A Model of Spacetime, as seen from comments by myself and Matti Pitkanen

[Dubbelosix]

This work goes back a few months when I was discussing some findings I had made concerning the supermassive black holes and the rotation curve. Most of the writing here was my own speculations, but below is also additional work from Matti on his blog concerning our discussions and how he views the findings within his own TGD (topological geometrodynamics) theory. 

 

I wanted to find evidence of black holes playing a torsional role on the systems inside of a galaxy in such a way that maybe there are relationships which bind the two and can explain galactic rotation curve phenomenon. The article I am about to link to, explained there are such relationships between the orbital speed of the stars on the outer rim and the size of the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies:

 

http://www.cosmotography.com/images/supermassive_blackholes_drive_galaxy_evolution_2.html

 

I realized this could answer a problem that surfaced in cosmology not long ago: We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter. The cosmological world went abuzz and asked, ''where did the dark matter go?''

 

I realized this could be answered if the dark matter phenomenon was somehow linked intrinsically to the black holes at their galactic cores. The black holes would not have been supermassive 4 billion years years after big bang, or approximately 10 billion years ago, when the earliest galaxies were starting to form. And so, it seemed that this was a nice solution then to a weird problem: the reason those dark matter effects for galactic curves were not about, because their galactic core black holes were too small to account for it.

 

After some investigation, it seems like it may be a candidate to provide evidence of black hole torsional structure. It seems that the result of this galaxy losing its black hole could have resulted in the galaxies famous ''loose arms.'' Galaxy is called the Triangulum.

 

The core is surprisingly a nebula but there is more activity going on in the loose arms of the galaxy than what appears. Star formation should be happening in the center but surprisingly star formation is low. 

 

I am reading this right now, just understanding some basics of the rotation curves of M33.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909252

 

What was found was that there was nothing too peculiar about the rotation curves, but what I later found out was that there is in fact a lot of activity hiding behind the thick curtain of gas in its arms and there is black hole activity in there.

 

Then I found a second case to compare the theory, that black holes literally hold the structure of a spiral galaxy together in such a way, that the rotation curves will boil down to the same phenomenon. 

 

This galaxy seems to strengthen my hypotheses about M33. This galaxy had its supermassive black hole ripped away much earlier (or is that later?) than M33. The idea its black hole has been ejected is one of the top explanations apparently. What has happened, is not a collapse of the system, but stars are now diverging away from each other, its massive bulge that is still there - that bulge is created by a gradual separation over time, it probably was never that large.

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/monster-galaxy-one-million-light-years-wide-with-no-central-black-hole-10-times-size-of-milky-way.html

 

The bulge is a bit of a mystery, but it can be understood as the separation of the stars in the absence of the supermassive black hole that are now drifting apart. Likewise, M33 is such a case, albeit, an advanced one. It too is loosely separated, the arms are drifting off into space and loosing the rotational energy it once had. This galaxy we just looked at lost its black hole much earlier than M33 lost its supermassive black hole. 

 

The theory was strengthened enough that I have made a new post about this discovery. It's not that the rotation curves disappear when the central black hole disappears, it is that the structure itself will eventually fall apart - the rotation curves seem to be present so long as there is black hole activity. The galaxy which is 10 times the size of our Milky way, will eventually loose its bulge, it will deviate further and further away, maybe fall back on the galaxy and flatten out. There is still black hole activity going on in the arms of M33 and there is black hole activity going on inside of Abel 2261 which appears to be, helplessly, holding the structures together. As in the case of M33, the arms are loose and falling away from the center, which is direct evidence the entire spiral structure owes its structure to the supermassive black hole and if not present, will be overcome by the centrifugal force of the galaxy. 

 

short transcript of a discussion between me and Matti

 

''The binding energy of a galaxy like our own will need to have a binding energy equal or approx. equal to

[math]E = \frac{GM^2(spiral)}{R} ~ 10^{61} ergs[/math]

The galaxy harbours a black hole. The energy of that hole is

[math]E_{BH} = M_{BH}c^2 = \frac{GM^{2}_{BH}}{R} ~ 10^{61} ergs[/math]

The equality of both of these solutions would be to imply that the entire binding energy of the spiral galaxy is associated to the black hole.

We know now there is evidence for this as a study of some rare galaxies in absence of supermassive black hole cores seem to either

1) Fall apart slowly due to the centrifugal forces

2) Or display a common characteristic of the spiral arms becoming more detached over time.

