Why is Dark Matter everywhere in the cosmos?
A product of the Dark Side
Published: 31 March 2015 (GMT+10)
NASA/ESA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
Why is dark matter assumed to exist in the cosmos? From reading news headlines you would think it has been clearly identified and that we now know so much about this once elusive stuff. It has been sought in many different laboratory experiments for more than four decades now, but never found. Why then are astronomers so confident it is out there? Let me try to put this into context and I hope it will become clear.
Two types of physics
In my realm of interest there are really only two types of scientists:
- Experimental physicists carrying out experiments in laboratories,
- Astrophysicists (or cosmologists) who use the universe as their ‘laboratory’.
Both construct mathematical models to describe their observations. Both test their models against those observations.
However the experimentalists (type 1) can interact with their experiments in a way the astrophysicists cannot. For example, they can send in a light signal and measure the response in the system, i.e. see what comes out. But the astrophysicists (type 2) cannot interact with what they are observing in the universe. The universe is just too large to do that.
Within our solar system we have been able to send probes to make observations. For example, NASA’s Deep Impact probe1 shot a 370 kg copper bullet into a comet2 and measured the spectra3 of the ejected material. And ESA’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a robotic lander, Philae, on a comet4 and made, for the first time, direct measurements of the surface constituents. These types of measurements, you could say, are very similar to what the experimentalists do in their laboratories. But the latter mission’s objectives, excerpted from the ESA website, highlight the type of science involved (emphases added):
Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.5
There are basic underlying assumptions. The statement above makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is the untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original assumption.
But no matter how much evidence they accumulate they cannot directly observe the past. Certainly not without assumptions. They always need to apply interpretations to the evidence, which is the materials they dig out of those comets.
Even in the case of astrophysics, you might think that the astronomer is observing the past, because the light entering his telescope supposedly took millions or billions of years to traverse the vast universe to earth. But even this has its limits to what we can know.
The astronomer receives light into his telescope on earth and he must make the uniformitarian assumption that the light has been travelling at a constant speed (of about 300, 000 km/s) for the past millions or billions of years to reach earth, and with no relativistic time dilation effects. Only after making that assumption can he make the assumption, not know, that what he observes is coming from some past epoch millions or billions of years earlier. But how could you test that assumption? You can’t! And for that reason this aspect of astrophysics/cosmology is not directly provable by any empirical test.
In the case of all observations beyond the solar system the problem is beyond dispute. You cannot go there. The size, distances to and assumed age of galaxies, and other cosmic sources, is so great that even what we measure is as though we are taking a single still photograph; it is just a moment in time.
Astronomers only observe, they cannot interact with their experiment as the experimental physicist in the laboratory can do. And what makes matters even more difficult for the astrophysicist or cosmologist is that there are many possible explanations for the same observations. But because they cannot interact with the sources under investigation (which might even be the whole universe) their science is very weak indeed. For this very reason James Gunn, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said:
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. … A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”6
What do we know about gravity?
Now let’s examine this statement.
There exists a force of attraction between any two masses in the universe.
Can that statement be proven?
You might say, yes. We can locally test gravity and it works, in fact, it works extremely well, and it has been experimentally verified even down to sub-centimeter distances.7 Scientists find strong evidence in local laboratory experiments. In fact, new physics is even sought at distance scales less than this because it is believed that eventually the gravitational force law must break down, since quantum theory and Einstein’s gravitational theory are fundamentally incompatible. But all of those investigations are done via repeatable experimental physics. Different theories can be, and are being, tested by the experimentalists.
Evidence has accumulated that supports the law of gravitation. It has been tested repeatedly, and no contradiction found, to Einstein’s formulation of the law anyway. That is why it is now called a law. The law is often called the universal law of gravitation.
Can an experimentalist then safely extrapolate his conclusions about gravity, in a laboratory experiment, to the whole universe? No, he can’t, not without assumptions. Therein lies one major part of the problem.
Next we must decide on what we mean by ‘evidence’. Normally evidence is data collected. But that data must be interpreted. And models are constructed that make predictions. In a laboratory the experimentalist can test those predictions. In the cosmos this is more difficult. It is possible, though. A model might predict the existence of certain behaviour and then the astrophysicist looks for that. But it is more like ‘stamp-collecting’ than laboratory science. Because he cannot do an experiment he accumulates as many observations as possible and tries to classify the results. He sorts his objects into families, or identifies a common trend among those in the same family. By accumulating a lot of such data he argues for his model. But because he cannot know by an empirical test his conclusions are invariably and inevitably weak.
