Could dark matter be explained as a quantum gravity effect?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a paper proposing that dark matter may be unnecessary due to graviton-graviton self-interactions, which enhance gravitational binding in dense regions, such as galaxies. This theory suggests that the effects of these interactions are too small to measure locally but accumulate over large distances, aligning with observed galaxy rotation curves without requiring exotic particles. The paper also claims that the Tully-Fisher relation arises naturally from this framework. Critics argue that the approach overlooks existing theories like MOND and misrepresents the knowledge of galaxy luminous masses and sizes. Overall, the paper challenges conventional dark matter theories by offering a new perspective on gravity's behavior in massive systems.
ensabah6
Messages
691
Reaction score
0
The paper below suggests an alternative to dark matter, the strength of gravity is greater than is predicted by GR due to graviton-graviton self-interactions in regions of higher density of matter. Hence dark matter is unnecessary. The increase would be too small to be measured locally, hence agreement with GR, but adds up over galaxy-wide distances. It's not dark matter that binds galaxy together but graviton-graviton self-interactions.

Implications of Graviton-Graviton Interaction to Dark Matter
Authors: A. Deur
(Submitted on 26 Jan 2009 (v1), last revised 6 May 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Our present understanding of the universe requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy. We describe here a natural mechanism that could make exotic dark matter and possibly dark energy unnecessary. Graviton-graviton interactions increase the gravitational binding of matter. This increase, for large massive systems such as galaxies, may be large enough to make exotic dark matter superfluous. Within a weak field approximation we compute the effect on the rotation curves of galaxies and find the correct magnitude and distribution without need for arbitrary parameters or additional exotic particles. The Tully-Fisher relation also emerges naturally from this framework. The computations are further applied to galaxy clusters.

Comments: Version published in Phys. Lett. B. Added material: 1) We explicited the steps leading from the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian to our simplified Lagrangian. 2) We showed how the Tully-Fisher relation emerges naturally from our framework. 3) We added a discussion on the approximations we used
Subjects: Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)
Journal reference: Physics Letters B 676, 21 (2009)
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2009.04.060
Cite as: arXiv:0901.4005v2 [astro-ph.CO]
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
isnt Quantum mechanics based on Plank's constant...Thats going to ruin a lot of careers if its right!
 
Not convinced since it ignores the MOND literature. The approach of MOND is "we don't know what is causing the rotation curves so we try to fit the rotation curves to some gravity rule" and they haven't gotten a general gravity rule that works.

There's also this statement, which is false

---Galaxy luminous masses and sizes being not well known, we adjusted M and r0 to best fit the data.

Galaxy luminous masses and sizes are quite well known. The problem is that if you use the measured masses rather than just try curve fitting, then you find that you don't get a single gravity rule.
 
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...

Similar threads

Back
Top