Galaxy rotation rates explained without Dark Matter

[Declan]

I have an idea that explains Galaxy Rotation rates without requiring Dark Matter.

 

The URL of my short paper explaining the idea is here:

 

http://vixra.org/pdf/1606.0218v2.pdf

[ajb]

As a discussion forum, and indeed as part of the rules, you should state the basics of your ideas here. Linking to a pdf by itself is not enough and should be used in addition to posting here.

[Declan]

Sorry this is my first post:

 

Here is the abstract of my paper that explains the content concisely:

 

The rotation rates of stars in observed Galaxies are almost the same regardless of the distance from the galactic center and can currently only be explained by invoking a huge halo of invisible dark matter filling the space occupied by the galaxy. By realizing that space-time itself is an energy field that can flow, the rotation of galaxies can be explained by space-time also being consumed by the black hole at the center of a galaxy.

[Strange]

Can you please show us the calculations based on your idea and how well they match the observed rotation rates.

 

Can you do the same for the orbital speeds of galaxies in galaxy clusters.

 

Thank you.

[Declan]

Ok, well I have an equation and graph in the short paper that I provided the link for - it's a bit hard to show that data in text form here - but the main point is this:

 

The inward flow of space-time due to the super massive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy drags all the orbiting stars inwards.

This allows them to have higher orbital velocities than in Newtonian gravitation when in orbit around the galactic center.

This is because the acceleration towards the center in a rotating system is given by:

a = v^2/r

 

So:

 

v=sqrt(a*r)

 

The acceleration towards the galactic center due to the inward flowing space-time causes the velocity of orbiting stars to be continually curved inwards (in the same way a classical acceleration would do). Thus the orbits are stable but at a higher orbital velocity.

Also as the inward flow of space-time is essentially constant with distance then the acceleration 'a' would be essentially constant with distance too.

 

So when the above equation is graphed using a constant acceleration, the observed orbital velocity is obtained.

[Strange]

This is because the acceleration towards the center in a rotating system is given by:

a = v^2/r

 

Can you show how you derive this - presumably from the mass of the black hole, or something?

 

Also, can you do show how this explains the orbital speeds of galaxies in galaxy clusters.

 

We can move on to gravitational lensing and the formation of large scale structures after that.

[ajb]

The inward flow of space-time....

What is a flow of space-time?

 

 

...due to the super massive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy drags all the orbiting stars inwards.

A black hole is not 'gravitationally' special as far as the stars around it are concerned. So what is the role of the black hole specifically?

 

 

This allows them to have higher orbital velocities than in Newtonian gravitation when in orbit around the galactic center.

Is this at odds with the shell theorem?

[Declan]

I have not done precise calculations for specific galaxies - my main focus is to get the right sort of velocity profile graph to illustrate that the idea has merit.

 

I am not sure about galaxy clusters, though if the idea is correct then the same principle could be applied.

The idea is that space-time is the energy field that fills space (due to the sum of all of the wave-functions of all of the particles in the causally connected Universe).

This gradient of this energy field is the source of the the classical gravitational acceleration, but this field is also comprised of energy and so is also affected by the gravitational acceleration that it carries.

(this is a recognized feature of General Relativity by-the-way that the gravitational field is itself a source of gravitation).

 

So this energy field can flow (through truly empty space) and carry with it particles of matter (or stars etc) as it flows.

 

The black hole has achieved sufficient gravitational acceleration that its gravitational field and the space-time field surrounding it are unable to resist being pulled into the black hole too.

 

Shell Theorem still applies as one moves through the galaxy towards the center in so far as normal matter (i.e. not black holes) is concerned.

Also as there are many black holes surrounding the galactic center apart from the central super massive black hole, the shell theorem will still work for black hole that are outside your radius from the galactic center.

So the inward flow of space-time will decrease as shells of the galaxy containing black holes become further away from the center than you as you travel inwards.

 

The flow of space-time would also bend light, so gravitational lensing would still occur.

As for the derivation of the equation - it is simply centripetal acceleration:

 

See the following URL:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

 

So as the inward flow of space-time causes the velocity of orbiting stars to curve inwards (just like classical acceleration does), the orbital speed must increase to maintain the orbit at the same distance.

