Dark Energy and Dark Matter – The Results of Flawed Physics?

Enlarge

Best fit theoretical rotation curves superimposed on data (dotted lines) from galaxy “NGC 4455” (left) and galaxy “NGC 5023” (right). The solid line is the curve predicted by the new gravity model. Also shown are the Newtonian curve (short dashes) and the Newtonian curve corrected for dark matter (long dashes).

There are few scientific concepts as intriguing and mysterious as dark energy and dark matter, said to make up as much as 95 percent of all the energy and matter in the universe. And even though scientists don't know what either is and have little evidence to prove they exist, dark energy and dark matter are two of the biggest research problems in physics.

But what if they were conceived in error?

This is what three Italian physicists have recently asked. In a paper in the August 3 online edition of the Institute of Physics' peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, they put forth the idea that scientists were forced to propose the existence of dark energy and dark matter because they were, and still are, working with incorrect gravitational theory.

The group suggests an alternative theory of gravity in which dark energy and dark matter are effects – illusions, in a sense – created by the curvature of spacetime (the bending of space and time caused by extremely massive objects, like galaxies). Their theory does not require the existence of dark energy and dark matter.

“Our proposal implies that the 'correct' theory of gravity may be one based solely on directly observed astronomical data,” said lead author Salvatore Capozziello, a theoretical physicist at the University of Naples, to PhysOrg.com.

Dark energy and dark matter were originally conceived to explain, respectively, the accelerating expansion of the universe (despite the tendency of gravity to push matter together) and the discrepancy between the amount of matter scientists expect to observe in the universe but have not yet found. Astronomers suggested the existence of dark matter when they noticed something odd about spiral galaxies: Stars at the middle and edge of a spiral galaxy rotate just as fast as stars near the very center. But according to Newtonian mechanics (the physics of bodies in motion), stars further away from the galactic center should rotate more slowly. Scientists thus assumed that some sort of “dark” matter, not observable by emitted light, must be boosting the total gravity of the galaxy, giving the stars extra rotational speed.

“We can show that no 'exotic' ingredients have to be added to fill the gap between theory and observations,” said Capozziello.

In their paper, he and his co-authors demonstrate this using data from 15 well-studied galaxies. Among this data was each galaxy's “rotation curve,” a graph that plots the rotational speed of the stars in the galaxy as a function of their distance from the galaxy's center. These curves were successfully fit to curves produced using the new theory. Since these 15 galaxies are believed to be dominated by dark matter, fitting their rotation curves using this new gravity model is strong evidence to support an alternative theory of gravity.

Despite this, the notion that dark matter and dark energy are “wrong” is potentially very unpopular. Capozziello and his colleagues are aware that a new theory of gravity impacts the dynamics of the universe as scientists now understand them.

“Any extended theories of gravity must be tested on all the astrophysical scales, ranging from the Solar System to galaxies to galaxy clusters, and all of cosmology,” said Capozziello. “Performing these tests is the cornerstone of our research program.”

Citation: J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2006) 001.

By Laura Mgrdichian, Copyright 2006 PhysOrg.com

   

• rank
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

4.6/5 after 235 votes

• Arthur_Dent - Jan 11, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  The flaw in their new theory, is that
  at least 1 pair of galaxies in collision have shown that dark-mass didn't collide,
  but simply passed-through the colliding galaxy,
  so the result was
  dark-mass/colided-matter-of-2-galaxies/dark-mass.
  
  I believe they used lensing to nail that one, and it was either here on physorg or over on newscientist where that article was posted ( here, I think ).
  
  Their nice "erases dark-mass" theory would have to explain that kind of colision and its lensing, wouldn't it?
  
  Also, there is at least 1 galaxy we've studied that hasn't /got/ dark-matter, so its stars swirl newtonianly.
  
  How would they explain that?
  
  I believe their theory is broken, but don't have the brains to /know/.
  
  Cheers,
  • flag
• smiffy - Jan 11, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  • rate

  Also, there is at least 1 galaxy we've studied that hasn't /got/ dark-matter, so its stars swirl newtonianly.

  Do you have a reference for this galaxy?
  
  • flag
• Dvmx - Apr 20, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  NGC 4736
  http://www.newsci.../dn13280
  
  By the way, the "enlarge image" option for the plotlines picture is not working!
  • flag
• Myria83 - Apr 21, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate

  The flaw in their new theory, is that
  
  
  
  at least 1 pair of galaxies in collision have shown that dark-mass didn't collide,
  
  
  
  
  
  but simply passed-through the colliding galaxy,
  
  
  
  so the result was
  
  
  
  dark-mass/colided-matter-of-2-galaxies/dark-mass.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I believe they used lensing to nail that one, and it was either here on physorg or over on newscientist where that article was posted ( here, I think ).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Their nice "erases dark-mass" theory would have to explain that kind of colision and its lensing, wouldn't it?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Also, there is at least 1 galaxy we've studied that hasn't /got/ dark-matter, so its stars swirl newtonianly.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  How would they explain that?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I believe their theory is broken, but don't have the brains to /know/.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Cheers,

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Could you specify?
  • flag
• buddhamaster - Apr 26, 2009
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate

  The flaw in their new theory, is that
  
  
  Postulating the dark matter and energy theory is an attempts to explain the observed behavior of galactic and extra-galactic motions. However it has not been proven to exist or have an idea what dark matter and dark energy is. It's similar to the claims that ghosts exist but one can not really provide verifiable proof of it's existence in a controllable environment. There has to be a flaw to the unsubstantiated claims. The solutions to the problem may have created more difficulty than the original problem that it is trying to resolve. To explain the existence of dark matter and dark energy may need to invoke other unknown and exotic materials to explain its very existence. This theory is not getting anywhere. It is an obvious dead end.
  
  It may be possible that the missing mass is locked inside black holes. The missing masses can never be seen but the hidden masses inside the black hole may interact gravitationally with matters outside the black hole. This approach may be more plausible than invoking the dark matter and dark energy theory. It has been theorized that nothing can escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole. However gravitational fields may be an exception and the black hole singularity may even provide gravitational fields so intense that field amplification may possibly occur. Similar to the fusion reaction inside a star. the intense gravitation forces the hydrogen proton to undergo fusion reaction to form helium. The masses swallowed by the black hole may exist in an exotic material form we can not even hope to speculate. This is the domain where the know laws of physics breaks down.
  
  Another possible approach to solve the missing matter problem is to assume that as the photons traveled from the distant galaxy to reach earth it encountered intense gravitational fields in the near vicinity of the galaxies that produce an apparent distorted redshift. If a methodology can be found to normalized the measured redshift to conform with the observed motions of galaxies, clusters of galaxies or filaments of clusters of galaxies. This approach could be potentially be a viable solution to resolve the problem of anomalous behavior of galactic motions instead of hunting for exotic dark matter and dark energy.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  but simply passed-through the colliding galaxy,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  so the result was
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  dark-mass/colided-matter-of-2-galaxies/dark-mass.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I believe they used lensing to nail that one, and it was either here on physorg or over on newscientist where that article was posted ( here, I think ).
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Their nice "erases dark-mass" theory would have to explain that kind of colision and its lensing, wouldn't it?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Also, there is at least 1 galaxy we've studied that hasn't /got/ dark-matter, so its stars swirl newtonianly.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  How would they explain that?
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I believe their theory is broken, but don't have the brains to /know/.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Cheers,

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Could you specify?

  
  
  • flag