A new study by astrophysicist Richard Lieu suggests that gravity can exist without mass, proposing thin, shell-like layers of ‘topological defects’ as an alternative to dark matter for explaining the gravitational binding of galaxies. This theory posits that these defects create a gravitational force without detectable mass, potentially eliminating the need for dark matter in current cosmological models

Lieu started out trying to find another solution to the Einstein field equations, which relate the curvature of space-time to the presence of matter within it. As Einstein described in his 1915 theory of general relativity, space-time warps around bundles of matter and streams of radiation in the Universe, depending on their energy and momentum. That energy is, of course, related to mass in Einstein’s famous equation: E=mc2. So an object’s mass is linked to its energy, which bends space-time – and this curvature of space-time is what Einstein described as gravity, a notch more sophisticated than Newton’s 17th-century approximation of gravity as a force between two objects with mass. In other words, gravity seems inextricably linked to mass. Not so, posits Lieu.

In his workings, Lieu set about solving a simplified version of the Einstein field equations that allows for a finite gravitation force in the absence of any detectable mass. He says his efforts were “driven by my frustration with the status quo, namely the notion of dark matter’s existence despite the lack of any direct evidence for a whole century.” Lieu’s solution consists of shell-shaped topological defects that might occur in very compact regions of space with a very high density of matter. These sets of concentric shells contain a thin layer of positive mass tucked inside an outer layer of negative mass. The two masses cancel each other out, so the total mass of the two layers is exactly zero. But when a star lies on this shell, it experiences a large gravitational force dragging it towards the center of the shell. “The contention of my paper is that at least the shells it posits are massless,” Lieu says. If those contentious suggestions bear any weight, “there is then no need to perpetuate this seemingly endless search for dark matter,” Lieu adds.

The next question, then, is how to possibly confirm or refute the shells Lieu has proposed through observations. “The increasing frequency of sightings of ring and shell-like formation of galaxies in the Universe lends evidence to the type of source being proposed here,” Lieu writes in his paper. Although he admits that his proposed solution is “highly suggestive” and cannot alone discredit the dark matter hypothesis. “It could be an interesting mathematical exercise at best,” Lieu concludes. “But it is the first [mathematical] proof that gravity can exist without mass.”

The study has been published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

  • ipodjockey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Huh… I’m not smart enough to comment on the validity of this but it seems interesting.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Basically my take on it. It’s a new theory hypothesis on gravity, but I’m not equipped to properly peer review it. For me, it’s an interesting read and is from a reliable source.

      • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s a hypothesis - we need to be able to test it before it can become a theory. Think of this along the same lines as the solutions of the field equations that allow for black holes to be wormholes, or the correct configuration of spacetime can allow you to travel through time.

        It’s certainly interesting though

        • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          5 months ago

          Thanks for pointing that out. Updated my comment. “Theory” has a specific meaning in science, so definitely don’t want to use that when it’s not.

          • Null User Object@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Tangent: Whenever the news reports a major earthquake somewhere, I like to remind people that Plate Tectonic Theory is “just a theory” and that some religious leaders confidently assure us that earthquakes are caused by promiscuous women.

    • HiddenLychee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think it’s just a shit stirring paper to say “look, here’s something that has zero observational evidence to its existence and look how ridiculous it sounds. Dark matter also has zero observational evidence, so why is that not ridiculous?” Which I’m not sure I agree with, but based on the faaar stretches he makes in the paper and the comments by the author later, that’s what I gather.

      Source: I am a PhD student in physics