Article View: sci.physics
Article #675Re: Hubble constant?
From: Matt Austern
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 18:10
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 18:10
40 lines
2944 bytes
2944 bytes
In article <15mqt8INNlp@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn) writes: > There are theoretical reasons for suspecting that Omega=1, but > direct measurements of the density (which is a tricky thing to do) > imply that Omega is about 0.1 or 0.2. That's why people talk about > the existence of large amounts of "dark matter," to bring up the > density to the critical density. Well, really this is only one of the reasons why people talk about dark matter, and, in my opinion, not the most compelling. (Why, after all, should we believe these theoretical reasons? Just because some particle physicist likes inflation, that doesn't make it true!) A more compelling reason is that by analyzing the motion of objects that we see, we can learn about the kinds of gravitational fields that they are moving in; it turns out that the amount of matter which we observe is insufficient to produce these fields. (I am being intentionally vague here, because the principle holds in many different cases---from stars within globular clusters, to the rotations of galaxies, to the motion of galactic clusters with respect to each other. On all of these distance scales, it appears that there is more matter than we are directly observing.) There are two ways to interpret this. One is that there is "dark matter" which we observe only gravitationally, and the other is that our theories of gravitation are inadequate to describe distance scales of more than a few light-years. I find the first explanation much more plausible. Incidentally, I should warn people that I am not an expert on this subject (or any other subject in astrophysics), merely an interested observer. Essentially everything I know is from Kolb and Turner, which is a very nice book if you are a grad student who wants to learn a little bit of cosmology. -- Matthew Austern I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band of (510) 644-2618 of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit, matt@physics.berkeley.edu taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct austern@theorm.lbl.gov multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make austern@lbl.bitnet me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MATT.92Aug4141039@physics16.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!agate!mattReferences:
<92216.155158DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <1992Aug4.183334.20946@galois.mit.edu> <15mqt8INNlp@agate.berkeley.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!agate!matt From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Hubble constant? Message-ID: <MATT.92Aug4141039@physics16.berkeley.edu> Date: 4 Aug 92 18:10:39 GMT References: <92216.155158DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <1992Aug4.183334.20946@galois.mit.edu> <15mqt8INNlp@agate.berkeley.edu> Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group) Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu In-reply-to: ted@physics2's message of 4 Aug 1992 20:56:08 GMT