Dark matter, long theorised but remaining controversial, may have found yet another piece of evidence in its favour. The theory of dark matter has it that billions of years ago, not so much dark matter should have fallen into the galaxies yet, so instead of the flat rotation curves that are observed in the galaxies of today, younger galaxies should exhibit falling rotation curves that slow further from the centre. The measurement of the rotation curves of such younger, more distant galaxies has so far been elusive, but astronomers have now succeeded in doing so. In a paper just submitted to the Astrophysical Journal, they show how they have measured the rotation curves of 101 distant galaxies with redshifts between 0.6 to 2.6 (or 7.2 billion to 19 billion light years away comoving distance, 8 billion to 2.5 billion years after the Big Bang). These galaxies all show a precipitous drop-off in rotational velocity as one goes further away from the centre. From an article by Ethan Siegel:
When they use a technique called "stacking" — where they calibrate each galaxy to one another to examine their overall, average properties — they find that there is, in fact, a precipitous drop-off in rotational velocity as you move away from the center of these galaxies.
This is, remarkably, a strong piece of evidence that points to dark matter and not to modified gravity! As Philipp Lang and his coauthors write in a paper just submitted to the Astrophysical Journal:
Our stacked rotation curve exhibits a decrease in rotation velocity beyond the turn-over radius down to ∼ 62% of the maximum normalized velocity Vmax, confirming the drop [...] as a representative feature for our sample of high-z disk galaxies. The drop seen in our stacked rotation curve strikingly deviates from the average rotation curves of local spirals at the same mass at > 3σ significance level.
This is just a 3-sigma effect so far, but it should be improved upon by future telescopes like the Giant Magellan Telescope, E-ELT, and WFIRST that are coming in the 2020s.
Related: Dark Matter Is Missing From Young Galaxies
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 22 2017, @10:21PM (8 children)
Apparently this "prediction" due to dark matter was only made a few months ago after these observations were known. All it proves in that case is what everyone has been saying: "the dark matter hypothesis is way too flexible".
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=18534&page=1&cid=480896#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
It looks like GR was falsified in the 1930s and we need to figure out why the post-Newtonian approximations really seem to work so well. A lot people are hanging on to a degenerating research program (which is fine, but just admit what you are doing...).
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @02:08AM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:05AM (2 children)
This wouldn't surprise me at all, but I'm not too familiar with astrophysics. Don't they have conferences where students present posters before publishing papers (usually with multi-year lags?). It's not like people keep this stuff top secret.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:48AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:09AM
This is getting off topic, but... It sounds like you are saying that if someone believes that scientists communicate with each other before a paper is published, and act on the shared information, you consider them a conspiracy theorist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @08:17AM (3 children)
AC, you are supporting fiddling about with one part of the Standard Model Lagrangian (gravity) over fiddling about with another part of the Standard Model Lagrangian (particle species). You claim that the former is the only way, the latter is "a degenerating research program". This is just wrong. We choose the model that best fits the evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @01:57PM (2 children)
"God wills it" fits the evidence even better though. My point is that a vague, flexible enough theory will have no problem fitting evidence, especially if you allow ad hoc adjustments as new evidence comes in. Why didn't they claim dark matter had these properties originally?
Lets be more positive. What other (not yet observed) phenomena are predicted due to this new model of dark matter? Is there anything besides this aspect of rotation curves? Do they mention any in the paper? If so, we can simply wait for the new data to come in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @05:50PM (1 child)
Why didn't they claim dark matter had these properties originally?
What properties? Reacting to gravity and falling in towards the galaxy?
As I understood it, the only difference between this theory and the previous one is in the assumption of initial distribution of dark matter. Originally, researchers thought that dark matter clumped together with normal matter, so when galaxy is formed, it's already there. Now some of them think that initial distribution of dark matter is a bit more dispersed, so it takes some time for it to fall in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 23 2017, @06:14PM
Yes, that property. Let's just stick with my last (positive) point, surely this has consequences beyond the rotation curves of a few galaxies. The important thing now is: What predictions can we deduce from this new model?