Why Does Dark Matter Appear Scale Variant in Galactic Rotation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter StationZero
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Dark matter's influence on galactic rotation differs significantly from its effects within the solar system due to scale. While galaxies rotate uniformly, the solar system's density is much higher, resulting in a minimal measurable gravitational effect from dark matter. The dark matter in the galaxy is spread thinly, becoming noticeable only at larger scales, such as tens of thousands of light years. In contrast, the solar system's size is minuscule, with dark matter density being negligible compared to the mass of celestial bodies like Pluto. This stark difference in scale explains the apparent variance in dark matter's effects across different cosmic structures.
StationZero
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
One of the principal arguments for the existence of dark mater is, of course, that galaxies rotate as if they were on a plate as opposed to the differential rotations of planets in our solar system.

My question is, if the entire galaxy is infused with this dark matter, why does it seem to be scale variant. That is, why doesn't the dark matter in our solar system cause it to rotate as if on a plate just as the larger galaxy does as a whole?
 
Space news on Phys.org
StationZero said:
One of the principal arguments for the existence of dark mater is, of course, that galaxies rotate as if they were on a plate as opposed to the differential rotations of planets in our solar system.

My question is, if the entire galaxy is infused with this dark matter, why does it seem to be scale variant. That is, why doesn't the dark matter in our solar system cause it to rotate as if on a plate just as the larger galaxy does as a whole?
The solar system is far, far more dense than most of the galaxy, and the dark matter is spread thinly throughout. So there just isn't enough dark matter in the solar system for its gravitational effect to be measurable.
 
Hmm, I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this thread. Thank you Chalnoth for that explanation but hopefully someone can offer an extended analysis. First of all, not only does this thinly spaced dark matter motivate a star at the edge of our galaxy to rotate at an absurdly high velocity, it also holds together our local group and also our local supercluster. This doesn't seem to be a trival effect. So, to eschew the effect of dark matter in our solar system for its lack of huzpah is well noted but it doesn't explain the apparent scale invariance of its effects at several other cosmological scales. Perhaps a reference would help me.

In any case, one would think that, however weak it may comparably be relative to larger scales, we might be able to detect some contribution of dark matter in the orbit of planets in our solar system?
 
StationZero said:
Hmm, I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this thread. Thank you Chalnoth for that explanation but hopefully someone can offer an extended analysis. First of all, not only does this thinly spaced dark matter motivate a star at the edge of our galaxy to rotate at an absurdly high velocity, it also holds together our local group and also our local supercluster. This doesn't seem to be a trival effect.
It's just a matter of scale. The galaxy is big, and clusters and superclusters are far, far larger.

The milky way, for instance, is tens of thousands of light years across, and you have to go a few hundred to a few thousand light years before the dark matter density becomes really apparent.

By contrast, our own solar system is less than 0.001 light years across (this is about the limit of the Kuiper belt, the large collection of icy objects out beyond the planets that supplies the inner solar system with the occasional comet). This is a massive difference in scale, and that makes a huge difference in the effect of dark matter.

This recent paper measures the local density of dark matter:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4033

To put the density in more understandable terms, this means that we currently estimate the total density of dark matter within the solar system (out to 50AU, the extent of the Kuiper belt) to be about 10^{17}kg. That may sound like a lot, but Pluto's mass is 10^{22}kg. So the total dark matter in the Solar System is estimated to be about one ten thousandth the mass of Pluto, spread over the whole 50AU out to the edge of the Kuiper belt.
 
Thanks again, Chalnoth, I'll check that out.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top