Doubt on Dark Matter

[Graybeard]

Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong
Full story at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730

Having been sceptical about the earlier understanding of Dark Matter (and even more so about "Dark Energy") I welcome this new approach but even so, it progresses us but little.

Scientists' predictions about the mysterious dark matter purported to make up most of the mass of the Universe may have to be revised.

Research on dwarf galaxies suggests they cannot form in the way they do if dark matter exists in the form that the most common model requires it to. The current theory holds that around 4% of the Universe is made up of normal matter - the stuff of stars, planets and people - and around 21% of it is dark matter. The remainder is made up of what is known as dark energy, an even less understood hypothetical component of the Universe that would explain its ever-increasing expansion.
[…]
Prof Carlos Frenk at Durham University, [and] The team found that the final results of these simulations did not at all match what we observe. The models showed many more small galaxies in a wide halo around the Milky Way, whereas in reality there are fewer, larger dwarf galaxies.
But he believes […] the Universe may instead be filled with warm dark matter (WDM), […]as the particles would be lighter and more energetic.

Prof Frenk explained that there is no definitive proof yet that the dark matter theories need a "paradigm shift", but he remains positive that an answer will be found soon.
"Dark matter is poised for big developments in the next few months," he said.

[Cyberia]

These results need to be confirmed and reviewed, but if valid, they place constraints on aspects of DM behavior....and that's very valuable information.  Don't skip ahead though and think that DM isn't real.  It's DEFINITELY there, with high confidence, and it's composed of undiscovered elementary particles.  FOR SURE.  There are peaks in the CMB corresponding to both the Matter and DM components of the early universe, in addition to a plethora of clues from other unrelated studies.

Dark Energy?  Sigh.  We only really know that something odd is happening.  There is a fairly high-confidence, but not certainty, that the effect is real and not observational/systemic errors.

[Omega]

Dark matter-energy is just broad term to describe something about what we have no clue.

Unfortunately I cant find how much mass of universe consists of light an neutrinos. in form of background radiation.

I personally do not see any reason why 2 terms are needed to describe one unknown thing.
Generally dark matter is something that holds galaxies together while doing nothing more  and dark energy is supposedly doing what we do not  know if it is even happening.

it is assumed that dark matter is clustered, while dark energy is absolutely uniform. but there is no reason to assume that dark energy is not clustered then we do not need dark matter at all.

I think it is mostly historical stuff, because dark mater was invented to describe why galaxies do not fall apart. then it was discovered that universe is "expanding" and dark energy is thought to be causing that expansion
so instead fusing them both into one both remain to exist.

[ungod]

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

[Nam]

I think I read something recently similar to this but it was way over my head so I forget what it was.  It did sound interesting to me but it was way over my head.

-Nam

[jaimehlers]

Hm, I remember reading a site by a scientist who claimed that he could show that scientific evidence worked against an ancient Earth and for an extremely young universe (thus 'proving' Creationism).  While "the big bang never happened" doesn't appear to be about a religious context, it still has the same problem that his ideas claim both that the Big Bang theory 'obviously' contradicts the existing evidence and that his theory explains it considerably better.  Except that it apparently doesn't explain the biggest thing that speaks against a cosmologically stable universe, the redshift that can be seen from objects outside the galaxy.

I would be extremely surprised if the Big Bang theory were perfect as it stands, but so far, the basic idea explains things in a remarkably effective way.

[Truth OT]

Hm, I remember reading a site by a scientist who claimed that he could show that scientific evidence worked against an ancient Earth and for an extremely young universe (thus 'proving' Creationism).  While "the big bang never happened" doesn't appear to be about a religious context, it still has the same problem that his ideas claim both that the Big Bang theory 'obviously' contradicts the existing evidence and that his theory explains it considerably better.  Except that it apparently doesn't explain the biggest thing that speaks against a cosmologically stable universe, the redshift that can be seen from objects outside the galaxy.

I would be extremely surprised if the Big Bang theory were perfect as it stands, but so far, the basic idea explains things in a remarkably effective way.

