Dark Matter: The Plot Thickens

Johannes Koelman

An article in this week's edition of Nature adds to the mysteries surrounding 'dark matter'. Should we abandon this enigmatic concept of invisible matter that exerts gravitational attraction but is otherwise undetectable? Could it be that we simply do not understand the long-range behavior of gravity?

Galaxy NGC 4414

Galaxies rotate. Each of them would fly apart and create a cosmic mess, were it not for the gravitational forces that bind together the many billions of stars and large quantities of dust and gas that constitute a typical galaxy like our Milky Way.

By applying Newton's law of gravity to the observed mass distribution of the galaxies, we can predict the rotation curve for each galaxy. If we do this, and compare the derived rotation curves to the observed rotational velocities, it becomes apparent that galaxies rotate much faster than predicted based on the gravitational attraction from the visible mass. This means that the matter within a galaxy is bonded together much stronger than expected. These deviations are very significant. Detailed comparisons between observed and calculated rotation rates reveal that the bonding of matter in galaxies is about six times stronger than expected. This means that either Newton's law of gravity fails dramatically at galactic distances, or that large quantities of some invisible ('dark') matter are present.

The physics community has predominantly opted for the latter conjecture. An easy way out that leaves Newton's venerable theories intact. This, however, might start to change.

Displaying the mismatch
For a given galaxy, the mismatch between expected and observed rotational velocities is usually represented by plotting both velocities as function of the distance to the center of the galaxy. This results in displays that typically look like:

Galaxy rotation curv (schematic)

Galaxy rotation curve as measured from Doppler shifts (solid curve) and as inferred from the gravity effects associated with visible matter (dashed curve)

Prominently apparent in these plots is that outside the core of the galaxy the rotational velocities typically flatten off, whilst theory based on the observed galaxy mass predicts the velocities to drop with distance. The velocity flattening as function of radial distance is observed for virtually every galaxy investigated, yet the value of the constant velocity is different for different galaxies.

Universal acceleration
A European collaboration of astrophysicists now reports in the current edition of Nature the remarkable observation that hidden in the galaxy rotational velocity plots is a universal behavior. To make this universality apparent, accelerations rather than velocities need to be plotted. This can easily be accomplished by translating the observed rotational speeds into centrifugal accelerations using the fact that the centrifugal acceleration of a body circling around a central point equals the velocity squared divided by the distance to the center. When plotting the observed centrifugal accelerations as function of distance to the centre of the galaxy together with the theoretically derived acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the visible matter in the galaxy, a plot as shown below typically emerges:

Galaxy acceleration curves (schematic)

Galaxy acceleration curve as measured (solid curve), and as derived from the gravitational acceleration due to visible matter (dashed curve). The red arrow indicates the maximum value of the mismatch between both, and the green arrow indicates the corresponding acceleration that can be attributed to visible matter. Both values are universal (see text).

Quite remarkably, whilst the different galaxies have widely different sizes and different masses, each of them plot such that the maximum deviation between theory and observation corresponds to an acceleration of 3 10^-9 cm/s², with the corresponding acceleration predicted based on visible matter being 0.6 10^-9 cm/s². Whilst the universality in the mismatch was known, the new publication in Nature adds universality in the theoretically derived acceleration to the picture. This added aspect of universality between the effects of dark and visible matter could mean that facts start to close in on dark matter theories. Whilst by no means impossible, it simply seems less plausible that for each and every galaxy dark matter always collects around visible matter in a fixed (approximately 5:1) ratio. On the other hand, modifications to Newton's theory of gravity can very well be taylored so as to result in the observed universal gravity-scaling behavior.

Will dark matter soon be classified as a misconception? A gravitational aether that for decades has led scientists astray? It is all written in the stars.

Comments

Or may be it's time to question some assumptions, like the one stating that electromagnetic forces cancel out at the large scales...

Florian Nachon | 10/03/09 | 03:04 AM

This is not a new idea. Astronomers have tried modified gravity to explain the observations, but it cannot explain what we see in the bullet cluster (1E 0657-56). It is actually two clusters of galaxies that collided. Well, the x-ray gas in them collided. The galaxies just past right by one another. Imagine you and your friend throwing handfuls of peanuts at one another. It is unlikely that two nuts will actually hit. The gas surrounding the galaxies, however, shocks. It merges into a single, hotter gas in the middle of the collision. In clusters of galaxies, more mass is in the x-ray gas than in the galaxies themselves. So, if the idea of modified gravity is correct, you would expect to see the signature of dark matter surrounding the gas. We don't see this, however. Instead, the dark matter traveled along with the galaxies and the gas just shows the mass you would expect from the particles.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 13:15 PM

