Dark Matter is not matter?

[pantheory]

Spyman,

 

This was a criticism of the study done by a team of ESO astronomers claiming no dark matter was detectable in the vicinity of the sun, or our solar system. Naturally when there is a study contradicting mainstream beliefs, there will always be criticisms. This is the way good science works. The original study, however, was not the most damaging concerning the dark matter hypothesis. I believe the study below was the most damaging.

 

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

 

Their conclusion:

 

"Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in galaxies, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit."

The key words here, I think, were "a new understanding" implying better theories. This is a strong statement coming from a normally conservative organization.

 

Of course this study and conclusion too should be criticized as well as similar studies conducted, and eventually final conclusions made.

Edited May 22, 2012 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Spyman,

 

This was a criticism of the study done by a team of ESO astronomers claiming no dark matter was detectable in the vicinity of the sun, or our solar system. Naturally when there is a study contradicting mainstream beliefs, there will always be criticisms. This is the way good science works. The original study, however, was not the most damaging concerning the dark matter hypothesis. I believe the study below was the most damaging.

 

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

 

Their conclusion:

 

 

The key words here, I think, were "a new understanding" implying better theories. This is a strong statement coming from a normally conservative organization.

 

Of course this study and conclusion too should be criticized as well as similar studies conducted, and eventually final conclusions made.

 

Pan - just to be clear, that statement is a personal comment of Prof Kroupa not something for and on behalf of the RAS. It is a very interesting paper though. We are missing some vital spark from our theories - there are too many contradictory findings. I tend to be very boring in my views, and my default recourse is to accept mainstream views; but something nags about dark matter - there is a huge amount that is right, but too many snags and problems

[Spyman]

Spyman,

 

This was a criticism of the study done by a team of ESO astronomers claiming no dark matter was detectable in the vicinity of the sun, or our solar system. Naturally when there is a study contradicting mainstream beliefs, there will always be criticisms. This is the way good science works. The original study, however, was not the most damaging concerning the dark matter hypothesis. I believe the study below was the most damaging.

 

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

 

Their conclusion:

 

"Our model appears to rule out the presence of dark matter in galaxies, threatening a central pillar of current cosmological theory. We see this as the beginning of a paradigm shift, one that will ultimately lead us to a new understanding of the universe we inhabit."

The key words here, I think, were "a new understanding" implying better theories. This is a strong statement coming from a normally conservative organization.

 

Of course this study and conclusion too should be criticized as well as similar studies conducted, and eventually final conclusions made.

pantheory, I am not trying to defend nor attack the concept of matter in dark matter.

 

When I came across the above paper I realized that it was fairly recent, close enough to be of interest in this thread in the Science News.

 

 

Tremaine is widely regarded as one of the world's leading astrophysicists for his contributions to the theory of solar system and galactic dynamics and the paper is not only criticisms of the study by Moni Bidin, they manage to turn it around and use the data to measure the density of dark matter within the limits of standard estimates and concludes: "This is the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date".

 

Kroupa is an astrophysicist who leads a research group on stellar populations and stellar dynamics, his work focuses on a possible connection between satellite galaxies with the bulge of the Milky Way and that they could have formed in an early encounter with another galaxy. His papers points out that a missing dark matter substructure of the Milky Way is a failure of current standard cosmological models with Einsteinian/Newtonian gravity.

 

 

I have no doubt that a new and better understanding of dark matter will eventually be made and only the future can tell if 'matter' is to remain in the new name when the shadows of the 'dark' are lifted, but right now I think "a paradigm shift" is a too strong statement to make this early.

[pantheory]

imatfaal,

 

Pan - just to be clear, that statement is a personal comment of Prof Kroupa not something for and on behalf of the RAS. It is a very interesting paper though. We are missing some vital spark from our theories - there are too many contradictory findings. I tend to be very boring in my views, and my default recourse is to accept mainstream views; but something nags about dark matter - there is a huge amount that is right, but too many snags and problems.

 

Thanks for that. Upon a brief reading, I thought it was an explanation of the original paper rather than commentary on the original paper. I think I have already read at least a couple of explanations of that paper. I never have been a fan of the dark side but am a little surprised how fast "evidence" seems to be mounting against dark matter. I would have preferred to see dark energy seriously questioned/ challenged first since I consider the evidence for it to be even less substantial -- but probably more untestable.

 

We'll see what happens next

 

pantheory, I am not trying to defend nor attack the concept of matter in dark matter.

 

When I came across the above paper I realized that it was fairly recent, close enough to be of interest in this thread in the Science News.

