied more widely.
Btw, as an interesting footnote, there was a story this week about a Type 1A supernova with a difference: So, a supernova may have torched a star nearby . That could be important, because it's the assumption that all Type 1A supernova are standard which is the basis for claims of "dark energy".