Thank you to CuriosityStream for supporting PBS!
What if there is no such thing as dark matter.
What if our understanding of gravity is just wrong?
New work is taking another shot at that Einstein guy.
Let’s see if we’ve finally scored a hit.
We’ve now been searching for dark matter for over half a century.
In the early 60s, Vera Rubin proved that the spiral galaxies are rotating so fast that
they should fling themselves apart - assuming they are held together by the gravity of their
visible mass alone.
They would need at least 5 times as much matter to provide the gravity needed to hold
these galaxies together.
And the gravity of visible matter is also way too weak to hold galaxy clusters together,
or to bend the path of light to the degree seen in gravitational lenses - when more distant
light sources are warped by an intervening mass.
It sure looks like 80% of the mass in the universe is completely invisible to us.
We’ve dubbed this hypothetical stuff dark matter, and of course we’ve talked about
dark matter many times on this channel - from the evidence for its existence to some of
the speculative ideas of what it might be made of - from exotic particles to black holes.
But what if we’ve been thinking about this the wrong way all the time?
The expected rotation rates of galaxies come from applying our laws of gravity based on
the observed mass.
So … the mass could be wrong.
Or the laws of gravity could be wrong.
After all, if your scientific theory doesn’t fit observations we should reject our theory,
right?
And for nearly as long as astronomers have been hunting for dark matter, others have
been hunting for an alteration to our theory of gravity that can explain the effect of
dark matter without the actual matter.
Today, we’re going to look into that long history - what has worked and what has utterly
failed - and finally at a new proposal that purports to fix those failures once and for
all.
According to Isaac Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, the gravitational field drops
off with the square of distance from the mass producing that gravity.
In most galaxies, stars are somewhat concentrated towards the centers, which means gravity should
weaken towards the outskirts.
That means the orbital velocities of stars out there should be lower in order to keep
them in orbit.
The so-called rotation curve should drop - orbital speed should diminish with distance from center.
Dark matter is supposed to add extra mass that’s more evenly distributed through galaxies,
strengthening the gravitational field in the outskirts to explain the high rotation speeds.
Dark matter flattens rotation curves.
But what if gravity doesn’t obey Newton’s law of gravity?
Well, we actually know that it doesn’t.
Albert Einstein found that Newtonian gravity breaks down when the gravitational field gets
too strong - there you need his general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as the
curvature in the fabric of space and time rather than just as a classical force.
But Einsteinian gravity looks exactly like Newtonian gravity when gravitational fields
get weak.
But what if Einstein missed something?
What if Newtonian gravity breaks down both for very strong AND very weak fields?
This is the idea behind Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, proposed by Israeli physicist
Mordehai Milgrom in 1982.
The idea is straightforward enough - what if there exists a minimum possible acceleration
that can be produced by the gravitational force?
In MOND, force or acceleration drop off with distance squared until, at very low values
they start to plateau out.
This can be done with a modification to either Newton’s law of universal gravitation - in
which case gravity has a minimum strength - or by a modification to Newton’s 3rd law
of motion, in which case the acceleration produced by a force has a minimum strength.
If you tune the modification right you recover the observed rotation curves for spiral galaxies
very nicely without the need for extra mass.
And you only need to tune a single parameter - which is effectively the minimum acceleration
- to get the correct rotation curves for nearly all galaxies.
That’s very promising, but in order to be taken seriously, a new hypothesis like MOND
needs to do a few things. One: it needs to give the right answer in more
than one special case.
So MOND would need to do away with the need for physical dark matter in the other places
we see evidence for dark matter.
Two: it needs to be consistent with
the other known laws and theories of physics that are experimentally
verified.
And three: it needs to make testable predictions beyond the phenomena that it was tuned for.
Let’s take these one by one.
First, how does MOND do with respect to the other evidence for dark matter?
Not … great actually.
If you tune MOND to work for galaxies and then apply it to galaxy clusters, you do get
rid of the need for some of the dark matter but not all of it.
You still need about 20% of the current dark matter requirement to explain all the gravity
we see in clusters.
Now you might think that cutting down the invisible mass requirement by 80% is pretty
good - and it is helpful to be honest.
But the fact that you still need some type of physical dark matter in clusters is seen
as a strong point against MOND in its first incarnation at least.
There are some other pieces of evidence for dark matter that O-G MOND also fails for,
but I’ll come back to those.
For now Point 2.
Is MOND consistent with the rest of physics?
No. It’s totally broken.
It doesn’t respect conservation of energy or momentum or angular momentum.
And it’s not consistent with general relativity - in that general relativity does not reproduce
MOND in what we call the “weak field limit.”