Now, what if you were to read the headline, “Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way”?8 What evidence could this be referring to? And how could you know that dark matter really exists?
The 2015 article that bore this headline went on to say (emphases added):
“The existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well established. But historically it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions, where the Solar System is located. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision from our own position in the Milky Way.
“In our new study, we obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of the Milky Way. We have created the most complete compilation so far of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way, and compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the Galactic centre,” says Miguel Pato at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.9
Without going into the details of the physics of gravitation, and why bodies like stars orbit the Galaxy centre the way they do, we can learn by critically examining these statements.
Dark matter is called dark because we cannot see it. No dark matter particle has ever been observed in a lab experiment despite more than 40 years of searching. I even spent a few years doing that myself looking for paraphotons, which are classed as WISPs,10 a putative dark sector particle. (In Star Wars terminology it is a particle from the Dark Side.)
If the so-called dark matter particles could be observed by light, or by X-rays, or by some other electromagnetic radiation, it would make their identification easy. But how can the author of the above article claim “direct observational proof”? How can it be claimed that their existence is “well established” in the outer parts of our galaxy? They don’t observe dark matter, nor do they do an experiment where they send in some radiation into a cloud and get a response back.
An experimentalist might do something like that to detect a particle he cannot otherwise ‘see’. So the act of seeing means a response to some radiation. It does not mean a human has to be able to see it with his own eyes. For example, we know electrons exist. That is not in dispute, and their existence has been repeatedly confirmed by many experiments. (Interestingly, though, we don’t know how small they are. It is still an open question. But I digress.)
In the galaxy, how can the claim be made that the observations cannot be explained unless large amounts of unseen dark matter are assumed? To make such a claim, you would have to know that you have ruled out all other possibilities. In such a case—remember this is not a laboratory experiment—you would have to be an all-knowing god.
Background photo: Serge Brunier/NASA
The image displays the rotation curve tracer gases from the publication11 over a photograph of the disc of the Milky Way Galaxy as seen from the Southern Hemisphere. The tracers are colour-coded in blue or red according to their relative Doppler motion with respect to the Sun. The spherically symmetric blue halo illustrates the dark matter distribution inferred from the analysis.
The light coming from the gases and stars in the Galaxy is observed with a telescope, but more specifically what is observed are the spectral lines in the light from those sources. And they are seen to be red-shifted or blue-shifted. (Spectral lines shifted toward either the red end or the blue end of the spectrum, as compared to a laboratory sample of the same type of gas.) These effects are interpreted as arising from the well-established Doppler Effect, where the motion of the gas particles (or the stars) causes this effect in the light. Then that is interpreted as meaning the gases and stars are moving around the galaxy centre at certain speeds, which are typically 100 km/s to 300 km/s.
That interpretation (the Doppler Effect) requires some assumptions. But all are reasonable and within known laboratory physics, except one. That one is that the law of gravitation is true out in the Galaxy where these gases or stars are. That is, the law of gravitation, which has been tested extremely well in the solar system, also applies without modification out in the cosmos, both in the Milky Way Galaxy and outside it.
But we have already realized that it cannot be known if that law is universal. It is assumed to be universal and thus a model of the galaxy constructed. If the observed speeds (and they are an interpretation of the meaning of the red-shifted and blue-shifted light, which we will agree to here) follow the expected trend then we say all is well and Newton’s law (of gravity) works fine. But the problem is they do not. The stars and gases move too fast around the Galaxy to obey Newton’s law. If that situation continued for hundreds of millions of years the stars in the Galaxy disk region (where our solar system in located) would fly apart and the Galaxy would disintegrate over longer time scales. But that couldn’t be right because (of the underlying assumption that) the galaxy is stable and has been around for 10 billion years or so.
So the conclusion is, either that the law of gravitation is wrong or that there is more matter in the Galaxy, which we cannot see. Nearly always it is assumed that there is missing, hence ‘dark’, matter lurking out there, which comprises 80–90% of a galaxy’s mass.12 But if it wasn’t for Einstein’s discovery where he added to and improved on Newton’s law of gravitation, we might still be thinking that the dark planet Vulcan (also called dark matter at the time) was necessary to explain an anomaly of Mercury’s orbit in the inner solar system.13 So it is just as reasonable to think that new physics rather than new matter is needed to add to Einstein’s improvements the way these did to Newtonian physics. Yet nowadays news headlines tend to speak of discoveries of dark matter as though it is being directly imaged.
