Dark matter debunked?

[Tex_NL]

Dark matter might not be as dark as expected. In fact it might not exist at all.
Dutch professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Amsterdam Erik Verlinde's new theory explains astronomical observations without the need for dark matter. (Sorry for the hardcoded Dutch subtitles.)

Articles on Cornell University Library: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269
And the paper for those interested: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269v1.pdf

 

[YNM]

This is too far from my limits of knowledge

It's generally have something to do with a few wild ideas from the past... Maybe something like all electrons are just copy of one electrons or so, haha. Entanglement coupled with spacetime dynamics.

[Kerbart]

Wise man once said: “dark matter is to modern theory what the equant and deferrent where to Ptolemy’s model. We cannot really explain it but it makes our model match reality so it must exist”

Any model that doesn't need dark matter is worth studying in my book. Maybe he's even right, who knows?

[78stonewobble]

I must admit, that I allways preferred a variable gravity theory to dark matter and/or dark energy. This is purely from my limited intellects "aesthetical" reasoning. I don't understand the physics or even maths well enough. The universe proooooobably doesn't care about my subjective aesthetical preferences (too much orange and purple in the world for that).

[PB666]

See thread on Dark gravity. Nothing new here.

 

[Tex_NL]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

See thread on Dark gravity. Nothing new here.

 

Don't you mean nothing new in the other thread? I started this thread about 2.5 hours before PGTART started the other one.

[kerbiloid]

Don't forget, that the greatest distance available to measure the gravity directly is just 130 AU (Voyager), i.e. 0.002 l.y. or  ~10^-8 of galaxy size.
Anything beyond this distance is only assumptions. Like several centimeters experiment applied to the whole Earth - mostly correct but would you take this result as an absolute truth?
The same with galaxy-scale forces.

Edited November 10, 2016 by kerbiloid

[tater]

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

[Findthepin1]

Funny that XKCD made that three days after it popped up here. Do we have Randall Munroe among us? Maybe he saw it. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Findthepin1

[benzman]

On 11/9/2016 at 10:42 PM, Kerbart said:

Wise man once said: “dark matter is to modern theory what the equant and deferrent where to Ptolemy’s model. We cannot really explain it but it makes our model match reality so it must exist”

Any model that doesn't need dark matter is worth studying in my book. Maybe he's even right, who knows?

This interested layman finds this quote to be the best I have heard that explains something I have noticed in the past .  A tendency, especially among particle physicists, to say "That fits what we see, so it must be right."

 Planet Vulcan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_(hypothetical_planet)

  Cold fusion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion 

  The Aether? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

 

[monstah]

4 hours ago, Findthepin1 said:

Funny that XKCD made that three days after it popped up here. Do we have Randall Munroe among us? Maybe he saw it. 

I'd like to think so, but the subject is actually running around the internet fresh again, these past few days  

[YNM]

On 11/09/2016 at 11:55 PM, 78stonewobble said:

I must admit, that I allways preferred a variable gravity theory to dark matter and/or dark energy. This is purely from my limited intellects "aesthetical" reasoning. I don't understand the physics or even maths well enough. The universe proooooobably doesn't care about my subjective aesthetical preferences (too much orange and purple in the world for that).

This one isn't MOND anyway. Unless I'm mistaken...

[Motokid600]

My astrophysics ls laymen at best, but if I were to make sense of the present conundrum id say the problem is the stars at the outside of the galaxy are moving as fast as the inside. That they move in unison, yes? Breaking Newtonian physics? I'm sure theres more to it. That begs me to ask the question. What of the stars they measured orbiting the very center of the Milky Way? I looked it up and apparently the orbital period seems to be 16 years.

[swjr-swis]

I'm a bit disappointed that he goes to the trouble of formulating a model for gravity that doesn't require dark matter, specifically with the intent of removing the need for it, which got me all excited... but then it still requires dark energy.

It's all a lot of math wizardry to me, so 'disappointed' is very relative in this context; but still, I keep hoping someone will come up with a model that does not require any of the magicks to make the numbers work out.

[Guest]

Just gonna drop this here:

 

[78stonewobble]

On ‎13‎-‎11‎-‎2016 at 2:47 AM, YNM said:

This one isn't MOND anyway. Unless I'm mistaken...

More like Modified Einsteinian Dynamics?

PS: Personally I like the idea that galactic rotational curves of spiral galaxies could be explained by matter introducing a rotational current or movement of space itself in the disk (space acts like a fluid getting dragged by the stars, but equally dragging the stars along). Not Verlindens idea I think... But that's just my aesthetical sense talking  

[justidutch]

If we can't even explain the behaviour of numbers within the confines of an Italian bistro, how are we ever going to explain the deeper mysteries of the universe?

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, justidutch said:

If we can't even explain the behaviour of numbers within the confines of an Italian bistro, how are we ever going to explain the deeper mysteries of the universe?

Things, which don't involve profit, are more simple.

[PB666]

The thread starts the discussion. Since then it has evolved.

Gravity is a perception from space-time perspective. The perception is created by the structural interactions of quantum space-time. These interactions defy dimensional logic (as they are based on the probabiiistic and not discrete measurement) and only can perceived in their accumulation. The universal gravitational constant may not be constant, but if it is not constant, then there are things about quantum space-time that we do not understand. That would not be shocking since we have as yet to measure quantum space-time. 

If we divorce the discussion from dark matter and instead refer it to an unknown source of gravitation surrounding galaxies then we do not need to make matter appear or disappear.

[SinBad]

Thought?