 

Tremaine is widely regarded as one of the world's leading astrophysicists for his contributions to the theory of solar system and galactic dynamics and the paper is not only criticisms of the study by Moni Bidin, they manage to turn it around and use the data to measure the density of dark matter within the limits of standard estimates and concludes: "This is the most robust direct measurement of the local dark-matter density to date".

 

Kroupa is an astrophysicist who leads a research group on stellar populations and stellar dynamics, his work focuses on a possible connection between satellite galaxies with the bulge of the Milky Way and that they could have formed in an early encounter with another galaxy. His papers points out that a missing dark matter substructure of the Milky Way is a failure of current standard cosmological models with Einsteinian/Newtonian gravity.

 

I have no doubt that a new and better understanding of dark matter will eventually be made and only the future can tell if 'matter' is to remain in the new name when the shadows of the 'dark' are lifted, but right now I think "a paradigm shift" is a too strong statement to make this early.

The article and commentary is certainly news worthy since it generally has a conclusion contrary to the ESO paper.

 

...but right now I think "a paradigm shift" is a too strong statement to make this early.

I agree but believe what we are seeing concerning these failures to find dark matter may be a harbinger of a paradigm shift that I expect to see within 15 years or less, after the James Webb goes up and some of its observations realized. Maybe the Royal Astronomical Society sees the writing on the wall and is trying to be one of the first to recognize it

//

Edited May 23, 2012 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Hi Pan

 

Have you seen this article which challenges the one mentioned in the OP

 

Guardian - simple treatment

 

Resonaances - hard core blog

 

Pre-print on Arxiv of the paper that challenges the paper which challenges DM

 

Thanks to SwansonT blog for pointing in right direction

[Spyman]

Umm, imatfaal, maybe you should review the conversation from post #50...

[pantheory]

Hi Pan

 

Have you seen this article which challenges the one mentioned in the OP

 

Guardian - simple treatment

 

Resonaances - hard core blog

 

Pre-print on Arxiv of the paper that challenges the paper which challenges DM

 

Thanks to SwansonT blog for pointing in right direction

 

No, I haven't seen this commentary yet but did see the Arxiv paper posted by Spyman. The Arxiv paper refers to two researchers that critically analyzed the first paper coming to a different conclusion.

 

So far I've seen no retort to the report by the British Astronomical Society, maybe because it's more difficult to question their findings.

Edited May 29, 2012 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Umm, imatfaal, maybe you should review the conversation from post #50...

Oooops. What's worse is had read your post and it had completely left my head by the time I read the blog

 

No, I haven't seen this commentary yet but did see the Arxiv paper posted by Spyman. The Arxiv paper refers to two researchers that critically analyzed the first paper coming to a different conclusion.

 

So far I've seen no retort to the report by the British Astronomical Society, maybe because it's more difficult to question their findings.

 

Kroupa et al will only have been published for a month or so (on pre-print service) and I don't know if it has seen the light of day in actual journal yet. Definitely a good back and forth

[pantheory]

imatfaal,

 

Kroupa et al will only have been published for a month or so (on pre-print service) and I don't know if it has seen the light of day in actual journal yet. Definitely a good back and forth

 

Thanks for that

[mpkilarj]

Pardon my first (possibly last) post. Any discussion of H2 as the "missing" matter?

[pantheory]

Pardon my first (possibly last) post. Any discussion of H2 as the "missing" matter?

Lots of related discussions on the net but none so far in this News related thread. The problem with H2 as being the missing matter in the dark matter quandary is that too much dark matter seems to be needed in uneven distributions within galaxies. True, molecular hydrogen is very difficult to observe at galactic scales. Its 1st shell radiation frequency is 21 mm, but the problem is probably deeper. It has been proposed as being the major source of the observed microwave background radiation but as to solving the dark matter problem, there presently seems to be too many problems with the existence of dark matter in any possible form to explain some of what has been observed. I think presently this is the biggest present observable problem to overcome.

 

http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter

 

If the dark matter hypothesis is wrong there may be only one alternative: another formulation of gravity as well as a completely new understanding of gravity mechanics. What do you think?

//

Edited June 5, 2012 by pantheory

[juanrga]

If the dark matter hypothesis is wrong there may be only one alternative: another formulation of gravity as well as a completely new understanding of gravity mechanics. What do you think?

//

 

The DM hypothesis is wrong by two reasons:

 

First, DM models are in contradiction with lots of data, whereas the same data is in agreement with models as MOND.

 

Second, DM has never been found in despite of hundred of observations and experiments made. Any test has reported a null result, somewhat as tests of the aether failed and obligated the development of relativity.