“Dark matter observed in the heart of our galaxy,”14 says one news headline, and the article states, “But up to now it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions.”15 You get the impression it is all now well-established science. This is illustrated in the figure above of the Milky Way galaxy with the red-shifted and blue-shifted sources shown on either side of the central core of the Galaxy.
Another headline: “Milky Way has half the amount of dark matter as previously thought, new measurements reveal”.16 The story is that by looking at how many dwarf satellite galaxies our galaxy has around it, and their motions, you can determine the mass of our galaxy. This is important because according to the standard cosmogony the mass of the Galaxy determines its formation process, and that process is determined from the cosmology that is assumed.
In this story these so-called measurements solve a mystery. Remember the big bang model is assumed. That is called the Lambda (Dark Energy) Cold Dark Matter theory, which predicts that there should be several big satellite galaxies around our Milky Way Galaxy that are visible to the naked eye. But that is not what we observe. However, the new measurements supposedly solve the problem (emphases added):
“When you use our measurement of the mass of the dark matter the theory predicts that there should only be three satellite galaxies out there, which is exactly what we see; the Large Magellanic Cloud, the Small Magellanic Cloud and the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy.”
University of Sydney astrophysicist Professor Geraint Lewis, who was also involved in the research, said the missing satellite problem had been “a thorn in the cosmological side for almost 15 years”.17
Firstly, you cannot predict something that you know prior to formulating your theory. It is not a prediction. Secondly, the dark matter also cannot be observed. The ‘amount’ is derived from the motion of the dwarf galaxies and/or the stars and gases in our galaxy, but that assumes that ‘missing matter’ is the reason for the anomalous motion.
From the news report you would think that dark matter is directly observed; but it is not. But why is it so important? Just like the Rosetta space probe was to discover the origin of the Solar System, the ‘dark’ matter mapping is to discover the evolution of the Galaxy (emphases added):
“Our method will allow for upcoming astronomical observations to measure the distribution of dark matter in our Galaxy with unprecedented precision. This will permit [sic] to refine our understanding of the structure and evolution of our Galaxy, and it will trigger more robust predictions for the many experiments worldwide that search for dark matter particles. The study therefore constitutes a fundamental step forward in the quest for the nature of dark matter,” says Miguel Pato.18
Dark matter, though never identified in a lab experiment, is assumed a priori.
The same type of analysis is applied not only to galaxies, satellite galaxies, galaxy clusters, and super-clusters but also the whole universe.
“Too much dark matter in galaxy cluster? ‘Dark core’ may not be so dark after all”19 reads another headline. When clusters are analysed it was still via the assumed ‘motions’ or properties of gases in the clusters, or constituent galaxies, in some cases. Never is dark matter observed, only the inferred motion of ‘particles’ under the assumption of the universal law of gravitation.
Due to application of well-established laws, including gravitation, with the assumption that the galaxy clusters are stable over their assumed many-billions-of-year lifetimes, it is determined in this case there is a lack of dark matter over what was expected. This all comes about because of the application of the law of gravitation to these super-massive objects, and uniformitarian interpretations applied. None of which can be proven.
“Because dark matter is not visible, its presence and distribution is found indirectly through its gravitational effects. The gravity from both dark and luminous matter warps space, bending and distorting light from galaxies and clusters behind it like a giant magnifying glass. Astronomers can use this effect, called gravitational lensing, to infer the presence of dark matter in massive galaxy clusters.”20
In this research, on observations of the Abell 520 galaxy cluster, something that came out of Einstein’s improved theory on gravitation is used. This was not found in Newton’s theory. It is gravitational lensing, where, according to the theory, the matter of cluster(s) warps the path of light through space and can be thought of as a giant lens. By modelling the gravitational lens using dark matter they try to match theory to observations and hence ‘infer the presence of dark matter’ in the cluster. They do not claim ‘direct’ imaging of the dark matter.
This essentially becomes circular reasoning. It proceeds like this; the universe is stable and has evolved over more than 10 billion years producing galaxies and galaxy clusters. The only agency doing the ‘creating’ of galaxies and clusters was/is the law of gravitation acting on the matter. That is the primary assumption, in the background of the assumed cosmology, which also includes the weirdest stuff of all, Dark Energy. Then to make the observations fit the theoretical model, dark matter must be included, else the model should be rejected. So the ‘existence’ of dark matter is the product of the initial underlying uniformitarian assumption. Because the universe itself supposedly constructed galaxies and clusters from only matter under the influence of gravitation, it follows that there must be an enormous content of invisible matter that cannot be seen.
