Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 30 2016, @05:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the does-dark-matter-matter? dept.

The hypothesis of dark matter has proved incredibly successful in explaining the overall large scale structure of the universe and in interactions on the level of galactic clusters, which competing hypotheses such as modified gravity have failed to adequately explain. However, on the relatively smaller scales of individual galaxies, hypothesising dark matter shows some problems. In a paper recently accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, astronomers Stacy McGaugh and Federico Lelli of Case Western Reserve University, and Jim Schombert of the University of Oregon, have made observations of 153 different galaxies with a wide variety of shapes, masses, sizes and amounts of gas. They have found a strong relationship between how quickly the galaxy rotates and the presence of normal (baryonic) matter alone. From an article on Case Western Reserve University's Daily:

[...] A team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers has found a significant new relationship in spiral and irregular galaxies: the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from the visible mass only.

"If you measure the distribution of star light, you know the rotation curve, and vice versa," said Stacy McGaugh, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve and lead author of the research.

The finding is consistent among 153 spiral and irregular galaxies, ranging from giant to dwarf, those with massive central bulges or none at all. It is also consistent among those galaxies comprised of mostly stars or mostly gas.

[...] "Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter," said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."

[...] Arthur Kosowsky, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh, was not involved but reviewed the research.

"The standard model of cosmology is remarkably successful at explaining just about everything we observe in the universe," Kosowsky said. "But if there is a single observation which keeps me awake at night worrying that we might have something essentially wrong, this is it."

Additional coverage and commentary by Ethan Siegel and Brian Koberlain. It seems that the universe has just thrown us yet another curve ball. This kind of correlation is just the sort of thing that modified gravity such as MOND and TeVeS predict. However, they fail miserably in explaining the large scale structure and evolution of the universe, which the dark matter explains admirably.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @10:00PM (#408554)

    I was thinking more along the lines of "Good, now maybe they'll stop using Fucking Magic as an explanation for things and actually figure out why." Dark Matter is a shit term and always has been. If you don't fucking know, just say you don't fucking know and get to finding out. Don't give what you don't know an important sounding name so it looks like you know more than you actually do.

    My understanding is that "Dark Matter" (and "Dark Energy") are exactly what you describe, placeholders to say "we don't know what this is, we should (and are) researching it."

    If they were instead to call it "TSUF" (the stuff unaccounted for), it would be exactly the same. Dark Matter is just the label for the unknown, as much as "x" in algebra.

    So they are doing exactly what you are suggesting, unless I am misunderstanding something... and this discovery is just one more small step into transforming "Dark Energy" from a meaningless placeholder name into a poorly-named scientific phenomena, like the "God" particle, "weak" force, and the various strange names of quarks.

  • (Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday September 30 2016, @10:21PM

    by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 30 2016, @10:21PM (#408561)

    If they were instead to call it "TSUF" (the stuff unaccounted for), it would be exactly the same.

    Except that there are many "stuffs unaccounted for" so we'd need to use TSUF_1, TSUF_2,... so we may as well use "dark matter", "dark energy", "dark coolness" etc

    ...the various strange names of quarks...

    But some of those strange names are so charming.

    --
    It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.