【Hacker News搬运】詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜发现了引力替代理论的证据

hackernews

Title: James Webb Space Telescope finds evidence for alternate theory of gravity

詹姆斯·韦伯太空望远镜发现了引力替代理论的证据

Text:

Url: https://thedebrief.org/james-webb-space-telescope-finds-stunning-evidence-for-alternate-theory-of-gravity/

很抱歉，我无法直接访问或分析网页内容，包括您提供的链接。JinaReader 是一个AI工具，用于分析文本内容，但我作为一个AI，无法直接使用这些工具。

如果您想让我帮助您分析某个网页的内容，您可以复制该网页上的文本内容，然后将其粘贴在这里。我会尝试理解文本内容并提供一个总结。如果您需要将非中文内容翻译成中文，请确保提供原始文本，我将尽力翻译并提供总结。

Post by: jchanimal

Comments:

astroH: In my opinion, this article is misleading at best. "...scans of ancient galaxies gathered by the JWST seem to contradict the commonly accepted predictions of the most widely accepted Cold Dark Matter theory, Lambda-CDM." --> LCDM doesn't predict what galaxies should look like, it simply predicts how much mass is in collapsed structures and that dark matter haloes grow hierarchically. In contrast, with JWST we see light and need to infer what the underlying properties of the system are. It was shown very early on that the theoretical upper limit (i.e. taking all of the gas that is available in collapsed structures and turning it into stars) predicts a luminosity function (i.e. number of galaxies per unit luminosity) that is orders of above what JWST has observed (e.g. <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..497M/abstract" rel="nofollow">https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..497M/abstra...</a>). This means that there is plenty of space within the context of LCDM to have bright and seemingly large and massive galaxies early on. Based on current JWST data at these early epochs, there are really no convincing arguments for or against LCDM because it's highly sensitive to the galaxy formation model that's adopted.

astroH: 在我看来，这篇文章充其量是误导&“；。。。JWST对古代星系的扫描似乎与最广泛接受的冷暗物质理论Lambda CDM的普遍预测相矛盾&“--&＞LCDM没有；它无法预测星系应该是什么样子，它只是预测坍塌结构中有多少质量，以及暗物质晕是如何分层生长的。相比之下，使用JWST，我们看到了光明，需要推断出系统的潜在属性。很早就有研究表明，理论上限（即吸收坍塌结构中所有可用的气体并将其转化为恒星）预测的光度函数（即每单位光度的星系数量）高于JWST观察到的数量级（例如<a href=“https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu”abs-2023MNRAS.521..497M“abstract”rel=“nofollow”>https://ui.aadsabs.harvad.edu 3MNRAS.521..497M·深奥…</a>）。这意味着在LCDM的背景下，有足够的空间在早期拥有明亮、看似巨大和巨大的星系。根据这些早期时代的JWST数据，真的没有令人信服的论据支持或反对LCDM，因为它；它对星系形成模型高度敏感；s通过。

samsartor: My hangup with MOND is still general relativity. We know for a fact that gravity is not Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold. Any model of gravity based on an inverse law is simply wrong.<p>Another comment linked to <a href="https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/" rel="nofollow">https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/</a>, which is an excellent read. It makes the case that GR has never been tested at low accelerations, that is might be wrong. But we know for a fact MOND is wrong at high accelerations. Unless your theory can cover both, I don't see how it can be pitched as an improvement to GR.<p>Edit: this sounds a bit hostile. to be clear, I think modified gravity is absolutely worth researching. but it isn't a silver bullet

samsartor: 我对MOND的困扰仍然是广义相对论。我们知道引力不是牛顿的，平方反比定律不成立。任何基于逆定律的引力模型都是错误的<p> 另一条评论链接到<a href=“https:&#x2F；trinstation.com&#x2G；新博客页面&#x2B；rel=“nofollow”>https:&quot&#x2F；trinstation.com；新博客页面</a> ，这是一本好书。这表明GR从未在低加速度下进行过测试，这可能是错误的。但我们知道，MOND在高加速度下是错误的。除非你的理论能同时涵盖这两个方面，否则我不这么认为；我不知道如何将其作为对GR的改进。<p>编辑：这听起来有点敌对。需要明确的是，我认为修正后的引力绝对值得研究。但事实并非如此；不是银弹

Bengalilol: « Stunning evidence »
… then later on:
« Instead, the readings seem to support a basis for MOND, which would force astronomers and cosmologists to reconsider this alternative and long-controversial theory of gravity. »
What’s conditional evidence? I may be missing the overall picture, but I view such writing as non precise at its best.

Bengalilol: “惊人的证据”…然后稍后：“相反，这些读数似乎支持了MOND的基础，这将迫使天文学家和宇宙学家重新考虑这种长期存在争议的替代引力理论。»什么是有条件的证据？我可能没有看到整体情况，但我认为这样的写作充其量是不精确的。

verzali: Why why why do people share articles with sensational headlines like this? Its no wonder science journalism gets a bad rap. This kind of thing really undermines all the people who are actually trying to communicate science properly.

verzali: 为什么人们会分享这样耸人听闻的头条新闻？难怪科学新闻会受到负面评价。这种事情真的破坏了所有真正试图正确传播科学的人。

jchanimal: What’s MOND really mean? Here’s the Wikipedia entry <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics</a>

jchanimal: MOND到底是什么意思？这是维基百科条目<a href=“https:”en.Wikipedia.org“wiki&quot；Modified_Newtonian_dynamics”rel=“nofollow”>https:&#x2F；en.wikipedia.org；维基；已修改_牛顿_动力学</a>