If the galaxies and gas just show the matter expected, that also isn't any advantage to the dark matter theory. Occam's razor doesn't work with dark matter at all.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 19:02 PM

His explanation of the bullet cluster is misleading. What we see is a hot mass of gas in the center and gravitational lensing in open space on either side of the collision as the dark matter passed straight through unobstructed. Gravitational lensing in open space is what makes the bullet cluster so interesting and the only current concept that explains it is dark matter.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 19:03 PM

Could it be that the black holes situated in the center of galaxies not only effect the matter gravitationally but also electromagnetically or through a unified force considering black holes are the only points in space-time besides the beginning of the universe in which there is a singularity and the laws of physics break down. If a black hole can effect all matter and energy through a unified force than it could account for not only dark matter but the fact that light can not escape because it is being attracted though the unified force.

Samuel Oscar Ingersoll (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 14:46 PM

The rotational tata for galaxies suggesting dark matter have some interesting possible explanations, which come from the principle of relativity. A topological model of the atom mapped by relative quantum terms displays how it's internal electromagnetic wave radiation precipitates gravitalons due to radial dilution. That and other features of dark matter may be studied by calculation of GT integral atomic topologies, which also show relativity of space.
The atom's RQT (relative quantum topological) data point imaging function is built by combination of the relativistic Einstein-Lorenz transform functions for time, mass, and energy with the workon quantized electromagnetic wave equations for frequency and wavelength. The atom labeled psi (Z) pulsates at the frequency {Nhu=e/h} by cycles of {e=m(c^2)} transformation of nuclear surface mass to forcons with joule values, followed by nuclear force absorption. This radiation process is limited only by spacetime boundaries of {Gravity-Time}, where gravity is the force binding space to psi, forming the GT integral atomic wavefunction. The expression is defined as the series expansion differential of nuclear output rates with quantum symmetry numbers assigned along the progression to give topology to the solutions.
Next, the correlation function for the manifold of internal heat capacity particle 3D functions condensed due to radial force dilution is extracted; by rearranging the total internal momentum function to the photon gain rule and integrating it for GT limits. This produces a series of 26 topological waveparticle functions of five classes; {+Positron, Workon, Thermon, -Electromagneton, Magnemedon}, each the 3D data image of a type of energy intermedon of the 5/2 kT J internal energy cloud, accounting for all of them.
Those values intersect the sizes of the fundamental physical constants: h, h-bar, delta, nuclear magneton, beta magneton, k (series). They quantize nuclear dynamics by acting as fulcrum particles. The result is the picoyoctometric, 3D, interactive video atomic model data imaging function, responsive to keyboard input of virtual photon gain events by relativistic, quantized shifts of electron, force, and energy field states and positions.
Images of the h-bar magnetic energy waveparticle of ~175 picoyoctometers are available online at http://www.symmecon.com with the complete RQT atomic modeling guide titled The Crystalon Door, copyright TXu1-266-788. TCD conforms to the unopposed motion of disclosure in U.S. District (NM) Court of 04/02/2001 titled The Solution to the Equation of Schrodinger.
(C) 2009, Dale B. Ritter, B.A.

Dale B. Ritter, B.A. (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 22:30 PM

This whole Dark Matter debate has been frustrating me for a long time. Specifically for reasons highlighted in this article. I think these new results get to the heart of what could be wrong with the assumption of dark matter. There is no account for the 'spin' at the center of the galaxy, or the centrifugal force referenced in this article. It seems to me this doesn't even require heavy modification to explain, but rather an update on how we think of the warp in space-time caused by the 'spin' of a large amount of mass at the center of galaxies.

If there really was this mysterious "dark matter" that "clumps" to regular matter in a "~5:1 ratio", this huge amount of extra mass should be detectable on smaller scales. We should find evidence of this gravitational effect on our own solar system and on other small bodies of matter. The fact that there seem to only be major discrepancies when measuring the spin of galaxies (or galaxy clusters), suggests there is more than just some 'extra matter' accounting for these variations. If there was 'extra matter' to explain the measurements, the "spread" (or "halo") or dark matter would have to be extremely uniform, almost as if it is "repelled" by the center of galaxies and exists in greater abundance at the outer edges. This seems highly unlikely to me, and I have always taken the stance that the search for Dark Matter could end up the same as the search for Planet X. Not that I have any better theories to explain it, but I think there is a must simpler explanation; we just need someone to think a bit outside to box to find it.

Curious what other thoughts/ideas people have on this concept.