Alternatively if you assumed the galaxies were not that old, and/or they were not in a stable state because they have not existed for billions of years, you would not need to include any dark matter. Or even if they have existed for at least hundreds of millions of years based on their spiral structure (and some biblical creationist time dilation cosmologies allow for that, while only a short time passes in reality, if earth clocks are the reference frame) another possibility is that they are stable and there is a need for new physics, an extension of the law of gravitation that applies on very large scales in the universe.
These ideas can be consistent with a straightforward interpretation of Genesis that states clearly the universe was created approximately 6000 years ago (as measured by earth clocks). So why resort to dark matter? Because ultimately it is so one can believe that the universe naturalistically created itself and there is no Creator God.
Light from the dark matter sector
But some may claim science has detected radiation from dark matter particles in the cosmos. I previously reported on the idea that the intergalactic medium has too much light coming from it, where no sources could be identified, and it was theorized as the result of the decay of some hypothetical dark matter particles. This resulted from a mismatch between theory and observations, and hence dark matter was suggested as the solution.
By now you must have realized how convenient it is to have dark matter particles, or in fact anything from the dark sector. It can fill in what is missing in the theory without a need to reject the underlying theory itself.
“… found an indirect signal from dark matter in the spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They … came to the same conclusion: a tiny spike is hidden in the X-ray spectra of the Perseus galaxy cluster, at a frequency that cannot be explained by any known atomic transition.”23
Apparently two groups of astronomers have found a signal among some X-rays coming from different galaxy clusters. It cannot be explained by known physics, so dark matter is concluded.
“The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called ‘sterile’ because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter.”24
I have previously discussed the hypothetical sterile neutrino, which is sometimes called Dark Radiation, proffered to rescue the Standard Model of particle physics, when the standard big bang cosmology is assumed to be true. The problem arises essentially only in cosmology and astrophysics because the very successful theory of particle physics, which has been extremely well tested in repeatable laboratory experiments, has no real need for another neutrino.
What is the goal of looking for dark matter in the cosmos? One of the scientists in the X-ray study, Boyarsky, says:
“We will know where to look in order to trace dark structures in space and will be able to reconstruct how the Universe has formed.”25
Need I say more? It is philosophically driven. Materialistic naturalism is all that is assumed and dark matter is the god which fills in the gaps to maintain the façade.
Dark matter in galaxy formation
Dark matter is crucial in the formation of both stars and galaxies. Without it they won’t form naturalistically. I will deal with star formation is another article, but consider this; If you don’t know how stars and galaxies formed, you don’t know much about how the universe, which we observe, formed.
Galaxy formation is a seriously big problem for big bang cosmology. In the computer simulations, modelling the formation of the large-scale structure (super-clusters, filaments of galaxies etc) in the universe, dark matter is assumed from the beginning. For the condensation of individual galaxies it is a similar story. By starting with a critical density of dark matter the models are able to show galaxy formation under gravity where the dark matter attracts the normal matter into the central region to form a galaxy.
The dark matter must reside as a spherical halo around the spiral galaxies, which have a thin disk of luminous normal matter. This state is determined from the studies of the speeds of gases and stars in the disks of thousands of spiral galaxies. But there is even a problem here too, called the dark matter cusp problem.
The problem is because the unseen made-up stuff does not quite behave as you would expect matter to behave under the influence of the law of gravitation.
Since dark matter is meant to be like normal matter under gravity’s influence it should pile up in the centre of galaxies. Its density should be maximum in the core—hence, there should be a cusp or peak in the density distribution there. But to accurately model the motions of the stars and gases, dark matter is not needed in the central cores, only in the disk regions. Newtonian gravity alone easily accounts for the visible matter in the central nuclei of these galaxies.
NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)
So even the studies that infer the existence of the dark matter contradict what matter should do under the influence of gravity.
One study on dwarf galaxies highlights this problem (emphases added):
“Our measurements contradict a basic prediction about the structure of cold dark matter in dwarf galaxies. Unless or until theorists can modify that prediction, cold dark matter is inconsistent with our observational data,” Walker stated.
“Dwarf galaxies are composed of up to 99 percent dark matter and only one percent normal matter like stars. This disparity makes dwarf galaxies ideal targets for astronomers seeking to understand dark matter.
“Their data showed that …, the dark matter is distributed uniformly over a relatively large region, several hundred light-years across. This contradicts the prediction that the density of dark matter should increase sharply toward the centers of these galaxies.