Instead it does what it was designed to do - it reproduces good ol’ Newtonian gravity.
It’s not looking good for MOND.
But let’s address point 3 anyway.
Does MOND make any predictions beyond the observations that inspired it?
This is actually where we can turn this around.
Spiral galaxies all follow this tight relationship between their speed of rotation and their
luminosity - the brighter they are the faster they spin.
This is the Tully-Fisher Law.
It’s a little surprising that the Tully-Fisher Law is such a tight relationship because the rotation
velocity depends on the dark matter halo while the luminosity depends on the stars.
Now those two are connected, but some believe that their connection shouldn’t be so perfect
to give the extremely tight Tully-Fisher law.
On the other hand, if you tune MOND to get the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies,
you automatically get the correct relationship between rotation speed and luminosity.
That was a completely unexpected and un-engineered outcome of MOND.
So, while the Tully-Fisher Law was already known, we can sort of count it as a prediction
of MOND.
And this one success has been enough to inspire others to dig deeper into the idea over the
years.
The next critical step was to get a version of MOND that didn’t contradict so much of
the rest of physics.
For that Jacob Bekenstein came to the rescue.
You may remember Bekenstein from such hit ideas as the Bekenstein bound, which connects
black hole information content to entropy, as well as other black-hole-related awesomeness.
In 1984 he diverted his attention for a moment to work with Mordehai Milgrom in fixing MOND.
The first step was to reformulate MOND using Lagrangian mechanics.
What on earth does that mean, you ask?
Fortunately we just did an episode on the awesome power of the Lagrangian.
There we saw that the principle of least action allows equations of motion to be extracted
in a way that automatically obeys all of our conservation laws.
And done the right way the result can also work with relativity.
Bekenstein and Milgrom achieved this by adding a second field to gravity.
In Einstein’s description, the gravitational
field is what we call a tensor field - a multi-component
object that describes the curvature of spacetime.
These guys added a new scalar field - a field that’s just a single numerical value everywhere
in space.
And it was a good start - the resulting “AQuaL - for “a quadratic Lagrangian” gave the
same results as MOND, except that conservation laws were obeyed,
and because this was a relativistic
theory it was possible to see if it gave the right result for the bending of light by galaxies,
which wasn’t even possible with the original MOND.
And it did not.
AQuaL also had the unfortunate prediction of faster-than-light waves in this added scalar
field, which broke causality.
Not to be deterred, Bekenstein came back over 20 years later with an update.
If adding one field doesn’t work, why not add another?
In 2005 Bekenstein introduced TeVeS, for Tensor Vector Scalar gravity - based on the fact
that it describes gravity with three fields - a tensor, a vector, and a scalar.
The introduction of the new field fixed the problem with gravitational lensing and also
tamed the awkward causality-breaking nature of AQuaL.
It acted like Newtonian mechanics on solar system scales, like MOND on galactic scales,
and like regular general relativity for gravitational lensing.
It was not without problems though - for example the physicist Michael Seifert claimed that
TeVeS and other MOND proposals produce instabilities in the presence of matter,
which would, for
example, make long-lived stars impossible.
But the main problem with TeVeS is cosmological in nature.
One of the most important pieces of evidence for dark matter as a particle is seen in the
light that comes from the very early universe.
The cosmic microwave background radiation reveals a lumpiness that tells us how matter
pulled itself together under its own gravity at the earliest times.
Back then, light and matter were locked together due to the extreme densities.
Regular matter was kept from collapsing into any structures by the pressure of the intense
radiation of that era.
But dark matter doesn’t interact with light, so it would have been able to collapse just
fine.
And after the universe had expanded and cooled enough for regular matter to be released from
the clutch of light, it could have followed the dark matter into its deep gravitational
wells and get to the business of forming galaxies.
But if dark matter isn’t real, and regular matter controls gravity completely, then no
structure should have been able to form at those early times.
For this reason, most forms of MOND - including TeVeS, come up short.
And this is where the new guys come in.
In 2020 Constantinos Skordis and Tom Złosnik proposed a new relativistic version of MOND,
and just last month their paper passed peer review.
Their big change was that they allowed the scalar field to change its behavior over time.
They managed to tweak their equations so that in the early universe, that field behaved
a bit like a type of matter, which Złosnik calls “dark dust”.
It was able to clump in the right way to kickstart cluster formation.
But then later its behavior shifted so that it now behaves more like Bekenstein’s TeVeS
proposal.
More work is needed to see if the newly-dubbled RelMOND - relativistic MOND - works for galaxy
clusters and keeps stars from exploding - but the authors are optimistic.
OK, so, problem solved.
We don’t need dark matter, anymore?
Not so fast.
