Dark Matter, what do you know of it?

There was another explanation for the observations and that was occasionally mentioned and dare I say it! Could the way we think gravity works breaks down at larger distances? I watched the YouTube on this subject and that is what one of the researchers mentioned but left it at that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. The Compton Effect scatters the photons, they leave at a different direction then they were heading before the interaction. The angle of direction change is related to the shift in frequency of the photon. If Compton scattering was a major effect in cosmological red shift, then this scattering would be readily apparent. Distant galaxies would look fuzzy or blurred due to the scattering, something we do not see.

2. One piece of evidence pointing towards dark matter is the rotation curves of galaxies, and this is independent of the cosmological red shift. When we measure the rotation of a galaxy we look at the difference between the Doppler shift between the side where the stars are moving towards us and those on the side going away. It doesn't matter what causes the overall redshift, as it would effect the light from each side of the galaxy equally, leaving the difference, thus the measurement of the rotation rate the same.

3. In addition, redshift is not a factor in gravitational lensing, another method for collecting evidence of dark matter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with this is all attempts to form a different model of gravity have fail to account for all the observations. The Bullet Cluster is a prime example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Dark Matter candidate that I find most interesting is Mirror Dark Matter. This is a very non technical paper by Robert Foot. Easy to read.

Does mirror matter exist?

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207175

You can access a list of Foot's technical papers on Mirror Dark Matter at arXive.org.

 

Almost believable is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dynamics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Alex they were saying the stars in these galaxies are travelling at the same velocity and not as if they were orbiting as the planets do. Now that sounds all right to begin with but at different radii and that the same speed that would mean the stars would not remain the arms of a spiral galaxy for very long. So if the stars are staying in the arms they are actually travelling faster the further out they are, not at the same speed. Or have these galaxies not spun on their axis more than a fraction since their formation?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Think about the very furtherest extent of the Universe, where space meets non-space ( or whatever it is expands into if anything.)
Right you have your imagination at that spot and you are observing what is it that is expanding space.
Is space expanding faster than photons are heading outward.
for I keep getting this image of a lonely photon burrowing into the nothingness taking a filament of space along with it. But is it like that? Or is space ahead of the photon?

 

Yes, stars move in and out of the spiral arms. The spiral arms are a result of density waves moving through the galaxy, and their movement is independent of the movement of the stars themselves.

 

How did you work that out? When i look at the Hubble library photos of galaxies, most seem to have two arms and a rotating core once the stars are in the arm there is no way they escape from there. Well that is what it looks like from a practical way.)
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2001010a/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you have viable references . . . or citations for your post?

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980108d.html

 

Thanks Janus , , ,

 

Well that could be so but there is a lot happening in those density bands. Plants and stars colliding and being slowed by the inter stellar dust, to the point where a lot of matter will be slowed, and hence falls inward to the gravitational centre of the galaxy.

 

or there is a centrifugal force

 

Well of course there is that too. Gravity works against the centripetal force but the centripetal force is dependant on velocity so I would imagine there is lots of reasons that things could be slowed in these density bands.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

. . . . and angular momentum?

 

Velocity and angular momentum are hand in hand Angular momentum = MVR in other words directly proportional to the instantaneous velocity. Slow something in orbit and it will "fall" the falling speeds it up again so the final velocity maybe higher but the total MVR will be less. Orbital velocity is higher the closer in it is. (This aspect has always confused me a little, for speeding something up will make it attain a higher orbit, there it ultimately slows to a velocity slower than it had before it was speed up!)

 

Admit hyperbolic BH galactic gravitational field as mere tentative postulate

[size=+1]Admit the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field (HBHF) as a mere tentative postulate that explains Dark Matter[/SIZE]

I have shown that it is expedient and practical to admit the hyperbolic black hole galactic gravitational field (HBHF) as a postulate – that is, as a mere tentative logical premise. There are several ways in which it could be confirmed as a contender for a place in the cosmological pantheon of physical “law”. If it could be seen as a real cosmic rule, every single one of the phenomena that are now ascribed to “Dark Matter” can be more parsimoniously charged to the HBHF.

This is also because, by extension, the HBHF can be used to characterize the hyper-excited ultra-massive “inflaton particle” in the false vacuum of the intensely high energy “inflaton field” that is supposed to have sprung into existence before inflation as a probabilistic quantum fluctuation in meta-space. It offers a new way to forge another link between quantum dynamics and relativity theory.

When enough such links are made, we shall obtain a quantum theory of relativity without having to tolerate the putative overbearing “grand unified theories” or “theories of everything” like superstring theory or quantum loop gravity. These seem to offer no advantage other than the grandeur of hyper-complexity and the safe haven of unfalsifiability. In other words, the HBHF might allow theorists to “get real”. So, it is practical and expedient to admit the HBHF as just such a logical postulate.

The HBHF, if it can be allowed, would further reinforce Inflation Theory by providing a mechanism for the transition of the excited inflaton HBHF particle/field to a “ground state” inverse square gravitational field. It implies how potential energy in the inflaton field might have powered inflation and how it may now be powering “reinflation”, the accelerating Hubble expansion of the universe in the current epoch.

It would seem to require endorsement of the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics/dynamics because the HBHF must have pre-existed inflation in a sort of “metatime” in a “multiverse”. But, this is implied by Alan Guth’s inflation hypothesis anyway. And then, if the universe was once a quantum entity, then it still is – with profound implications and more opportunities to forge links with GR.

Incidentally, the HBHF can certainly be admitted according to common interpretations of some theorems of general relativity if spacetime, in the moments before inflation, was indeed regarded as “flat”. That is, the HBHF can certainly be allowed by GR if the HBHF inflaton field is restricted to two dimensions. This gives a new twist to inflation. It may mean that inflation involved “unpacking” our spatially 3-D universe from a more compactified 2-D version.