It's like that perhaps (nearly the entire) binding energy holding a galaxy is held together by the core massive hole. Black holes in the arms will be able to hold certain structures together over lengthly periods of time I suspect. These black holes will probably correct how much binding energy is holding a galaxy together.''

 

Matti P.

''You say that blackhole mass is equal to galactic binding energy. But can one say that binding energy is associated with the blackole. In any case, the notion of binding energy when represented as interaction potential energy is problematic. Certainly in GRT where also the notion of energy is problematic. And also in QFTs. In TGD framework I would like to get rid of the notion of potential energy altogether and wrote quite recently an article about how the mathematics of Yangians could allow to understand the generation of bound states and also of binding energy.''

 

It was clear something was incompatible in the model. Matti suggested the size of these early black holes had to be much more massive than we know in theory. Turns out there is evidence for this

 

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/earliest-monster-black-holes

 

Early on, myself and Matti concluded the antimatter problem (of where it went to) 10 billion years ago could be answered if black holes were not large enough (whatever the mechanism, there seems to be a direct relationship between rotation curves and black hole size). It seems that this is not always the case, some of these black holes did manage to get supermassive in only 100,000 years! This means this hypothesis we have suggested is testable! Rotation curves need to be measured for these supermassive black holes with a million solar masses. Not only that but they have to be compared with other cases and we will notice if we see the rotation curves after a certain size or threshold.

 

 

 

A link to Matti's work on the subject 

 

http://matpitka.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-view-about-galaxies-and-galactic.html

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[MigL]

Could you please elaborate on the relation between BH size and the anti-matter problem ( 10 Bill yrs ago ??? ).

Also, a possible mechanism for 'ejecting' a million ( or billion ) solar mass BH from the central core of a  galaxy without the tell-tale tidal gravitational disruption, as I would think the tightly packed central cluster would be severely deformed. Yet you mention that only the arms are disrupted/deformed. And what would drive the 'ejection' ?
We don't see any of this.
( mathematical models are great, but, at some point, they have to fit observations )
 

Edited September 29, 2017 by MigL

[Dubbelosix]

Did I write antimatter, or do you mean dark matter problem?

 

If the latter, then it was reported recently that early galaxies older than 10 billion years appeared to have no dark matter phenomenon giving rise to galaxy rotation curves. This puzzled me.

 

So I went and sought an explanation and found one - it may depend on black hole size. Which means this theory is testable. The idea is that black holes where not massive enough to create the necessary torsional effects in the galaxy, giving rise to rotation curves. The later evidence I found supporting galactic bulge to black hole ratio and galaxy curves where interesting. It just adds to the model being valid. 

 

Remember, if the rotation curve is a black hole phenomenon, then dark matter becomes immediately invalid. Dark matter was created for this very purpose, to explain why stars in the outermost rim of a galaxy accelerated round the galaxy at the same speed as stars closer to the core. The black hole explains a binding energy dynamic to the entire galaxy. 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Mordred]

32 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

Remember, if the rotation curve is a black hole phenomenon, then dark matter becomes immediately invalid. Dark matter was created for this very purpose, to explain why stars in he outermost rim of a galaxy accelerated round the galaxy at the same speed as stars closer to the core. The black hole explains a binding energy dynamic to the entire galaxy.

The galaxy rotation curves, in particular spiral galaxies require fairly uniform mass distribution as the volume increases, as per the NFW profile of an isothermal halo distribution that is sufficient to offset the mass of the baryonic distribution in order to avoid the Kepler curve. A Kepler curve will arise on any central potential mass distribution system where the bulk of mass is non uniformly distributed from Com outward. Under Virial there is correlations to the NFW profile. "Elements of Astrophysics is one of my favourite references to NFW profile. (key note NFW is a power law profile)

Edited September 30, 2017 by Mordred

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Remember, if the rotation curve is a black hole phenomenon, then dark matter becomes immediately invalid.

It would become "explained" rather than "invalid".

[Dubbelosix]

True.

[MigL]

Yeah, you wrote antimatter in the last paragraph, and got me all confused.
Maybe you can still edit it to Dark matter.

Would Dark Matter have taken longer to form structures ?
It couples gravitationally, the same as matter, but when it starts approaching structure,  there is no  EM interaction forcing it to 'stick together'. As a result, it may have taken about ten times longer to form structures ( galactic halos ) than regular matter structures ( galaxies ).

