Using stars random distribution to determine presence of gravity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the possibility of using the distribution of stars and planets to assess the presence of gravitational forces by analyzing deviations from randomness. It touches on theoretical and observational aspects related to structure formation in the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the distribution of stars could reveal gravitational influences by measuring deviations from randomness, though they express uncertainty about their understanding.
  • Another participant notes that analyses of star distribution have been conducted, particularly in the context of early universe structure formation, and references a talk by George Smoot that explains these concepts.
  • This participant describes how the early universe's matter was initially uniformly distributed and how gravitational forces led to the formation of structures like galaxies, supporting the Einstein model of gravity when dark matter is included.
  • A third participant mentions the Millennium Run as a relevant study related to structure formation.
  • Additionally, one participant points out that the visible distribution of stars is not random, highlighting a higher density towards the center of the Milky Way and along the galactic plane.
  • Another participant brings up the Faber-Jackson relationship, which may relate to the discussion but does not elaborate further.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of certainty and propose different aspects of the topic, indicating that multiple competing views remain and the discussion is not resolved.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of randomness in star distribution and the role of gravitational forces remain unexamined. The discussion also relies on definitions of terms like "randomness" and "structure formation," which may not be universally agreed upon.

tmh556
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm sure this has been tried but I was just wondering if it's possible to use the distribution of stars and planets in the sky and see how much that deviates from true randomness. With that calculation in mind, I would then think it's possible to determine the gravitational force present since I believe that would be the main factor altering pure randomness. That said, I don't really know what I'm talking about so I could be completely off. Just wondering if there has been any approaches like this.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
tmh556 said:
Hi, I'm sure this has been tried but I was just wondering if it's possible to use the distribution of stars and planets in the sky and see how much that deviates from true randomness. With that calculation in mind, I would then think it's possible to determine the gravitational force present since I believe that would be the main factor altering pure randomness. That said, I don't really know what I'm talking about so I could be completely off. Just wondering if there has been any approaches like this.

That kind of analysis has been done a lot and has gotten highly sophisticated.
It comes under the heading of early universe "structure formation".

You should google "Smoot TED" and watch the 18 minute video of Nobelist George Smoot explaining with excellent slides and computer animations. He explains how we study structure formation and how we observe it.

It is a way of checking that the gravity works the way our model says it should, and also of checking that the estimate of unseen matter is right.

The very early universe matter was close to uniformly spread out. Even distribution. No structure. We can observe how it gradually collapsed into sheets and strands and clumps and clusters. So it took on a kind of cobwebby appearance, and then galaxies formed in the denser parts.

The cobwebby mess that we observe is actually just what our theory of gravity says should condense out of a uniform cloud. And you can run computer sims based on our gravity equations and they approximately duplicate the appearance of what we see, in a qualitative sense. The results look the same. It is an impressive demonstration of how good the basic einstein model of gravity is, when you add dark matter to it.

Without dark matter there would not have been enough ordinary matter to have done this and condensed that way and be looking like this. So it helps confirm that as well.
Check out Smoot's talk.
 
Last edited:
Relating to what Marcus said, check out the Wikipedia article on the Millennium Run.

Not relating to what Marcus said, the stars that you see when you look up at the sky are certainly not random. The stars are clearly denser towards the center of the Milky Way, and in general, along the galactic plane.
 
The Faber-Jackson relationship comes to mind.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K