Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dark Matter need not be for a stable Universe! Sez'an'amateur

  1. Jun 24, 2005 #1
    There are several scientists (including Stephen Hawking) who made calculations about our Galaxy rotation and mass.... The only stable Milky Way construct they were able to come up with had to include in it's calculation the so called "Dark Matter" .... As I am a realist I just can take seriously anything that strikes me as "Voodoo Magic" like "Dark Matter"... So I want to surmise to your judgment this speculation (that's all it is) .... It is said that without the "DM" the fringes of our MW would have been blown in the intergalactic space long ago.... I say that I can ELIMINATE DM from their calculations if we would have instead of the Matter of the Universe expanding just The Space expanding ... How about instead of a quick Big Bang.... A Slow (still continuing) Soft Bang of Space. And perhaps that would eliminate the singularity at the beginning as virtual particles would become real particles... I believe that we are now still Banging and the intervening space created thus could b used as a balancing power in many ways including against the ultimate collapse. Design for the "strong antropic principle"? ...
    I am an amateur... nothing serious here... just a thought.... :blushing:
    However it does strike me that we humans always detested (or afraid... or avoiding) darkness (we evolved and survived because of light) so there is no wonder that we would discount any conscious thinking about the Dark Expanding when we are enmeshed with the power of light and real-matter. Nevertheless we could give it a try in this forum…. I would love to hear your opinions pro or against such delusion… Bring it on !!! :surprised
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 24, 2005 #2

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Timestill

    I say that I can ELIMINATE DM from their calculations if we would have instead of the Matter of the Universe expanding just The Space expanding ... How about instead of a quick Big Bang.... A

    So how do you account for red shift?
     
  4. Jun 24, 2005 #3
    Red shift is due to the doppler effect.... not Dark Matter....
     
  5. Jun 24, 2005 #4
    The Doppler effect is based on 'distance and speed' (simple terms) The space expanding would account for both distance and speed ..... A race car on the track ... the track is expanding and the car sits still .... u still observe a Doppler effect as the distance increases.... from your own point of reference..... It is known that the further the galaxies are from us the faster they move>>> the more red-shifted they are (so it could be that the space expansion increases with time)...
     
  6. Jun 24, 2005 #5

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Your theory is, alas, a delusion. The phenomena we know as "dark matter" is well constrained by experimental evidence. Hundreds of galaxies follow particular patterns. While there is more than theory that can explain those patterns, and not all involve dark matter itself, your theory doesn't come even close to fitting the data.
     
  7. Jun 24, 2005 #6

    Art

    User Avatar

    How would space expanding explain why the stars and gas on the rim of a galaxy rotate at the same speed as matter near the hub without being expelled?
    BTW I'm not personally too convinved by the DM halo theory surmised to account for this but how does your idea nullify it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
  8. Jun 25, 2005 #7
     
  9. Jun 25, 2005 #8
    You can consider the "small universal constant" (notion that has been revived through mathematical calculation by Hawking) as being the effect of space expanding...
     
  10. Jun 25, 2005 #9

    As to your second point I could suggest that space expanding from all sides (4d space time) it would nullify it. Outside galaxy space expanding would cancel out the potential of clusters on the MW fringe from getting out of the spiral fringes. As a star creates a 'dimple' of curvature in space time continuum .... so would space expanding would create a 'bubble' in the same time-space pushing back .....
     
  11. Jun 25, 2005 #10
    Let's see the formal mathematics then. I don't make scientific physics judgements on prose.
     
  12. Jun 25, 2005 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    OK timestill, you seem to be saying that you have an idea that does away with not only dark matter in spiral galaxies, but also re-writes the concordance model within the Big Bang Theory.

    Let's take your DM idea first. Instead of just waving your hands around, how about you show that your idea nicely reproduces the observed rotation curves for the spirals for which we have good data? Oh, and while you're at it, please show that your idea doesn't require 're-explaining' lots of stuff already well-accounted for, such as the motion of the Sun around the MW centre.

    Next, you probably know that most of the DM in the universe is in rich clusters of galaxies, not the halos of spirals. How does your idea address this? Specifically, how does it account for the motions of galaxies in these clusters, X-rays data on temperature, pressure and composition of the IGM, and the Sunyaez-Zel'dovich effect?

    Finally, since you're re-writing cosmology, please let us know how you account for:
    - the CMBR, including the acoustic spectrum
    - the Hubble relationship
    - the abundance of light nuclides
    - large scale structure.

    If you have difficulty with just what any of these mean, please take the time and trouble to read some of the excellent threads in PF's General Astronomy and Cosmology section.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Dark Matter need not be for a stable Universe! Sez'an'amateur
  1. Dark matter? (Replies: 18)

  2. Dark matter (Replies: 5)

  3. Dark matter black hole (Replies: 19)

Loading...