TurnWheel (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 14:56 PM

I can think of no other "medium" other than space itself that can come even close to explaining gravitational "anomalies" and until we truly understand the "transitional phases" of space itself within that 5:1 ratio with matter, we will not be able to take the next step in truly understanding what is behind it all--space itself forming matter and (like a leaf on a river) carrying it along at the universalities discovered; and also having nothing to do with centrifugal forces. Each "system within a system" is connected only by space that defines each system by the transitional elements (much like the elements involved in an electron changing orbits). Instead of chasing mythical dark matter, we should be seeking to understand the mechanics involved in transitional space. We have only begun to see that it may be "rivers of space" that has so affected the locations of our deepspace spacecraft--further away than we expected and not at the same direct-line location that we expected at all. Thus was discovered the first cosmological effect of space transition at the boundaries of our solar system. Counting back 5 transitions would take us to quantum space. What little experimentation we have done on space itself has shown that it is not "static". There is function and force within space. Since space is also theoretically infinite, it also stands to reason that the forces and functions within it are infinite as well--and of a piece. It is unbroken--it only changes forms according to the laws we need to understand to truly be able to "subdue" the universe. I'm just arrogant enough to believe that we can crack the code. Timetravel anyone?

Zerub Babel (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 18:15 PM

Sorry, but the premise of this article seems to use numerology rather than physics to discount dark matter. As was stated in an earlier comment, observations of the Bullet Cluster discounts MOND as an explanation without significant contortions of the MOND theory. Also, dark matter has been mapped through gravitational lensing which MOND also does a poor job of explaining. it's not just galactic rotations that suggests that dark matter exists.

Galaxies are embedded in a halo of dark matter, including the galactic core; it is not repelled by the galactic center. Think of it as a large elliptical galaxy (without stars) superimposed over a normal matter galaxy. As dark matter does not interact electromagnetically with normal matter and is pervasive everywhere, we do not notice it on a local scale. A bad analogy would be that fish do not notice the gravitational pull of the ocean because it's distributed evenly around them.

Remember, dark matter does not "clump" like normal matter; there are no dark matter planets or stars because it does not interact like baryonic matter. You don't see neutrinos "clumping" together either, yet neutrinos far outnumber atoms.

EvilMerodach (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 19:38 PM

Rotation curves of galaxies are by now means the only evidence for dark matter.
Modified gravity theories have a very hard time to explain what one observes at
the bullet cluster which are two colliding clusters of galaxies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

let me just cite: " Studies of the Bullet cluster, announced in August 2006, provide the best evidence to date for the existence of dark matter. At a statistical significance of 8σ, it was found that the spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law."

Onanymous (not verified) | 10/03/09 | 15:16 PM

TeVeS contains solutions to account for gravitational lensing by allowing a 2eV nuetrino.

Allynd Dudnikov (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 11:58 AM

Thanks for all the comments.

I think it s fair to say that most astrophysicist do not like the idea of needing 'dark matter' in these amounts. The alternative, however, is apparently even less attractive, as this requires changing Einstein's theory of gravity (to which Newton's theory, for the problems at hand, is an excellent approximation). The issue is, Einstein's theory can not be tweaked: the principle of general covariance leads to Einstein's equations with no (actually one, but that is another story related to dark energy) fitting parameters.

I would not be surprised if the classical limit of a yet to be found quantum gravity theory would contain effects now ascribed to 'dark matter'. However, despite all the efforts on MOND/TeVeS, MOG, etc., we don't seem to have a worthy successor to Einstein's theory of gravity.

To the last poster:
Various other effects such as gravitational lensing can also find an explanation in 'dark matter'. Would require another blog to discuss this. The purpose of this blog was to make the results published this week in Nature more accessible.
I doesn't seem to be correct to claim that observations on the Bullet Cluster "cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law". Moffat's group has produced papers stating the opposite (MOG correctly describing the Bullet Cluster's behavior). But then again: I am not in support of these theories.

Johannes Koelman | 10/03/09 | 22:58 PM

The hammock physicists ends his comments with the remark
"Will dark matter soon be classified as a misconception? A gravitational aether that for decades has led scientists astray? It is all written in the stars."

If dark matter is a gravitational aether, then the problem will be resolved with theory--not by more observation of the stars. Scientists have spent millions and more than 16 years looking for dark matter underground. Have they found it? We need a new theory of gravity--not more studies of the flat rotation curves.

Ask yourself the question that no asks--why should mass attract mass. To paraphrase Newton, What innate, inherent properties does mass have that would give it the ability to attract mass or warp space. This is like asking the question, What innate, inherent properties does the earth have that would give it the ability to mass all the stars and the planets rotate around it in a 24 hour period?

The radiation leaving mass is measured in units of watts--power. And power is intimately related to acceleration as we all know when we step on the gas pedal. For experiments showing that radiation is gravitationally attractive and a theory based on these experiments go to http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018 .

Peter Fred (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 08:25 AM

What innate, inherent properties does the earth have that would give it
the ability to mass all the stars and the planets rotate around it in a
24 hour period?

