Dark matter is 'known' matter ejected from galaxies

[john hunter]

According to the conjecture in www.gravity.uk.com the gravitational constant G, is not constant, but can reduce for matter where the ratio m/r approaches c^2/G
m=mass, r = radius c = speed of light.

G(effective) = c^2/(c^2/G + m/r) www.gravity.uk.com/galactic_rotation_curves.html

At the centres of galaxies, the m/r ratio might reach c^2/G, when traditionally a black hole forms. If, instead G reduces periodically, for short times, matter under extremely high pressure and at high temperature would escape the galaxy in bursts.
It is suggested here that gamma ray bursts, quasars and AGNs are powered like this. The ejected matter would have kinetic energy of order GMm/R, to escape the galaxy. M = mass of galaxy. R= radius of galaxy, m = mass of particle.


Since the escape happens when M/R = c^2/G, then the kinetic energy of ejected particles would be of order Gm*c^2/G = mc^2 (or greater).
For electrons and positrons this gives energies of order 10^-14J or 10^5 eV
In Abell clusters there is often Xray emitting gas between the galaxies, since Xrays have the same order of magnitude of energy (10^5eV), it is suggested that the matter between the galaxies in Abell clusters is from high energy emissions from the centres of galaxies.

High energy cosmic rays might also be from the same phenomenon, and since the energies of these is so high 10^20eV, the dark matter in galaxies, and between galaxies might be extremely high energy electron/positrons, whose mass is 'hidden' in the form of energy (via E=mc^2).

So to summarise, the dark matter is made up of high energy emissions from the centres of galaxies, with most of the mass 'stored' in the form of energy.

John Hunter

[01101001]

According to the conjecture [...]
Are you just reporting something odd you found on the Web, or is this something you want other people to believe and use? Do you believe it and use it? Why? What convinced you? How do you use it? Thanks.

[Cougar]

So to summarise, the dark matter is made up of high energy emissions from the centres of galaxies, with most of the mass 'stored' in the form of energy.
Just like visible light, "high energy emissions" would be easily detectable. But I don't think such emissions are detected, which would seem to falsify your idea.

[astro_uk]

Hi John

One of the problems with theories such as this is that its easy to think that you can tinker with something small and improve things, in this case by conjecturing that gravity behaves differently at different densities. The problem is that very quickly you will run into other things that need to be changed to allow your new observations.

In this case the problem is QM, observations of the ratio of elements formed in the BB and observations of the CMB show that dark matter (in the main) should be non-baryonic in nature. By postulating that matter is being ejected from galaxies and this accounts for the extra mass which you say is baryonic, you run into these observations.

So not only do you have a change to gravity that has not been observed, you also need to account for how QM and nuclear reactions seem to be telling you one thing but your theory something different.

There are actually many other problems with this theory which I'm sure will be pointed out by others, but I thought this is a general problem I have seen in many threads on this board. There are no small changes to fundamental physics is I guess the point.

[RussT]

whose mass is 'hidden' in the form of energy (via E=mc^2).

So to summarise, the dark matter is made up of high energy emissions from the centres of galaxies, with most of the mass 'stored' in the form of energy.

This may or may not make sense to you, but try thinking of it this way...

Just take the inverse of the entire process you went through above.

In that way DM would becomes what you said...accept the inverse...whose mass is 'hidden' in the form of energy (via E=mc^2).

So it is the energy that is 'hidden' and the mass (inert) is what we see as 'space', and when released in a TEV event, then E=MC^2 applies.

And...[with most of the mass 'stored' in the form of energy]...becomes...with all of its energy 'stored' in the form of mass. Which is the DM...all of 'space'!

[john hunter]

Dear 01101001,

Are you just reporting something odd you found on the Web, or is this something you want other people to believe and use? Do you believe it and use it? Why? What convinced you? How do you use it? Thanks.

