Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | May 5th 2009 12:00 AM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
It's certainly the case that 'dark matter', like 'Smurf' or 'government regulation', has in recent times become a de facto explanation for the unexplained.   We aren't big believers in magic so mysterious, undetected forces that explain everything probably actually explain nothing - and tossing out Newton in the process  brings on a higher order of scrutiny, since he has been declared irrelevant often before only to survive quite nicely.

Dark matter is currently unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between measurements and predictions based on theoretical models and competing theories of gravitation have therefore been developed - their problem is that they conflict with Newton's theory of gravitation.

"Maybe Newton was indeed wrong," declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). "Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity." 

Replacing one magical event with another is a problematical solution (see Dark Energy: Is The Theory Of Gravity Wrong?) but two new papers take it on.   Kroupa, Dr. Manuel Metz, Professor Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis and Dr. Helmut Jerjen have examined so-called "satellite galaxies", the term used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars.

According to cosmological models, they presumably exist in the hundreds around most of the major galaxies, though only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.

Kroupa believes there is more to it.  

"First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution", Kroupa says, "the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found."

More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way – the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies – lie more or less in the same plane, like they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. They also write that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way – like the planets revolve around the Sun. 

They believe that this phenomenon can only be explained if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions between younger galaxies.

"The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies", says Metz, recently at the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center).

But there is a catch to this 'crash' theory, "theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter.   The stars in the satellites we have observed are moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence of dark matter," says Metz. 

Yep, if you don't like the magic of dark matter you instead say gravity is wrong.  Certainly gravity has been modified before - when high velocities are involved (through the Special Theory of Relativity), in the proximity of large masses (through the theory of General Relativity), and on sub-atomic scales (through quantum mechanics). - but no one has actually been able to toss it out.

"The only solution would be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation", says Kroupa. "We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then our observations could be explained without dark matter."

They contend that the deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations predominate, a "modified Newton dynamic" would need to be adopted.

Astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen agrees.  "The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an observational test so definite."

REFERENCES:

Metz, Manuel; Kroupa, Pavel; Theis, Christian; Hensler, Gerhard; Jerjen, Helmut: Did the Milky Way dwarf satellites enter the halo as a group? (The Astrophysical Journal 2009; doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/269) 

Metz, Manuel; Kroupa, Pavel; Jerjen, Helmut: Discs of Satellites: the new dwarf spheroidals (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 2009; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14489.x)

Comments

rholley's picture
I feel that we've been here before, in 1745 to be precise, as Thomson might say to Thompson, or vice-versa.

Alexis Claude Clairaut (1713 - 1765) was a major French mathematician who did work which for a while convinced him that Newton's theory was incorrect.  This was not some trivial error: even Euler found it convincing.

You can read his online biography and see how it all panned out: the section in question starts with the string "After his work".

Getting it wrong, is great for debate, and I wonder if all these spurious, dark, unseen, maybe mythical substances are just sciocreated to temper debate; or is just to keep the keen debaters from latching on to the real issues. Issues like, the claim that there was a beginning of it all, - that there is a finite quantity of matter/energy contained within its exploding and expanding boundary, - the whole universe was once compressed into a singularity smaller than an atom, and so on and so forth. It seems to me that whether dark matter exists or doesn't exist is about as important as a national outcry over one small pothole on a thousand mile highway.

It may well be that mythology, a virtually unprovable assumptions, is necessary and the more distractives floating around the better.

I suppose when we look up at the stars and see them shining 'in our direction' we may be forgiven for not taking into account that they are shining globally. If they are 13 billion light years away from us, their light is shining away beyond the claimed thirteen point seven billion light year boundary, bladder, wall, or whatever it is supposed to be that contains the universe.

Science claims that these galaxies are on the edge and are the youngest in the universe. However, they also claim that the universe is expanding - so, their light, having taken thirteen billion years to reach us, must mean that they are not there now. Through expansion over that huge period of time they must be billions and billions of light years beyond the claimed boundary.

So what age is the universe now? Was it thirteen billion years old when the light from them set off into the universe around them? Could that mean that the universe is perhaps twenty-six billion years old plus additional light years to cover the distance their light has penetrated into the distance beyond. As for any sort of bladder containment, I think that's the greatest myth of all. And if that's the case, someone in authority is going to have to stand up and say, 'We are mistaken, the universe is probably eternal, may have no boundaries, could not have collapsed into a singularity and gone bang.

Only when these incongruities are replaced by reason can we really get to know our observable patch of the universe, and I guess that what we do learn about our part of it, the same will apply to all of it. - No, I can't say 'all', because 'all' is finite. I wonder if there is a word that would describe it's infinite capacity?

David Calder Hardy

I should have mentioned redshift in my post, above. Do we see 'Redshift' when we see a red sunset? If someone observing those same clouds from a few hundred miles to the west of us and are overhead at that location, do they still appear red? And is the sun, when it shines through a thinner patch, as red to the person out west, as it appears to us?

A tiny bit of cloud in our atmosphere, and, wow, the sun is suddenly ten times further away? No.

Space is not empty, and no doubt the passage of light from every galaxy will pass through differing nebulous patches on the way to us, and some will have a clearer path than others. Frictional disturbances may also fragment and distort their passage. Shimmering on a hot tar-sealed road, and mirages in the desert may well be good examples of that.

Yes, it's time we got back to basics.

David

I think that I've discovered what dark matter is. - It's what's left when you've lost your gray matter. And when that's gone it doesn't matter.

Have a nice day

David

If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again

"Not verified" Please tell me what that indicates? Have I done what appears to have happened on many blogs - I shut them down. Is it that people have to have myths to keep them in contact with one another? Is the truth just 'not fair'? It has been said that to tell the truth may one day become a federal offence. Wow!

Will someone just answer one question:- Assuming that stars shine globally, [our sun does, so that's one at least, and we know it does because we've been right round it]. where is all the light from stars 13 billion light years away going that shines away beyond them? That is from the Far Side? No, my claims are not verified and that's the problem - they are just common sense. That has to be a fair question and if it kills Big Bang stone dead, too bad

David
I will bet anyone $1,000,000us that I am human. It may have been suggested by some that I come from Mars, and even if I do, have you ever wondered why you lot are human? Corr, that could make a good blog forum.
..

HedgehogFive's picture
Does it take a Hedgehog to spell out that the purpose of registration, Captcha, etc., is to avoid the assault of the spambots and similar creations?

Proving that you are human means, in practice, that you are not some spurious cyber-entity belonging to the same kingdom as computer viruses, trojans, worms, etc.


Hank's picture
It means you are claiming to be the real Genesis Continuous but we have not confirmed that in any way, thus there is no warranty, expressed or implied, that what someone writing under that name issues forth could be construed as an endorsement from us.


No need to get all Husserl about it.  Just fill out the registration.

logicman's picture
David Calder:  registration gets rid of the annoying captchas and lets you opt-in for emails to let you know if follow-up comments have been posted.

"
If it is on the sabbath that God rested, why do we bother him with our problems
on his day off? "
I like the 'lateral thoughts' in your site.  I may even elect to agree with some of them!    :)

genesiscontinuous's picture
I offer my very warm and good natured apologies and did take the step of registering my human person. Shows how easily one can misunderstand when there are these inhuman vermine about that have to be discouraged, with which I heartily agree. 

I have applied for my own blog and have just received the email, so I'd better see what I need to do next. Will let you know when I'm up and running.

Thankyou Patrick  Lockerby- Glad you like my odd little bits of humour.  

David Calder Hardy

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.