critique of pure physics (1) from FAZ.NET 26 2. 2011
The spirit of revolution
attacks in North Africa, the spirit of revolution around. In my office, everything is peaceful and geared to system maintenance. Only two floors above me are the fronts but more far less clear. If you talk with Professor Pavel Kroupa, the spirit of revolution is suddenly within reach in our Argelander Institute for Astronomy. Pavel Kroupa often speaks about the failure of the established system, of the need of alternatives and of the mechanisms by which system opponents will be unable to do their work.
When Pavel Kroupa speaks in such a rage, he discusses, however, not politics. His subject is the so-called "dark matter crisis", ie the crisis of the established, standard cosmological model, the so-called Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmological Concordance Model "(LCDM CCM). This model makes statements about the development and composition of the universe, and seems very well with most cosmological observations to match. It contains several free parameters could be determined very precisely in the last decades, so that understand the history of our universe by and large seems to be quite good. The flaw is known to be a need for two previously completely misunderstood sizes: the dark energy and dark matter, which together account for about 96% of the energy-matter content of the universe.
dark matter is particularly necessary in order to explain the rotation curves of galaxies and provide additional mass in galaxy clusters. You need dark matter, so that the observable matter in galaxies is moving in such a way as it should according to Newton. However, there are problems on the scale of galaxies with the CCM model. In particular, the properties of satellite galaxies small galaxies, large galaxies like the Milky Way can assist, by the standard model can not be explained. This is where Pavel Kroupa. It notes the problems of the standard model as an opportunity to show support for a modified gravity alternative cosmological models, such as MOND (Modified Newtonian dynamics) or MOG (modified gravity). were discussed in his debate with Prof. Simon White last November here in Bonn, in which arguments for and against a departure from the standard model, compared Pavel Kroupa of cosmology, the current situation with that of the Copernican turn. On his website he also leads the development of Analogies Quantum mechanics and the transition to relativity theory. These are all classic examples of scientific upheavals of scientific revolutions. But how does one arrive later, when scientists speak of revolutions in the context of physics?
'Garching simulation', Jenkins et al. 1998, Journal Astophysical
The notion of scientific revolution was coined by Thomas Kuhn and his 1962 book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution." One of the main theses of the book is that the Development of science proceeds not so that cumulative science simply by more and more knowledge is accumulated. Instead, Kuhn sees radical breakthroughs in the history of science, which prevent that one can say that we know more and more. You just know "different." It is change scientific methods, the scientific subject matter, scientific concepts and scientific standards. This all leads referred Kuhn to the fact that there is no communication between pre-and post-revolutionary science. It is easy to point to specific questions disagree, and there is no authority that would be able to decide who is right added. There is for instance both in the context of the standard model and in the context of modified gravity theories, observations that can not be explained. What you see as the key to? Is it "worse" if the properties of satellite galaxies can not be explained, as if the theory is possibly more complicated and is weak on large scales?
ends Ultimately you in questions of personal weight, and that makes the mood in the environment of scientific revolutions, just as strong emotionally charged. Where there are no clear arguments more convincing you can not, but only . Persuade In addition, the potential of new theories can only fully develop when the scientific community provides sufficient resources for a detailed elaboration of the new approach. The reason to do so, but can only be a belief in the potential of the new theory. Whether this belief is really justified, can only prove the fact. To the "risk" of a new theory really address, and the incumbent to turn, the dissatisfaction in size with the existing conditions enough. Oneself from the mainstream to avert always carries a risk, it brings uncertainty and danger, for ever from the scientific community to be excluded.
The need for a general dissatisfaction with the existing system is in addition to splitting the community into different camps according to Kuhn, one of the points of the analogy does fit into a political revolution. have achieved in politics, the dissatisfaction of some value, so that the people see no other way out than to go on the road.
Debate: Simon White (left), Pavel Kroupa (right) and Hans-Peter Nilles Bethe Colloquium in November's 2010th
And just as in politics, the established academic system tries to defend his position as long as possible. As Mubarak tried to defend with minimal concessions to the demonstrators his presidential status as long as possible, is also available in the science strategy, the scope of the theory in question and reduce problems caused by ad hoc assumptions to defuse. Whether the introduction of dark energy and dark matter and, as such, ad hoc assumptions, and thus seen as a sign of future dwindling power of the CCM model, or whether it simply a question he has time to be in the context of the established theory of a response related to the question of the nature is to be seen.
In Egypt, Mubarak has plunged, Gaddafi still. The standard model, however, has so far been in power. We will see whether and if so when to be strong dissatisfaction within the cosmology is that we also can experience a revolution, or whether the standard model will prove durable as a proper description of the universe.