Nice Machian perspective!

It would be great if some bright mind manages to accomplish what Einstein could not achieve: fully implement Mach's Principle into a theory of gravitation. I am sympathetic to the idea that such a new theory - if it can be constructed - would solve the 'dark matter' problem (and a few others as well).

Johannes Koelman | 10/04/09 | 08:48 AM

Dark matter has hampered gravitational physics on all levels. It is an unjustified paradigm. That's all it is.
Here is a statistic I would like to see. How many physicist have formal training in all the area's of physics it takes to fully understand dark matter its pros and cons? (General Relativity, Particle Physics, Quantum Field Theory, etc.) To really integrate all of those area's of knowledge into a complete picture it not easy, it takes more than one person to really do it.

Theoretical physics of the kind that would be needed to address these problems is not usually a collaborative practice. Someone, somewhere needs to find a inspiration.

Hontas Farmer | 10/04/09 | 10:15 AM

It isn't that uncommon actually. Pretty much any string theory work requires knowledge of field theories, general relativity and particle physics. University of Washington also offers courses for grad students in all areas, so it is relatively easy for any graduate student to get formal training in all three disciplines. Presumably the people working on Loop Quantum Gravity must have an understanding of general relativity (which would be the macroscopic limit) and field theories to be able to unify them and I am guessing if they are trying to fit in their theories to the standard model that they have sufficient knowledge of particle physics.

I also don't see how dark matter hampers theoretical physics, it clearly hasn't prevented this paper from being published in Nature (which is arguing against dark matter) or for theorists working on alternative theories. The problems physicists are tackling these days are not the easy ones, as anyone who has experience in any sort of scientific research knows you will go down wrong avenues and pursue wrong theories. This time and effort isn't wasted but is actually part of the scientific process.

I find people on the internet who seem to have some physics knowledge tend to ignore the history of physics. Take some common examples of ad hoc theory that people rejected, here are 3 examples:

1) Quantization of the photon in black body radiation, solved the uv catastrophe and wasn't consensus until the experimental verification of the photoelectric effect.

2) Introduction of color charge of quarks to formally save the Pauli exclusion principle, was later showed to be essential in the explanation of both strong and nuclear forces.

3) Introduction of the displacement current in Maxwell's laws, was introduced to formally save ampere's law but it wasn't observable in the low frequency circuits.

Each case represents a theoretical concept with corresponding mathematics that was introduced for the same motivations that dark matter have had. The were later shown to have physical relevance. Now for each example of this in the history of physics there are counter examples such as:

1) The ether

2) universal conservation of charge, parity, and charge parity symmetry (ie universal invariance under reflection, shown not to be true for the weak force.)

The theoretical work for the ether allowed the theory to be in a condition to be tested by experiment, which then allowed us to move on to other theories.

My whole argument is basically this: theoretical work even on something that might prove to be wrong is not wasted and is actually essential to the development of physics as a whole. People seem to have a phobia of physics being wrong, and everyone has opinions as to what theoretical concept is right or wrong. When it comes down to it two fundamental things are true: experiment trumps any opinion, and the people formulating these opinions are all well educated and just as critical as anyone posting on these forums about their own theories. Just because they think dark matter is a physical reality doesn't mean they won't drop the theory when there is sufficient experimental evidence to the contrary.

Alex (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 00:45 AM

You say it's not that uncommon based on people studying string theory. How many % of physicist study string theory really? For that matter how many study Loop Quantum Gravity? Heck how many study all the aspects of the big bang?
As for Dark Matter: Here is how it has hampered theoretical physics and astronomy...

There are physicist out there who will not give the time of day to any theory which attempts to explain away dark matter. This, they argue, is because dark matter is a proven fact, when it is not.

The above has the effect of obstructing the career's of physicist who try to construct such theories of gravity. This sends a message to young up and coming physicist that they should not even pay attention to alternative gravity theories.

Dark matter is fundamentally different from the things you mention above. Dark matter should be available in such large quantities and ever present that we could see it at work on all length scales. The fact that the dark matter effect only shows up on cosmic length scales is evidence that there needs to be a new theory.

Length scale, related to energy, has always heralded a new theory. Just as Vgrav=mgh near the surface of earth, and vgrav=GM/r far from earth and on most astronomical length scales. It makes much more sense tht gravity will behave differently at the length scales of the galxy's and the universe.