It seems there are a few differening opinions on the acceptance of the BBT. Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern, who inspired and started the following website: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp and others like Julian Barbour, who's ideas are discussed here: http://platonia.com/ideas.html are among those who also doubt the validity of the current BBT.

[Cyberia]

Dark matter-energy is just broad term to describe something about what we have no clue.

We have a clue, but yes, it's a placeholder term.  Here Be Dragons....

Unfortunately I cant find how much mass of universe consists of light an neutrinos. in form of background radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang
Most of the radiation energy in the universe is in the cosmic microwave background,[10] making up a fraction of roughly 6×10^-5 of the total density of the universe.[11]

I can't find the neutrino estimates, but its something close to 1% or less.

I personally do not see any reason why 2 terms are needed to describe one unknown thing.

Two different phenomenon?  One attractive, one repulsive.

it is assumed that dark matter is clustered, while dark energy is absolutely uniform. but there is no reason to assume that dark energy is not clustered then we do not need dark matter at all.

There are reasons DM is "assumed" to be clustered.  There are reasons why DE is "assumed" to be uniform.  The reasons are that those "assumptions" are consistent with observation, whereas the reverse isn't true.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities.

"Confirmation" is a bit of a loaded term with this guy, I suspect.  We have a great deal of consistent, but indirect evidence for the existence of these things.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results.

Not True.  Neutrino?  So, excluding the times scientists were right, the are wrong.  Uh....

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR).

Right, but the CMB is isotropic.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other).

Oddly enough, a number of independent works also predict ~20x the amount of matter in the universe.  Proof?  Nope, but suspicious.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

Now he's just making things up and putting sciency sounding words together.  "Hey Look a star older than the universe!" ---> Nobel Prize.  Yea, sure, such obvious contradictory evidence is being ignored by the WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, sure.

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Again, Nobel prize if this "discovery" is true........waiting....waiting......

It seems there are a few differening opinions on the acceptance of the BBT. Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern, who inspired and started the following website: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

He's an idiot.  He can't even COUNT.  He claims 30 reasons, yet lists just 10.

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

Really??!  Really?!!!  (Head in Hands)

(2)  The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

I don't even know where to begin on this one..... Oh look, someone did it for me: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html

No.

(4)  The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls.

Everyone read this part, then read it again.  Compare the bolded part to the second part.  He makes a claim, then contradicts himself matter-of-factly.  In order for the universe to have assembled into the structures we see, it would take the entire history of the universe.  Shocking, yes.

More to the point, observation matches theory?  Shocking!

I can't go on with this guy, he's an idiot.

[ungod]

It seems there are a few differening opinions on the acceptance of the BBT. Dr. Thomas C. Van Flandern, who inspired and started the following website: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp and others like Julian Barbour, who's ideas are discussed here: http://platonia.com/ideas.html are among those who also doubt the validity of the current BBT.

Thank you for those links. Enjoy reading that which supports my own bias. And then, along comes the equally persuasive rebuttal, and one is again at the starting gate, not knowing what to believe.
Maybe a shrug and "Gawd dunnit" IS the easy way out.   

[Mr. Blackwell]

Now he's just making things up and putting sciency sounding words together.  "Hey Look a star older than the universe!" ---> Nobel Prize.  Yea, sure, such obvious contradictory evidence is being ignored by the WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, sure.

which logical fallacy did you just use? I ask because your rebuttal does nothing to help me understand why his claim is false.

[Cyberia]

which logical fallacy did you just use? I ask because your rebuttal does nothing to help me understand why his claim is false.

If any star could be dated to an age older than 13.72 billion years old, then Big Bang Cosmology would obviously be facing a major problem, and the discovering team would be receiving Nobel Prizes.  No such uproar exists because no such stars have been found.

Claims have been made by some astronomy teams that such a star had been found, approximately 14-15 billion years old, and the team did what scientists are supposed to do: double-check their work, search for errors and if none are found publish their work for peer-review.  So they published everything they had and waited.  Within a month or two the scientific community reviewed their work and found a few possible sources of error.  So the team took these into account and found that the star was 13.2 billion years old.  Still a major discovery, but NOT older than the universe. HE_1523-0901

The web page sited references a published article, but ignores that the article did NOT pass peer-review.

His claim that about a static universe uses this same trick.  Sure, in 1917, observations supported a static-state model, but then Edwin Hubble came along and disproved that in 1925.  That was one of the most important discoveries made about the universe, and oops, he left that part out.

[Mr. Blackwell]

@ cyberia

Thanks!

[jaimehlers]

Cyberia:  I think you misread this argument:  "Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy."  What that seems to say is that the presumed age of the universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory, would be less than ~14 billion years without dark energy to increase the rate of expansion.  The problem with that conclusion is that the rate of expansion seems to actually be increasing, which is why we have the concept of dark energy in the first place.

There are two major problems that I see with the plasma cosmology theory; first, the COBE^Wiki and WMAP^Wiki probes provided strong evidence of the CMR's blackbody curve, confirming the Big Bang theory's prediction of said curve to a high degree of accuracy.  The second is that I have not seen any explanation of the cosmic redshift in anything I've looked at relating to plasma cosmology[1]

1.	That doesn't mean there is nothing, it just means that I haven't found anything about it.

[Cyberia]

Dark Energy has NEVER been part of Big Bang models until very recently, and isn't expected to have any significant contribution to early cosmological development, unless it is related to Inflation.  As you note it was only recently discovered, and only slightly deviates the expansion rate upward, and only on non-gravitationally bound situations.  An earlier, smaller universe would have been more gravitationally interactive and so Dark Energy would have been negligible.  Or in other words, DE appears to be making the Voids grow faster, but a smaller universe has fewer and smaller voids.

Expansion rates, CMB redshift, elemental abundance, large-scale structure all point to a consistent 13.75 billion year old universe, and NOTHING, anywhere, of any type, has been found to be older than that date.

Regarding Plasma Cosmology, not only would Redshifts be HIGHLY anisotropic, because the plasma (in his theory) permeates space and so it would absorb starlight and re-radiate it with a new redshift....but on top of that the Black-body curve would be spiky due to the presence of other materials/elements and those spikes would give information on what that material was.

But those spikes aren't present in the CMB black body curve, and the anisotropies are very, very small (ie: it's uniform to within millionths of a degree)

[jaimehlers]

I'm not arguing about the age of the universe; I just think that he was saying that Big Bang theory would predict a younger universe than that.  Personally, I find that to be doubtful, especially because he apparently does a really poor job of explaining why that's the case.  He didn't cover it as far as I can tell, which means it's nothing more than an assertion.

[Cyberia]

Agreed

[Mr. Blackwell]

I have read that the speed of light has not been constant. How would that fact change our observations of the universe?

[Cyberia]

I have read that the speed of light has not been constant. How would that fact change our observations of the universe?

Well, first there is no evidence for this at all, and proofs exist that even IF it did occur, it could only be at most by 10^-17 per year.

Second, it's not as simple as you might think, as the Speed of Light can be derived from Maxwell's Equations regarding quantum electric charge.  Since the photon is the force carrier for EM, it would have serious consequences for ALL matter in the universe.

c cannot be arbitrarily redefined as creationists like to believe without changing EVERYTHING.

[Mr. Blackwell]

Well, first there is no evidence for this at all,

  Yes, there is evidence. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

Second, it's not as simple as you might think, as the Speed of Light can be derived from Maxwell's Equations regarding quantum electric charge.  Since the photon is the force carrier for EM, it would have serious consequences for ALL matter in the universe.

I understand enough to know that nothing about physics is "simple".

c cannot be arbitrarily redefined as creationists like to believe without changing EVERYTHING.

creationists think you can just change the definition of constants?

My question still stands. If light from the first quasars are traveling at a different rate than younger, closer ones...how would that affect our observations? You may treat this as a hypothetical if it helps.

[ungod]

Funny how science never mentions the amount of supernatural matter in the universe....

[jaimehlers]

Funny how science never mentions the amount of supernatural matter in the universe....

That's cause science assumes that everything in the universe is natural, even that which we do not understand.

[Cyberia]

Yes, there is evidence. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

My question still stands. If light from the first quasars are traveling at a different rate than younger, closer ones...how would that affect our observations? You may treat this as a hypothetical if it helps.

