is dark matter really exist ?

[stephaneww]

I am currently preparing a paper that says that dark matter does not exist and that it is the product of dark energy on the matter. What do you think of this idea?

Thank you in advance for your answers

Edited December 11, 2015 by stephaneww

[Klaynos]

Do you have a headline graph showing the predictions from your idea, predictions from the current dark matter model and the observations? Could you post it along with the maths used to generate your line?

[ajb]

As Klaynos says, you will need to show all the models and calculations in order to get any attention. Then hopefully it will start to fit the observations.

 

Anyway, I would think that it is hard to see dark matter as anything to do with dark energy. First of all we have evidence of dark matter from astrophysical observations, ie., galactic rotation curves. The local gravity of galaxies overcomes any global expansion and so dark energy plays no role.

 

So, independent of cosmological considerations we need dark matter. Dark energy maybe more subtle here as it is mainly derived from fitting FRW cosmologies to the observations. It may be possible to remove dark energy by using other models, such as weakening the cosmological principal. However, I do not read much about people going down that route. That said people are looking an inhomogeneous cosmologies today.

 

Anyway, the Lambda CDM model fit the observations well, including details of the CMBR. Any model that removes dark matter must agree (for some consistent choice of parameters) with the observations of the CMBR power spectrum. Also galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing effects tell us there is dark matter. All these must be taken into account. This will be your main challenge.

[Strange]

Also, from what I have read, it seems that cold dark matter is needed when modelling the formation of large scale structure in the universe.

This article describes 5 bits of evidence that need to be explained by any alternative to dark matter (and mentions a couple more).

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

[stephaneww]

Do you have a headline graph showing the predictions from your idea, predictions from the current dark matter model and the observations? Could you post it along with the maths used to generate your line?

dark matter graphics.zip

 

it's base on the idea that the universe at Hubbble radius is a black hole. I research for a magnetic explain of energy and it's seem to be right with my methodologoy use for my first demontration.

 

graphic2.zipgraphic2.zip

 

oh have a look on graphic2 and comparare my current researh with 2) Galactic Rotation Curves in this document :

 

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8#.6jfrptide

Edited December 11, 2015 by stephaneww

[Klaynos]

I cannot view that on my current device. Can you add a PNG or similar as an attachment?

[Strange]

it's base on the idea that the universe at Hubbble radius is a black hole.

 

But it isn't: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

[stephaneww]

it's an open office document it's a logiciel free. i try to post a png

 

But it isn't: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

i know but in relativity it can be consided as gigantic black hole where mattter does not escape

Edited December 11, 2015 by stephaneww

[Strange]

i know but in relativity it can be consided as gigantic black hole where mattter does not escape

 

That is exactly the opposite of what the article says.

 

Perhaps you can show your (mathematical) support for this claim?

[stephaneww]

 

That is exactly the opposite of what the article says.

 

Perhaps you can show your (mathematical) support for this claim?

of course i have made it on a french forum : http://forums.futura-sciences.com/astronomie-astrophysique/262091-theorique-de-constante-de-hubble.html#post1999018

 

i'ts in french, you can use googke traduction for translation

Edited December 11, 2015 by stephaneww

[Strange]

of course i have made it on a french forum : http://forums.futura-sciences.com/astronomie-astrophysique/262091-theorique-de-constante-de-hubble.html#post1999018

 

i'ts in french, you can use googke traduction for translation

 

From a quick skim through that page it appears you have found the same relationship between the Schwarzschild radius and the Hubble constant that Sean Carroll uses to demonstrate that the universe is not a black hole.

[stephaneww]

 

From a quick skim through that page it appears you have found the same relationship between the Schwarzschild radius and the Hubble constant that Sean Carroll uses to demonstrate that the universe is not a black hole.

i m not sure because i m not good in englih but this paper say perhaps other thing http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1505/1505.00812.pdf

 

edit : hum i think that this paper is a fake

 

edit 2: it's more serious :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-hole_cosmology

 

Any such model requires that the Hubble radius of the observable universe is equal to its Schwarzschild radius, that is, the product of its mass and the Schwarzschild proportionality constant. This is indeed known to be nearly the case; however, most cosmologists consider this close match a coincidence

 

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by stephaneww

[Strange]

i m not sure because i m not good in englih but this paper say perhaps other thing http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1505/1505.00812.pdf

 

No, that paper explicitly says it assumes the FLRW metric for the universe; therefore not a black hole.

 

 

edit 2: it's more serious :

 

Not really.

[stephaneww]

 

No, that paper explicitly says it assumes the FLRW metric for the universe; therefore not a black hole.

 

 

ok thank you