Hontas Farmer | 10/05/09 | 07:33 AM

Both theoretical physicists and astrophysicists are trained in most fields of physics before they specialize. It is correct as Alex says that physicists do have knowledge of both quantum physics, relativity etc etc. That goes for theoretical and experimental aspects of physics as well, by the way. We all have to do both before we dive into a special field. :-)

I also agree with you Alex, that a wrong theory is part of the scientific process and is highly valuable. Falsification is a vital part of science. Somethings gotta be wrong, too. :-) It doesn't mean you are less talented or stupid. Those who finally come up with the correct theory have all made 'mistakes' on the way there. Plus, it is fundamentally a joint effort.

Bente Lilja Bye | 10/05/09 | 10:24 AM

Yoo hoo.....

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the link on the right hand of this page - entitled:

"Physicists observe magnetism in gas for the first time"

leia (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 12:01 PM

Good catch Leia.There are more and more evidences that magnetic field and plasma filaments are dominant in the formation/evolution of stars an galaxy. For example, there is that recent picture from Herschel showing that stars form along filaments of plasma:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/SEMUABGNA0G_1.html

quotes: "the interstellar material is condensing into continuous and interconnected filaments glowing from the light emitted by new-born stars at various stages of development." and "The result is a view of an incredible network of filamentary structures, and features indicating a chain of near-simultaneous star-formation events, glittering like strings of pearls deep in our Galaxy."

And there is that recent Science paper showing that stars form where the magnetic field pinches:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5788/812

A magnetic pinch is a very efficient way to condense plasma and lead to the formation of a star. Much more efficient than say, gravity.
My feeling is that as long as these phenomenon are overlooked, we'll need dark stuff to patch the models.

Florian Nachon | 10/04/09 | 17:31 PM

Is there any possibility that Gravity is a force that pushes rather than pull?

This assumes some gravitational flux that permeates all of space in all directions. Objects absorb the flux and it's momentum from all directions with no net force. Two nearby objects will cast a gravitational shadow on the sides facing eachother and experience a net push towards the other.

A push seems simpler, you just need wave emission, absorption and conservation of momentum.

I know this has been though of before, probably by crackpots, but I'm just curious if we have evidence that demonstrates why this could not be the case.

Kris Nye (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 12:04 PM

Those of you who are still wet behind the ears or thoroughly entrenched in the dogma may not remember when the scientific community thought black holes were quite rare and impossible to find. Then came the 'perhaps' some galactic centers had black holes. Then came well, maybe most galaxies had black holes in their centers. Then came well, maybe they account for 2% of the mass of the galaxy. Well, how about this: you can solve all the rotation problems if you posit that the balck hole at the center of all galaxies (except globular clusters) contains 95% of the mass of the galaxy. Elipticals have one black hole, spirals have two orbiting each other.

Don (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 12:21 PM

The difference is that black holes are a DIRECT prediction of General relativity, a testable theory. Black holes had proveable consequences beyond just their gravity.
Dark matter on the other hand is only "predicted" by general relativity in the sense that there are things that GR cannot explain without introducing hundreds of % of collisionless, dark matter. Matter which supposedly does not interact with other dark matter or any other matt but by gravity. It's just there to keep anyone from having to learn a new gravitational theory.

Frankly there is no "crackpot" idea I have heard, no theory so hairbrained, that it could not be taken about as seriously as dark matter if only it's advocates were influential PhD's.

Hontas Farmer | 10/04/09 | 14:22 PM

This author has no idea what he is talking about and should not being using the word "physicist" to describe himself.

Modified gravitational theories are unable to explain many phenomena related to dark matter. Rotational curves are only one among several ways in which dark matter can be indirectly seen. Dark matter also plays a role in determining how soon stars started burning, the cosmological distribution of matter and so forth. Modified gravitational theories fail on these fronts.

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 13:18 PM

... and of course some anonymous poster with no credentials should be our source of information?

There's little more annoying than someone that has to resort to personal attacks to make their enfeebled point.

Gerhard Adam | 10/04/09 | 13:27 PM

I've long felt, as many others do as well, that dark matter is a red herring. I truly believe that the this mysterious force is nothing more than the pressure of the substance in which our universe is immersed. Think of it as three dimensional surface tension. In this model, albeit 3D, I would imagine the math to be quite easy.

The difficult part is proving it and most likely, not possible. However if we can somehow determine the makeup of extra-universal "space" we can at least move towards a more concrete theory.

Just my $0.02USD.

Jerry Ablan (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 13:38 PM

This might help clear up some problems.

