4 ms·

Can someone dumb this down for me? Were we using some sort of a model that explained extra mass away by using "dark matter" and now this guy is suggesting that

by tra3 6y ago

Can someone dumb this down for me? Were we using some sort of a model that explained extra mass away by using "dark matter" and now this guy is suggesting that we use a different model that fits the observations neatly?

ChuckMcM 6y ago
Here's my take on it, I don't have a doctorate in physics so its really just my understanding having read the linked paper. If you're a galaxy spinning around, as one does, and you use simple Newtownian physics to calculate the orbits, then there is a problem because at the velocity things are moving, they should be moving apart. And yet they are what appears to be otherwise stable orbits around the galactic center. So to solve that conundrum, one postulation has been that there is more mass in the galaxy than we can see. Since we can only see things that either emit light, or occlude things that are emitting light, that missing matter has been dubbed "dark." The paper, on the other hand, says "No, the force holding this thing together is the result of graviomagnetic forces generated by the masses moving around." (not something Newton ever considered, and really only comes into play at very large scales and very large velocities) If you accept the mathematics and the model in the paper, then it means you don't need dark matter to explain galaxy shape, which would mean that a number of physics Phds work is incorrect in describing what is going on.
johncolanduoni 6y ago
Yes, the author appears to have overcome some limitations in existing models of galaxy rotation that incorporate gravitomagnetic effects (yes, others have thought of this before unlike Scott Locklin suggests and the paper even cites them). The claim is that these existing models were over-simplified to make them solvable: the less-simplified model proposed in this paper is much harder to solve but the author is an expert in mathematically similar effects in magnetohydrodynamics and appears to have found a solution. There are other astronomical observations that we still don’t have as good an explanation for (e.g. certain gravitational lensing observations) but this is a step in the direction of being able to dismiss the need for dark matter from our cosmological theories.
sbahsva 6y ago
The article says that the derivation showing the need for “dark matter” are based on the wrong set of equations - equations much easier to solve, but are only correct for simpler systems ( The correct equations are mathematically similar to Maxwell’s equations - and plasma physicists are the meanest mofos there is when it comes to E&M. No short cuts there. So some plasma physicist tried to find what the dark mass of the universe is of the correct set of equations are used. He was surprised that the solution doesn’t exist. When he solved it, he found out that dark matter doesn’t exist.
frongpik 6y ago
Spinning masses produce gravitational waves that are described by the same equations that describe magnets (a peculiar coincidence, to say at least). If galaxy cores didn't spin, stars in the galaxies would fly away as they are moving way too fast, but thanks to that additional gravitomagnetic effect, the stars experience the additional pull to the center. Hypothetically, a disk that's spinning sufficiently fast, would create the antigravity effect. The only problem is that it would need to spin unrealistically fast.

by tra3 6y ago

ChuckMcM 6y ago

Here's my take on it, I don't have a doctorate in physics so its really just my understanding having read the linked paper. If you're a galaxy spinning around, as one does, and you use simple Newtownian physics to calculate the orbits, then there is a problem because at the velocity things are moving, they should be moving apart. And yet they are what appears to be otherwise stable orbits around the galactic center. So to solve that conundrum, one postulation has been that there is more mass in the galaxy than we can see. Since we can only see things that either emit light, or occlude things that are emitting light, that missing matter has been dubbed "dark." The paper, on the other hand, says "No, the force holding this thing together is the result of graviomagnetic forces generated by the masses moving around." (not something Newton ever considered, and really only comes into play at very large scales and very large velocities) If you accept the mathematics and the model in the paper, then it means you don't need dark matter to explain galaxy shape, which would mean that a number of physics Phds work is incorrect in describing what is going on.

johncolanduoni 6y ago

Yes, the author appears to have overcome some limitations in existing models of galaxy rotation that incorporate gravitomagnetic effects (yes, others have thought of this before unlike Scott Locklin suggests and the paper even cites them). The claim is that these existing models were over-simplified to make them solvable: the less-simplified model proposed in this paper is much harder to solve but the author is an expert in mathematically similar effects in magnetohydrodynamics and appears to have found a solution. There are other astronomical observations that we still don’t have as good an explanation for (e.g. certain gravitational lensing observations) but this is a step in the direction of being able to dismiss the need for dark matter from our cosmological theories.

sbahsva 6y ago

The article says that the derivation showing the need for “dark matter” are based on the wrong set of equations - equations much easier to solve, but are only correct for simpler systems ( The correct equations are mathematically similar to Maxwell’s equations - and plasma physicists are the meanest mofos there is when it comes to E&M. No short cuts there. So some plasma physicist tried to find what the dark mass of the universe is of the correct set of equations are used. He was surprised that the solution doesn’t exist. When he solved it, he found out that dark matter doesn’t exist.

frongpik 6y ago

Spinning masses produce gravitational waves that are described by the same equations that describe magnets (a peculiar coincidence, to say at least). If galaxy cores didn't spin, stars in the galaxies would fly away as they are moving way too fast, but thanks to that additional gravitomagnetic effect, the stars experience the additional pull to the center. Hypothetically, a disk that's spinning sufficiently fast, would create the antigravity effect. The only problem is that it would need to spin unrealistically fast.