Instead of Dark Matter...

[QuantumT]

First of all I'd like to thank this forum, for allowing me to present my ideas. And let me say, I'm not an opponent of dark matter, just a little skeptical about it.

I have for long been looking for a replacement for it. Something that wasn't undetectable, or atleast didn't require the total mass of the universe to be multiplied six times.

Since I don't know the math of what I'm about to suggest, please be gentle with me, when you reject and disprove my suggestion.

My suggestion is that wormholes are much more common than we thought. They are between all adjacent stars, and form an invisible gravity web, that makes stars able to form galaxies.

Yes, it's quite simple, and just needs a slightly different approach to gravity. Of course these wormholes can't be used for travel. They're just strong enough for stars not to drift apart.

Am I completely mistaken?

Edited March 28, 2020 by QuantumT

[Curious layman]

How could we test it,

Wouldn't we be able to detect this with our own star?

[MigL]

Even if that could account for the increased 'constraint' between galactic components like stars and gas/dust nebulae, such that rotation speeds are affected ( it can't ), how would you explain gravitational lensing, where the mass-energy of a galaxy bends light incoming from more distant objects ?
If the mass-energy isn't actually there, the amount of bending would be reduced, and it would not be in agreement with the Dark Matter amounts responsible for the altered rotation speeds.

[Ghideon]

6 hours ago, QuantumT said:

My suggestion is that wormholes are much more common than we thought. They are between all adjacent stars, and form an invisible gravity web, that makes stars able to form galaxies.

Thanks for sharing the idea. Lack of math in your opening post is not a problem at this time, I'll try to ask about the consequences that I believe arise from your post. Some thoughts:

According to your idea, at which point in time are the wormholes created? Dust and gas clouds are able to form structures and produce stars. Were the wormholes already existing and did the wormholes hold the gas together? 

What happens to the wormholes when a star reaches it's end of life? Does a galaxy with, let's say, many supernovas start to fall apart due to a lack of wormholes holding the galaxy together? 

How does the universe know which stars that are adjacent and "need" wormholes to hold the galaxy together?

By what mechanism are wormholes "created" and "destroyed" when stars move and become, or are no longer, adjacent?

How does the answers to the above questions match what is observed when we study the universe?

[QuantumT]

On 3/28/2020 at 4:25 AM, MigL said:

Even if that could account for the increased 'constraint' between galactic components like stars and gas/dust nebulae, such that rotation speeds are affected ( it can't ), how would you explain gravitational lensing, where the mass-energy of a galaxy bends light incoming from more distant objects ?
If the mass-energy isn't actually there, the amount of bending would be reduced, and it would not be in agreement with the Dark Matter amounts responsible for the altered rotation speeds.

Very good point. I did not take gravitational lensing into account. My bad. But I might have a fix for that. I call it 'the lemon effect'.
The lemon effect takes the hiding gravity from the extra dimensions of string theory. Under the enormous pressure inside stars, it is squeezed out from the particles in the nucleus. Like squeezing a lemon to make lemonade.

 

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

According to your idea, at which point in time are the wormholes created? Dust and gas clouds are able to form structures and produce stars. Were the wormholes already existing and did the wormholes hold the gas together?

The wormhole would arise when the star is formed. I don't know at what point the gravity would be strong enough to make it happen, but there would be a point. The reverse of that would answer this question:

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

What happens to the wormholes when a star reaches it's end of life? Does a galaxy with, let's say, many supernovas start to fall apart due to a lack of wormholes holding the galaxy together?

 

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

How does the universe know which stars that are adjacent and "need" wormholes to hold the galaxy together?

By what mechanism are wormholes "created" and "destroyed" when stars move and become, or are no longer, adjacent?

It would have to follow mathematical laws, like everything else in the universe, I suppose.

On 3/28/2020 at 9:50 AM, Ghideon said:

How does the answers to the above questions match what is observed when we study the universe?

That's what I'm here to figure out.

Is this at all plausible?

If not, thank you for helping me figuring that out!

[swansont]

On 3/27/2020 at 10:25 PM, QuantumT said:

Since I don't know the math of what I'm about to suggest, please be gentle with me, when you reject and disprove my suggestion.

That’s going to make it difficult to comply with the rules of speculations. How would one test/falsify your idea?

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Very good point. I did not take gravitational lensing into account.

And there is the fact that we see galaxy collisions where the "extra mass" (dark matter) has separated from the visible mass of the galaxy.

Or galaxies with no dark matter (so no "wormholes).

Or the fact that the amount of dark matter we observe is also required by simulations of the early galaxy to produce the large scale structures we see.