If you're going to attribute the galactic rotation curves to the presence of large central BHs, don't you still need to modify their gravitational interaction ?
As far as we know BHs, no matter the size, interact gravitationally the same way as the equivalent amount of mass.

[Dubbelosix]

oops! Then yes should be dark matter ! Well spotted.

 

As for the other questions, I must leave them till tomorrow... pretty tired and need my bed. Good night.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

As far as we know BHs, no matter the size, interact gravitationally the same way as the equivalent amount of mass.

You may need to clarify this bit for me tomorrow though. Black hole scale can be translated to spacetime curvature. Clearly larger black holes exert larger curvature (and therefore gravity) around spacetime.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[MigL]

A I Million solar mass BH, or better yet, one comprised of ALL the stars and mass of the galaxy, would have a Shwarzschild radius of 0.2 LY.
Given that the spiral arms are at a distance of about 30 000 LY, the effect that such a BH would have, would be exactly equivalent to that of an equivalent amount of mass/stars/dust. At such distance geometry is not so radically curved, so why would gravity act different ?
And why would closer structures , such as the central bulge and the orbits of stars comprising it, not be affected ?

[Dubbelosix]

You need to read the OP, the bulge is affected in some cases. 

[Strange]

On 27/09/2017 at 9:40 AM, Dubbelosix said:

I realized this could answer a problem that surfaced in cosmology not long ago: We look back 10 billion years and find that galaxies are behaving like they consist of ordinary matter. The cosmological world went abuzz and asked, ''where did the dark matter go?''

Can you provide a reference to this (old galaxies having less dark matter)? It is not something I have come across before.

Don't worry. I found it. Their conclusion matches what I guessed (which is always nice :)); part of the reason may be that the dark matter just hadn't had time to condense in to halos dense enough to have as much effect as in modern galaxies.. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Strange

[Dubbelosix]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

At such distance geometry is not so radically curved, so why would gravity act different ?
 

Gravity isn't acting differently, gravity is a long ranged force. Torsion could play the role of black holes dragging systems around with them. Black holes are like sink holes, they tend to eat not only matter and energy but also spacetime as well. Also, it is not that our understanding of gravity is wrong, but rather our understanding of black holes and their role in galaxy evolution and maintenance. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[MigL]

OK, I'll try wording it differently.

How would the gravitational field ( torsion or no torsion ) of a million solar mass BH, be different than that of 1 million Stars (solar masses ) at a distance of 30 000 LY ?
Torsion, much like frame dragging is a much more localized effect, and would have the largest impact on stars in the central bulge. Remember that a one million solar mass BH is about a tenth of a LY in extent; I find it hard to believe torsion effects would not be trivial at 30 000 LY

As Strange also seems to agree, DM particles come together under the influence of gravity, but whereas matter particles,, as they approach each other, have other interactions in play that rob them of energy, and so 'stick' to each other more quickly, DM particles retain more of their kinetic energy and 'overshoot'. The process takes much longer to converge into a structure.

Edit:

GR has frame dragging and a vanishing torsion.
Einstein Cartan has non vanishing torsion, which is nice for other predictions it makes.
But ( I thought ) Gravity Probe B had detected frame dragging ?
Does that imply the absence of torsion ?

Edited October 2, 2017 by MigL

[Dubbelosix]

It has been argued by many authors, Einstein's equations with the antisymmetric components that describe the torsion as being set to zero, is only the most boring case - torsion and rotation are part of the full Poincare group of spatial translations, it certainly should be expected to be non.zero in many circumstances.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

 

GR has frame dragging and a vanishing torsion.
Einstein Cartan has non vanishing torsion, which is nice for other predictions it makes.
But ( I thought ) Gravity Probe B had detected frame dragging ?
Does that imply the absence of torsion ?

 

There have been active attempts to solve these issues, I'd rather say issues than problems.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2791

It's a good paper and will offer a valid solution to your question.

And yes me and Matti have even speculated the black holes may have been more massive than what theory predicts. Corrections to binding energy also from other black holes expected within the theory.

