Sometimes you need to let go

When you really get engaged in a scientific theory, just as when you support a particular political viewpoint, it can be very difficult to let go. This might run counter to the theoretical nature of science, which supposedly delights in overturning old theories - but the reality is that scientists are human beings and don't like to change deeply held views.

This need to sometimes push through a major change of viewpoint is behind Kuhn's concept of a paradigm shift - for a considerable time the old guard cling onto their theory until it become untenable and suddenly the consensus undergoes a heavy duty shift, which can be distressing to those left behind.

It happened to me, not as a scientist but as a young science enthusiast, when my passionate support for Fred Hoyle and the steady state theory had to be swept aside for the Big Bang theory. Now, it's entirely possible that something similar is happening to upset the equilibrium of supporters of the existence of dark matter particles.

There is no doubt at all that there is an effect, resulting galaxies not being under gravity as expected and that is commonly assumed to be due to dark matter. But the particles have stubbornly failed to turn up in experiment after experiment. There are alternative theories based on modified gravity: the original, MOND or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, has some issues, but arguably fewer than those arising from attempts to explain the effect with massive particles that don't interact electromagnetically.

The Big Bang triumphed when evidence came to light that the early universe was very different to the way it is now. It may be that a similar failure of expectation of the early universe will do for dark matter particles, as it has turned out, thanks to new data from the James Webb Space Telescope, that there were massive galaxies in the early universe - something predicted by modified gravity theories, but not by dark matter particle theories.

Of course, we could still discover dark matter - but this is certainly a major blow. To find more details on this, please take a look at this summary in Stacy McGaugh's excellent Triton Station blog.

Image by Alexander Andrews from Unsplash - it's not directly relevant, but it's pretty...

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog