• Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012)

  • Inappropriate Application of Kepler’s Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Spiral Galaxies Created the Perceived Galaxy Rotation Problem – Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for the Elusive, I

Dear Chris,

Firstly, did I not adequately demonstrate that galactic dark matter was inferred by the simple misapplied specification that objects in spiral galaxies should rotate in compliance with Kepler's third law of planetary motion? That erroneous conclusion was not based on any analysis employing Newtonian dynamics or gravitation.

I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician, so obviously your challenge would not be attainable for me personally. I'm certainly not aware of any method to precisely describe the motions of individual stars within the disks of spiral galaxies.

However, there are several researchers who (as I understand) correctly describe the rotational characteristics of spiral galaxies using only classical dynamics and gravitation (specifically Feng & Gallo below). From my "Works Cited" (without links):

James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.

Joanna Jalocha et al. "Is dark matter present in NGC4736? An iterative spectral method for finding mass distribution in spiral galaxies." Astrophysical Journal 679 (May 20 2008): 373-378. doi:10.1086/533511. arXiv:astro-ph/0611113v3.

Of course, they reference prior works. Then there's also Fred Cooperstock's most recent analysis using general relativity:

J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock. "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies." (2010). arXiv:1101.3224v1.

Another report you might find interesting does not directly address galactic rotation but rather the orbits of halo objects and their implications for dark matter halos:

Lukasz Bratek et al. "Keplerian Ensemble Approximation. The issue of motions of Galactic halo compact objects." (2011). arXiv:1108.1629v2.

It its somewhat related to another recent work:

M. S. Pawlowski , J. Pflamm-Altenburg, P. Kroupa. "The VPOS: a vast polar structure of satellite galaxies, globular clusters and streams around the Milky Way." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 423 2 (June 2012): 1109-1126. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20937.x, arXiv:1204.5176v1.

I really can't fully evaluate the physics or mathematics involved - perhaps you'll find some shortcoming. Please do let me know if you find any issues - I have been in contact with all of the authors and can try to mediate a resolution if necessary.

Sincerely, Jim

Dear Jim,

I do not understand fluid mechanics, as said I am just a retired architect, the only thing I thought of when reading your essay was when I stirred the milk in a cup of coffee, you also see these galaxy forms, maybe this approach is a different one, just trating a whole galaxy as a fluid. You have more insight as I have so perhaps think about it.

thanks for being on good terms again.

Wilhelmus

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

    Sergey,

    I do have an aversion to equations, especially since retiring. If I understand, though, if a new rating is is made for an essay that is slightly lower than the existing average rating for that essay, the new average rating will be reduced. Is that correct?

    There may be another consideration in the ranking of essays by rating: if an essay's rating was tied or very close to many other essays, even a slight reduction in rating could significantly reduce an essay's position withing the rating ordered list. In that case a single rating (even one that is not so 'bad') could produce a large drop in the essay rankings.

    Thanks very much for explaining. Once I began watching the rankings I noticed in particular that my essay repeatedly jumped up & down between ~50 & 100 in very dramatic swings. It's now settled down to something >100. Well, I never hoped to be a finalist anyway and don't have any professional aspirations.

    Sergey, I sincerely apologize if I (and others) unfairly accused you of making excessively low ratings. Please consider that your 'rating announcement' postings called people's attention to whatever change was produced. At any rate, I'll now consider that you must have given me a fair and deserved rating.

    Sorry again, Jim

    Dear James,

    I tried rate your essay repeatedly but it is impossible. So I see that in this Contest I was tricked by the Contest system of rating. Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed? It is a pity but FQXi up to now do not answer my questions in 3 letters to them.

    Sergey Fedosin

    Dear James,

    Just now I sent a letter to mail@fqxi.org :

    Please remove all the ratings which I made in the FQXi Contest ! Firstly I did not know that ratings averaged in this Contest. Instead of it I supposed that ratings are summed. So all ratings which I gave to participants of the Contest are wrong. In the second why it is impossible to change rating at the page of anyone if my opinion changed?

    James, may you do the same and ask FQXi about it?

    Sergey Fedosin

      Dear Sergey,

      I suspect there's not much that FQXi could do to change things in this contest, unless they could possibly identify your ratings and retract them. Again, watching the rankings, I suspect there are others who did not really understand the effect their ratings would have. I'll see what I can suggest to the administrator. I imagine they (I think it's more like 'he') are quite busy at this time - perhaps they'll respond soon. Thanks very much for you efforts in this regard!

      Sincerely, Jim

      Dear James,

      Thanks for the interesting essay, and in particular for pointing out the simple but important point that Kepler's laws are totally inadequate for describing the gravitational dynamics of a system with significant extended mass distribution. I suppose an extreme example could be found at a much smaller scale by simply considering a gas giant... it would be ridiculous to expect the outer layers to move in a Keplerian fashion with respect to the center.

      Coming from the math side, I am presently trying to make up my mind what to think about the "dark matter" hypothesis, so any well-reasoned essay of this sort is valuable to me. Personally, I suspect that the scientific community still has an imperfect appreciation for scale dependence in nature... for instance, I think that dark energy is probably something "different" than gravity. I think there are at least "five different scales," but that's a long story... I discuss that in section 3 of my essay here if you're interested, but most of the essay is not about dark matter.

      Have you read the submissions by Theo Nieuwenhuizen and Mario de Souza? They give totally different takes on the same subject. These two, together with yours, give me a reasonably diverse perspective as a starting point, I hope.

      By the way, I noted the discussion above about ratings. I think that there is a lot of bad behavior going on in this regard. I just rated your essay, having just now read it... I rated it honestly, on the basis of what I learned from reading it. It would be unethical for me to tell you what the rating was, but your essay moved up 34 places as a result. The fact that a single honest rating would make such a difference at this stage in the contest tells me that many people are rating others low just to gain an advantage. Anyway, it would be better if we could ignore the "ratings game" entirely, but I have made up my mind to give an honest rating to every essay I have time to read... otherwise the contest is dominated by those who down-rate others out of self interest.

      I enjoyed your perspective! Take care,

      Ben Dribus

        Dear Ben,

        Thanks very much for reading my essay - I'm very glad you enjoyed it appreciated it. I really enjoyed your remarks and insights.

        I have read both Theo Nieuwenhuizen's & Mario de Souza's essays and have had some interesting discussions with Mario. Frankly, offhand & forget what Theo's was about - I lost track of it when he didn't respond to some comment I made. Maybe I'll go back to it. I find Mario's galaxy evolution model very interesting, as long as his conception of lateral outflows is valid (I think it is). BTW, if you didn't notice there are some modeling references in my "Supplemental Info." & "Works Cited" sections that use classical dynamics and gravitation to more properly represent the mass distribution of spiral galaxies and describe their observed rotational characteristics. Unfortunately the dynamic link in the "Supp..." section is wrong for probably the best reference:

        James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. doi:10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005. arXiv:1104.3236v4.

        I think some teacher(s) around 1960 ruined me for math - my grandson and two granddaughters love it! I may not be able to follow you essay very well, but I'll give it a shot tonight.

        I now think (most of)) the ratings issues are mostly unfortunate misunderstandings perhaps mostly by those whose first language is not English. I also thing the rating scale of 1-10 (averaged, I think) produces a lot of ties, meaning that (especially for essays with few ratings like mine) small changes produce big swings in their position within the ranking ordered list.

        I do have some more thoughts about my essay and some of the topics you mentioned - I'll try to bore you with them a little later.

        Thanks very much for your interesting discussion!

        Jim

        BTW, after all the unintentional and any intentional dramatic ranking effects, as of this late writing IMO, based on my small sampling of essays read, the cream has risen to the top. I hope there are no more dramatic upheavals.

        Despite my now below average ranking, I can take solace in knowing that the authors whose works I was most impressed with seemed to regard my essay very well! I was almost a finalist for a minute! Frankly, I am surprised by my essay's wild ranking swings and current low ranking, but then I'm retired, anyway.

        Sincerely, Jim

        • [deleted]

        • Post #56

        Jim

        SDSS 111 Data Release 9 including the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) and spectra of 1.35 million galaxies, has just been made public. This is 2 years work and gives a large database against which to test key aspects of theory. I'm not sure if you can get straight in, but maybe best to go through the SDSS Sky Server web site; http://skyserver.sdss3.org/public/en as you'll need some guidance on how to use it.

        Unfortunately you still have to but copies of explanatory and interpretative papers, and it does not include the kinetic data, but it's a start. (You should find it consistent with my model and observations but let me know if you find any that appears not to be!).

        I appreciate your expressed concern that my analysis of plasma 'dark matter' density and distribution may not accord with mainstream. Along with the announcement of the above in this months RAS magazine are the latest findings of dark matter within the solar system and particularly near the sun, including the comment; "...techniques used in the last 20 years were biased, underestimating the amount of dark matter." (99% certainty estimate). And yipee! the MNRAS paper is available on arxiv.org/pdf/1206.0015v2.pdf Of course it uses a model, the most precise yet, of the inner solar system, but maps the behaviour of the many 'K-dwarves' to quantify the density and distribution, so you still can't physically 'see' it. If we could of course it wouldn't be 'dark' matter.

        There are other excellent articles this month, on angular momentum of stars, galaxy magnetic fields, and accretion disc MHD flows, so it's worth buying (Blackwell Publishing).

        I hope all that may aid your quality of research. And thank you for the kind comment about the cream rising to the top.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Perter,

        I'm too exhausted to delve into such minutia right now, but if their models are correct then we should hear of confirmed dark matter particle detections real soon!

        BTW, as best I can determine, these researchers are still trying to fit galactic rotation curves to Keplerian expectations - I find no explanation as to why they are doing so.

        My assertion is that there is no justification for expecting spiral galaxies to comply with the laws of planetary motion that expressly apply only to two-body gravitational relations - there's simply no need for dark matter to correct Keplerian rotation curves to produce those observed.

        Interesting research though, or at least curious...

        Thanks, Jim

        Jim

        I referred to other correlating methods used in halo density analysis, but couldn't locate any public access papers on angular momentum. There is however an article on this in the A&G Magazine I refer above (27th Sept string) which should be of great interest.

        This looks at the question 'in reverse' assuming a low ion density then announcing the loss of angular momentum, (i.e. as 'clouds' form into 'bodies') as a major problem. Of course an increase in retained ion 'halo' density to that implied by gravitational behaviour resolves the problem.

        The magazine isn't quite the MNRAS, but it is an easier read and full of information pertinent to your interests this month (aag@wiley.com).

        In response to your note (in the 27th string) about finding 'dark matter' soon, I confirm I agree they won't, but predict they'll just keep finding increasingly higher ion densities, as they have for the last 40 years!

        Best wishes

        Peter

        a month later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #59

        Jim,

        An MNRAS 'Dark Matter' paper also on arxiv. I thought of Mario and you when reading it.July 2012 It's consistent with scores of others, right or wrong, but uses a different method to constrain particle densities. It's treated as I suggest, simply as 'matter' that is not yet within our limited detection capabilites (which may soon be changed by Gaia etc).

        'Optical' images are also improving, and right out to cluster scale. The concept or term 'exotic particles' is very rarely used in astronomy. The 'warm hot intergalactic medium' (WHIM) is far more familiar. i.e. as this weeks ESA bulletin; Combined Planck optical image

        I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'.

        Best wishes.

        Peter

        PS I'll also post this on your own string.