The post was about a conjecture (from J. Hunter), that G reduces for dense masses, and the ongoing effort to find evidence for, or against the conjecture. I believe it to be true, the reasons I believe it is:
i) without it GR predicts singularities
ii) if its true the 'flatness' problem is naturally explained
iii) Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) has confirmed a 6cm annual change in the moons orbit, which may well be caused by true conjecture/change in earth-sun distance
iv) the large scale structure shows spherical voids, which could be due to a re-explosion of collapsed matter, with a reducing G.
v) there are other explosive events, gamma ray bursts, AGNs, which don't seem adequately explained by accretion onto a 'Black hole'.
vi) The conjecture came from a more fundamental theory, the rescaling theory,(straight from the conservation of energy) which also explains the redshift of light (also straight from conservation of energy) ,(www.gravity.uk.com/cosmological_model.html and the gravity link)
vii) there has been no convincing evidence, yet, that its false.

It has little practical use, apart from investiging the 'true' laws of physics which operate in our universe.

John Hunter.

[john hunter]

Dear Cougar,

Just like visible light, "high energy emissions" would be easily detectable. But I don't think such emissions are detected, which would seem to falsify your idea.

Maybe such emisions are being detected, but it might not be appreciated how much mass is being ejected. e.g. gamma ray bursts, unexplained high energy cosmic rays, quasars, blasers.

John Hunter.

[Thanatos]

Aside from the observational evidence that your premises are fatally flawed [i.e., show the math] John Hunter, I agree in principle with Russ's objections on this point.

[john hunter]

Dear astro_uk,


In this case the problem is QM, observations of the ratio of elements formed in the BB and observations of the CMB show that dark matter (in the main) should be non-baryonic in nature. By postulating that matter is being ejected from galaxies and this accounts for the extra mass which you say is baryonic, you run into these observations.


The OP didn't mention baryonic matter, only electrons/positrons, although a small amount of baryonic matter might be ejected too.

If it came from the centre of a galaxy at temperature T, all particles have energy 3/2kT. So electron/positrons would travel further from the galaxy than any baryonic matter. So the cosmic rays, which are predominantly protons, might be from our galaxy, but intergalactic DM might be high energy electrons/positrons.

John Hunter.

[john hunter]

Dear Thanatos,

Aside from the observational evidence that your premises are fatally flawed [i.e., show the math] John Hunter?

This dosn't really make sense to me.

What observational evidence shows that the premises are flawed? What maths do you want?

John Hunter.

[Thanatos]

Gravitational mass would be the first objection. You are asserting the force of gravity has a linear component. I think that assertion is unsupported. Newtonian gravity works well within our solar system and seems likely to work as well in others.

[astro_uk]

Hi John

The OP didn't mention baryonic matter, only electrons/positrons, although a small amount of baryonic matter might be ejected too.

You did when you said:

At the centres of galaxies, the m/r ratio might reach c^2/G, when traditionally a black hole forms. If, instead G reduces periodically, for short times, matter under extremely high pressure and at high temperature would escape the galaxy in bursts.
It is suggested here that gamma ray bursts, quasars and AGNs are powered like this. The ejected matter would have kinetic energy of order GMm/R, to escape the galaxy. M = mass of galaxy. R= radius of galaxy, m = mass of particle.

You seem to be saying that matter ejected from BH holes in the form of jets is responsible for DM. You certainly saying that your explanation can be applied to AGN and quasars, which are generally thought to be powered by accretion onto a BH.

But we see jets from these objects and quite apart from the fact that we don't see that much matter being ejected, in mass terms the vast majority of the jets are made up of protons. Which are baryons. There are of course roughly equal amounts of electrons, but these are much less massive than the protons.

So your jets if they are anything like the ones we observe, which you seem to think they are, must be baryon dominated and therefore cannot provide the necessary DM.

[Tim Thompson]

iii) Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) has confirmed a 6cm annual change in the moons orbit, which may well be caused by true conjecture/change in earth-sun distance ....
vii) there has been no convincing evidence, yet, that its false.