After about 10 years of part-time studying the mysteries in the standard model of the universe, Sol Aisenberg is publishing a book on “The Misunderstood Universe” that is intended to explain and correct many of the mysteries and wrong beliefs in the model of the universe. It includes the corrections made for the wrong assumptions and speculations that resulted in the mysteries of Dark Matter and of Dark Energy. This analysis uses the published observations of others.
The first existing wrong assumption is that Newton’s law of gravity is a universal law, and is also valid at cosmic distances. It is only based on observations of planet motions in our solar system. Newton was a true genius but he did not have access to information about the far galaxies. When used for cosmic observations of Zwicky and of Rubin, Newton’s law of gravity required massive amounts of dark matter to explain these observations.
Aisenberg showed that his simple Theory of Additional Gravity (TAG) as an extension of Newton’s original law of gravity agrees with observations at cosmic distances and also in our solar system. It also explains the Pioneer Anomaly for the NASA space probes 10/11. For the elementary equation M*G=r*v*v describing the balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces in spiral galaxies and where the velocity v is observed as constant, the value of M*G is a linear function of distance, r. Rather than the usual assignment of invisible Dark Matter to the mass M, this TAG model adds a linear term to Newton’s gravitational constant G, and to gravity which itself is already invisible.
The TAG theory is an extension of the gravitational theories of Newton and of Einstein. It depends upon distance and is different from the interesting MOND theory of M. Milgrom, related to acceleration.
The second, and more serious wrong assumption is that Hubble’s law describes the red shifts as a linear function of distance, and that it is due to the Doppler effect. Aisenberg shows that the red shift includes the reduction of photon energy by three gravitational effects. The usual and accepted belief is that the red shift is due to velocity and that the stars and galaxies are receding. It resulted in the unproven belief that the galaxies are receding, that the universe is expanding, and that there was a big bang. Actually, the velocities were never directly observed and thus there is no evidence of the expansion.
There was also a belief that the red shift can be used to measure distances for very remote galaxies. In fact, the Hubble red shift law believed to be due to distance must saturate, and cannot be used for large distances because extension of the linear dependence on distance to very large distances would require an unlikely zero and even negative photon energy. The result is the belief that the differences between the observed distances of very remote galaxies, and the distance determined from the red showed an apparent and incorrect acceleration of the supposed recession, and the need for vast Dark energy. Many other false beliefs are clarified in “The Misunderstood Universe”.
The author, Sol Aisenberg, PhD, is a applied physicist who earned a PhD at MIT and was a staff member in the Physics department, in the Research Laboratory of Electronics, a part-time Lecture at Harvard Medical School, and a visiting Research Professor at Boston University.
He also was a division president and principal investigator for technology divisions of two large conglomerates.

solaisenberg@comcast.net
508-651-0140

sol aisenberg (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 14:27 PM

Matter is merely a manifestation of underlying motion forces. It is akin to a standing wave. So-called "dark matter" is really an expression of hidden mass. Particle accelerators and not creating anything new, they are merely liberating hidden mass from their tightly wound states for ever shorter periods of time as the energy inputs go up.

Forget branes, forget space-time, forget dark matter and dark energy. All the answers are right there before our eyes and it is astonishingly simple.

Centripetal and centrifugal forces are direct manifestations of two-fold gravitation.

author, The Fundamental Quanta c 1987

Jeff Softley (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 16:59 PM

I call it coloured matter. Me and my niggers don't like all this "dark" shit.

dj (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 17:10 PM

Whilst i say this i sound like a douche

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/04/09 | 17:34 PM

The hammock physicist used my question:

"What innate, inherent properties does the earth have that would give it
the ability to mass all the stars and the planets rotate around it in a
24 hour period?"

to somehow mean that I was in favor some of concept that Mach proposed. The trouble is my question is full of typos. It should really read:

"What innate, inherent property does the earth have that would give it the ability to force all the stars and planets to revolve around it in a 24-hour period?"

Those who religiously believed in the 1000 year old Ptolemaic system were not at all concerned with the nature of the force possessed by the earth that would explain the fact (or artifact) that the heavens revolved around the earth once in a 24 hour period.

We have religiously believed for 300 years that mass attracts mass or warps space. How does mass do this. No one can answer this question. Not even Newton or Einstein.

This one of the reasons why we need a Copernican paradigm shift. There happens to be an appealing plausible reasonable paradigm shift that could be made. It is that radiation rather than mass mediates the gravitational force. And guess: what I have 5 experiments showing that radiation is indeed gravitationally attractive.
See http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018

Peter Fred (not verified) | 10/05/09 | 08:38 AM

I think if you take a close look at quantum gravity theories they predict the force being mediated by the exchange of particles called Gravitons. Having the EM force mediate this makes no sense, but our current and deepest understanding of force mediation involves the exchange of virtual particles. For instance the EM force (yes even the basic Coulomb force) is described by the exchange of photons between charged particles, the strong is mediated through the exchange of gluons, the weak through the exchange of W and Z bosons (since these have mass they have been observed). In this case your idea of radiation mediating the force sort of already describes our understanding of the EM force which involves the exchange of virtual photons (which in some cases can turn into real observable photons), as we know the photon is the quanta of radiation energy.

