Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Matter?

Find out the latest thinking about our universe.
Post Reply
User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 21590
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Matter?

Post by bystander » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:11 am

Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?
Universe Today | Steve Nerlich | 2011 Dec 03
You probably want to put on your skeptical goggles and set them to maximum for this one. An Italian mathematician has come up with some complex formulae that can, with remarkable similarity, mimic the rotation curves of spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter.

Currently, these galactic rotation curves represent key evidence for the existence of dark matter – since the outer stars of spinning galaxies often move around a galactic disk so fast that they should fly off into intergalactic space – unless there is an additional ‘invisible’ mass present in the galaxy to gravitationally hold them in their orbits.

The issue can be appreciated by considering the Keplerian motion of the planets in our Solar System. Mercury orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 48 kilometers a second – while Neptune orbits the Sun at an orbital velocity of 5 kilometers a second. In the Solar System, a planet’s proximity to the substantial mass of the Sun is a function of its orbital velocity. So, hypothetically, if the Sun’s mass was reduced somehow, Neptune’s existing orbital velocity would move it outwards from its current orbit – potentially flinging it off into interstellar space if the change was significant enough.

The physics of the Milky Way Galaxy is different from the Solar System, since its mass is distributed more evenly across the galactic disk, rather than 99% of its mass being concentrated centrally – the way it is in the Solar System.

Nonetheless, as this past Universe Today article explains, if we assume a similar relationship between the cumulative mass of the Milky Way and the orbital velocity of its outer stars, we must acknowledge that the visible objects within the Milky Way only have 10-20% of the mass that is required to contain the orbital velocity of stars in its outer disk. So we conclude that the rest of that galactic mass must be dark (invisible) matter.

This is the contemporary consensus view of how galaxies work – and a key component of the current standard model of the cosmology of the universe. But Carati has come along with a seemingly implausible idea that the rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by the gravitational influence of faraway matter, without needing to appeal to dark matter at all.

Conceptually the idea makes little sense. Positioning gravitationally significant mass outside of the orbit of stars might draw them out into wider orbits, but it’s difficult to see why this would add to their orbital velocity. Drawing an object into a wider orbit should result in it taking longer to orbit the galaxy since it will have more circumference to cover. What we generally see in spiral galaxies is that the outer stars orbit the galaxy within much the same time period as more inward stars.

But although the proposed mechanism seems a little implausible, what is remarkable about Carati’s claim is that the math apparently deliver galactic rotation curves that closely fit the observed values of at least four known galaxies. Indeed, the math delivers an extraordinarily close fit.

With skeptical goggles firmly in place, the following conclusions might be drawn from this finding:
  • There are so many galaxies out there that it’s not hard to find four galaxies that fit the math;
  • The math has been retro-fitted to match already observed data;
  • The math just doesn’t work; or
  • While the author’s interpretation of the data may be up for discussion, the math really does work.
The math draws on principles established in the Einstein field equations, which is problematic as the field equations are based on the cosmological principle, which assumes that the effect of faraway matter is negligible – or at least that it evens out at a large scale.

Perplexingly, Carati’s paper also notes two further examples where the math can also fit galaxies with declining rotational velocities in their outer stars. This is achieved by switching the sign of one of the formulae components (which can be + or -). Thus, on the one hand the effect of faraway matter is to induce a positive pressure that contains the rapid rotation of stars, preventing them from flying off – and on the other hand, it can induce a negative pressure to encourage an atypical decay in a galaxy’s rotation curve.

As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true – it probably isn’t true. All comments welcome.

Gravitational effects of the faraway matter on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies - A. Carati
<< Previous
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18520
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:27 am

bystander wrote:Astronomy Without A Telescope – Could Dark Matter Not Matter?
Universe Today | Steve Nerlich | 2011 Dec 03

As the saying goes, if something seems too good to be true – it probably isn’t true. All comments welcome.
The problem is, you don't need galaxy rotation curves to justify the existence of dark matter. There is lots of other observational evidence, as well. Like the dynamics of galaxy clusters, and the way we see gravitational lensing. This mathematical trick does nothing to explain those. So we still need dark matter to explain our observations. And the theory that goes with it says we should expect halos around galaxies. Which means this new analysis is probably wrong, because it actually contradicts the observational evidence.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

The Code
2+2=5
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
AKA: Swainy
Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by The Code » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:36 pm

Hi
Does not string theory predict other dimensions ?
Quote : An intriguing feature of string theory is that it predicts extra dimensions. In classical string theory the number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion. However in order to make a consistent quantum theory, string theory is required to live in a spacetime of the so-called "critical dimension": we must have 26 spacetime dimensions

Could your Dark Matter exist in another dimension, (but as everything was created in the big bang) It must still interact gravitationally ?