I haven't forgotten about this, I've just been busy and honestly been trying to work out a response that is clear and generally understandable to everyone.

[Cyberia]

Part of my delay in responding to this question was trying to figure out a way to explain the Fine Structure Constant in layterms, and to do so without coming off as rude or dismissive.  It's NOT a impertinent question at all, but it's not easy to explain.

Here's a quote by Richard Feynman on the Fine-Structure Constant:

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e - the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

The FSC is like Pi, or Euler's Identity.  It's even deeper that the Speed of Light, and we have absolutely no idea what it means, except we know it's REALLY IMPORTANT™.

Yes, there is evidence. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/research/PWAPR03webb.pdf

This isn't evidence....yet.  It's maybe evidence.  First of all, ONLY this team has produced these results, and even they openly are troubled that ALL their data was obtained via one instrument and that opens the door wide for a systemic issue of some kind related to their telescope.  They considered this, looked for a problem and couldn't find one, but even they admit that doesn't mean there is certainty in their results.  We need independent confirmation from other teams.

Second, other teams HAVE tried to reproduce these results, several times, and they get mixed results.  One team says NO, another says YES, several others say MAYBE, yet another team using a totally different approach says HARD NO, cannot be true.  Also, I'm NOT AT ALL casting doubts on the team that discovered this data.  They are good scientists doing the right thing, we just aren't sure yet if what they found is REAL.

At present there is no firm confirmation of their results, let alone peer-reviewed consensus on their conclusions.

Third, they are measuring the Fine Structure Constant, NOT the speed of light.  Now, the speed of light is one of the components of the FSC, but so are other fundamental constants like the Plank Constant.  So even if these results are true, further experiments would need to be done to isolate which one(s) are changing within the FSC.

Contrast this with the High-Z Supernova Team that recently discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating.  They published results, that frankly were equally dubious at first, but then EVERYONE was able to confirm their findings with multiple independent telescopes and methodologies.

Fourth, this effect isn't predicted or measured in high-energy experiments like the LHC or other accelerators.  Even if the universal conditions necessary for this effect no longer exist, we should be able to reproduce these in a lab.  Remember, if the speed of light changed, SOMETHING was driving that change: mass density, energy density, something.  Such an effect should still be reproduceable, although maybe we haven't been looking for it in the right way....

Finally, it's conceivably plausible that during those first fractions of a second after the Big Bang that the speed of light changed.  We don't expect it to, but if it did THAT'S where it would happen, not millions of years later, and the effects of that could possibly produce results similar to Inflationary models so it may be a second option to Inflation.

creationists think you can just change the definition of constants?

Oh yea, they think it could have taken on any arbitrary value because it's a "fundamental constant", and God "picked" the "right" one.  They don't have any idea what they are talking about and it shows.

My question still stands. If light from the first quasars are traveling at a different rate than younger, closer ones...how would that affect our observations? You may treat this as a hypothetical if it helps.

It's a good question.  I honestly don't know.  Rate is a ratio of distance / time.  Did light move a greater distance in the same amount of time, or did it move the same amount in a lesser amount of time.  Was "distance" changing or was "time" changing?  Is it even possible to distinguish these two from the rate-data alone?  (I doubt it)

[Illuminatus99]

I had an interesting thought about dark energy. We know that the solar wind exerts outward pressure on the solar system, it's not much but it's enough to push a solar sail. There's also neutrinos traveling and very weakly interacting with matter. Maybe dark energy is simply the pressure from all the photons and neutrinos pushing everything apart.

I'm betting if you put a pair of flashlight in space with a nearly infinite power supply pointed at each other they would slowly push each other apart. It wouldn't be much but after a few billion years they'd probably get going pretty fast and continue to accelerate.

[Mr. Blackwell]

@ Cyberia

Thanks for the engaging explanation. I still have a few questions for you but I must take some time to make sure they are coherent. Whether it is fortuitous or not, your answer only generated more questions in my mind 

[Historicity]

Funny how science never mentions the amount of supernatural matter in the universe....

