Dark Matter or Modified Gravity ?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of dark matter being the explanation for certain discrepancies in space, and whether or not alternative theories about gravity should be considered. It is noted that astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology are not based on personal opinions, but rather rely on the scientific method. The idea that our understanding of gravity is incomplete is also brought up, along with the mention that Einstein's theory of general relativity may need revision. However, there is currently no specific alternative theory proposed.
  • #36
clamtrox said:
I still don't understand what your claim is. If you claim that it's possible that there exists an alternative explanation for Pioneer anomaly, then I am not really interested to continue this "argument", as what you are saying is then trivially true.

If your claim is that the article I cited is wrong, then fine; I'm by no means an expert in FEM and all that stuff you need to model the thermal emissions. Perhaps you should publish an article about it. Regardless, I find claims like "GR can't explain the Pioneer anomaly" very dubious, even if the best modelling is done somehow wrong.

If your claim is that since modelling the thermal emissions of Pioneer is so complicated, a "simpler" explanation by modified gravity theories is somehow automatically preferred, then I strongly disagree with you. Just because there are complicated -- but in theory perfectly well understood -- phenomena, doesn't mean that we should look to modify our existing theories. One does not look to modify the theory of gravity just because it's very difficult to calculate the precession of Mercury caused by all the other planets. Only after it's clear that the prevailing theory cannot account for all of the precession, it makes sense to look to look for modifications.
My claim is that the data do not constrain the thermal model sufficiently to reach a conclusion of any reasonable
degree of confidence. On the contrary, the fact that the "observed" decay of the anomaly goes as
1/r² indicates that the thermal modelling is fundamentally misguided. For this reason, an objective
view would be to regard the case as open until data of sufficient quality are obtained. Such data can
only be obtained from a dedicated mission craft specifically equipped to settle the case, so that an
explanation based on known physics local to the craft can be confirmed or ruled out.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
And with the publication of Turyshev's latest paper last summer, it's very unlikely that a dedicated mission will ever happen. Shame.
 
Back
Top