Or the baryon acoustic oscillations that produce peaks and troughs in the CMB power spectrum, which require dark matter to explain them.

And why would the distribution of these wormholes follow that produced by simulations of dark matter?

Maybe you can come up with ad-hoc "lemon juicer" ideas to explain each of these (and the other evidence for dark matter actually being matter).

But they can all be explained by one thing: a novel form of matter that we cannot currently directly detect. We have been here before, so it is not a particularly shocking concept. And, not surprisingly, each time there is a new "undetectable" particle it is harder to find than the previous one (because if it weren't harder to find, we would already have found it!)

[QuantumT]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And there is the fact that we see galaxy collisions where the "extra mass" (dark matter) has separated from the visible mass of the galaxy.

Or galaxies with no dark matter (so no "wormholes).

Or the fact that the amount of dark matter we observe is also required by simulations of the early galaxy to produce the large scale structures we see.

Or the baryon acoustic oscillations that produce peaks and troughs in the CMB power spectrum, which require dark matter to explain them.

And why would the distribution of these wormholes follow that produced by simulations of dark matter?

Maybe you can come up with ad-hoc "lemon juicer" ideas to explain each of these (and the other evidence for dark matter actually being matter).

But they can all be explained by one thing: a novel form of matter that we cannot currently directly detect. We have been here before, so it is not a particularly shocking concept. And, not surprisingly, each time there is a new "undetectable" particle it is harder to find than the previous one (because if it weren't harder to find, we would already have found it!)

You are probably right, that DM is a much better answer.
I'm just trying to chip in. Contributing to science is my highest aspiration.

[Mordred]

42 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

You are probably right, that DM is a much better answer.
I'm just trying to chip in. Contributing to science is my highest aspiration.

That is a goal anyone interested in science aspires to. Unfortunately in order to accomplish that goal required considerable study and research. It also requires a good understanding of the math.

 The dynamics of a WH could never account for the behavior and distribution of DM. Many of the reasons are already provided above. 

[QuantumT]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It also requires a good understanding of the math.

I have that. I just need to learn the equations, which is easier said than done. Where do I start? Who's gonna tell me what all the symbols mean?
I have the skills and the will, but no teacher.

[Curious layman]

23 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I have that. I just need to learn the equations, which is easier said than done. Where do I start? Who's gonna tell me what all the symbols mean?
I have the skills and the will, but no teacher.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=khan+academy+physics+and+cosmology

[MigL]

7 hours ago, QuantumT said:

The lemon effect takes the hiding gravity from the extra dimensions of string theory. Under the enormous pressure inside stars, it is squeezed out from the particles in the nucleus. Like squeezing a lemon to make lemonade.

Now that's just silly.

Although people have looked at gravity 'escaping' into extra dimensions, to explain its weakness compared to the other forces.

[QuantumT]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Now that's just silly.

In string theory the gravity is there. It's just out of reach. Is it really so silly to imagine a way to get it out?
We know that a vacuum won't do it, so maybe the opposite could?
Yes, I know it's speculation, thus the category of this thread.

[MigL]

What do you mean "the gravity is there. It's just out of reach".

The other dimensions of SString/M theory are not depositories for additional gravity.
Gravity is generated in 4D space-time by the stress-energy  of objects in, or properties of, that space-time.
The added dimensions are added degrees of freedom, not  'places' filled with gravity.

Speculation doesn't mean WAGs.
( as Swansont is fond of saying )
 

[Mordred]

8 hours ago, QuantumT said:

I have that. I just need to learn the equations, which is easier said than done. Where do I start? Who's gonna tell me what all the symbols mean?
I have the skills and the will, but no teacher.

 How do you start with the math to reach calculus under differential geometry or calculus of variations.

 What is your current math level then I can better guide you.

1 hour ago, QuantumT said:

In string theory the gravity is there. It's just out of reach. Is it really so silly to imagine a way to get it out?
We know that a vacuum won't do it, so maybe the opposite could?
Yes, I know it's speculation, thus the category of this thread.

Incorrect under string theory gravity is the fundamental string via the graviton.

[swansont]

12 hours ago, QuantumT said:

In string theory the gravity is there. It's just out of reach. Is it really so silly to imagine a way to get it out?
We know that a vacuum won't do it, so maybe the opposite could?
Yes, I know it's speculation, thus the category of this thread.

!

Moderator Note

This isn't speculation as we define it. It's guesswork, and this isn't the WAG forum. It's OK to ask questions. But don't pretend that you are presenting anything resembling a scientific theory with this, meaning that what you are doing is not consistent with posting in speculations.