Assume time is a free dimention like the other 3, (our math says travel in either direction isnt disallowed) now consider how we spend most of our lives thinking of the other 3. We can move left and right, forward and back over the ground reletivly freely. But up and down are different. We are constrained, so we dont usually think about traveling freely vertically without some tool to help. So we can consider that we live most freely in 2 of the four dimentions.

Now consider spacetime. This is the four when viewed from the point of view of space. But what about timespace? In spacetime the biggest check to velocity is gravity. Imagine you are falling into a black hole, with time stretching out, each second farther from the next the faster you fall. And lacking a rocket, you have no choice but to fall. This is the only situation when a spacial dimension acts like time. You can only go one way.

Thats a spacial black hole. What if, in our hypothetical timespace, there was such a thing as a temporal black hole? A mechanism that enforces the unidirectionality of time the closer you get to it. Is is beyond reason to assume that such a body may be acting on the universe, sucking timespace in one direction? As we get closer to the event horizon, might we begin to see our 3 dimentions expanding in a similar effect to a spacial black hole on time?

 

I got this idea from a short story, i cant remember what it was titled or who wrote it. Maybe 4(?) Years ago.

Edited November 15, 2016 by SinBad

[kerbiloid]

1. Something breaks the gravity law (or doesn't correspond to our assumptions how it must work).
2. We measure the difference and draw a map.
3. We presume that this is caused by something like matter, until new evidences will be available. This is scientifically wise, Occam watches benevolently.
4. We can't say anything about this virtual "matter" except it makes gravity.
5. We declare that the "matter" exists and by definition has no visible effects except gravity.
6. We compare results with our gravity map again and - oh, miracle! - we see that the results look as if our "matter" indeed exists (even if the "matter" was defined exactly in the same way to make this etalon map).
7.???
8. Profit!!! Only fools don't believe that Dark Matter exists. Apple falls down because apples fall down.

Let's invent another theory.
We know magnetic declination.
We can even see a map of it.

Spoiler

Absolutely clear, that there is a Magnetic Matter which flows throw the oceans and makes a compass mistake.
It has no properties except it "magnicity" and all experiments show that compass mistakes exactly as the Magnetic Matter map predicts.
 

P.S.
What scientific experiment could falsify Dark Matter hypothesis?

Edited November 15, 2016 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

15 minutes ago, SinBad said:

Thought?

Assume time is a free dimention like the other 3, (our math says travel in either direction isnt disallowed) now consider how we spend most of our lives thinking of the other 3. We can move left and right, forward and back over the ground reletivly freely. But up and down are different. We are constrained, so we dont usually think about traveling freely vertically without some tool to help. So we can consider that we live most freely in 2 of the four dimentions.

Now consider spacetime. This is the four when viewed from the point of view of space. But what about timespace? In spacetime the biggest check to velocity is gravity. Imagine you are falling into a black hole, with time stretching out, each second farther from the next the faster you fall. And lacking a rocket, you have no choice but to fall. This is the only situation when a spacial dimension acts like time. You can only go one way.

Thats a spacial black hole. What if, in our hypothetical timespace, there was such a thing as a temporal black hole? A mechanism that enforces the unidirectionality of time the closer you get to it. Is is beyond reason to assume that such a body may be acting on the universe, sucking timespace in one direction? As we get closer to the event horizon, might we begin to see our 3 dimentions expanding in a similar effect to a spacial black hole on time?

 

I got this idea from a short story, i cant remember what it was titled or who wrote it. Maybe 4(?) Years ago.

 

What you need to do is imagine the difference between collective observations and non-collective observations to comprehend gravity.

Everything in this universe that we measure is the result of comparing interactions of collectives. For example, has anyone ever measure the gravitational interaction of two photons of light passing really close to each other? And yet photons propogate through the milieu of quantum space-time. As they are passing each other is it possible to measure quantum gravitational attacking between two cells of quantum space-time. The answer for several different reasons is no. 

Imagine you lived in a quantum world, now imagine that in this quantum world their were kingdoms each with a history and a future. Now imagine you could travel between the kingdoms and measure their statistics, (size, length of existence, energy). But if you probed the kingdoms you might find that the measures in each were strange, to gain a sense of the kingdom of what the king values, and his measures of space and time may differ from yours or the next guy. So it is in the collective of observations you come to understand how the kingdoms statistics relates. But in that case you have no real idea about measures of size or length of time;  this best you could arrive at is a probabilistic estimate that has some parameter of power as a governing feature (in our case energy associated with field intensities) In the quantum world quantum space-time has a fleeting size and temporal existence. But we can measure the effects of the collective, but we are not of a scale that we can make sense of the singular object of space-time.

Gravity is the measurement of the collective, the resolution of quantum events to a measurable collective is something we only presume to understand. Quantum space-time is an unfolding that begins from the big-bang itself, it is the oldest operational force of the universe, through which all other forces can exist. The universe according to this quantum space-time changed markedly from the singularity, though inflation to expansion. It is not for us to tell quantum space-time what it is by divinating and guessing, it is for us to discover what it is by better observations of the universe.

 

[YNM]

On 11/14/2016 at 7:08 PM, 78stonewobble said:

More like Modified Einsteinian Dynamics?

Not really. It just adds another possible reality of dark energy - some sort of universe-al entropy

 

Haven't read the dark matter portion of the paper...

[78stonewobble]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Not really. It just adds another possible reality of dark energy - some sort of universe-al entropy

 

Haven't read the dark matter portion of the paper...

Yeah, you're right... I meant it more in the sense, that it wasn't based on MOND per say, or Newton's laws and would presumably have to agree with Einsteins descriptions of gravity as a limiting case.