5 ms·

How serious is this stuff? What is the chance this is the real deal?

by speeder 3y ago

bottlepalm 3y ago
With LK-99 fresh in our minds, I'm sure everyone is going to be a lot more skeptical.
- defrost 3y ago
  Sure, there are significant difference though: The study was carried out by Kyu-Hyun Chae, professor of physics and astronomy at Sejong University in Seoul, and it used up to 26,500 wide binaries within 650 light years (LY), observed by the European Space Agency’s Gaia space telescope. ... “It seems impossible that a conspiracy or unknown systematic can cause these acceleration-dependent breakdowns of the standard gravity in agreement with AQUAL. I have examined all possible systematics as described in the rather long paper. The results are genuine. I foresee that the results will be confirmed and refined with better and larger data in the future. I have also released all my codes for the sake of transparency and to serve any interested researchers.” The raw data is third party to the claimant, the workings are released in the open, and the argument is fully published in a peer review journal of note. This is an interesting physics observation and interpretation for many: * are the predictions against the data correct, * does the data deviate from the predictions as claimed, * If the deviations are real, is it because Newton|Einstein predictions break down in these circumstances, OR * are there "dark forces" at work here
  - bawolff 3y ago
    That doesn't sound that different from lk99. Some scientists made sone observations that appear to support sonething super interesting happening. Could be true, could all be a big misunderstanding/mistake. Time will tell as more people pour over the result.
    - defrost 3y ago
      They're different. Very different. Think hard and ask yourself why these two cases are different in the eyes of STEM practitioners. A good starting point is the LK99 observations and claims. Were these made by the same team or two very different teams? Were thousands of examples provided in the public domain, or were the LK99 claims based on a limited number of closed experiments.
- raydiatian 3y ago
  Not to mention Stanford president fabricating data. Exciting if true, but slightly a bummer that I feel hesitant to instantly be like “wao cool I beeleev” because recent academia news.
zamalek 3y ago
It may not prove a MONDian theory (to be clear, MOND is a set of theories), but it could disprove GR. Which is to say that it's just as likely that there's some third theory that nobody has figure out yet. These results are extremely easy to replicate, though. We should know soon enough.
perlgeek 3y ago
Doesn't sound too credible to me. If it were true, it would be a pretty major discovery though. I've studied physics but working in a different field now, just following the news and some science podcasts.
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
As far as I know, there have been several other studies of wide binaries recently and they did not find this effect. This paper claims they have filtered out more problematic data and used more data. I think more data will become available over the next few years too. So it's an interesting result that should be taken seriously, but we should wait for more studies before concluding relativity needs modification, IMHO. Edit: here is a discussion about these results by cosmologists: https://tritonstation.com/2023/05/19/commentary-on-wide-binaries/ https://tritonstation.com/2023/05/19/commentary-on-wide-bina...

How serious is this stuff? What is the chance this is the real deal?

bottlepalm 3y ago

With LK-99 fresh in our minds, I'm sure everyone is going to be a lot more skeptical.

defrost 3y ago
Sure, there are significant difference though: The study was carried out by Kyu-Hyun Chae, professor of physics and astronomy at Sejong University in Seoul, and it used up to 26,500 wide binaries within 650 light years (LY), observed by the European Space Agency’s Gaia space telescope. ... “It seems impossible that a conspiracy or unknown systematic can cause these acceleration-dependent breakdowns of the standard gravity in agreement with AQUAL. I have examined all possible systematics as described in the rather long paper. The results are genuine. I foresee that the results will be confirmed and refined with better and larger data in the future. I have also released all my codes for the sake of transparency and to serve any interested researchers.” The raw data is third party to the claimant, the workings are released in the open, and the argument is fully published in a peer review journal of note. This is an interesting physics observation and interpretation for many: * are the predictions against the data correct, * does the data deviate from the predictions as claimed, * If the deviations are real, is it because Newton|Einstein predictions break down in these circumstances, OR * are there "dark forces" at work here
- bawolff 3y ago
  That doesn't sound that different from lk99. Some scientists made sone observations that appear to support sonething super interesting happening. Could be true, could all be a big misunderstanding/mistake. Time will tell as more people pour over the result.
  - defrost 3y ago
    They're different. Very different. Think hard and ask yourself why these two cases are different in the eyes of STEM practitioners. A good starting point is the LK99 observations and claims. Were these made by the same team or two very different teams? Were thousands of examples provided in the public domain, or were the LK99 claims based on a limited number of closed experiments.
raydiatian 3y ago
Not to mention Stanford president fabricating data. Exciting if true, but slightly a bummer that I feel hesitant to instantly be like “wao cool I beeleev” because recent academia news.

zamalek 3y ago

It may not prove a MONDian theory (to be clear, MOND is a set of theories), but it could disprove GR. Which is to say that it's just as likely that there's some third theory that nobody has figure out yet. These results are extremely easy to replicate, though. We should know soon enough.

perlgeek 3y ago

Doesn't sound too credible to me. If it were true, it would be a pretty major discovery though. I've studied physics but working in a different field now, just following the news and some science podcasts.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

As far as I know, there have been several other studies of wide binaries recently and they did not find this effect. This paper claims they have filtered out more problematic data and used more data. I think more data will become available over the next few years too. So it's an interesting result that should be taken seriously, but we should wait for more studies before concluding relativity needs modification, IMHO. Edit: here is a discussion about these results by cosmologists: https://tritonstation.com/2023/05/19/commentary-on-wide-binaries/ https://tritonstation.com/2023/05/19/commentary-on-wide-bina...