Interesting post

tc
Always trying to find the answers

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18520
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:52 pm

The Code wrote:Does not string theory predict other dimensions ?
Not just string theory. But it does depend on the idea of high-order spatial dimensions. But these spatial dimensions are not really analogous to the three we are familiar with. In string theory, the extra dimensions only exist at the quantum scale.
Could your Dark Matter exist in another dimension, (but as everything was created in the big bang) It must still interact gravitationally ?
I don't really know what that means. I don't know that a string theorist would know what it means. Personally, I think string theory is, for the most part, nonsense. At the least, I'd call it a complex hypothesis that doesn't rise to the level of "theory" in the scientific sense.

More importantly, however, there is no need for such a dark matter construction. It is easily understood as simple nonbaryonic matter- something that we know exists, and which fits into current theory nicely. The fact that we haven't identified the specific particle involved doesn't change anything. We have now observed many particles that existed only theoretically until technology advanced enough to detect them. That' s pretty much the story of particle physics.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

The Code
2+2=5
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
AKA: Swainy
Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by The Code » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:15 am

Chris Peterson wrote: Could your Dark Matter exist in another dimension, (but as everything was created in the big bang) It must still interact gravitationally ?


I don't really know what that means. I don't know that a string theorist would know what it means. Personally, I think string theory is, for the most part, nonsense. At the least, I'd call it a complex hypothesis that doesn't rise to the level of "theory" in the scientific sense.
I'm a big fan of frequencies, you may not understand that either. let me explain. Everything you see in the universe has a frequency. You must understand the word, just put it into practice. light has a frequency, Time has A frequency, Gravity has a frequency, Dimensions have a frequency, etc etc etc.....now put it into practice : You can not have a relative time frequency, with out a relative dimensional frequency. If things you say exist, but on another dimension that enables things like neutrino's to pass through a light year of lead un-damaged. Then you must take into consideration that things we are trying to understand are not of what we can comprehend in our material world. And not natural to our way of thinking ?

tc
Always trying to find the answers

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18520
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:31 am

The Code wrote:I'm a big fan of frequencies, you may not understand that either. let me explain. Everything you see in the universe has a frequency. You must understand the word, just put it into practice. light has a frequency, Time has A frequency, Gravity has a frequency, Dimensions have a frequency, etc etc etc.
You're right, I don't understand.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

The Code
2+2=5
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
AKA: Swainy
Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by The Code » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:44 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
The Code wrote:I'm a big fan of frequencies, you may not understand that either. let me explain. Everything you see in the universe has a frequency. You must understand the word, just put it into practice. light has a frequency, Time has A frequency, Gravity has a frequency, Dimensions have a frequency, etc etc etc.
You're right, I don't understand.
You should Chris.
List all the Frequencies you know about. Then tell me something that has no Frequency. In any way shape or form.

tc
Always trying to find the answers

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 9180
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA
Contact:

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by geckzilla » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:04 am

The frozen flesh and blood at the center of the ice man's absolute zero cold heart.

Discussion officially plunged into the realm of fantasy.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18520
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Contact:

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:43 am

The Code wrote:List all the Frequencies you know about. Then tell me something that has no Frequency. In any way shape or form.
"Frequency" implies something that is temporally or spatially repetitive. I see no way of applying that definition to the three things you mention: gravity, time, or dimensions.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

The Code
2+2=5
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:39 pm
AKA: Swainy
Location: The Earth, The Milky Way, Great Britain

Re: Astronomy Without A Telescope: Could Dark Matter Not Mat

Post by The Code » Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:35 am

geckzilla wrote:The frozen flesh and blood at the center of the ice man's absolute zero cold heart.

Discussion officially plunged into the realm of fantasy.
A Temperature Frequency of Energy/Matter ?

Here is an interesting article :
http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/dimens.html

Why would you think, the 95% of the unknown universe is so simple. The complexities of relativity is only "I feel" the tip of the iceberg. If there are 11 dimensions or more would they not fall into a frequency of energy ? Why look for the Higgs in ordinary matter when it obviously exists in Dark matter ? How do you expect to find something inside something that you can't see or touch or even know what it is ?

tc
Always trying to find the answers

Post Reply