          Peter,

          Thanks for the references. I'll try to review the research report later.

          However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?

          Also, at least the ESA article you referenced makes no mention of 'WHIM' as dark matter - it instead states that astronomers cannot find as much baryonic matter as expected:

          "But there's a problem: the amounts of baryonic matter detected via astronomical observations in the distant, ancient Universe and in the nearby one do not match. Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

          The article goes on to suggest that undetected WHIM constitutes the missing BARYONIC matter - not any dark matter.

          Thanks,

          Jim

          Jim,

          That's right, and exactly what I've been saying. You seemed to have picked up on just one 'theorist' view that 'dark matter' can't be baryonic. In Astronomy (who found it after all!) that assumption has never been the case, thus your initial misunderstanding and objection to the fundamental thesis of my essay and Fig caption. But that means your last line is still wrong; 'dark' only means not yet detectable with current instruments, it does NOT necessarily mean 'non baryonic'.

          Back to your first paragraph; Yes of course WHIM emits detectable radiation; but;

          1. 'Detectable' does not imply detected. Improving instruments detect more and more.

          2. 'EM radiation' is the right term, but is NOT limited to the tiny 'optical' range!

          3. Much HAS INDEED been detected, as the image, at X-ray and other frequencies.

          Plasma n=1, so ions absorb and re-emit EM radiation, but don't change it unless moving, so don't otherwise give themselves away. Your comments betray the limited anthropocentric view of those unfamiliar with astronomy (many IN astronomy still have it!). As I said before, most detection is not done just in the insignificant 'visible' band but using spectroscopy, which includes the whole EM range from below radio to gamma wavelengths.

          Perhaps consider this. Take 3 're-emitting sources' (which may be n=1). One in the optical band, one infra red and one UV. Give each source a high velocity relative to Earth. The visible ('light') will be blue or red shifted out of the visible, and the IR become 'visible' if approaching, or UV if receding. This is generally termed Stokes/anti-Stokes up and down shifted Compton scattering. The CMBR has identified myriads of these moving 'frames last scattered'.

          Oblate spheroid halo's are much studied and oft referred. This Physics Today article refers, and is interesting anyway; PT65,2012. They are related to both kinetic decoupling and outflows - but that's a quite complex matter! (look up Sauron survey).

          I hope that helps give a clearer overview. i.e. I agree, there is probably no such thing as 'exotic' dark matter, but there's certainly still loads of yet un'seen' baryonic matter. And also current theory still contains much nonsense (including in of the concordance model referred in the link) I predict Gaia will detect a whole lot more of it.

          Best wishes

          Peter

            Peter,

            Once again you miss my points completely! I'll try again and be very direct.

            1. Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo" (I'm not making this up out of ignorant confusion - refer to the link) that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic mass, not be detected?

            BTW, this is the reason that WIMPs were originally hypothesized - because it was considered that sufficiently dense baryonic matter configured to explain the observed rotational velocities in the context of Keplerian rotational curves would be detected! Do not confuse this 'Dark Matter halo' with the observed 'ordinary' MW galactic halo comprised of ~250 dwarf galaxies, star clusters and ancient stars - they are completely distinct. That's why the term 'Dark Matter halo' is necessary.

            2. To reiterate, the ESA bulletin (Combined Planck optical image) you referenced to explain WHIM clearly described it NOT as an explanation for, or alternative to WIMP, dark matter but only as an explanation for the baryonic matter that seems to be missing in the local universe:

            "... Astronomers have struggled to locate about half of the baryonic matter expected to be present in the local Universe."

            "A leading candidate for the location of these so-called 'missing baryons' is the warm-hot intergalactic medium or WHIM. The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe. Numerical simulations of the formation of cosmic structure predict that galaxies and galaxy clusters are embedded in the cosmic web, and that the WHIM might account for most of the baryonic matter in the local Universe. This network of tenuous gas ranges in temperature from 100,000 to several tens of millions of K and due to its extremely low density has proved very hard to detect."

