the current theory is “not by itself sufficient to discredit the dark matter hypothesis — it could be an interesting mathematical exercise at best, but it is the first proof that gravity can exist without mass,” he added.
(Quote by the author of the study himself)
It’s a purely mathematical construct that could explain bending of light without mass.
To be fair dark matter is a purely mathematical construct to explain the presence of gravity without (visible) mass. Certainly dark matter has more credibility than this new idea but hypothetical mathematical constructs make up a good chunk of physics.
Sure, I’m blaming the concerned journalist(s) here. It’s rlly scummy to hype up an evidenceless hypothesis like this. Does injustice to both, the scientists and the public.
(Quote by the author of the study himself)
It’s a purely mathematical construct that could explain bending of light without mass.
Typical, scientist: “My paper does NOT say THIS”. Press: “Scientist claims THIS!”
To be fair dark matter is a purely mathematical construct to explain the presence of gravity without (visible) mass. Certainly dark matter has more credibility than this new idea but hypothetical mathematical constructs make up a good chunk of physics.
Sure, I’m blaming the concerned journalist(s) here. It’s rlly scummy to hype up an evidenceless hypothesis like this. Does injustice to both, the scientists and the public.
But per the definition given involving negative mass, it should be “meassurable mass in the presence of exotic matter”. Anywho…