I guess what I am arguing is that the paradigm shift has already occurred, we suspect that gravity is mediated by some particle that behaves similar to radiation, which we also believe to be due to exchanges of particles.

Alex (not verified) | 10/09/09 | 12:42 PM

In Johannes’ Dark Matter article the first graph is saying the outer parts of the galaxies appear to have mass that is not luminous while central parts of the galaxies are gravitating as is nearly all of the mass is giving off light.

Dark matter is not too surprising in the outer regions where brown dwarfs could survive in large numbers without being disturbed by the neighbors. If you look at new star formation in the wake of expanding gas clouds, it is a reasonable guess that there a lot of dark systems out there bigger than Jupiter, just waiting for their chance for promotion.

The same conclusion results from a look at the lower main sequence stars and how red dwarfs greatly out number orange stars. So dark matter on the outer fringes is not weird or spooky. It’s just there.

A lot of infrared studies have been done trying to discover brown dwarfs in our neighborhood. There should be quiet a lot of them. Some findings have been reported.

The first graph is a bit surprising, because it says there aren’t enough neutron stars and black holes in the central region to alter the average mass luminosity. That will probably be argued by specialists at a higher level of science.

My problem is with the second graph.. To make sense of it, I guess there is a different scale on the horizontal axis, and the central parts of the galaxies are not shown on the second graph. Then if the right side ends at a different relative distance from the center on each graph, the second graph leads to the same dark matter opinion as the first graph.

Both graphs are saying the mass of normal galaxies extends far beyond the radius of visible stars, and it probably isn’t dust or gas. Swarms of comets are favorite candidates.

Where Dark Matter fails to impress me, Dark Energy does. There are recent observations from UT and else where saying that the galaxies are accelerating away from each other as if the vacuum has reversed curvature. In the equal partition theory, if the vacuum zero point has a little more electromagnetic energy than gravitational energy, the cosmological constant in Einstein’s field equations can be slightly negative between the galaxies pushing them apart.

There are two theories I know of that allow gravity G to be a rapid variable in the presence of a strong gravity field, not by a factor of 6, but maybe by a factor of 2 between flat space and an event horizon. For the most part it is only a local effect under extreme conditions and would not be seen on the two graphs.

So the total picture is saying each galaxy is held together more tightly than expected probably because of cold ordinary mass, while groups of galaxies are held together less tightly than expected probably because of an imbalance in the vacuum zero point.

Clearly something is going on in the vacuum, and it’s worth a research grant.

Amateur Astronomer (not verified) | 10/08/09 | 19:41 PM

Thanks so much for posting this information! We appreciate the time you must have taken to present this information so clearly..

freisprechanlagen (not verified) | 10/14/09 | 07:37 AM

hi guy's,
As per my view The rotational tata for galaxies suggesting dark matter have some interesting possible explanations, which come from the principle of relativity.If a black hole can effect all matter and energy through a unified force than it could account for not only dark matter but the fact that light can not escape because it is being attracted though the unified force.

dsi r4 (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 02:12 AM

Alex writes:

Just because they think dark matter is a physical reality doesn't mean they won't drop the theory when there is sufficient experimental evidence to the contrary.

I have four table top experiments that show the gravitational mass of a test mass will increase if a sufficient amount of heat will transfer up through it. We can readily detect radiation. We have a little trouble detecting gluons. Maybe its time we make a right proper paradigm shift.

Peter Fred (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 08:32 AM

Of course an hotter object will have greater, it is one of the predictions of relativity, since the energy increases the mass (E=mc^2) of the object, increasing thermal energy increases the mass and thus increases the gravitational potential. This isn't a "new" idea by any means and is in fact one of the paradigm shifts general relativity lead to, further more gravitons are predicted to mediate the gravitational force (gluons mediate the strong nuclear force which has the range of 1x10^-15 M). Yes we can detect radiation, but we already have it well characterized, and in fact gravity is already described as "radiating" through gravity waves. The reason WHY we can detect radiation better than gravity waves is because the electromagnetic force is 38 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Just because we can directly detect something doesn't mean it must be what is mediating gravity, especially considering

Sorry but "table top" experiments aren't really sufficient, it took nearly 60 years for the general theory of relativity to get sufficient experimental evidence before it was accepted in mainstream physics, before that time very few people studied GR, except of course immediately after it was published in which there was a flurry of activity which tapered off to only a hand full of physicists studying it.

