My understanding is the researcher took Gaia probe information and looked at "wide binary stars" (not sure what defines wide, but there must be a ton of them), within 650 light years of earth. They found the ones that accelerate the least (relative to each other? Rotationally?) are, and this is where I get confused, moving more efficiently around each other than their faster counterparts?
This discrepancy is postulated to be due observations of the stars acting in different physics models based how much they're accelerating relative to each other?
If this is correct (and the researcher is very transparent with their methods and using public data) would this up-end our models as much as I think it would? There's probably a lot of things interacting with other things at very low relative acceptable throughout the universe. Or is this just highlighting a truth we already knew, that there's a difference between the quantum and relative universes that we're now able to roughly put a scale to?
I've added to my questions since lemmy has been down, what in the world does this paragraph mean? "Also, unlike other studies Chae calibrated the occurrence rate of hidden nested inner binaries at a benchmark acceleration."
While doing some you tubing about this (thanks lemmy.world down time) I discovered Sabine hossenfelder, who I think is becoming one of my favorite science communicators I recommend anyone wondering about anything science to check her out https://youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder
Sean Carroll just did a long solo episode of his Mindscape podcast (preposterousuniverse.com) which includes a survey of the various research areas attempting to explain the dark matter.
It's a long episode but it in he describes what to look for in modified gravity claims.
This is not to say the specific claims from this group are incorrect or lacking. I'd consider the podcast episode a tool to help you analyze and form an opinion on what is being said.