Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:56:20.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Methodological Value of Coincidences: Further Remarks on Dark Matter and the Astrophysical Warrant for General Relativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

William L. Vanderburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four techniques for measuring the masses of galaxies and larger astrophysical systems from their dynamics are discussed. Their apparent agreement is sometimes invoked as warrant for postulating huge quantities of ‘dark matter’ as the best solution to “the dynamical discrepancy,” the disparity between the amount of mass visible in large scale astrophysical systems and the amount calculated from dynamics. This paper argues that the agreement, though suggestive, is not definitive. The coincident measurements remain the best reason for preferring dark matter over revisions to General Relativity for solving the dynamical discrepancy, but the preference is only weakly warranted.

Type
General Relativity
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1324 - 1335
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bekenstein, Jacob D. (2004), “Relativistic Gravitation Theory for the MOND Paradigm”, Relativistic Gravitation Theory for the MOND Paradigm 70:083509–083543.Google Scholar
Buote, David A., Jeltema, Tesla E., Canizares, Claude R., and Garmire, Gordon P. (2002), “Chandra Evidence for a Flattened, Triaxial Dark Matter Halo in the Elliptical Galaxy NGC 720”, Chandra Evidence for a Flattened, Triaxial Dark Matter Halo in the Elliptical Galaxy NGC 720 577:183–196.Google Scholar
Earman, John (1992), Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John, and Janssen, Michel (1993), “Einstein’s Explanation of the Motion of Mercury’s Perihelion”, in Earman, John, Janssen, Michel, and Norton, John D. (eds.), The Attraction of Gravitation. Boston: Birkhauser, 130–131.Google Scholar
Harper, William, and DiSalle, Robert (1996), “Inferences from Phenomena in Gravitational Physics”, Inferences from Phenomena in Gravitational Physics 63:S46–S54.Google Scholar
Standage, Tom (2000), The Neptune File: A Story of Astronomical Rivalry and the Pioneers of Planet Hunting. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
Tayler, Roger J. (1991), The Hidden Universe. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
Trimble, Virginia (1993), “Dark Matter”, in Hetherington, Noriss S. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cosmology: Historical, Philosophical and Scientific Foundations of Modern Cosmology. New York: Garland, 148–158.Google Scholar
Vanderburgh, William L. (2003), “The Dark Matter Double Bind: Astrophysical Aspects of the Evidential Warrant for General Relativity”, The Dark Matter Double Bind: Astrophysical Aspects of the Evidential Warrant for General Relativity 70:812–832.Google Scholar
Will, Clifford M. (1993), Theory and Experiment in Gravitation Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar