Dark matter theory resolved or just a new theory? you be the judge

[tbraun]

Hello everybody, I'm new here, my name is Teo Braun, I’m not a scientist or something like that, but recently I have become very interested in dark matter, so I did a lot of information digging about the problem and I think I’ve solved the problem. I will try to explain my train of thought the best I can.

 

To solve the problem I didn’t use any theories, just facts and particles we already know. So, we don’t need supersymmetry, string theory, new undiscovered particles nor do we need modified gravity. I just used knowledge we already know and pieced them together.

 

We invented dark matter to solve two problems. Velocities in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, to be more exact the Bullet Cluster (it causes more problems).

 

Dark matter has a few specifications: weakly interacting, heavy, very stable, “goes trough stuff”, couples together and on top of each other, cold, has a tendency to be where ordinary matter is… that’s about it, I may be forgetting something, but most of is here.

 

The dark matter where looking for is in fact the weak force its self. I know this because my logic tells me to. To be more specific the W+, W-, Z bosons. These bad boys don’t meet some of the specifications but here me out. They are very heavy, weakly interacting (obviously) , it’s where ordinary matter is (we can’t have it any other way). It’s very unstable, and for the coupling part and going trough stuff, you will see that we don’t need that to make this work.

 

The W+, W-, Z bosons have a life time of only 3×10^−25 seconds and exist in the short time when a neutron is changing in to a proton and vice versa. So they exist in β+ or β- decays and similar activities.

 

It would be like poking something in space, there would still be some acceleration (extra gravity).

 

At first this must seem insignificant, but the conversion rate goes up whit temperature, to be more exact in stars, or to be even more exact in centers of galaxies, where there is lots and lots and lots of stars and starry activity. In our own Sun 9.2 × 10^37 protons (hydrogen nuclei) are converted into helium nuclei every second (or is that number in half because we are only interest in the ones turning in to neutrons), so we can only imagine what the number in the centers of galaxies are because that’s where most stars and activity are placed.

 

So here is my answer to the galaxies velocity problem, where there is proton-neutron activity there is more mass and gravity.

 

As for the bullet cluster problem, it’s very simple. All of the activity is still happening in galaxies and not the gas in-between (although the gas is pretty hot, it contains pretty stable material)

 

There it is, a simple solution to a simple problem, but I guess it’s a bit chaotic like quantum physics when you try to do the numbers.

 

If I knew how, I would test this idea in a computer model or something but then again I’m not a scientist. I guess you could do something like m=m (known)*(period of existence)/(period of existence + period of nonexistence) and repeat that for every particle.

 

It may not be the whole 5x missing part but maybe just a part of it.

 

Hope it all made sense. Waiting for criticism and replies. What do you think?

 

PS. Sorry if there are grammar issues.

[Widdekind]

Consider two masses, M₁ & M₂, initially at rest, and very far from each other. As they begin to approach each other, from the Newtonian 2-Body Problem, we find that, as they gravitationally collapse towards each other down to a distance D, their approach speed V is:

 

[math]\frac{1}{2} \; V^{2} = \frac{G \; M_{tot}}{D}[/math]

 

where M_tot = M₁ + M₂. Thus, by knowing the separation distance D, and relative approach velocity V, we may estimate the combined mass M_tot:

 

[math]M_{tot} \approx \frac{D \; V^{2}}{2 \; G}[/math]

 

We apply this below to two well-known situations.

 

 

 

Application — Andromeda & Milky Way

 

According to Science Illustrated [Mar./Apr. 2008 AD], pg. 30, "the Milky Way is hurling towards the Andromeda galaxy, at a speed of about 290,000 mph". At a separation distance of 2.2 million light-years, this implies a combined mass of:

 

[math]M_{tot} \approx 140 \times 10^{9} \; M_{\odot}[/math]

 

The currently estimated Luminous Mass of the Milky Way is [math]\approx 30 \times 10^{9} \; M_{\odot}[/math], with that of Andromeda being a bit bigger.

 

CONCLUSION: Currently visible Luminous Matter can account for the observed approach speeds, w/o resorting to "dark forces", "dark matter", or "dark energy".

 

 

 

Application — Great Attractor & Milky Way

 

According to the same cited source, the Milky Way is "also being drawn, at a rate of about 1,300,000 mph, toward an enormous Super-Cluster, the Great Attractor, which lies 250 million light-years away". These numbers imply a combined mass of:

 

[math]M_{tot} \approx 320 \times 10^{12} \; M_{\odot}[/math]

 

And, the estimated Luminous Matter of the Great Attractor is [math]\approx 1000 \times 10^{12} \; M_{\odot}[/math].

 

CONCLUSION: Once again,currently visible Luminous Matter can account for the observed approach speeds, w/o resorting to "dark forces", "dark matter", or "dark energy".

 

 

 

ADDENDUM:

 

According to Science Illustrated [Nov. / Dec. 2008 AD], pg. 18, "regions of space long believed to be devoid of stars are actually teeming w/ them, according to new observations", by NASA's GALEX satellite, and NSF's VLA radio telescope. They showed:

early generation stars forming at the extreme ends of M83, a galaxy

15 million light-years

from Earth. Scientists previously thought that regions so far from a galaxy's center were almost devoid of the matter necessary for star formation.

 

The

VLA,

however, detected considerable matter in the form of hydrogen atoms in the same area that

GALEX

picked up the stars. Astronomers believe that these gaseous stars may resemble those in the early

Universe,

and the discovery may allow them to observe more hard-to-detect early generation stars

.

Thus, as observations improve, Luminous Mass estimates may increase even further, which would also eat into the 'necessity' of "dark forces".

 

Where is the need for Dark Matter ? What is wrong w/ the above estimates for the combined masses of said systems ??

[D H]

So here is my answer to the galaxies velocity problem, where there is proton-neutron activity there is more mass and gravity.

Scientists assess the mass of the Sun by observing how things orbit the Sun. This gives the product of solar mass and the gravitational constant. Note well: The Sun's composition does not come into play in determining the solar gravitational coefficient. All it takes is observing planetary motion. The solar mass is simply the solar gravitational coefficient divided by the gravitational constant. The Sun's composition does not come into play in determining G, either.

 

Bottom line: What we know of the Sun's mass has nothing to do with what we know of the stuff that forms the Sun. You have not found the source of dark matter.

 

======================

 

Consider two masses, M₁ & M₂, initially at rest, and very far from each other. As they begin to approach each other, from the Newtonian 2-Body Problem, we find that, as they gravitationally collapse towards each other down to a distance D, their approach speed V is:

 

[math]\frac{1}{2} \; V^{2} = \frac{G \; M_{tot}}{D}[/math]

 

That's very nice, Widdekind. This of course has nothing to do with Andromeda and the Milky Way. They did not start at rest with respect to one another at essentially infinite distance.

[swansont]

Widdekind, answers to posts should reflect the current theories and models of science, rather than speculation. Further, they should be on-topic with regard to the original post.

[Widdekind]

That's very nice, Widdekind. This of course has nothing to do with Andromeda and the Milky Way. They did not start at rest with respect to one another at essentially infinite distance.

 

Working backwards, from a current relative velocity of ~130 km s^-1, Andromeda would have been about 4 million light-years further away, around 10 billion years ago — or around 6 million light-years away in total.

 

So, what is a better approximation to the initial conditions ? Cosmologists apply Newton's Laws for estimating masses of Galaxies (~100 thousand light-years), and Galaxy Clusters (~1 million light-years) (yes ?). And so, what is the maximum spatial "cut-off" of applicability, for Newton's Laws, before relativistic effects (e.g. Cosmological Expansion) "kick in" ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Widdekind, answers to posts should reflect the current theories and models of science, rather than speculation. Further, they should be on-topic with regard to the original post.

 

(I got booted off the computer.)

 

I was "answering" what seemed to me to be a "speculative question", w/ my own "speculative question(s)" — I thought it would be preferable to keep such "speculative questions" confined to a single thread. But in the future, I will post my questions separately, and make the questions themselves ("?") more obvious & clear, if that is preferable.

 

I would like to ask why we feel the need to be snide ("that's very nice, Widdekind"). I wasn't snide, I was clear, cogent, and polite. I'm absolutely convinced, of course, that we would all be polite to me to my face. But, why the need to be, of all things, snide (or seemingly so) ? Why not just say answer my "speculative question" w/ as much courtesy and directness as that of the OP ("no, you are not correct...") ? Everybody else asks questions, and they are treated politely; then I ask a question, and I'm treated differently (or seemingly so).