Galaxy rotation rates explained without Dark Matter

[Mordred]

First off energy is a property it doesn't exist on its own.

 

The NFW profile is the profile to predict galaxy rotation curves.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro%E2%80%93Frenk%E2%80%93White_profile

 

It isnt Keplarian due to how it handles mass distribution. The formula also follows the shell theorem. As it deals with the enclosed mass.

 

This is something your formulas do not do.

 

If you really took a good look at your formulas. You would recognize they have the same inherent Keplarian linearity. Despite your added terms.

[Mordred]

The other problem is you obviously don't understand the thermodynamic aspects involved in GR. In particular behind this equation.

 

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

 

If you did you wouldnt be making the erroneous statements you have been.

 

Particularly not statements like blackholes gobbling up spacetime. Which isnt a substance. It isnt even energy...

 

Its the blooming geometry.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Everything that is anything real in the Universe is made from energy...

Not true. Energy is a property of physical configurations. It is not something in its own right and nothing can be made of energy.

 

...& thus a source of gravitation.

Essentially you are correct - all non-gravitational fields that have a well-defined energy-momentum tensor (so I would say everything we know of) acts as a source of gravity.

 

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.

Right, which is exactly what I have said. Gravitational fields do not act as sources, but as the theory is non-linear there are self-interactions.

 

 

The other problem is you obviously don't understand the thermodynamic aspects involved in GR.

To quote Bones - "It is worse than that Jim..."

 

Particularly not statements like blackholes gobbling up spacetime.

Indeed, this notion of space-time flow really baffles me.

[Mordred]

Lol its like stating black holes absorb coordinates. A field is a topography of coordinates. If I have a vector field I can apply vector conditions at those coordinates. In the case of GR its used to map the four momentum.

 

This is one method of mapping a gravitational field. For temperature and virtual particle production we typically use a scalar field.

 

However your spin foams map action rather than force.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Mordred

[Declan]

This is part of the problem with current physics - the Universe is real, not just coordinates on a mathematicians graph - the fields are made from real energy waves.

 

Everything is made from energy - it is not just a property - it is the fundamental substance from which everything is made (sure it might be possible to analyze & break down the wave activity into something even more fundamental).

Energy is wave based, and matter particles are made from these waves in a 3D standing wave configuration - I have modeled this & it works, and have worked out the wave functions for the electron & positron with all the right properties.

 

A Galaxy is made up of a whole lot of black holes (as well as stars) at different distances from the center, not just the one at the center, so the shell theorem still applies.

[imatfaal]

Everything is made from energy - it is not just a property - it is the fundamental substance from which everything is made (sure it might be possible to analyze & break down the wave activity into something even more fundamental).

 

Can you point to one piece of empirical evidence regarding energy in this pure elementary state? Because all the observation we have at the moment point to the opposite of your claim

[Declan]

I understand the shell theorem applies to normal gravitational inverse-square law fields, but a similar notion would apply to flow into black holes as they move behind you as you get closer to the galactic center.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

I take that to confirm that it remains constant, independent of distance.

 

Does ordinary mass exhibit the effect, or just black holes?

[Declan]

Matter (electron and positron) annihilating to become a wave of energy (gamma ray).

[swansont]

Matter (electron and positron) annihilating to become a wave of energy (gamma ray).

 

 

Light is not just energy. Photons have linear and angular momentum, too. You don't get just one photon from annihilation. If they were just energy, you could.

——

 

This proposal that the effect yields a constant acceleration regardless of distance has some rather profound implications, I think. How can there be an expansion of the universe if this is in place? Why haven't galaxies just mashed together if you have an effect that is much stronger than gravity at distance scales of order 10,000 LY or larger?

[Declan]

You get two photons, momentum etc are conserved, sure.

The frequency of the gamma rays emitted during annihilation is the same as that of the waves comprising the 3D standing waves of the electron/positron.

The two 3D structures 'undo' each other's stable wave functions, allowing the energy waves to no longer be standing waves, but to shoot off as traveling light waves.

See my paper on Wave Functions for the Electron & Positron for the wave functions, structure & computed wave frequencies.

 

----

 

It isn't constant acceleration unless you are in circular motion around the black hole, where the inward flow tends to shift the orbiting star inwards continually as it orbits (i.e. constantly changes the orbiting star's velocity, as a Newtonian gravitational acceleration does).

 

Otherwise for objects not in orbit, the inward flowing space imparts a constant velocity to objects.

 

Also as the Universe is constantly expanding - the total amount of which depends how far away two objects are - this expansion flow will be the bigger effect over huge distances rather than the fixed flow from any given black hole.

[swansont]

It isn't constant acceleration unless you are in circular motion around the black hole, where the inward flow tends to shift the orbiting star inwards continually as it orbits (i.e. constantly changes the orbiting star's velocity, as a Newtonian gravitational acceleration does).

 

Otherwise for objects not in orbit, the inward flowing space imparts a constant velocity to objects.

How does this effect "know" whether the object is in circular motion or not?

 

I'd like to see the derivation that imparting a constant radial velocity will preserve circular motion, independent of the tangential velocity and radius.

 

Also as the Universe is constantly expanding - the total amount of which depends how far away two objects are - this expansion flow will be the bigger effect over huge distances rather than the fixed flow from any given black hole.

Well, that's something you should be able to show rather than baldly assert, isn't it?

 

 

And I will ask yet again: Is this only an effect of black holes, or of any mass that exerts gravity?

[ajb]

So many misconceptions of physics here... it must be close to closing time.

 

Anyway, my advice is read a book or two and don't get all your knowledge from pop-sci websites.

[Mordred]

Radiation has a different equation of state influence upon pressure than matter does. This includes dark matter.

 

Matter having extremely low kinetic energy exerts negligible pressure. W=0.

 

Radiation w=1/3.

 

You are essentially adding radiation with a pressure influence in a specific direction rather than a homogenous and isotropic distribution.

 

In a galaxy the distribution naturally isn't homogeneous and isotropic however we still can't ignore its equation of state.

 

The equations of state also involves the stress tensor.

 

The other problem is that radiation has not only pressure influence it also has temperature influence. Photons for example being bosonic with two degrees of freedom, influence and add to the blackbody temperature.

 

You can calculate the photon density using the Bose-Einstien statistics. For fermionic you can use the Fermi-Dirac distribution.

 

How radiation interacts with other matter is dynamically different than how matter interacts with other matter.

 

 

You have proposed to replace matter with w=0 with radiation w=1/3 in a completely different distribution and characteristics that are detectable without once applying those changes into any of the perfect fluid equations that are used in the EFE or FLRW metric.

 

If you follow through with applying your changes into those metrics you would discover that those changes would have a huge impact upon the curvature. As well as the pressure and corresponding temperature relations

Matter (electron and positron) annihilating to become a wave of energy (gamma ray).

Gamma rays are high energy photons. Not energy unto itself.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

[Declan]

Reply to Swansont:

 

It doesn't have to 'know' if it's in orbit - it just comes about that way. Think about it, if you are in orbit around something where the medium through which you are traveling is moving with a constant velocity towards the center, then the effect it will have on you is to consistently change your velocity towards the center. In circular motion this is the same effect as a centripetal acceleration.

The flowing effect would only apply to black holes, although any mass that is moving will have its own gravity field moving with it - so as the space-time field is the sum of all gravity fields of all masses, a percentage of the space-time field flows with the mass that is in motion.

This is evident in frame-dragging for example.

 

Reply to Mordred:

 

I think you are mis-understanding what I am saying. The shape of space-time remains unaltered from GR except that the flow into black holes is introduced. Apart from that I am saying that the energy present in the gravitational field (I.e. Space-time) is in the form of wave activity in the form of the sum of the wave functions of all the condensed matter particles in the Universe.

This does not change any energy distribution or curvature, it is simply an interpretation of the existing GR model of the Universe.

[Mordred]

No actually I dont misunderstand you. The problem is your not looking at the relations I mentioned. YOUR changing the stress momentum tensor relations.

 

Those changes have other affects that you are ignoring

[Declan]

But you said I am replacing matter with radiation - not at all, the wave activity I am referring to is matter waves. The 3D standing waves that are particles of matter extend into space although most of the energy is within the classical diameter of the particle. Another way to think about it is the Quantum machanical interpretation of the probability of finding the particle at a certain location away from the center.

 

The actual mass/energy distribution has not changed.

[Mordred]

Your last model is without dark matter. Sorry should have specified that.

 

However even if your changing distribution flow of radiation or adding a field with a flow. Your still going to affect temperature and pressure relationships.

 

For example Higgs field is a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. With spin of zero it is modelled as a scalar field.

 

Gravity has its spin characteristics as well. Spin 2. We know this now due to detecting gravity waves. This spin causes a specific wave pattern. That being quadrupole. Which is uncharged.

 

Photons have spin 1.

 

I mention this because this as well as the number of degrees of freedom of every particle along with their kinetic energy affects temperature.

 

So if you add a flow that is part of the standard modelling. Your going to cause temperature and pressure influences.

 

Particularly at the CMB.

 

Here chapter 3 and 4. Pay attention to the fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstien statistics.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

Bose_Eintein statistics is

 

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

for fermions you use the fermi-dirac statistics

[latex]\bar{n}_i = \frac{1}{e^{(\epsilon _i-\mu) / k T} 1}[/latex]

 

with these two equations we can calculate the number density of all the SM particles. From the blackbody temperature.

 

This influences the equations of state.

 

Here is a brief work through. This is for an adiabatic and isothermal fluid

 

 

[latex]dU=dW=dQ[/latex]

 

U is internal energy W =work.

 

As we dont need heat transfer Q we write this as [latex]DW=Fdr=pdV[/latex]

 

Which leads to [latex]dU=-pdV.[/latex]. Which is the first law of thermodynamics for an ideal gas.

 

[latex]U=\rho V[/latex]

[latex]\dot{U}=\dot{\rho}V+{\rho}\dot{V}=-p\dot{V}[/latex]

[latex]V\propto r^3[/latex]

[latex]\frac{\dot{V}}{V}=3\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex]

 

Which leads to

 

[latex]\dot{\rho}=-3(\rho+p)\frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex]

 

We will use the last formula for both radiation and matter.

 

Assuming density of matter

 

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

[latex]\rho=\frac{dp}{dr}\dot{r}=-3\rho \frac{\dot{r}}{r}[/latex]

 

Using the above equation the pressure due to matter gives an Eos of Pressure=0. Which makes sense as matter doesn't exert a lot of kinetic energy/momentum.

 

For radiation we will need some further formulas. Visualize a wavelength as a vibration on a string.

 

[latex]L=\frac{N\lambda}{2}[/latex]

 

As we're dealing with relativistic particles

 

[latex]c=f\lambda=f\frac{2L}{N}[/latex]

 

substitute [latex]f=\frac{n}{2L}c[/latex] into Plancks formula

 

[latex]U=\hbar w=hf[/latex]

 

[latex]U=\frac{Nhc}{2}\frac{1}{L}\propto V^{-\frac{1}{3}}[/latex]

 

Using

 

[latex]dU=-pdV[/latex]

 

using

[latex]p=-\frac{dU}{dV}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{U}{V}[/latex]

 

As well as

[latex]\rho=\frac{U}{V}[/latex]

 

leads to

 

[latex]p=1/3\rho[/latex] for ultra relativistic radiation.

 

Those are examples of how the first law of thermodynamics fit within the equations of state. There is more intensive formulas involved. In particular the Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi-Dirac statistics.

 

Now you described your energy flow in any details. However as your talking energy or rather some form of radiation the section on radiation applies.

 

The thing is your radiation has specific directions. This flow can affect via those equations of state above the temperature distribution which will correspond to the luminosity to temperature relations.

 

In other words we should easily be able to detect a bulk flow of radiation regardless type via its temperature contribution.

 

This is precisely where baryon accoustics studies does at the CMB.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Mordred

[Declan]

The thing is all quanta (particles etc) are made from these waves, so it takes an organized structure of these waves (i.e. a particle wave function) to interact with other quanta in the way we are used to (the examples you have given).

There are effects from virtual particles on condensed matter particles that are know to occur - this is when these energy waves momentarily become organized enough to look like a real particle, but are not of sufficient energy to become real particles, so they soon disintegrate back into the essentially random wave activity again.

I Just entered example data into Excel to help visualize the Navarro Frenk White profile.

Here is what I got (don't worry about the actual numbers or size of the curves relative to one another - just the shapes).

 

See picture at this URL:

 

https://s32.postimg.org/u63om9rat/Navarro_Frenk_White.png

 

The Purple line is the Orbital velocity profile from NFW profile, the Blue line is the Orbital velocity profile from constant centripetal acceleration (i.e. inward space-time flow).

 

The Density, Mass and Acceleration curves are what comes out from working backwards from the observed Orbital Velocity profile, assuming that Dark Matter exists.

[Mordred]

Sure I didn't cover modelling of a scalar field for which is w=-1. This is the field that commonly measures temperature or virtual particle production fields examples inflaton, curvaton. Or as a scalar field the Higgs field.

 

[latex]w=-1=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2-V(\theta)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2+V(\theta)}[/latex]

 

 

All fields can produce virtual particles. They do so with guage boson production.

You haven't shown the equations of state for your model.

 

Probably because you haven't properly identified it. The descriptions you provided don't make sense because you haven't described how it interacts with known interactions. The descriptions of an inherent energy of spacetime itself is completely wrong.

 

If you want to use gravitational field then fine and dandy.

 

But a spacetime field is 100% unacceptable. The reason being is there is no ether. Nor any virtual particles generated by particle to particle interactions.

 

The reason being is spacetime isn't part of the model of particles of ANY type....

Spacetime is just the geometry.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Mordred

[ajb]

Spacetime is just the geometry.

 

 

This notion of flow really needs to be tidied up - if it can.

[Strange]

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.

 

 

As this is, apparently, able to have a significant effect on stars, gas and dust hundreds of thousands of light years way it presumably also affects things much closer to the black hole, Correct?

 

And, presumably, the effect close to the black hole must be proportionally much larger than the effects far away. Yes?

 

Depending on your answer to those, I have some follow-on questions...

[Mordred]

I'm glad to see you looking at the NFW profile.

 

This article will help as it covers hydrodynamic relations as well as the NFW profile. Its fairly lengthy but worth studying. Much of the metrics your will need.

 

Elements of astrophysics.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~kaiser/lectures/elements.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwifwf-LoM_NAhWvpYMKHRVuC1AQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNF3DxLuvc9AsMNMLuxf9ZU-TlaQXw&sig2=oKUeKrGT5jajiD1OhHJsMg

 

You will note its first chapters deals with Relativity.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Mordred

[Declan]

Reply to Mordred,

 

Why do you say there is no ether? Is it because of the Michelson Morley result? This can easily be explained and proven to work if there is an ether, as I have done. All of the effects of Relativity can be explained and proven, as I have done, BECAUSE there is an ether. If you don't believe me read my Energy Field Theory paper (or the FQXi essay contest paper that I posted the link to earlier) carefully, with an open mind.

 

Reply to ajb:

 

Geometry isn't everything, it just indicates how space affects matter, there are real mechanistic reasons for the forces that cause the matter to move - that comes down to energy in some sort.

It is the mathematicians tool for expressing what is happening in the real world.

 

To Mordred:

 

Thanks for the tip on what to look at.

My main point about the NFW profile was to indicate that the orbital velocity curves that result from it and my idea are almost identical & the differences could be accounted for by details about mass distribution in galaxies.

The other lines in the graph are only relevant if Dark Matter actually exists.

[swansont]

Reply to Swansont:

 

It doesn't have to 'know' if it's in orbit - it just comes about that way. Think about it, if you are in orbit around something where the medium through which you are traveling is moving with a constant velocity towards the center, then the effect it will have on you is to consistently change your velocity towards the center. In circular motion this is the same effect as a centripetal acceleration.

The flowing effect would only apply to black holes, although any mass that is moving will have its own gravity field moving with it - so as the space-time field is the sum of all gravity fields of all masses, a percentage of the space-time field flows with the mass that is in motion.

This is evident in frame-dragging for example.

So show this derivation. It should be simple enough.

 

What is special about black holes that they cause this flow, but other masses would not, even if their gravitational attraction was larger?