[ajb]

The idea is that space-time is the energy field that fills space

In general terms, what is an energy field?

 

Usually, we speak of configurations of fields having the property that we call energy. The term 'energy field' seems very odd.

 

(due to the sum of all of the wave-functions of all of the particles in the causally connected Universe).

This seems hard to formulate as the usual way we describe wave-functions involves space-time from the start.

 

You want to understand space-time as an emergent quantum phenomena, this is great - but more work is needed than just saying it.

 

This gradient of this energy field is the source of the the classical gravitational acceleration,

I don't quite follow... some equations would help.

 

but this field is also comprised of energy...

Comprised of energy? See my comment above.

 

and so is also affected by the gravitational acceleration that it carries.

You mean it carries energy and so has gravitational self-intereactions - okay good, but still you need to do more than just say this.

 

(this is a recognized feature of General Relativity by-the-way that the gravitational field is itself a source of gravitation).

Not quite. It is true that gravity has self-interactions, but we take the sources to be non-gravitational, that is the 'matter and non-gravitational field' content of the Universe.

 

So this energy field can flow (through truly empty space) and carry with it particles of matter (or stars etc) as it flows.

What goes it mean for a field to flow?

 

You mean you look at time dependent solutions to the field equations of your field?

 

The black hole has achieved sufficient gravitational acceleration that its gravitational field and the space-time field surrounding it are unable to resist being pulled into the black hole too.

I don't understand. This seems at odd with standard GR.

 

Shell Theorem still applies as one moves through the galaxy towards the center in so far as normal matter (i.e. not black holes) is concerned.

So, we do not care at all about the black hole itself. The point is we have a large matter concentration - this is consistent with the equivalence principle. We don't really care about the exact nature of the mass.

 

 

Anyway, you need to define your terms better and explain flow much more clearly - which will involve some mathematics.

[swansont]

Is the proposed acceleration due to the magnitude of this "flow of spacetime"? What are the equations governing the flow, and how does the acceleration relate to it?

[Declan]

If you care to read about my other work that explains Relativistic effects etc based on an energy field filling space, please see the two references at the end of my short paper that I posted at the top of this discussion - it is this work that leads me to this idea about the Galaxy rotation rates and Dark Matter:

 

REFERENCES

[1] Traill. D. A. “Relatively Simple? An Introduction to Energy Field Theory” The General Science Journal, 2001-
2008.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/%7B$cat_name%7D/View/1105

[2] Traill. D. A “Wave Functions for the Electron and Positron”. The Global Physics Journal. P 172, Vol3, No1, 2015.
http://gpcpublishing.com/index.php?journal=gjp&page=article&op=view&path[]=367

 

 

The rate of flow of space-time into a black hole is a good question - I don't have the answer to that - but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit and that further work/observation could give us an answer to how this could be worked out.

It might simply be that we can treat the black hole's size as being an opening through which the energy field can flow (like air escaping from the hole in a balloon) or something similar??

[ajb]

The General Science Journal is not peer-reviewed, correct? The Global Physics Journal, says it is peer-reviwed, but for sure I have never come across it.

 

I am still at a loss as to what you mean by flow of space-time. Please try to give us some ideas here.

[Declan]

Ok, a simple example of flow of space-time is the motion of the gravitational field of a particle that is in motion. A small part of the space-time energy field in space is due to the particle's gravity field. When the particle moves, it moved too.

A similar example is that of Frame Dragging, where space-time flies around a rotating planet or star.

 

So if a hole is opened up in space-time then the energy field in the space surrounding it can flow into the hole.

 

The space-time field is normally quite static as there is an equal pressure from all directions, but if this is upset by a black hole then an inbalance is created at it can flow into the hole

[ajb]

Ok, a simple example of flow of space-time is the motion of the gravitational field of a particle that is in motion.

So for example, a gravitational wave?

 

(what you have loosely describes reminds me of the backreaction in classical and semiclassical gravity)

 

A small part of the space-time energy field in space is due to the particle's gravity field. When the particle moves, it moved too.

A similar example is that of Frame Dragging, where space-time flies around a rotating planet or star.

Still I am not any clearer on the space-time energy field. How is it different to the metric or other standard gravitational degrees of freedom?

