Has anyone done a PPN formalism on Dark Matter? Or other non-GR?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Parameterized Post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism to dark matter and the exploration of whether gravity between dark matter and baryonic matter operates under General Relativity (GR) or through other mechanisms. Participants consider the implications of symmetry breaking in various contexts, including the relationship between dark matter, baryonic matter, and dark energy.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the fine-tuning of dark matter may result from symmetry breaking rather than being a statistical anomaly, linking this to the definitions of temperature and the separation of quantum mechanics from general relativity.
  • Another participant questions whether gravity between dark matter and baryonic matter could operate through quantum gravitons instead of GR, proposing that this could lead to discrepancies in mass calculations derived from different methods.
  • Some participants assert that dark matter is inherently tied to GR, claiming that its PPN parameters align with those of GR.
  • There is a contention regarding the applicability of GR in the context of dark matter studies, with one participant arguing that many dark matter theories effectively revert to Newtonian gravity under certain assumptions, which may overlook significant GR effects.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for clarity in addressing the original question posed by the thread starter, suggesting that misinterpretations may hinder productive discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between dark matter and GR, with some asserting that dark matter adheres to GR principles while others propose alternative explanations. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the role of PPN formalism and the nature of gravity in dark matter interactions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex interactions between GR and Newtonian approximations, and there are unresolved questions about the applicability of PPN formalism to dark matter phenomena. The implications of symmetry breaking and the potential for alternative models are also highlighted but not fully explored.

mollwollfumble
Messages
34
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Any signs of a factor of two difference between Dark Matter mass calculated using gravitational lensing vs calculated from the virial theorem?
This thought surprisingly came from thinking about the definition of temperature and the symmetry breaking that separated time from temperature. Which led to thoughts about symmetry breaking that separated QM from GR. Which led to to the symmetry breaking that separated dark energy from baryonic matter from dark matter. ie. the fine tuning there may be a result of symmetry breaking rather than just a statistical freak.

Although gravity between baryonic matter and baryonic matter has been confirmed using Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism to agree to high accuracy with General Relativity, I haven't seen evidence confirming that gravity between Dark Matter and baryonic matter acts using General Relativity.

Gravity between DM and baryonic matter could, for instance, act through gravitons in QM rather than through GR. If so, then the DM mass calculated from the virial theorem would differ by a factor of two from that calculated by gravitational lensing. Has this been tested? Any signs of a factor of two difference between Dark Matter mass calculated using different methods?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke
Physics news on Phys.org
Dark Matter is GR. So its PPN parameters are the same as GR's.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Vanadium 50 said:
Dark Matter is GR. So its PPN parameters are the same as GR's.
Dark matter theories, at the galaxy and galaxy cluster scale where a lot of the study of DM is being done, aren't really GR. They are really just straight up Newtonian gravity justified by the assumption that GR effects are negligible, which literature being discussing in a different PF thread right now, disputes.

I think what the OP is really asking is whether the improvements on unmodified Newtonian gravity used to approximate GR in most astronomy applications from the Post-Newtonian expansion (or equivalently, the PPN with GR parameters) could reproduce dark matter effects without resort to dark matter.

In other words, if considering some of the GR effects neglected in a purely Newtonian approximation, without using the mathematically intractable fully GR without any simplifying assumptions, as the post-Newtonian expansion and PPN with standard GR parameters do, could explain or partially explain phenomena usually attributed to dark matter.

The main non-Newtonian effects in GR which have been proposed to possibly account for phenomena in galaxies and galaxy clusters that are attributed dark matter have been gravitational field self-interactions and the GEM (gravitomagentic) effects that are both well recognized but have historically been discounted in weak field galaxy and galaxy cluster systems.

I'm not certain whether the PN expansion or PPN approach captures these GR specific effects in a way that would work for galaxy and galaxy cluster scale systems. But I think that this is what the OP wants to know.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Maarten Havinga
ohwilleke said:
I think what the OP is really asking
Then let him ask it. Answering questions he didn't ask rather than the one he did ask is unlikely to be helpful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
23K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
16K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K