[Dubbelosix]

Related to these discussions, at least half the missing matter in the universe has been found. Again, I say, no need for dark matter. Rotation curves can be explained by supermassive black hole phenomena. 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149742-half-the-universes-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found/

[MigL]

Sure, but this half that has been found, the baryonic hot gas filaments between galaxies, would, in no way affect galactic rotation.
So we are, in effect, back where we started from. We still have the other half to account for, and, if as you say, galactic rotation curves can be explained by torsion effects of supermassive Black Holes, where would we , then, start looking ?
And how massive would the central BH of, say our galaxy, for it to affect spiral arm rotation, at a distance of 30 to 50 thousand light years, through torsion ?
And why is the central core not also flattened out into a disk by the torsion ?

[Dubbelosix]

Simple, we start looking back 10 billion years or so when rotation curves vanish from the universe. This is an indication that black holes may not have been massive enough. This was one of the first things I pointed out, because if black holes and dark matter are tied together the way this model suggests, and if dark matter cannot be detected 10 billion ago, then this model is testable by measuring only the earliest galaxies and testing whether the correlations hold up. So far, there appears evidence this could be the case.

Some of these questions have to be approached carefully, you ask how big the black holes needs to be, but surely you don't expect me to answer this? Science isn't always about exact answers - it is often about investigation, and correlations and a matter of deduction. When relativity treats the black hole model phenomenon correctly, then maybe someone can make those calculations. I just think its a bit premature - right now we should work with what evidence we have right now, and work with it.

A preliminary guess work however has shown that for at least most typical spiral galaxies harbours a black hole with an energy which is more or less equal to the binding energy of the galaxy. 

Central core will either flatten or will expand due to centrifugal forces. Black holes hold the galaxy structure together, for this, I found strong evidence.

[Mordred]

No you haven't found strong evidence. You found a potential idea. However torsion based models have literally been beaten to death in professional cosmology.

 I provided you one of the strongest supporters of Cartan based models. Yet neither MOND nor Cartan based models can address numerous issues in Cosmology.

 One being the issues being currently raised by Migl, another primary problem is Early large scale structure formation. A third problem being any rotation will not have a spherical galaxy distribution but will instead have an ellipsoid galaxy formation. Regardless of how slow a rotation.

 

As far as BH's and rotation curves go, No amount of mass distribution of a disk profile with a bulge due to a BH will be able to avoid a Kepler decline. It is completely the wrong profile. The NFW profile works due to DM being distributed in an isothermal halo with roughly 10 times the mass of the baryonic content.

 Sorry but BH's do not evenly affect mass throughout its gravitational influence of range 1/r^2 still applies as per any central potential force.  Forget about any idea of a BH being the universe cause of rotation as well. Another idea that has been beaten to death. A BH isn't constant enough in feeding rates or even rotation to maintain a homogeneous and isotropic thermal/mass distribution over the sheer volume of our universe.

These models have been tried far more times than I can count. Your no where near the first to try. They all failed, while they all may have solved one or two issues, they could not solve all the related issues.

 Where as accepting DM does solve the above issues.

It will take far more work, than everything you have posted on this forum to even come close to properly address the issues above.  ( Probably a lifetime of work literally) as stated these ideas are already beaten to death, so it will take an extremely strong and complete model to counter LCDM with a universe with rotation.

I also showed you a constraints paper, your counter argument of simply I do not agree with constraints isn't sufficient to counter that paper. Those constraints are based from CMB data, which although you may not understand those constraints involving the CMB. That simply means you need to figure out why professional Cosmologists feel those constraints do apply.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe it comes down to my definition of strong evidence - after the study of three galaxies that have lost their supermassive black holes, the evidence in my opinion, is strongly suggesting the energy of the supermassive black hole is playing effectively the same role as the required energy to bind a typical spiral galaxy together.

As for the rotary universe model, I have not stated anything about it in this post and haven't found it relevant to the discussion of black holes and their energy as associated to the binding energy of galaxies. Personally-speaking, such effects should not be such a surprise and without a proper formulation of black hole physics (already evidence suggests we don't have our theory right on them) then we are literally talking about unknown objects - but the suggestion I have made, is not without reason and I have provided evidence, albeit, we may disagree on the usage of the word ''strong.''

Now... this model hasn't been tried and tested Mordred, let's be clear. The evidence the dark matter disappeared early on is quite new. I found a link with supermassive black holes, studied the possibilities and have came up with the model to explain the discrepancy. I have done a good study, I think I really was the first to suggest the dark matter problem of where it went to 10 billion years ago was actually related to black hole size.

The evidence was strong enough, that Matti. a physicist in his own right, suggested the evidence strongly suggests a reformulation of black hole dynamics with relativity.