[pantheory]

midas_touch_68,

 

dark matter is energy, like an ocean. Leonardo Da Vinci called it ether, Willhelm Van Reich called it prana (until he was shut down) calling it matter not be wholly tbe truth of the matter : ) ,stop and stare at the wall or something in distance for a moment- see the red and blue dots - that's dark energy prana ether, always keep in mind the fabled tardyons and tachyons fly through the universe too - it could be awash in these, it could even be dark energy that'll test your science

It might be true that if one could put vast quantities of dark matter and dark energy where they might be needed to "tidy up" what's been seen, then everything might calculate correctly. Such a combination also might be called a particulate aether, but not necessarily the carrier of EM radiation as was the alleged luminiferous aether of the 19th century. But theory allows only certain types of distributions of the dark stuff and not solely for the purpose of balancing equations.

 

The question of this thread in the news section, is that some studies have indicated that dark matter does not behave as if it were matter, or anything else known for that matter, if it really exists. This thread relates to present news that seems to support, contradict, or analyze the dark matter hypothesis, then we can discuss it here.

//

Edited June 16, 2012 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Midas Touch

This is news - not new theories; I have moved your ideas to a new thread in Speculations


Juanrga

This is not the place for a MOND/Dark Matter debate - feel free to open a thread in Speculations to argue your point, but not here. Pan opened this thread to discuss news stories on Dark Matter and/or the lack thereof - please keep within those boundaries.

[pantheory]

Dark Matter: "Running Out of Places to Hide" --- in the dark

 

With the numerous experiments to find dark matter, and the theoretical possibilities they believe to have eliminated, "dark matter accordingly is running out of places to hide.

 

The article below suggests that the possibilities to discover dark matter within the next maybe four years, they believe, are getting better since they have already eliminated a number of the possibilities so there are fewer remaining possibilities.

 

My bet is that in four years they still will not have found dark matter excepting to have eliminated even more of the possibilities. Within four years if they propose a possible candidate I expect that it will not pan out. What do you think?

 

http://www.space.com...ery-search.html

Edited November 26, 2012 by pantheory

[juanrga]

Dark Matter: "Running Out of Places to Hide" --- in the dark

 

With the numerous experiments to find dark matter, and the theoretical possibilities they believe to have eliminated, "dark matter accordingly is running out of places to hide.

 

The article below suggests that the possibilities to discover dark matter within the next maybe four years, they believe, are getting better, since they have already eliminated a number of the possibilities so there are fewer remaining possibilities.

 

My bet is that in four years they still will not have found dark matter excepting to have eliminated even more of the possibilities. Within four years if they propose a possible candidate I expect that it will not pan out. What do you think?

 

http://www.space.com...ery-search.html

 

What the article does not mention is that the main problem is not that (i) dark matter has not been found where it was supposed to exist, but that it cannot explain lots of data.

 

Some related news:

 

More Evidence Against Dark Matter?

 

Dark matter theory challenged by gassy galaxies result

 

Dark matter challenge

 

Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong

 

Dark matter results spark debate

 

Dark matter effect might be explained by modified way to calculate inertial mass

 

In any case I agree with you, dark matter will be not found in the next four years; althought, I am rather sure that we will read news claiming that dark matter has been finally found. We already read exaggerated news as that in the past (although they are now forgotten).

[David Levy]

No need for dark matter:

 

 

Spiral arm - Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of up to billions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a circular motion for all the stars which are relatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus. It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.

The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power.

Note that all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. All in one direction.

 

Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.

 

 

A brief calculation- Most of the 400 Billion stars are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 70,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are about 1 billion stars in a 1000 x 1000 light year. Hence, 1,000 stars per 1 x 1 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power of the spiral arm!!!

Edited November 27, 2012 by David Levy

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Spiral arm - Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of up to billions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and creates a circular motion for all the stars which are relatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus. It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.

The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power.

Note that all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. All in one direction.

 

Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.

Hi David ! I'm happy to see you. It's really an exellent description.

 

Otherwise from my point of view, the dark matter is the matter without charge.

Cordially.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

David Levy, Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU (and everyone else)

imatfaal's clarification about the boundaries of discussion applies to everyone. If you have your own personal ideas on the subject, open up a thread in Speculations.

[David Levy]

Hi David ! I'm happy to see you. It's really an exellent description.

 

Otherwise from my point of view, the dark matter is the matter without charge.

Cordially.

 

Thanks, Do appriciate.

 

!

Moderator Note

David Levy, Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU (and everyone else)

 

imatfaal's clarification about the boundaries of discussion applies to everyone. If you have your own personal ideas on the subject, open up a thread in Speculations.

 

Hi

 

I can't except or understand your negative approach.

It seems that you are not open for getting the idea that there is no dark matter.

This is not a speculation. It is a clear evidence.

The theory of the dark matter was a supper speculation!!!