 

So if a hole is opened up in space-time then the energy field in the space surrounding it can flow into the hole.

Not clear what you really mean by a hole.

 

The space-time field is normally quite static as there is an equal pressure from all directions, but if this is upset by a black hole then an inbalance is created at it can flow into the hole

Black holes are not holes (in any standard meaning) of course.

[Declan]

You need to think of the space-time field as a medium (similar to a gas or fluid) that can support waves (matter waves, light waves or gravitational waves).

Particles are three dimensional standing waves that extend to infinity (but with every diminishing amplitude) defined by wave functions that describe stable structures that can form from waves of energy.

The space-time 'fluid' is the sum of the wave functions of all of the particles in the causally connected universe - each particle contributes a very small percentage of the total space-time field, but due to the enormous number of particles in the Universe, the sum of these small contributions adds up to a large amount of wave activity in space (the space-time energy field).

 

Particles of matter and the space-time field thus live in a symbiotic relationship where the space-time field owes it existence to the particles, and the particles are affected by the space-time field: through gravitation, time dilation (due to motion through the field or due to its density (SR and GR time dilation).

 

When all the forces are balanced, particles and the space-time field remain more-or-less static, but when something disrupts the balance, then the energy flows to find a new stable configuration.

When a black hole forms, the space-time energy field pressure reduces where the black hole is and the balance is disrupted so the wave energy in the surrounding space-time field is un-bounded and flows into the hole.

 

You should really read my two papers (links shown in previous post) to understand the ideas I am trying to convey to you here.

I have worked through all of the effects of Relativity and tied them back to the space-time energy field - showing the maths works.

[ajb]

You need to think of the space-time field as a medium ....

Why? I am happy about thinking of fields.

 

(similar to a gas or fluid) that can support waves (matter waves, light waves or gravitational waves).

Okay, I am generally okay with wave solutions of various field equations...

 

 

...waves of energy.

What the heck are waves of energy?

 

Waves can transport energy, that much I do know ;-)

 

The space-time 'fluid' is the sum of the wave functions of all of the particles in the causally connected universe - each particle contributes a very small percentage of the total space-time field, but due to the enormous number of particles in the Universe, the sum of these small contributions adds up to a large amount of wave activity in space (the space-time energy field).

So do you start with a pseudo-Riemannian manifold and then place on top of it the 'extra' field? What values does the field take (i.e., it is describes as a section of what bundle?) What are the field equations for this field?

 

... through gravitation, time dilation (due to motion through the field or due to its density (SR and GR time dilation).

I am always skeptical when people speak of gravitational time dilation as you have. The notion is not a general notion, but one that comes from comparing clocks at different location when 'constant time' makes sense.

 

 

Okay, enough with the stories... you need to calculate things. I have a skim through two of your papers...I am not impressed enough to try to read them carefully.

[swansont]

Is the proposed acceleration due to the magnitude of this "flow of spacetime"? What are the equations governing the flow, and how does the acceleration relate to it?

Are you going to answer this or not?

[Declan]

>>"Is the proposed acceleration due to the magnitude of this "flow of spacetime"? What are the equations governing the flow, and how does the acceleration relate to it?"

 

I answered this earlier as part of another reply:

 

The rate of flow of space-time into a black hole is a good question - I don't have the answer to that - but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit and that further work/observation could give us an answer to how this could be worked out.

It might simply be that we can treat the black hole's size as being an opening through which the energy field can flow (like air escaping from the hole in a balloon) or something similar??

 

However, regardless of the actual rate of flow (which would determine the magnitude of the constant acceleration towards the Galactic center) the point is that the profile of the resulting orbital rotation rates with distance is the correct shape - showing that this is the right sort of effect to explain the observations...

[Strange]

As for the derivation of the equation - it is simply centripetal acceleration:

This does not tell you the orbital velocities of stars. For that you need to consider the mass they are orbiting.

 

And it doesn't appear to have any connection to the presence of black holes.

 

So you seem to have plucked an irrelevant equation out of mid-air.

 

So, please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, the precise effect a black hole has on the orbits of stars.

 

 

The rate of flow of space-time into a black hole is a good question - I don't have the answer to that

As this seems to be the key party of your idea, it therefore implies you don't have anything. Why are you wasting our time?