Modified gravity theories still can’t explain the Bullet Cluster - and I don’t have time
to get into that and we’ve covered it before.
So I’ll just say that when galaxy clusters collide and the dark matter gets ripped away
from the light matter - it makes you doubt that dark matter is just light matter acting
funny.
Of course there are MOND proposals which claim to address this, but the Bullet Cluster might
be the most awkward result for modified gravity folks.
At this point the two theories are in a bloody theoretical knife fight, where the knife is
Occam’s razor.
Proponents of dark-matter-as-particle say that MOND proposals are now so elaborate and
fine-tuned that we can’t take them seriously.
But MOND proponents say that it’s the behavior of dark matter particles that have to be carefully
fine-tuned to produce the phenomena that MOND predicts naturally - like the flatness of
rotation curves and the Tully-Fisher law.
Who’s right?
Well the majority of experts are pretty firmly in the dark-matter-as-particle camp.
Although our experiments haven’t detected dark matter yet, there are still
plenty of possibilities for what it might be beyond our standard model of particle physics.
And we’ve been through those before.
But Bekenstein was no slouch, nor are many of the others who have supported MOND theories.
We can’t dismiss them out of hand.
I personally withhold my judgement - because it’s OK to be uncertain, and because it’ll
be equally exciting whichever way this gets resolved.
One way or another we opened paths to continue our exploration of reality, whether we’re
led beyond the standard model by dark matter particles, or beyond general relativity by
hidden gravitational modes of space time.
A big thank you to CuriosityStream for supporting PBS!
CuriosityStream is SmartTV for your SmartTV.
The subscription streaming service offers documentaries and non¬fiction titles from
various filmmakers, with topics including History, Nature, Science, Food, Technology,
Travel, and more.
For instance, CuriosityStream has Black Holes: Messages from The Edge of Space, which examines
not only black holes, but neutrino astronomy.
It takes a deep dive into the science of black holes and takes you into the Antarctic lab
where astrophysicists detected neutrinos in the ice of the South Pole.
There are also collections of curated programs selected by experts.
For more information, go to curiositystream.com/PBSSPACETIME
and use the code SPACETIME for a trial.
Before we get to comments, we want to tell you about PBS’s new medical show called
Vitals.
It’s always been important to stay healthy.
But it’s gotten harder to tell what medical information is based in science and what is
unhelpful pseudoscience.
Fortunately, Vitals, PBS’s brand new health and wellness show, is here to help.
Co-hosts Dr. Alok Patel and nurse Sheena Williams will bust medical myths, explore the latest
science and answer all your burning health questions in every episode.
Check out Vitals in the link in the description, and tell them that Space Time sent you!
Our last episode was all about the principle of least action, and how this one simple idea
sort of leads to all of physics.
Let’s see what you had to say.
J Smith asks, if the configuration
space Lagrangian seems to bridge quantum mechanics and relativity,
what's missing to make this a theory of everything?
Rather than answer this myself, I willl read the reply by Fernando, the co-writer of that
episode.
In simple terms, the universe at its very core seems to be a set of symmetries which
are manifest in the Lagrangian.
This means that if we knew all the symmetries the universe follows we could describe it
perfectly, but we don't know all the symmetries and we are not sure how those symmetries fit
with each other.
Well put, Fernando.
It’s the symmetries of the Lagrangian via Noether’s theorem that yields our conservation
laws and ultimately, well, all of physics.
Check our episodes on Noether’s theorem, quantum invariance, and the electroweak force
for some details, but we probably need to go even deeper.
Jackie Johnson asks - in the case of gravitational lensing, isn't the light still traveling in
a straight line?
Isn’t it spacetime that bends, not light?
That’s a valid way to think of it.
Light does travel a straight line if you look at an infinitesimally small patch of space.
Imagine light traveling through curved space as like an and walking across a disco ball.
The ant’s path around a disco ball looks curved, even if it travels in perfectly straight
lines across each mirror.
Well, in space the disco ball mirrors are infinitesimally small, but over those regions
the path is straight.
A few people pointed out an error - I said that the action reduces to an integral over
proper time in general relativity.
That was right - but I then went on to call this a “principle of least proper time”
by analogy to the principle of least action.
In fact, in general relativity objects in gravitational fields tend to maximize, not
minimize their proper time.
That’s still consistent with the whole action thing because the proper name is the principle
of stationary action - and the maximum is also a stationary point - of proper time and
of the action.
But I was still misleading.
Thanks for correcting me on that.
Many of you point out that you’re already adherents of the principle of least action.
As in you take the fastest, easiest, or laziest path to any outcome.
Me too!
Like, for example, when I come up with a joke to end the comment section
…