Dark matter debunked?

[HebaruSan]

Haven't there been observations that support dark matter being a substance rather than simply an unknown aspect of gravity? For example, the galaxy cluster collisions in which gravitational lensing occurs afterwards in the space in between, suggesting that those galaxies' dark matter has clumped up and gotten left behind as the regular matter continued outwards?

I'm not an astrophysicist, so all I can cite is Wikipedia and some online pop sci articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter
• http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/colliding-galaxy-clusters-offer-stongest-case-yet-for-dark-matter/
• http://www.space.com/29115-dark-matter-interactions-galaxy-collisions.html

What non-substance explanation could account for such an observation?

[PB666]

12 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Haven't there been observations that support dark matter being a substance rather than simply an unknown aspect of gravity? For example, the galaxy cluster collisions in which gravitational lensing occurs afterwards in the space in between, suggesting that those galaxies' dark matter has clumped up and gotten left behind as the regular matter continued outwards?

I'm not an astrophysicist, so all I can cite is Wikipedia and some online pop sci articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter
• http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/colliding-galaxy-clusters-offer-stongest-case-yet-for-dark-matter/
• http://www.space.com/29115-dark-matter-interactions-galaxy-collisions.html

What non-substance explanation could account for such an observation?

That first wiki page is kind of whack. Theoretically you could have a small rest matter traveling at very close to the speed of light. Not arguing this, but I would point out that all of our efforts to detect dark matter have failed in the lab. All efforts to detect dark energy have failed.

As far as unknown aspect of gravity, I have to repeat gravity as a force is a faux force, Einstein pointed out that via observation that you cannot discriminate the quality of gravity from centripedal acceleration, -another know faux force.

If I am in an evacuated chamber and throw a ball at a few cm per second from our perspective, just like being in a centrifuge the ball will fall, but once it leaves my hand no force is applied, it is in an intertial reference frame. The center of the earth in a newtonian context is applying force to the layers of earth above it all the way to the chamber and the evaculated chamber is being pushed up, the ball is not accelerating the chamber is.

Yes mass curves space time, but so does energy. And yet the construction of space-time itself is almost a complete mystery.

Possible explanations are

1. High rest mass low non-mass energy particles (good example would be black holes or fragments of super-dense matter

2. Low rest mass high energy particles. neutrinos for example

3. Variation in the manner in which average-out space-time interactions occur at the quantum level.

4. An official dark particle.

 

[YNM]

On 11/16/2016 at 8:11 AM, YNM said:

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

... And I fail to understand it ! Somebody with proper knowledge of QFT is needed...

On 11/16/2016 at 8:19 AM, 78stonewobble said:

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.

Kind of. Just like how you can derive Newtonian Gravity from EFE. Still unsure though.

On 11/16/2016 at 8:42 AM, HebaruSan said:

Haven't there been observations that support dark matter being a substance rather than simply an unknown aspect of gravity? For example, the galaxy cluster collisions in which gravitational lensing occurs afterwards in the space in between, suggesting that those galaxies' dark matter has clumped up and gotten left behind as the regular matter continued outwards?

What non-substance explanation could account for such an observation?

In fact, the paper doesn't goes against this. It uses a QFT description of matter - just a big fluctuation, nothing else (which is actually similar to the concept of stress-energy tensor, matter and energy aren't distinguishable apart from velocity). Same goes to dark matter in the paper, although I don't understand QFT so somebody needs to correct this !

Edited November 17, 2016 by YNM

[78stonewobble]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

In fact, the paper doesn't goes against this. It uses a QFT description of matter - just a big fluctuation, nothing else (which is actually similar to the concept of stress-energy tensor, matter and energy aren't distinguishable apart from velocity). Same goes to dark matter in the paper, although I don't understand QFT so somebody needs to correct this !

At the very least we will have gotten a silly insult out of it... *goes off to call people "big fluctuations, nothing else"* :D