Galaxy rotation rates explained without Dark Matter

[Declan]

The wave energy of space (the quantum foam - virtual particle soup etc)

This fills space and is the 'medium' through which light/matter waves travel.

If the medium moves, then the light/matter waves are carried with it. Thus the inward flow causes gravitational lensing & centripetal acceleration of orbiting stars.

[ajb]

What is moving with respect to what? How are you parametrising the movement? It now sounds like you are hinting at a aether theory?

[Declan]

Not just a hint - my Energy Field theory explains all of Relativity using this energy field that behaves very like an aether - it works.

[swansont]

It is the rate of flow of the energy, not the flux, that determines the acceleration on the orbiting stars.

The stars' orbits are shifted towards the galaxy center at the rate of the flow.

 

 

So the amount of energy doesn't matter? Just the rate? How does that work?

 

If the rate is constant, why does this require a black hole. Doesn't mass in other forms have the same effect?

 

Als, if the rate is constant with distance, then it sounds like this has an infinite range. Why aren't we accelerating toward other galaxies as a result of this?

Not just a hint - my Energy Field theory explains all of Relativity using this energy field that behaves very like an aether - it works.

 

Again, we should probably be discussing this rather than a conclusion you've drawn from it.

[Strange]

I have a more fundamental question:

 

The presence of black holes seems to be fundamental to your idea. As you seem to be replacing GR, can you explain (and quantify) how black holes form. For example, why is there an event horizon, in your model? How do you calculate the radius of the event horizon?

Not just a hint - my Energy Field theory explains all of Relativity using this energy field that behaves very like an aether - it works.

 

Then can you show some calculations that support this?

[Mordred]

Its becoming apparent to me that your understanding of the spacetime is incorrect. As well as your understanding of the Einstein field equations.

 

First off all GR requires no medium or eather like properties. This is something you have added without explaining where this mysterious source comes from.

 

Lets look at the stress tensor for GR.

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

[latex]\rho[/latex] being the energy density

 

The energy density and pressure terms in the above equation uses the equations of state for the mass density distribution of the standard model particles.

 

It does not state spacetime generates its own particles medium or standing wave.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Not just a hint - my Energy Field theory explains all of Relativity using this energy field that behaves very like an aether - it works.

 

 

Okay.... now you have to explain all the null results when looking for a aether.

[Mordred]

 

 

Okay.... now you have to explain all the null results when looking for a aether.

Most definetely you also need to explain how your non homogeneous and isotropic fluid flow does not affect the homogeneous and isotropic flat cosmology we accurately detect today.

 

This is in regards to your first paper. As Ajb mentioned there isnt much substance on your rotation curve article to discuss.

 

Not without adressing your personal theory in the first paper. Which quite frankly is insufficient. Unfortunately you think this first paper is accurate. Yet it doesn't address the key issues I just mentioned. Nor any of the key issues adressed by others on this thread.

 

 

Nor do you offer any tests or refer to any tests of a medium like substance of spacetime itself outside the thermodynamics of the standard model of particles.

 

It is the thermodynamic equations of state of those standard model which the Einstein field equations utilizes in the stress momentum term.

 

Quite frankly your usage of the term spacetime flow tells me you have a serious misunderstanding if the definition and meaning of spacetime. Which is simply a geometrical volume where time is treated as a coordinate.

 

Spacetime curvature simply describes the geometry changes due to the presence of mass density. However those geometry changes is due to the mass density distribution influences upon the stress momentum tensor. Which quite frankly is the term that dictates how spacetime will curve. As mentioned though it involves the thermodynamic pressure influences of the standard model of particles. NOT ITS OWN unique particles.

 

Here is a heuristic mathematical detail that is contained in Andrew Liddle's Introductory to Cosmology.

 

This involves both kinetic and potential energy for gravity and expansion. We start with a homogeneous and isotropic distribution.

 

For this we can detail using Newtons laws.

 

[latex] F=\frac{GMm}{r^2}[/latex]

 

Mass density we will use [latex]\rho[/latex] which is the mass per unit volume.

 

Now assume a field of test particles. Motion and mass currently unimportant.

 

One of the aspects of the shell theorem in Newtons laws is the test particle will only notice a force from the center of mass.

 

In a homogeneous and isotropic distribution any test particle or CoM can be used.

 

As we're dealing with test particles we just need the mass relation.

 

[latex]M=\frac{4\pi\rho^3}{3}[/latex]

 

So

 

[latex]E_p=-\frac{GMm}{r^2}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho^3 m}{3}[/latex]

 

Kinetic energy is [latex]E_k=1/2m\dot{r}^2[/latex]

 

[latex]U=E_k+E_p[/latex]

 

U is just a dimensionless constant to equate total energy must be set as a constant value.

 

So the above translates to

 

[latex]U=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2-\frac{GMm}{r^2}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho^3 m}{3}[/latex]

 

Now with the vector relation of the radius to length we can denote the scale factor.

 

[latex]\overrightarrow{r}=a(t)\overrightarrow{x}[/latex]

 

Where a is a function of time. This leads to

 

 

[latex]U=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{a}^2x^2-\frac{4\pi}{3}G\rho a^2x^2 m[/latex]

 

Multiply each side by [latex]2/ma^2x^2[/latex]

 

Leads to

[latex](\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{kc^2}{a^2}[/latex]

 

[latex]kc^2=-2U/mx^2[/latex]

[latex]k=-2U/mc^2x^2[/latex]

K is the curvature constant

Edited June 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Declan]

Reply to Swansont:

 

At sufficient distance from a Galaxy there would be flows towards all other galaxies in all directions so any motion towards a particular direction would tend to cancel out.

Interestingly the overall effect might be the stretching/thinning out of space-time over a long period of time that could be being mistaken for accelerating expansion of the Universe.

 

 

Reply to Strange:

 

I have not calculated the Event Horizon, but it would be done in the same way as usual, but with a small change to the Shwarzchild Metric as I suggested in an earlier post.

The change to GR only affects black holes - otherwise it remains unchanged.

 

 

Reply to Mordred:

 

The gravitational field is itself a source of gravitation - this is GR - thus it must contain energy.

It is also known that 'empty' space is not actually empty, but is teeming with virtual particle activity.

Matter particles can be modeled successfully as 3D standing waves,

 

The stress-momentum tensor deals with the distribution of mass/energy as the source of space-time curvature.

As energy is in the form of energy waves & matter is in the form of 3D standing waves made from energy waves, that extend into space to infinity, then surrounding all matter is a field of energy waves that diminishes in amplitude with distance and is the source of the space-time curvature.

 

 

Reply to ajb:

 

I have already explained the null result of aether experiments - the main one being the Michelson-Morley experiment. See the mathematical proof of this in my Energy Field Theory paper.

[Strange]

I have not calculated the Event Horizon, but it would be done in the same way as usual, but with a small change to the Shwarzchild Metric as I suggested in an earlier post.

 

Which earlier post? I can't find anything...

 

 

The change to GR only affects black holes - otherwise it remains unchanged.

 

 

I find this bald assertion rather unconvincing. You have a completely different model (based on energy waves) so I see no reason why it should produce the same results as GR.

 

Can you show a mathematical proof that your model is equivalent to, or reduces to, GR?

[Mordred]

 

 

Reply to Mordred:

 

The gravitational field is itself a source of gravitation - this is GR - thus it must contain energy.

It is also known that 'empty' space is not actually empty, but is teeming with virtual particle activity.

Matter particles can be modeled successfully as 3D standing waves,

 

The stress-momentum tensor deals with the distribution of mass/energy as the source of space-time curvature.

As energy is in the form of energy waves & matter is in the form of 3D standing waves made from energy waves, that extend into space to infinity, then surrounding all matter is a field of energy waves that diminishes in amplitude with distance and is the source of the space-time curvature.

Absolutely GR allows for virtual particle production. That's all covered under the behavior the standard model.

 

Explain how your standing waves are different from the normal field excitations.

 

As I stated your first paper is absolutely NOT credible.

 

You keep handwaving that explanation away. Along with the numerous other counter arguments I and others have presented.

 

As it stands your first paper and model is a violation of the conservation of energy. Or more accurately a violation of the four momentum.

 

Virtual particle production follows conservation rules. They dont pop in and out for no reason. Guage bosons being an example. They mediate specific interactions within the standard model.

 

You haven't shown any interaction details on your magical origin field.

 

 

I will stress once again GR does not state that spacetime itself is its own materialistic type entity.

 

Space is simply a geometric volume. Spacetime is any metric of that volume that includes time as a coordinate vector.

The standard model of particlesvl that reside in that volume is what causes the virtual particle production.

 

NOT SPACETIME.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Declan]

Reply to Strange:

 

It was in post #38

 

In my Energy Field Theory paper or better still, this more recent re-write which contains additional mathematical proofs:

 

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Traill_FQXi_Essay_Declan_Tr_1.pdf

 

There all the odd effects of Relativity (Time dilation, Mass increase, length contraction) are shown to be as a result of an energy field that fills space & particles modeled as 3D standing waves.

I have not addressed the GR field equations, but the gravitational field definitions have not changed, so they would stay the same.

 

 

Further Reply to Swansont:

 

At far distances, the expansion of the Universe would negate the inward flow into the black holes in distant galaxies - hence only the nearby ones would exhibit the additional flow towards them.

[Mordred]

Hocus pocus alla kazam

[Declan]

What could be simpler: The space-time of the Universe as a whole is expanding/flowing outwards & black holes within it are regions where space-time is contracting/flowing inwards.

[Mordred]

Expansion isnt flowing outward but it is expanding. That expansion has no preferred direction. Meaning the expansion is isotropic.

 

Black holes mass has already been included in galaxy rotation curves.

 

What your proposing adds an undetected dynamic to GR which is incredibly well tested. Fine and dandy but dont think the few equations you've posted will be sufficient.

 

I would recommend applying the Kerr metric for your frame dragging.

 

If I was in your shoes and I wanted seriously advance my model. I would look closely at the comments were making and take a good look. There have several suggestions for improvement. Not including holes to fill.

 

 

Did you look at the NFW profile?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

The gravitational field is itself a source of gravitation - this is GR - thus it must contain energy.

I have already pointed out you are wrong on this. For instance, please write down the energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field. (As you know, or should know, this is a real question and only partial not nice solutions have been given)

 

What you probabily mean is that GR is highly non-linear and has 'self-interactions'. This is similar to Yang-Mills theories - which I must assume you know something of - the field itself is not a source of itself, but as a non- Abelian theory the fields couple to themselves. This is different to standard EM theory.

[Declan]

In a finite Universe the expansion can be considered flowing outwards as there would be a center to the Universe somewhere.

If the Universe was truly infinite there would be no preferred direction - but then there would be other problems such as Olber's paradox.

 

Black hole mass has been included, but still the Galaxy rotation rates are unexplained as is the acceleration of the expansion over time - so I think GR still has a bit to account for that it doesn't yet.

 

I wasn't referring to frame dragging (except for an example of space-time flowing around in a circle).

 

Remind me - what was the NFW profile?

[ajb]

 

 

What could be simpler: The space-time of the Universe as a whole is expanding/flowing outwards & black holes within it are regions where space-time is contracting/flowing inwards.

I still have no idea what you mean by this flow.

 

In a finite Universe the expansion can be considered flowing outwards as there would be a center to the Universe somewhere.

Our observable Universe is finite and this is usually what people are speaking of. What do you mea by 'flowing outwards'?

 

If the Universe was truly infinite there would be no preferred direction - but then there would be other problems such as Olber's paradox.

Our observable Universe t hat is... also just standard cosmology tells us there is no prefered direction to the expansion. There is no special origin.

