Article 'Unbelievable': Astronomer claims 'direct evidence' of gravity breaking down

[C C]

Might be "unbelievable" in another sense, too. Decolonization of knowledge isn't wholly unknown in South Korea, though you'd ironically expect East Asia to hold out longer than some parts of the guilt-ridden, virtue posturing West itself.
- - - - - - - - -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3jwb/u...aking-down

EXCERPTS: A scientist has observed a “gravitational anomaly” in certain star systems that could potentially upend a fundamental assumption about the universe, according to a new study.

The anomaly arises when loosely orbiting stars, known as wide binaries, seem to move in ways that defy established models of gravity, which are based on the ideas of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. The mind-bending discovery hints at a possible alternate theory of physics that does not depend on the existence of weird unidentified phenomena, such as dark matter, to explain the phenomena we see in space.

[...] The new data suggests that when the gravitational accelerations of these stars slip below one nanometer per second squared, they begin to move in ways that are more aligned with MOND models than by the standard model. Kyu-Hyun Chae said the findings offer “direct evidence for the breakdown of standard gravity at weak acceleration” and reveal “an immovable anomaly of gravity in favor of MOND-based modified gravity,” according to a recent study published in The Astrophysical Journal.

[...] “Because the standard cosmology is based on general relativity, cosmology needs a major revision now,” Chae concluded. “I think we are now entering an extremely exciting period of time. When the ultraviolet catastrophe of Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics was discovered more than a century ago, it eventually led to quantum physics. We are now having a low-acceleration catastrophe of gravity. It is exciting to see what it will lead the world into.” (MORE - missing details)

[C C]

Do binary stars prove modified gravity?
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...d-gravity/

INTRO: One of the most bizarre and puzzling aspects of nature is the existence of dark matter: a massive species of particle whose effects are easily seen but has eluded every attempt at direct detection thus far. The cosmic need for dark matter is undeniable, although many hold out hope that perhaps a different tactic — adding a modification to the laws of gravity — will lead to an alternative solution that does away with dark matter and supersedes Einstein’s General Relativity all at once.

All efforts to modify gravity run into enormous difficulties on cosmic scales, but one specific modification, despite its large-scale cosmic failures, has proven itself more successful than dark matter on galactic scales: MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.

Recently, a new paper has come out claiming that, by leveraging data from the ESA’s Gaia spacecraft on wide binary stars, the author has shown that traditional gravity, as described by Einstein and Newton, is insufficient to explain the observed accelerations within these systems. Instead, the author contends, they favor MOND, and specifically a 1984 interpretation of MOND known as AQUAL. Have these interpretations falsified dark matter, or demonstrated that MOND is actually correct for these systems? That’s the question on the mind of many this week, including John Waterhouse, who asks,

“What do you make of the paper in The Astrophysical Journal on 24 July by Kyu-Hyun Chae on weak gravitational acceleration in wide binaries providing evidence for MOND to a five sigma standard?”

The quick answer is that this result is a confluence of three things: good science, bad science, and the ugly state of science news. Let’s look at what’s truly going on here... (MORE - details)