Actually, LLR confirms an annual change of the moon's orbit of 3.82±0.07 cm/year (Dickey et al., 1994 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994Sci...265..482D&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465101562)). LLR also shows that the fractional time rate of change of G in the Earth-moon system ( [dG/dt]/G ) is no greater than 9 × 10-13 /year (i.e., Lunar laser ranging science: Gravitational physics and lunar interior and geodesy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006AdSpR..37...67W&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=4366fa465127168)). Why is this not convincing evidence that the presumption of a variable G is false?

[Tim Thompson]

The OP didn't mention baryonic matter, only electrons/positrons, although a small amount of baryonic matter might be ejected too.
Electrons & positrons are baryonic matter.

[john hunter]

Dear Tim,

Electrons & positrons are baryonic matter.

Electrons and positrons are leptons, not baryons.

On your other point, the 6cm annual change of the earth-moon distance is a periodic change i.e.like a sine or cosine wave, not a continual change which builds up year upon year.

This change has been measured by the LLR data.

The other 3.82cm change you mentioned is only evidence against a G which depends on the proximity of other matter, if it assumed that the distant matter is getting further away.

The same theory that predicts the variable G, also predicts a redshift due to a changing Plancks constant, and not due to the expanding universe (www.gravity.uk.com/redshift_of_light.html). The Hydrogen/Helium abundancies, CMBR are explained, however, as being due to 'Bangs' caused by the reduction in G.

These bangs might account for the large spherical voids in large-scale-structure, but it dosn't mean that, on the whole, the universe is expanding in the sense presumed by normal 'Big Bang' supporters. So G can remain constant in time, but still depend on the proximity of other matter.

All the best,

John Hunter.

[john hunter]

Dear astro_uk



So your jets if they are anything like the ones we observe, which you seem to think they are, must be baryon dominated and therefore cannot provide the necessary DM.

Maybe there is much more matter in electron/positron form than we know about from these jets, similar phenomenon may account for the gamma ray bursts.

John Hunter.

[astro_uk]

Maybe there is much more matter in electron/positron form than we know about from these jets, similar phenomenon may account for the gamma ray bursts.

I would doubt that, you are suggesting that we can accelarate electrons/positrons to high enough velocity to escape a galaxy and confining them in a collimated jet (as observed) using a magnetic field, but that these particles do not emit any radiation. We can measure the radiation that is emitted by jets from AGN etc, and from that we can work out how much matter is being ejected, both baryonic and leptonic. There simply isn't enough observed to provide a great deal of mass.

A fair bit of energy can be emitted however, it is thought that this AGN heating can be responsible for regulating star formation rates in galaxies.

[john hunter]

Dear astro_uk

... you are suggesting that we can accelarate electrons/positrons to high enough velocity to escape a galaxy and confining them in a collimated jet (as observed) using a magnetic field, but that these particles do not emit any radiation.

The gamma ray bursts may be the radiation emitted, when very high energy electron/positrons (and neutrinos) are ejected from the centre of a galaxy.

The observed jets may be a lower energy version, or a longer lasting phenomenon after the very short gamma ray burst has occurred.

John Hunter.

[astro_uk]

Well I guess gamma rays would be the natural consequence of the annihilation of a positron electron pair. But at a more fundamental level you are going to run into problems with conservation of energy. You simply can't be ejecting that much mass from the centre, because it takes a lot of energy to produce these positrons and electrons (they cant be natural if you have positrons) and then to give them enough KE to escape the galaxy potential.

Basically you will only be able to eject a fraction of the rest mass energy of the matter that is being accreted onto the Black hole. So any escaping mass must only be a fraction of what is falling onto the BH. This puts a limit on how much mass can escape using this method. You can look at the mass of the central BH and then say that this must be greater than the mass that has been ejected by the BH. The important point is that the supermassive BHs in galaxies are simply not that massive, they only make up about 0.5% of the mass of the bulge of stars around them (even less of the whole galaxy). So you cannot use a BH to eject a significant amount of mass, certainly not enough to eplain DM.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Dear Tim,

Electrons and positrons are leptons, not baryons.



Yeah, but as was implied by Tim Thompson's statement, charge conservation is a terrible thing to violate.

