Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Curves

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the explanation for galaxy rotation curves, particularly the discrepancies between observed velocities of stars in galaxies and predictions based on visible matter. Participants explore various hypotheses, including the role of dark matter, the potential influence of supermassive black holes, and alternative gravitational models.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that dark matter is necessary to explain the faster-than-expected rotation of outer stars, while others question whether larger black holes at the centers of galaxies could account for these velocities.
  • One participant suggests that the inner stars match expected orbital speeds from visible matter, raising the question of why the focus is on outer stars being too fast rather than inner stars being too slow.
  • Another participant notes that the orbital speed of stars flattens out at large distances, which would not occur if more mass were concentrated in the center.
  • Some participants express confusion about how adding mass at the center could resolve issues with mass density at larger radii.
  • Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is mentioned as a potential adjustment to gravitational laws for outer stars, with a suggestion to consider adjustments for inner stars instead.
  • Several participants emphasize that the visible mass is sufficient to explain the velocities of outer stars, questioning the need for more complex models.
  • There is a contention regarding whether the idea of attributing mass to a supermassive black hole has been adequately considered, with some arguing it does not match observations and thus merits no further consideration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the explanations for galaxy rotation curves. There is no consensus on the validity of attributing the observed phenomena to dark matter versus supermassive black holes or other models.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex astrophysical concepts, and some responses indicate a misunderstanding or lack of engagement with previous answers, leading to repeated questions. The discussion reflects ongoing debates in astrophysics regarding galaxy dynamics and the nature of dark matter.

sha1000
Messages
125
Reaction score
6
TL;DR
Op wonders about the possibility that larger-than-expected black holes at galaxy centers could explain the rotational speeds of stars
The existence of dark matter was initially proposed to address discrepancies between observed galaxy rotation curves and the expected behavior dictated by our current understanding of gravity. Typically, it's argued that stars at the edges of galaxies rotate faster than expected, leading to theories about the presence of dark matter to explain the gravitational forces at play.

However, has there been significant research into the possibility of significantly larger black holes at the centers of galaxies?
Could the high mass of these hypothetical super-black-holes be actually consistent with the rotational speeds of outer stars. And maybe the real problem comes from the velocity of inner stars, which are too slow due to some unknown mechanisms.

Is there any fundamental reason why this hypothesis can not even be considered? Or maybe you are aware of some papers which explored this kind of scenarios. I would appreciate if you could share them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To make it as simple as possible. I am wondering: Why when we look at the galaxy rotational curves, our first reaction is to say: "oh, the outer stars are way too fast" and not "oh, the inner stars are way too slow"..
 
The inner stars match the orbital speed expected from visible matter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK, sha1000 and Vanadium 50
In addition, the issue is that orbital speed flattens out rather than decreasing at large distances, where there is essentially very little visible matter. This would not be the case with more mass in the center.
 
Since this is A-level, if the mass density with radius is higher than expected at large radius, how can adding mass at small radius fix things?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Since this is A-level, if the mass density with radius is higher than expected at large radius, how can adding mass at small radius fix things?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the OP doesn't really want replies at the graduate school level. I've bumped the thread prefix down to "I" (undergraduate) just now.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory and sha1000
sha1000 said:
To make it as simple as possible. I am wondering: Why when we look at the galaxy rotational curves, our first reaction is to say: "oh, the outer stars are way too fast" and not "oh, the inner stars are way too slow"..
Maybe that's not just a first reaction. Maybe some people have spent years of their lives studying the data? Not everyone is an armchair physicist!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory, sha1000 and berkeman
Orodruin said:
The inner stars match the orbital speed expected from visible matter.
Thanks for the response.
To explain the velocities of outer stars, scientists propose the existence of dark matter, uniformly distributed throughout galaxies. However, why not attribute all this mass to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy instead? This could also potentially account for the fast-moving outer stars.

But in this case. If we consider this additonal mass at the galaxy's center, the question would be: why then do outer stars move slower than expected? Could it be that gravitational forces behave differently near such massive objects?

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) suggests adjustments to gravitational laws for outer stars. Could we alternatively consider adjusting the gravitational laws for inner stars, assuming that the mass attributed to dark matter is actually concentrated in the galaxy's center?

Is there a specific reason this possibility has been ruled out?
 
PeroK said:
Maybe that's not just a first reaction. Maybe some people have spent years of their lives studying the data? Not everyone is an armchair physicist!

I'm not trying to be arrogant.

This is exactly why I'm asking why such possibilities have not been considered. What could be the fundamental reason to dismiss this idea without consideration?

Is it simply because the visible mass is sufficient to account for the velocities of outer stars, so why complicate things further?
 
  • #10
sha1000 said:
However, why not attribute all this mass to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy instead?
I already told you:
Orodruin said:
In addition, the issue is that orbital speed flattens out rather than decreasing at large distances, where there is essentially very little visible matter. This would not be the case with more mass in the center.
Please read the answers provided.

sha1000 said:
What could be the fundamental reason to dismiss this idea without consideration?
Simple: It doesn't match observations. It therefore merits no further consideration.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeterDonis, Vanadium 50 and phinds
  • #11
sha1000 said:
This is exactly why I'm asking why such possibilities have not been considered. What could be the fundamental reason to dismiss this idea without consideration?
To put it slightly differently from Orodruin, it has been considered. The problem with a "visible matter only" model of a galaxy is not just that it doesn't spin fast enough, but also that the orbital velocity drops off too rapidly with distance from the center compared to reality. Adding more mass to the center of this model makes the drop off steeper, not flatter, so it makes the model less like observation, not more.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sha1000
  • #12
sha1000 said:
I'm not trying to be arrogant.
Orodruin said:
I already told you:
Perhaps you see the problem.

You asked a question, got an answer, and then asked the original question again. You might reread the answers and then if you have questions, ask questions about the answers you got, rather than just repeating them. Otherwise, its unlikely this excgange will get you where you want to go.
 
  • #13
sha1000 said:
I'm not trying to be arrogant.
Maybe you don't think you are, but when you repeat a question that has already been answered, without any indication that you've actually read and understood the answers, that's what it looks like.

sha1000 said:
This is exactly why I'm asking why such possibilities have not been considered. What could be the fundamental reason to dismiss this idea without consideration?
You were already told why the idea was not dismissed "without consideration".

Your question has been answered and this thread is now closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K