 

but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit and that further work/observation could give us an answer to how this could be worked out.

As it seems you are just making stuff up, I can't see how the idea can have merit.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

>>"Is the proposed acceleration due to the magnitude of this "flow of spacetime"? What are the equations governing the flow, and how does the acceleration relate to it?"

 

I answered this earlier as part of another reply:

 

The rate of flow of space-time into a black hole is a good question - I don't have the answer to that - but that doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit and that further work/observation could give us an answer to how this could be worked out.

It might simply be that we can treat the black hole's size as being an opening through which the energy field can flow (like air escaping from the hole in a balloon) or something similar??

 

However, regardless of the actual rate of flow (which would determine the magnitude of the constant acceleration towards the Galactic center) the point is that the profile of the resulting orbital rotation rates with distance is the correct shape - showing that this is the right sort of effect to explain the observations...

If you don't have any equations, how can you possibly claim that the curve is the right shape?

[Declan]

As I said earlier the equation for the velocity would be in the form of v = sqrt(a*r) where 'a' would be constant with distance.

 

This gives the right shape for the orbital velocities.

The exact answer depends on the rate of flow of the space-time, which would move the line up/down etc

I don't have an equation to determine the flow rate as yet, but it's not a waste of time to explore the idea.

 

Conceptually this can explain the observations so it should be explored further as an alternative to Dark Matter which might not exist.

No-one can tell you what Dark Matter is either, but that doesn't stop everyone talking about it and exploring it.

[Strange]

So you have just picked a random equation that gives the right shape. It has nothing to do with black holes and you have no physical basis for this equation.

 

This is not science and there seems little point exploring it. Maybe you should ask the moderators to close this thread before you embarrass yourself further.

[ajb]

At the risk of being mean, the paper in the OP is quite empty.

[MigL]

At the risk of being mean ...

All the comments you guys have applied to Declan's idea could just as easily be applied to the dark matter idea.

We have no idea what dark matter is, nor does it have a physical basis, Strange.

It just gives the appropriate rotation rates for large scale structures and lensing around them.

 

Not that I'm saying his idea has merit ( I haven't looked into it enough and some definitions seem wonky at best ), but what if I was to pose similar questions to you guys about dark matter ? Could you answer questions about the mass of particles comprising it ? Without DM mass, what equations can you provide for its gravitational effects, Swansont and AJB ?

 

Cut him some slack...

The best scientific tool is an open mind.

[ajb]

All the comments you guys have applied to Declan's idea could just as easily be applied to the dark matter idea.

Not really. Dark matter comes from observations including galactic rotation curves and the CMBR.

 

In the context of galactic rotation curves either we allow for some deviation from Newton's laws (which also follow from GR) or we propose some unseen matter content. Both ideas have been looked at and modifying gravity seems inconsistent - but that could of course change with new models.

 

We have no idea what dark matter is, nor does it have a physical basis, Strange.

The need comes from my comments above. It is not like it is just 'plucked from thin air'.

 

It just gives the appropriate rotation rates for large scale structures and lensing around them.

Like I said, we allow for such matter, or try to change gravity. Your argument against dark matter seems to be 'because it fits'.

 

Not that I'm saying his idea has merit ( I haven't looked into it enough and some definitions seem wonky at best ),

He has just use one of the equations from circular motion and rearranged it. It is not big deal and does not solve the problem/question of dark matter. The paper really is empty.

 

Could you answer questions about the mass of particles comprising it ?

Right now we do not know. But we have models from particle theory that make predictions. WIMPs such as the neutralino may be 100Gev, or axions have mass < 1eV, for example. The point is that we have mathematical predictions of possible masses of these candidates. This means we have science and not just stories.

 

 

Without DM mass, what equations can you provide for its gravitational effects, Swansont and AJB ?

I do not quite follow your question. But as we are discussing classical gravity, I would think in terms of general relativity.

 

Cut him some slack...

But really, that paper contains nothing.

 

As for some of his other ideas, like 'energy field' etc they seem to be nonsense. Or at least with out a proper formulation that are 'not even wrong'.

Edited June 27, 2016 by ajb