[john hunter]

Dear astro_uk

Well I guess gamma rays would be the natural consequence of the annihilation of a positron electron pair. But at a more fundamental level you are going to run into problems with conservation of energy. You simply can't be ejecting that much mass from the centre, because it takes a lot of energy to produce these positrons and electrons (they cant be natural if you have positrons) and then to give them enough KE to escape the galaxy potential.


Well, it could be that more matter is spiralling into the galactic nucleus. Maybe stars are formed at the edges of each galaxy - spiral into the nucleus and are then 'regurgitated'. The whole process taking approx 10 billion years.

This may be why there are more old stars at or near galactic centres, the new stars at the edges being reformed from basic matter ejected from the nucleus - baryons, and electrons from other galaxies.
If this is the case the output from the centre must be approx 10^23Kg/second on average (more if the output occurs in bursts). Most 'mass' could be carried by the leptons in the form of energy.

John Hunter

[astro_uk]

Well, it could be that more matter is spiralling into the galactic nucleus. Maybe stars are formed at the edges of each galaxy - spiral into the nucleus and are then 'regurgitated'. The whole process taking approx 10 billion years.


It would have to be a strange process, as we see many old stars in the solar neighbourhood, so not everything would spiral in. Interstingly of course it has recently been found that there are many young stars around the SMBH in the MW. See http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astronomy/dn9738-baby-star-found-near-galaxys-violent-centre.html (http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astronomy/dn9738-baby-star-found-near-galaxys-violent-centre.html) for details.

I still think you have major problems, the rate of star fomation is about 1Msun per year in the MW and fairly similar in other nearby spirals, looking at it on average then we should see 1Msun per year being ejected from SMBHs nearby. I don't think we see anything like that. Even if you allow bursts to kick out more mass than this over short timescales we should see some galaxies kicking out huge amounts of mass, which again I've never seen much evidence for.

Of course long term in this pricture your going to get killed by conservation of energy, eventually everthing will end up in the SMBH in the centre.

You also have the problem of elliptical galaxies which generally have the largest BHs but they generally dont seem to be doing anything, which is because ellipticals have very little gas that can be swept up by the BH. So because we dont see that many big ellipticals with very strong AGN in the nearby Universe it would seem to imply that whatever is going on it requires gas not stars to feed a BH. Which in your picture would be very hard to understand because the gas is stuck in stars. It is fairly rare for a star to drift close enough to the BH to be captured then destroyed by it.

[john hunter]

Dear astro_uk

The alternative model, if it can be made, would be one without a black hole at the centre, just denser matter at higher temperatures towards the centre.

Shell galaxies, might be the result of periodic outbursts due to the reducing G at the centre of an elliptical galaxy.

John Hunter.

[Nereid]

This just out (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/swift_blazars.html) ... quasar jets seem to be predominently electrons+protons, and the total mass expelled is ~MJ.

For the rest of this john hunter ATM idea, a mass outflow from the active nucleus of a galaxy (or quasar), with as much mass as your idea seems to require, would be obvious indeed - the ISM is not a vacuum, and enough of it is hot enough that such mass flows would show up in line shapes (if they didn't show up in the form of lots of broad emission, or absorption).

[john hunter]

Dear Nereid, Thanks for the interesting link.

This just out (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/swift_blazars.html) ... quasar jets seem to be predominently electrons+protons, and the total mass expelled is ~MJ.

.. the ISM is not a vacuum, and enough of it is hot enough that such mass flows would show up in line shapes (if they didn't show up in the form of lots of broad emission, or absorption).

To quote from your link:

"How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."

The composition of black hole jets has been the topic of heated debate for several decades. Scientists generally agree that the jets must be made either of electrons and their antimatter partners, called positrons, or an even mix of electrons and protons.."


The question is important, the answer could be by a reducing value of G, at the centre of the galaxy. The next paragraph seems in rough agreement with the OP, although the article does say that the measurements show that the jets are protons and electrons.