            Ignoring your incredibly demeaning manner, you have an extraordinary ability to reinterpret any information as supporting your views!

            Best wishes,

            Jim

            • [deleted]

            • Post #63

            Jim,

            You asked; "Wouldn't a Milky Way "Dark Matter halo"...that was actually composed of baryonic WHIM or whatever, necessarily emit EM radiation? At the specified densities, why would such massive halos, comprising up to 90% of total galactic mass, not be detected?

            I'm sorry if you felt I hadn't answered that, but I wrote; it was because: "Detectable' does not imply detected" so our instruments are simply not yet quite sensitive enough for easy direct detection, but; "Improving instruments detect more and more."

            I also repeated my previous point that plasma ions ARE baryonic matter, and' "Plasma n=1, so ions absorb and re-emit EM radiation, but don't change it unless moving, so don't otherwise give themselves away."

            I'd quite forgotten how prickly and aggressive you could be, but I'm struggling to see how I can more directly answer your question. I get the impression you just react badly to anything inconsistent with what you believe. You thus entirely misinterpret my manner as 'demeaning'. I'm sorry if it seems it is, and if I went on to also give better background, but I'm only trying to help. In really direct terms;

            NO, baryonic matter does NOT normally "emit" EM radiation, it absorbs and "RE-emits" it (like all refraction and reflection), and NO, if it is plasma we would NOT then 'detect' any change in the radiation (i.e. we would not 'detect the presence of' the plasma), and certainly not in the optical range.

            Having said that, where there is pair production (ions) there is then also some (bound) molecular gas (baryonic), which IS increasingly 'detectable'. I confirmed there are a number of other ways both CAN be directly detected including;

            Kinetics (the particles move so affect lambda).

            Flaring (I've found a free link; APJLett732 2011).

            Direct at different wavelengths; i.e. sub.mm; See my Fig 1 here; Centaurus A

            I try not to seek 'support' for my postulations but genuine falsification. More consistent re-interpretation of findings is the heart scientific progress, and is indeed what you are doing, but please do help by identifying any specific point where you think I haven't been objective or consistent..

            Best wishes

            Peter

              Peter,

              OK, I'll play: why would it not be detectable?

              Jim

              Peter,

              Why does the hot intracluster medium emit x-rays? Don't all hot gasses emit EM radiation? How could dense baryonic plasma configured as galactic 'dark matter halos' avoid emitting EM radiation and detection by astronomers?

              Regarding: "I try not to seek 'support' for my postulations but genuine falsification..." Please refer to my prior comment in which I quoted from your referenced 'supporting documentation', (Combined Planck optical image):

              "... The WHIM is the baryonic component of the cosmic web, a filamentary network of both dark and baryonic matter that is believed to pervade the Universe..."

              Didn't you earlier state, regarding the referenced links:

              "I believe that should give you more than adequate evidence to back up the lead proposition in my essay, and hopefully clarify the understanding of 'dark matter' in astronomy as opposed to in 'theory'?"

              I very clearly initially asked:

              "However, wouldn't 'warm hot' baryonic matter, configured as a vast, gravitationally bound, rotating galactic halo ~3 times the diameter of the visible galaxy, that was sufficiently dense to produce the observed flat rotation curves of the visible galactic disk - necessarily emit detectable EM radiation?"

              You responded by repeating past lectures about not all EM radiation being visible and stating:

              "Your comments betray the limited anthropocentric view of those unfamiliar with astronomy (many IN astronomy still have it!). As I said before, most detection is not done just in the insignificant 'visible' band but using spectroscopy, which includes the whole EM range from below radio to gamma wavelengths."

              What could possibly have made you think that I don't understand that the visible spectrum is a small segment of the entire EM frequency spectrum?

              Please discontinue belittling remarks!

              Sincerely

              Jim