 

Blak hole mass has been included, but still the Galaxy rotation rates are unexplained as is the acceleration of the expansion over time - so I think GR still has a bit to account for that it doesn't yet.

I don't see why you think black holes are 'special' in the way you are suggesting. They form part of a class of solutions the Einstein field equations. Also, I am wondering about the equivalence principle here - gravity does not care about the details of what makes up the sources.

[Declan]

ajb:

 

See this link about gravity's gravity:

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity

[ajb]

ajb:

 

See this link about gravity's gravity:

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity

What in particular is relevant to our discussion?

[Declan]

The thing that is special about black holes is that they have undergone gravitational collapse, so not even the gravitational field can escape its own gravity. This is different to every other object in the Universe.

[ajb]

The thing that is special about black holes is that they have undergone gravitational collapse, so not even the gravitational field can escape its own gravity. This is different to every other object in the Universe.

Okay, I understand this ... but this is not 'special' in the 'space-time flow or creating/ removing space-time' as you suggest.

[Declan]

Well if the gravitational field is space-time & has energy (as is does - see the link I posted 2 posts ago) then it will be consumed by the black hole.

Thus space-time will be flowing into the black hole - there will be a negative divergence in the space-time field in the space occupied by the black hole.

ajb:

 

The link to that page says:

 

"An important property of gravity in Einstein's theory is that it can create more gravity. The result is "non-linearity" - the gravitational influence of two bodies isn't just the sum of their separate influences! "

 

Thus as the stress-momentum Tensor would tell you the curvature of space-time is caused by where energy resides: in this case the gravitational field itself - causing more gravity.

 

So the gravitational field is a field of energy.

[ajb]

Well if the gravitational field is space-time & has energy

The problem of defining globally and locally the energy of a given space-time is non-trivial and quite interesting.

 

You have several notions globally for nice space-times, but in general I do not think the notion is so well defined. For obvious reasons - energy is something to do with time translations.

 

Locally, it is even more problamatic. Anyway, locally we know, for example that gravitational waves carry energy. However, they are not considered sources of gravity themselves. The sources are defined by the field equations 'G = T' - the right hand side defines the sources while the left hand side defines the gravitational content.

 

 

...then it will be consumed by the black hole.

Carefully now ... what will be consumed by a black hole (you mean get trapped behind a horizon I assume)? If you mean gravitational waves, then okay.

 

Thus space-time will be flowing into the black hole - there will be a negative divergence in the space-time field in the space occupied by the black hole.

You keep saying this without telling us what the heck you mean by a flow and what exactly is flowing.

 

You seem to have based all this on some misunderstandings of space-time in general relativity and black holes.

 

"An important property of gravity in Einstein's theory is that it can create more gravity. The result is "non-linearity" - the gravitational influence of two bodies isn't just the sum of their separate influences! "

First this is very pop-sci. But yes, as I have said the field equations are non-linear and gravity has self-interactions.

 

 

Thus as the stress-momentum Tensor would tell you the curvature of space-time is caused by where energy resides:

Yes, the energy-momentum tensor of the matter and non-gravitational field content is the source of gravity - again something I have said before.

 

 

 

...in this case the gravitational field itself - causing more gravity.

Again, we usually do not think of the gravitational field itself as being a source of gravity. Sources are understood as the non-gravitational content. Also, defining an energy-momentum tensor for the gravitational field is problamatic.

 

You should know all this already as part of your background reading.

 

 

So the gravitational field is a field of energy.

This is very poor wording. Fields carry energy and this includes the gravitational field - though it is not always so easy to define. The clearest is to think of gravitational radiation, here we know quite clearly that gravitational waves carry energy.

Edited June 29, 2016 by ajb

[Declan]

Everything that is anything real in the Universe is made from energy & thus a source of gravitation.

 

I think the GR field equations have the non-linearity built into them so that gravity's own gravitation does not have to be identified as a distribution if matter/energy it is already taken care of by the self-referential non-linearity.