And then, the deep interior of black holes at their singularities (as physical realities) might be viewed as recompactifications of spacetime – reconvolutions to a strictly 2-D format wherein the HBHF can persist with no contradiction to conventional interpretations of GR. Then, in our multiverse, the galactic 2-D HBHF multiple sibling set might define zillions* of orbital planes for each and every entity in its gravitational purview.

That this galactic field must be defined as a disk shaped oblate spheroid means that its tidal influence on the central super-massive Black Hole (SMBH) must be concentrated in the plane of the galaxy. The mass of the disk may be thousands of times the mass of the SMBH so, its (mutual) effects on the SMBH are very substantial. Thus, Einstein’s theory of the relativistic non-symmetric gravitational field must be used to characterize it and that of the SMBH. Nobody has ever done this. And Birkhoff’s Theorem or its congeners simply do not apply to any real BHs.

Simple geometry is used to define radiant flux and other quantities that are posited to emanate from a point source. An imaginary sphere is constructed around the source. An infinitesimally small area is defined on the surface of this sphere. Then the flux, quantity of lines of force or light lines, through this fractional area must be proportional to 1/r^2 because the total area of a sphere is proportional to 1/r^2 and the spherical enclosure envelopes all the flux. Using this definition to prove that gravity must be an inverse square (1/r^2) phenomenon uses circular reasoning because it assumes as a premise that which is to be proven (it begs the question).

What if the source, even though it is a point, is assumed to be enclosed by an infinitesimally small space that is a very oblate spheroid by virtue of its extremely rapid rotation? What if this is the ultimate source, in fact. Then, what if this flux emission pattern is also very strongly oblately spheroidal? In addition, what if this flux was influenced by relativistic “frame dragging” and “thirring”? Also, what if the gravitational tidal influence of a galactic disk would also influence this spheroid to be even more oblate? The gravitational field of the disk must be perfectly coaxial and concurrent with the field of the SMBH. Its field must perfectly superpose. Then, the combined field must be treated in order to determine if there could be a hyperbolic field component. But, this combined field is even more “non-symmetric” and even more difficult to handle with GR, except by Einstein’s non-symmetric field theory, which has never been done. So, it is really impossible to prove by appeal to any theory or principle whatever whether the hyperbolic gravitational field is impossible. But, it is possible to appeal to strong geometric principles to argue that, indeed, it is possible.


I need a collaborator ! ! !

See more details at www.NeoCosmology.blogspot.com .

 

The Hyperbolic Hyper-Massive Black-Hole Universe

The Hyperbolic Hyper-Massive Black-Hole Universe​

Stephen Hawking did not buy his own pronouncements regarding the permanent disappearance of information into black holes. Instead, he and some others invented a whole new theory of black-hole thermodynamics which contradicted his earlier ideas. So in a sense, the black-hole event horizon is a real surface. It is sometimes called a "quasi-surface".

The center of a black-hole is a physically real singularity. It is constrained only by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. There is no such thing as quantum gravity (QG). How many papers are published in ArXiv on unicorns? By their standards, there should be dozens! So, any appeal to QG to put the Kibosh on black-hole singularities is therefore bogus.

See The Hyperbolic Hyper-Massive Black-Hole Universe and Galactic Gravitational Field (HHBF), which is a paper written for the blog http://garyakent.wordpress.com that describes the e-Model for inflationary expansion of the universe.

The hyperbolic hyper-massive black-hole gravitational field is a phenomenological postulate, that is, it is a tentative premise that should be confirmed by experiment or observation and need not wait for theoretical justification. In the case of galaxies and galactic clusters, there is already enough observational support for the galactic hyperbolic super-massive black-hole gravitational field (HSBF). For instance, it explains the stellar anomalous velocity distributions seen in most galaxies. I also explains all the other phenomena that have been attributed to Dark Matter. The HSBF IS Dark Matter. No WIMP will ever be found. Quintessence is unnecessary.

The point is emphasized that Birkhoff's Theorem and other interpretive principles derived from general relativity cannot apply to any real black-holes. These rules presume that the massive bodies that are considered are always "unperturbed" and are perfectly "spherically symmetric". No real black hole meets these criteria. The rules are good only for approximate calculation, not for"precision cosmology".

Besides, GR should not prohibit a gravitational field that declines as 1/r if a metric is found, similar to the Schwarzschild metric, using assumptions and boundary conditions wherein a singular black-hole is presumed at the outset. If such a gravitational field can be confirmed, the e-Model will serve as more evidence for the existence of our universe as part of a multiverse in meta-time. I appeal for collaborators to help find such a metric.

Hugh Everett may one day be seen as a thinker on a par with A. Einstein. And, John Archibald Wheeler's suggestion concerning the quantum self-interference of probability density waves may be taken more seriously while Everett's declaration of the"reality of probability" as a sort of substance gains credence.

Self-interference can explain the virtual absence of antimatter (AM) in our universe. AM would be confined to our virtual twin, which must exist according to the logical extension of Alan Guth's inflation hypothesis wherein a virtual particle came into existence from a hyper-excited false vacuum which came to exist precisely because of its ultra-high energy level. It would be seen as the deeper mechanism behind apparent "symmetry breaking" and unbalanced annihilation of fundamental sub-nuclear particles and antiparticles to give our universe with matter as the dominant form.

The existence of an interference twin could also be helpful in explaining the hyperbolic field as the resultant of a superposition of states. As the real (to us) expression of a statistical process within the multiverse, we experience only the total sum, the superposed probability density form from which emerges probability, P --> 1. There are ways that such a superposition might affect the shape of a gravitational potential well. Gravity itself may be viewed as a probability vortex or wave in the Einstein Aether. There is much that has not been considered.