The existence of gamma ray bursts might indicate that jets exist in electron/positron form too. These type of jets might occur at the same time as the observed jets, but move further away, and don't leave a visible trace.
To be visible the intergalactic medium, (not just Interstellar medium) must have enough matter to make them visible.

Alternatively, a seperate type of jet may exist, giving the gamma ray bursts.

John Hunter.

[Nereid]

Dear Nereid, Thanks for the interesting link.



To quote from your link:

"How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."

The composition of black hole jets has been the topic of heated debate for several decades. Scientists generally agree that the jets must be made either of electrons and their antimatter partners, called positrons, or an even mix of electrons and protons.."


The question is important, the answer could be by a reducing value of G, at the centre of the galaxy. The next paragraph seems in rough agreement with the OP, although the article does say that the measurements show that the jets are protons and electrons.

The existence of gamma ray bursts might indicate that jets exist in electron/positron form too. These type of jets might occur at the same time as the observed jets, but move further away, and don't leave a visible trace.
To be visible the intergalactic medium, (not just Interstellar medium) must have enough matter to make them visible.

Alternatively, a seperate type of jet may exist, giving the gamma ray bursts.

John Hunter.(my bold)

Would you care to do a back of the envelope calculation on this?

e+ - e- annihilation radiation is very distinct, and the ISM in the environs of the GRBs we've managed to localise so far has a sufficiently high density that the positrons would not get far, especially if the GRB jets are as energetic as they seem ...

[john hunter]

(my bold)

Would you care to do a back of the envelope calculation on this?

e+ - e- annihilation radiation is very distinct, and the ISM in the environs of the GRBs we've managed to localise so far has a sufficiently high density that the positrons would not get far, especially if the GRB jets are as energetic as they seem ...

Well, the electron mass is approx 10^-30Kg so mc^2 is approx 10^-13J (as c^2 is approx 10^17) which is 10^6eV.

This is in the gamma ray part of the spectrum.

I don't know the density off the top of my head around the GRB, but the gamma rays would no doubt escape. (which we observe).

The electron/positrons would be in such huge numbers that even if most are absorbed, some would escape to form the dark matter.

Here is another quick calculation: The article says that quasars exist in a region approx equal to the solar system 10^12 or 10^13m, and have mass of a billion suns 10^39Kg. So the m/r ratio is approx 10^27Kg/m

This is about the same value as c^2/G, when the reduction in G is predicted to occur.

John Hunter.

[Nereid]

Well, the electron mass is approx 10^-30Kg so mc^2 is approx 10^-13J (as c^2 is approx 10^17) which is 10^6eV.

This is in the gamma ray part of the spectrum.

I don't know the density off the top of my head around the GRB, but the gamma rays would no doubt escape. (which we observe).

The electron/positrons would be in such huge numbers that even if most are absorbed, some would escape to form the dark matter.

Here is another quick calculation: The article says that quasars exist in a region approx equal to the solar system 10^12 or 10^13m, and have mass of a billion suns 10^39Kg. So the m/r ratio is approx 10^27Kg/m

This is about the same value as c^2/G, when the reduction in G is predicted to occur.

John Hunter.The electron-positron annhilation line is 511 keV ... and several gamma ray observatories have been observing the sky, for decades now.

In GRBs, AFAIK, no gamma line have been observed yet (INTEGRAL (http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Integral/index.html) would certainly have detected any such, as no doubt would some others), and GRBs have certainly been 'seen' by gamma ray observatories that have sufficient spectral resolution.

From the public domain data on GRBs, would you like to do a back of the envelope calculation - what is the expected intensity of the 511 keV line emission, from a GRB jet, in your idea?

[john hunter]

Dear Nereid,

After consideration of your link, and the fact that the 511keV line has not been observed. The proposition that the emmisions are electron/positrons is probably wrong.

However the main purpose of the OP was the suggestion that dark matter is known matter emitted from galaxies, and due to the reduction of G at the centres of galaxies.

After further work, more might be posted on this in a future post.

All the best,

John Hunter.