• [deleted]

Dear Ben Dribus,

It has been shown by Geha et al. ApJ 711, 361 (2010) that there is no need of dark matter for explaining the dynamical properties of the ELLIPTICAL galaxy NGC 147, and as I show in the essay, dark matter does not exist in spiral galaxies. Therefore, we conclude that it simply does not exist.I think the galactic lensing has to be explained by other means.

I show you below that there is no place for dark matter in Particle Physics.

Before you read, remember that dark matter would have to be STABLE, and composed of particles with zero charge because dark matter would not interact with light.

Particles are either bosons or fermions. As it is well known bosons do not clump together simply because they make the mediation between fermionic states. Therefore, where there are bosons (confined to some volume) there also are fermions. For example, there is no body made of pions or W´s. And to make things worse all bosons are unstable, except the photon and the hypothetical graviton. Therefore, dark matter would have to be composed of fermions, but from these we have to take out baryons because they interact with light. Thus, we are left with leptons, supposedly the WIMPS. And now we face a long list of drawbacks. First of all, only the light leptons electon, positron and the neutrinos are stable, that is, the heavier leptons suffer weak decays. Secondly, leptons with mass are charged, but dark matter had to be neutral but without being composed of oppositely charged leptons because in such a case it would interact with light. Leptons are arranged in the generations: the electron and its neutrino, the muon and its neutrino and the tau and its neutrino (and their corresponding antiparticles). Where would the WIMP fit in? As you see it does not fit in.

Therefore, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR DARK MATTER IN PARTICLE PHYSICS. DARK MATTER IS JUST A KING OF NEW ETHER.

Best regards,

Mario

    If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

    Sergey Fedosin

      • [deleted]

      Dear Sergey Fedosin,

      Thank you very much for your explanation on the rating.

      Best regards,

      Mario

      Dear Mario,

      In the Theory of Infinite Nesting of Matter which is the subject of my essay, The AGN engine is supposed in the number of neutron stars in the centers of galaxies. These neutron stars have common magnetic field which drive the motion of substance. Also the Gravitational torsion field from rotation of stars can drive the substance in jets giving spiral structures.

      Sergey Fedosin

        • [deleted]

        Dear Sergey,

        I think that it is a possible way. But probably the cause is the repulsive nature of the strong force at very close distances. Take a look, for example, at the nuclear potential between two neutrons in terms of the distance between them.

        Best regards,

        Mario

        • [deleted]

        Dear Mario and Ben,

        Once again I'd like to add my two cents to Ben's questions, especially #1. I'm not a historian, but I think that if you examine the history of dark matter within the physics community, it's not seriously considered until the 1980s when Vera Rubin et al presented the conclusive results of >10 yesrs of observation indicating that spiral galaxies do not comply with Keplerian rotation curves. As I understand, cosmologists attempting to model galaxy evolution (apparently also using two-body evaluation methods, since their models always 'flew apart') at that time found solution for their problem in the 'dark' 'fudge factor'. Given enough invisible peripheral or spherically symmetrical mass, two-body gravitational evaluation methods work fine for any distribution of 'ordinary matter'. Following the erroneous determination that dark matter was necessary to explain the development of spiral galaxies, cosmologists began to estimate universal dark matter requirements based on estimates of galactic requirements.

        If this summary is reasonably correct, the foundation upon which the house of dark matter cards rests is the expectation that galactic disk object should independently rotate around some collective central mass. I hope that assumption has been falsified.

        As for gravitational lensing produced by large scale compound objects, that's a more complex issue. As I understand, the estimated mass of individual galaxies has often based on luminosity or their dynamic velocities within clusters. However, unlike main sequence stars, galactic luminosity is not directly a product of mass. The gravitational interactions of galaxies within clusters is complicated by their interaction with the massive intracluster medium, thought to contain 2/3 of total cluster mass from 'ordinary' matter. I suspect these interactions are not properly represented in galaxy cluster mass evaluations.

        Weak gravitational lensing analysis is a very complex statistical process of evaluating minute optical distortions in thousands of background galaxies. From this evaluation the mass necessary to produce the identified gravitational effects is determined.

        There are other methods used to confirm those determinations using CMB signals, etc. that I cannot explain. The point is that the evaluation of large scale weak gravitational lensing effects produced by compound masses is an exceedingly difficult set of processes that are each subject to many potential errors.

        Personally, I suspect that the identified lensing effects are often considered to be the product of only a single, large scale curvature of spacetime imparted by the collective mass of all included lensing masses. I think that the actual lens effects produced by a large scale aggregation of discrete masses would more closely represent a compound eye, with a global lens structure and embedded discrete lens structures, in galaxy clusters for example, produced by the ICM and individual galaxies. I suspect that these compound lens effects exceed those expected from the collective mass of the entire structure.

        I hope these observations help, but I'm really not capable of documenting credible sources, etc. So I wholeheartedly agree with Mario's assessment - I focus on the galactic rotation origins only because that seems so obvious to me that I keep thinking that it can't be dismissed forever! I don't know what the cosmologists would ever do with their models if dark matter were ever rejected, but I'm certain they and others will naturally resist that conclusion.

        Sincerely, Jim

        • [deleted]

        Dear Jim,

        You gave an excellent account of the whole problem with the dark matter hypothesis. Yes, I also think that the weak gravitational lensing is a very complicated subject that has to have a solution outside dark matter. Cosmologists will have to change their views if they really are scientists.

        Best wishes,

        Mario