I would add at least a couple more.
There are false problems that ask "why doesn't the universe act like I think (for no good reason) that it should?" This includes the hierarchy problem, the strong CP problem, the baryon asymmetry of the universe, and all research invoking the concept of "naturalness."
And, there are contradictory data problems, where one asks why multiple measurements of the same thing (in your current theory) are producing irreconcilable results. These have included the proton radius puzzle, the data based calculation of muon g-2, the measurement of the mean lifetime of unbound neutrons, the reanalysis of CDF data to determine the W boson mass that produced an anomalous result, and the Hubble tension. Usually, in these cases, the answer is that somebody screwed up in one or both of the experiments (at a minimum by overstating the uncertainty in the result), or the theoretical analysis involved, but sometimes, the theory that said the measurements should be the same was wrong.
1 comment:
Quantum modified inertia: an application to galaxy rotation curves
Authors: Jonathan Gillot
Abstract: This study explores the field of modified inertia through a novel model involving maximal and minimal acceleration bounds. A principle of dynamics is developed within special relativity and has direct implications in astrophysics, especially for galaxy rotation curves. The presence of a minimal acceleration significantly reduces the amount of dark matter required to account for these curves. The model presented here is however conceptually different from fiduciary Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). The modified inertia with the minimal acceleration bound closely matches with many observed galaxy rotation curves and the radial acceleration relation, showing a better agreement than MOND in the m s regime. Additionally, the minimal acceleration is predicted to evolve with redshift. △ Less
Post a Comment