Also, I found an age correlation between two galaxies - the one that lost its supermassive black hole earlier, was in fact a galaxy more loose than a previous example. This to me, couldn't be ignored. It is evidence also - that it consistently stands up. (so far)

I want other people to do their own investigations and not just take what I say for the truth. There may be cases in nature which will come to trouble this model - for that I welcome it, for it then makes it falsifiable. I also ask that if anyone has the means to test the theory, to do so. 

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure, but this half that has been found, the baryonic hot gas filaments between galaxies, would, in no way affect galactic rotation.
So we are, in effect, back where we started from. We still have the other half to account for, and, if as you say, galactic rotation curves can be explained by torsion effects of supermassive Black Holes, where would we , then, start looking ?
And how massive would the central BH of, say our galaxy, for it to affect spiral arm rotation, at a distance of 30 to 50 thousand light years, through torsion ?
And why is the central core not also flattened out into a disk by the torsion ?

 

Can I also be clear about one thing though, I just read back. 

 

If the full amount of matter is found, then there is no need for my model? See how this turns around? Finding half the missing matter is interesting, because it starts to fit more into a reasonable expected density distribution over space time, but(!), if we find all the matter, will it explain the rotation curve phenomenon?

 

I hope it will not. As you said, finding half the missing matter doesn't explain rotation curves - however, we may come to map more accurately the universe and find all sorts of parameters not fitting together - I know of a good one I have wrote more extensively than I will write about now... but the Freidmann equation is a good example. The density reauirements of this equation does not fit flat spacetime. Finding half the missing matter but still expecting dark matter to hold, also posits problems.

So maybe this will convince, hopefully some of you, the thoughts and reasoning to come to the conclusions I have. Dark matter is simply a parameter that is not holding up.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

Maybe it comes down to my definition of strong evidence - after the study of three galaxies that have lost their supermassive black holes, the evidence in my opinion, is strongly suggesting the energy of the supermassive black hole is playing effectively the same role as the required energy to bind a typical spiral galaxy together.

As for the rotary universe model, I have not stated anything about it in this post and haven't found it relevant to the discussion of black holes and their energy as associated to the binding energy of galaxies. Personally-speaking, such effects should not be such a surprise and without a proper formulation of black hole physics (already evidence suggests we don't have our theory right on them) then we are literally talking about unknown objects - but the suggestion I have made, is not without reason and I have provided evidence, albeit, we may disagree on the usage of the word ''strong.''

Now... this model hasn't been tried and tested Mordred, let's be clear. The evidence the dark matter disappeared early on is quite new. I found a link with supermassive black holes, studied the possibilities and have came up with the model to explain the discrepancy. I have done a good study.

 

Ok so let me ask this question.  I asked before if you studied virial theory. Have you looked specifically at the NFW profile as opposed to a disk/bulge distribution? You can literally use any mass value in the Bulge itself and no matter what mass you use. You will get a Keplar curve decline.

 I may have the advantage here as this was attempted for several decades prior to DM finally being accepted. ( I studied dozens of these attempts. ) good luck finding them now though. ( most gradually disappeared  from the internet. MOND literally had to alter the fine structure constant just to make  reasonable attempt.( A side note some of the best discussions I had on this topic was on Space.com when it once had a forum.) This was prior to Planck data back when we only had COBE. WMAP was too recent

 Though this has literally nothing to do with a universe rotation model. Just as expansion doesn't affect a galaxy structure, neither would a rotating universe possibly account for galaxies losing a BH. Even assuming the possibility the amount of rotation that would be required would literally prevent the galaxy from forming in the first place.

After all the mass distribution of a galaxy would have a far greater coupling strength on average, than what would be influenced by a universe rotation that is also slow enough to be literally undetectable. 

A much higher density past however does affect the size and composition of a galaxy including the BH, simply due to availability of matter in the immediate region along with the composition of that matter.  Study Jeans instability for infall rates of matter.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Mordred

[Dubbelosix]

Since my head is figuratively fried from another poster here, asking silly questions, I will come back to this later since there is depth. 

[Mordred]

lol I can relate to that, PS NFW is a double power law.

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

lol I can relate to that

Me too.

 

[Dubbelosix]

You have a massive ego with little vocabulary, strange. Do you want to bang your hands against your chest and make sure the rest of us know you are here?

[Strange]

Hmmm... no sense of humour ....