Even now, based on NASA verification, it's difficult for you to except it.

It is clear that without the dark matter there is no existence to some key theories which most of the Scientists believe in. (including the Big Bang…)

The idea of the dark matter came as the science could not explain the base for the high velocity of star which is far away from the core of Spiral Galaxy.

I had found that there is no need for dark matter to support this high velocity.

I have even made a calculation which should explain this phenomenon.

So why are you so upset???

Why do you insist to prevent any progress and close our mind for new idea which contradicts your false faith???

It's the time for you to reconsider the current theories based on the new evidence.

 

Or, is it too much to ask???

 

Edited November 28, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

I have even made a calculation which should explain this phenomenon.

 

 

Show it.

[David Levy]

Show it.

 

Not for you!!!

Edited November 28, 2012 by David Levy

[Spyman]

Hi

 

I can't except or understand your negative approach.

It seems that you are not open for getting the idea that there is no dark matter.

This is not a speculation. It is a clear evidence.

The theory of the dark matter was a supper speculation!!!

Even now, based on NASA verification, it's difficult for you to except it.

It is clear that without the dark matter there is no existence to some key theories which most of the Scientists believe in. (including the Big Bang…)

The idea of the dark matter came as the science could not explain the base for the high velocity of star which is far away from the core of Spiral Galaxy.

I had found that there is no need for dark matter to support this high velocity.

I have even made a calculation which should explain this phenomenon.

So why are you so upset???

Why do you insist to prevent any progress and close our mind for new idea which contradicts your false faith???

It's the time for you to reconsider the current theories based on the new evidence.

 

Or, is it too much to ask???

There is NO negative in swansont's modnote and I can't see that he made any remarks at all regarding his opinion of dark matter.

 

YOU have the choice of making a new thread in speculations to discuss your own personal idea and resolution for the dark matter phenomenon, the possibility and opportunity of starting new threads is something POSITIVE.

 

However your attempt to hijack this thread and distort it into a discussion about your idea is negative and against the rules:

 

5. Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

 

10.Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

ScienceForums.Net Forum Rules can be found here: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

 

 

If anything NASA has verified that the phenomenon of 'dark matter' is real and not speculation, it IS something we observe.

 

"Dark matter came to the attention of astrophysicists due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain; such as stars, gas and dust."

/../

"Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies."

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

 

Even if dark matter should turn out to be something else than matter, the effect it has on ordinary matter is still not speculations.

(But right now the mainstream science consensus is that dark matter consists of matter.)

 

"According to consensus among cosmologists, dark matter is composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of subatomic particle."

/../

"Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community, several alternative theories have been proposed to try to explain the anomalies for which dark matter is intended to account."

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

 

Which clearly make your statements below a personal idea that is not yet accepted by mainstream science.

 

"I had found that there is no need for dark matter to support this high velocity."

"I have even made a calculation which should explain this phenomenon."

 

 

So WHY is it to much to ask from you to start a new thread, if you want to discuss your idea?

[David Levy]

So WHY is it to much to ask from you to start a new thread, if you want to discuss your idea?

 

I have already did. Please see:

 

Update stady state Theory

 

 

With regards to your remarks:

 

5."Stay on topic" – Yes, I have directly replied to the topic.

 

The first message from pantheory about this thread was as follow:

 

"For dark matter to be infact the gravitational influence that explains the motions of spiral galaxies via gravitational influences therefore exonerating General Relativity and Newtonian gravity it would need to have a specific observable behavior. This dark matter hypothesis now seems to be in serious question based uponthis link".

 

Therefore, as the Dark matter is in a serious question, it is clear that there is contradiction in the current theory of the motions of spiral galaxies.

 

Hence, I have explained why there is no need for dark matter to sustain the motion of spiral galaxies. Therefore, there is no attempt to hijack this thread!!!

 

It is a direct answer to the main topic of this thread.

 

10.Keep alternative scienceand your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations)… Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

 

Yes, the dark matter is considered as a mainstream science!!!

 

Unfortunately for this mainstream theory, the dark matter is not present where the science had expected and verified by NASA…

 

Please see the following article:

 

Mysterious Dark Matter Becomes More Mysterious

 

http://www.sciencefo..._40#entry715604

 

"So, if dark matter is not present where we expected it, a new solution for the missing mass problem must be found".

 

I have offered a very logical solution for this problem.

 

If you still consider it is an hijack, than I have nothing to add….

 

Edited November 29, 2012 by David Levy

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

David Levy

Stop now. Please do not continue to discuss your own theory within this thread. Also please do not argue that you should be able to discuss....

These are hijackings of the thread and distract from the original topic. Do NOT respond within this thread to this moderation. If you feel it is unwarranted then report this post.