What Keeps the Galaxy Intact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peralta_Man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the question of what keeps the galaxy intact, highlighting that gravity alone is insufficient to hold it together at its current spin rate. The prevailing explanation is the existence of dark matter, an unseen mass that provides the necessary gravitational force. Experts have identified potential candidates for dark matter, such as MACHOs and WIMPs, but its exact composition remains unknown. Some alternative theories, like MOND, suggest modifications to gravity rather than the existence of dark matter, but these lack strong experimental support. Overall, the search for dark matter continues to be a significant focus in high-energy physics.
Peralta_Man
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Just recently, I heard that at the speed the galaxy is currently spinning gravity alone is not a strong enough force to hold everything together. If that is true, what is the extra force that keeps the galaxy together?
 
Space news on Phys.org
What you probably heard was that the mass of the galaxy estimated from counting the visible stars is not enough to keep it spinning at the measured speed.
The proposed solution is that there is extra mass in the galaxy in the form of dark matter which we can't see but has enough 'weight' to provide the extra gravity
 
thanks! even though i don't know much about dark matter, that really does help allot.
 
Peralta_Man said:
i don't know much about dark matter,

It's okay, neither do the experts. ;)

Well, that's a lie, they know more-less where it should be, how much of it should be there, and what are some likely candidates for it, but what makes it up isn't sure yet. Lots of experiments being done to figure that out.
 
Dark matter has never been detected in a laboratory. Names for particles which could make up dark matter go by exotic names, such as MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects), WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), and more exotic things like neutralinos etc.

Experimental high energy physicists are particularly keen to find new particles which could make up the dark matter content of the universe.

Alternate theories posit that dark matter does not exist, but that gravity is incorrect for very small accelerations (effectively, there is a minimum possible acceleration in the universe which is non-zero). These theories are collectively referred to as MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics), although no generative theory exists yet, and experimental evidence is rather against it.
 
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##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top