PHIL A2

docx

School

Simon Fraser University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MATH 155

Subject

Astronomy

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by GeneralDuckPerson1077

Report
Part I Scientists believe that the visible universe makes up less than 5%of the mass of the entire universe and that 95% of the matter in the universe is unobservable. Majority of astrophysicists believe in the existence of Dark Matter and that it makes the greater mass of the universe, it is considered the simplest and best explanation. As no conclusive evidence of its existence was recorded outside of our galaxy, it is still debated. In 2018, data from Hubble’s telescope reignited the debate after it had discovered NGC-1052-DF4, a galaxy containing no signs of dark matter that was not being pulled by neighboring galaxy NGC1035’s gravitational force. Given the calculations, if Dark Matter exists, NGC- 1052-DF4 should succumb under NGC1035’s gravitational force. Some astrophysicists proposed alternate explanations to what makes the core of our universe. One theory was Negative Mass which proposed the existence of exotic matter whose mass is the opposite sign to a normal matter’s mass, however this was easily disproven given no characteristics of its existence could be observed. Another competing explanation, Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity (gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, rather a reaction to the makeup of a given environment) was gaining popularity. Newly received data from Hubble’s telescope confirms that NGC-1052-DF4 (a galaxy containing no dark matter) is being torn by the gravitational force of neighboring galaxy NGC1035, This reaffirms the existence of Dark Matter and disproves Verlinde’s model and other competing explanations. The chance of Dark Matter existing is 90% while the likelihood of other explanations is 10%. Source: New Hubble Data Explains Missing Dark Matter - from Nasa.gov on Nov. 27, 2020 - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/new-hubble-data-explains-missing-dark-matter
Part II A new report by the European Space Agency (ESA) suggests that the analysis of Hubble telescope’s latest data that concluded NGC-1052-DF4 is being torn by the gravitational force of neighboring galaxy NGC1035 may have been wrong and a new analysis of Hubble’s latest data is needed. They anticipate that a new analysis could either confirm or disconfirm that NGC-1052-DF4 is being torn by the gravitational force of neighboring galaxy NGC1035 (a 50% chance). If the new analysis does indeed disconfirm the findings, this would be significant as it would bring back questioning of the existence of Dark Matter (the chance of Dark Matter existing would be back to 50%). It would also energize competing explanations to Dark Matter being the core mass of our universe (the chance of the other explanations combined would grow back to ~50%). Proponents of Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity suggest that this would bring it back to the spotlight and increase its likelihood. The increase of its likelihood could result in an increase of the research being made on it and the funding received by researchers.
(E|H) *Bayes Box for prior - H represents the Black Hole theory - E represents the evidence that is Huble’s new data analysis - ¬H represents the all other alternative theories to Black Hole theory - Evidence strength is 9.0 for H, strongly confirms H P(H|E) = P(E|H) × P(H)/ P(E|H) × P(H) + P(E|¬H) × P(¬H) = 0.9×0.5/(0.9×0.5)+ (0.1×0.5) = 0.9 0.900 (E|¬H) 0.100 (H) ( ¬ H) ¬H
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
*Bayes Box for after the new evidence from Part II - H represents the Black Hole theory - E represents if the evidence from Huble’s data analysis was wrong, if new E is that Hubble’s data analysis was correct, the result would revert to the prior numbers shown in the previous page - ¬H represents the all other alternative theories to Black Hole theory - Evidence strength is 0.83 towards not H, strongly confirms not H (H|E) = P(E|H) × P(H)/ P(E|H) × P(H) + P(E|¬H) × P(¬H) = 0.1×0.5/(0.1×0.5)+ (0.6×0.5) = 0.143