Because science is natural philosophy and investigates things that can be examined.

Are there Jinn and orders of angels floating in the universe?  Or deified Taoists?  Or do the stars contain colonies of souls?  What would be the "scientific" investigation of these?

Supernatural means something that cannot be investigated because it is not natural.  Its only investigative methods are dreams.

The dark matter was because the galaxies are rotating at a speed such that the inertia would pull them apart if there was not some additional gravitational force spread as a diffuse cloud.

[Cyberia]

I had an interesting thought about dark energy. We know that the solar wind exerts outward pressure on the solar system, it's not much but it's enough to push a solar sail.

The Solar Wind isn't just photons (Light Pressure), it's protons (hydrogen), and alpha particles (helium) and more.  It's also extremely small in magnitude, it (hypothetically) could barely push a
lightweight spaceship. Additionally, the VAST majority of the "thrust" would be acquired while the ship was within the inner system.  Once you passed the Heliopause, the solar wind STOPS.

If Solar Wind and/or Light Pressure had the magnitude required to produce the effect we see at great distances, then ALL galaxies would have "blown" themselves apart.

There's also neutrinos traveling and very weakly interacting with matter. Maybe dark energy is simply the pressure from all the photons and neutrinos pushing everything apart.

A single neutrino can pass through a block of LEAD that is THREE LIGHT-YEARS THICK and not hit a single atom.  Damn buggers are hard to detect.

Now, let me blow your mind:  Do you know what actually blows apart stars that are supernovaing?

Neutrinos.

This is because the shock wave produced by the core-collapse of the star creates an outward moving spherical shell around the core with densities high enough to STOP a significant fraction of the neutrinos.  Think about that, especially in relation to the Lead comment above.

That's dense!  Even denser than the average creationist.

Anyway, it's called Supernova Neutrino Modulation and it is being actively researched, as it would tell us DIRECT information about the interior of the supernovae event.

I'm betting if you put a pair of flashlight in space with a nearly infinite power supply pointed at each other they would slowly push each other apart. It wouldn't be much but after a few billion years they'd probably get going pretty fast and continue to accelerate.

That is true.  However it's AWFUL propulsion mechanism given that you have a nearly infinite power supply.

"Nearly infinite power supplies" often derail hypothetical discussions.

[Cyberia]

The dark matter was because the galaxies are rotating at a speed such that the inertia would pull them apart if there was not some additional gravitational force spread as a diffuse cloud.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but that's incorrect.

The outer arms of our galaxy and most galaxies are moving too fast.  They are moving just as fast as the inner parts of the spiral arms.  Almost as if the galaxy was a giant vinyl record.  This violates Newtonian gravity, General Relativity and Kepler's Laws.  The only explanations are that our understanding of gravity is wrong at large scales (not likely because all other observations repeatedly support GR) OR that there exists a spherical halo of Dark Matter particles outside the arms pulling them out and speeding them up.

We KNOW they are particles with certainty, because electrically neutral particles don't clump up.  (Neutron stars are a special-case exemption that wouldn't apply here.)

[kin hell]

A single neutrino can pass through a block of LEAD that is THREE LIGHT-YEARS THICK and not hit a single atom.  Damn buggers are hard to detect.

Now, let me blow your mind:  Do you know what actually blows apart stars that are supernovaing?

Neutrinos.

This is because the shock wave produced by the core-collapse of the star creates an outward moving spherical shell around the core with densities high enough to STOP a significant fraction of the neutrinos.  Think about that, especially in relation to the Lead comment above.

That's dense!  Even denser than the average creationist.

Anyway, it's called Supernova Neutrino Modulation and it is being actively researched, as it would tell us DIRECT information about the interior of the supernovae event.

Cyberia et al   again I find myself reading this thread at the very edge of my uneducated comprehension, dreading every link to be clicked exposing to myself how little I know.

I wouldn't miss it for the world, and then the sublime insertion of humour.............


funny

...and I love puzzles  enigmatic numbers   how classic that god claimed the alpha so early, and we have as much trouble defining a real/constant alpha value today irl.


Anyway I just wanted to say thanks to you for the great lay.