Alex (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 11:12 AM

Well, my knowledge of physics doesn't stretch further than high-school basics, so forgive me in advance for saying possible rubbish.
In my understanding, those halos of dark matter around and embedding every galaxy are chunks of time-space of our universe. Time-space of our Universe, apparently, has perfectly evenly distributed mass by itself, which is unnoticeable for anything else, but to keep galaxies and their clusters together. In other words, we indeed cannot notice it, simply because it is so even that is not relative to us anyhow. And the inherent mass of this time-space is what probably is the very basement of many-many conventional physics laws.
However, this assumption implies that there's either NO time-space inbetween galaxies and/or clusters, OR that those distances are "filled" with the times-space (with different mass) from the "previous" Universe (if we share this approach to the Big Bang). This is not impossible- we don't really know how anything physical behaves in that "absence of time-space" (or, at least, absence of OUR "time-space"). We know that light and waves must travel through it at the same speeds as through ours, and we know that it's filled with the force called "dark energy", which pushes time-space embedded galaxies apart. That's about all we know about the territories between galaxies. We don't know what laws of physics would function there for physical bodies.
This idea doesn't contradict to any of the above. Can time-space of our Universe be called "Dark Matter"? Sure, why not. It IS, after all, Dark Matter- invisible and interacting only gravitationally. Can we view it as "Revised theory of Gravity"? Sure. Since that mass of our time-space is, most likely, one of the basements for our conventional gravity. Which doesn't work the same way for inter-galactic distances, where the mass of time-space is defferent). Heck, can we view it not as "mass" at all? Sure! Let's call it a "fundamental gravitational factor of time-space". It's, apparently 6:1 for our time-space. Most likely, it's approximately -0.001:1 for the time-space inbetween galaxies (to account for enthropy)...
I wonder if this makes sense for the actual scientists...

Anonymous (not verified) | 10/23/09 | 16:15 PM

Alex wrote
"Of course an hotter object will have greater, it is one of the predictions of relativity, since the energy increases the mass (E=mc^2) of the object, increasing thermal energy increases the mass and thus increases the gravitational potential. This isn't a "new" idea by any means"

And Einstein wrote in 1950:
"Now we may reverse the relation that an increase of E in the amount of energy must be
accompanied by an increase in E/c^2 in the mass. I can easily supply energy to the mass--for
instance if I heat it by 10 degrees. So why not measure the mass increase.... The trouble here is
that in the mass increase, the enormous factor of c^2 occurs in the denominator of the fraction. In
such a case the increase is too small to be measured.".

In Fig 2 of my paper you can see that the temperature test mass increased by about 180 degrees Celcius and its gravitational mass increased by 47 gm. When you multiply 47 gm by c^2 you get ~ 10^15 joules. In it took 400 seconds to raise the temperature of the test mass ~180 degrees. During this time the test mass received from the heat element 1000 W for 400 seconds. Thus, the amount of energy generated by the heat element was 1000W * 400s = 4.5*10^5 joules. This makes yours and Einstein's interpretation of the his formula E=mc^2 off by ten orders of magnitude.

Alex wrote:
"Sorry but "table top" experiments aren't really sufficient"

To prove my point experimentally that "sunlight is attractive" I do not need millions of dollars and years of waiting for the technology to be developed in order to carry out my experiments.

But I think I do need years of waiting for physicist who have thought for 300 years that it is the sun's mass that attracts the earth to someday wake up the possibility that it is only the sun's warmth that attracts the earth and not its mass.. See my paper "Is is the sun's warmth gravitationally attractive?" at http://vixra.org/abs/0907.0018.

Peter Fred (not verified) | 10/25/09 | 10:39 AM

What are you doing? Are u creating a controversy? Just wait till the indian media gets hold of this 'sexual relations' between binga and paine.....all hell will break lose.....lolz

r4 cards (not verified) | 10/30/09 | 07:12 AM

The observations related to the BULLET galaxies can be easily explained and predicted.

1.Two galaxies, each with a large black hole and collection of stars, collide.
2.The additional gravitational drag force on the collections of stars detach the stars from the black holes and the two black holes then continue on to become invisible - without orbiting stars nearby.
3. The two, invisible black holes together act a a gravitational lens and can be detected by the star images displaced by the gravitational lens.
4. The supposed "invisible" dark matter is really only "dark gravity" that is explained by my theory of additional gravity (TAG) based upon analysis of the flat velocity rotation curves of spiral galaxies, as carefully observed and reported
by Vera Rubins. This is different from the interesting MOND theory of Milgrom. Details of this dark matter mystery are covered and explained along with 11 other mysteries in the standard model of the universe - in my book "The Misunderstood Universe" that is in the process of being published.

sol aisenberg (not verified) | 12/03/09 | 10:26 AM

I have great interest in reading and gathering information about topics related to our solar system.Which is the basic reason behind coming to this post. But truly speaking coming here was a amazingly fantastic experience.
Mio Navman M305

sheenjhon (not verified) | 12/05/09 | 04:48 AM

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here