“If a dwarf galaxy were a peach, the standard cosmological model says we should find a dark matter ‘pit’ at the center. Instead, the first two dwarf galaxies we studied are like pitless peaches,” said Peñarrubia.26
‘Pitless peaches’ means no dark matter in the centre of these galaxies, just where ‘gravity says’ it should be found. Even though these researchers have implicitly assumed that 99% of the matter content of those galaxies is dark matter, their own observations (of motions of the stars and gases) do not agree with the dark matter paradigm. To my knowledge this is true in all galaxies where such studies have been done.
Astrophysics and cosmology are by their very nature loaded with philosophical underpinnings. In principle there is nothing wrong with that. You could not do any sort of science without a basis to build your model. I would call these philosophies worldviews. And we all have a worldview. We form that based on what we believe about the world around us and how it all began. The difference here is that my worldview is based on the biblical truth that God, the Creator, created the universe about 6000 years ago. It was not the result of an accident or a quantum fluctuation of some false vacuum or a big bang of any sort. If it were, God would have said so in the Bible.
The worldview that underlies modern cosmology, and cosmogony (on the origin of the universe) is an atheistic one. It has no place for a Creator, and only relies on what man can discover for himself. As a result he has had to resort to all sorts of fudge factors to make his model fit the observational data, the evidence from the cosmos. Dark matter has arisen from this. But even when assumed to fix such problems the supposed dark matter does not behave like normal matter under the influence of gravity. It is stranger than fiction and I am afraid it is no more real than the ‘Emperors’ new clothes’.
References and notes
- NASA declares End of Deep Impact Comet Hunter Mission, spaceflight101.com, September 2013. Return to text.
- Comet Tempel 1. Return to text.
- What is spectroscopy?, solarsystem.nasa.gov, accessed February 2015. Return to text.
- Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. Return to text.
- Rosetta’s frequently asked questions, esa.int, accessed February 2015. Return to text.
- Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe?, Science 317:1848–1850, 2007. Return to text.
- Long, J., Tests of Gravity at the 100 Micron Scale and Below, slac.stanford.edu. Return to text.
- Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way, sciencedaily.com, February 2015. Return to text.
- Ref. 8. Return to text.
- Povey, R., Hartnett, J.G., Tobar, M.E., Microwave cavity light shining through a wall optimization and experiment, Phys. Rev. D 82:052003, 2010; Povey, R., Hartnett, J.G., Tobar, M.E., Microwave cavity hidden sector photon threshold crossing, Phys. Rev. D 84:055023, 2011; Parker, S.R. , Hartnett, J.G., Povey, R.G., and Tobar, M.E., Cryogenic resonant microwave cavity searches for hidden sector photons, Phys. Rev. D 88:112004, 2013. Return to text.
- Iocco, F., Pato, M., and Bertone, G., Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way, Nature Physics, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nphys3237. Return to text.
- It is usually considered ‘alternative,’ sometimes even ‘crackpot’ when the law of gravitation is challenged. Return to text.
- Hartnett, J.G., Dark radiation in big bang cosmology, 11 November 2014; creation.com/dark-radiation. Return to text.
- Dark matter observed in the heart of our galaxy, sciencedaily.com, February 2015. Return to text.
- Ref. 14. Return to text.
- Milky Way has half the amount of dark matter as previously thought, new measurements reveal, sciencedaily.com, October 2014. Return to text.
- Ref. 16. Return to text.
- Ref. 8. Return to text.
- Too much dark matter in galaxy cluster? ‘Dark core’ may not be so dark after all, sciencedaily.com, November 2012. Return to text.
- Ref. 19. Return to text.
- Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter, sciencedaily.com, February 2014. Return to text.
- Researchers detect possible signal from dark matter, sciencedaily.com, December 2014. Return to text.
- Ref. 21. Return to text.
- Ref. 21. Return to text.
- Ref. 22. Return to text.
- Dark matter mystery deepens, sciencedaily.com, October 2011. Return to text.
The BIG BANG theory (not an observed, historical fact !) seems to be the foundation of all these later theories about dark matter etc. I request clear and unambiguous answers to just 2 queries I have :-
1. The BB theory requires that extremely high density matter exploding/expanding should throw out the particles or parts of that high density, high energy matter in all directions, leaving an EVER INCREASING VOID at the precise spot of the BB. Where have the observational scientists found this ever expanding VOID for past 20 billion years, shall we say? Has the Hubble radio telescope found that VOID in space, anywhere?
2. They say they found a matching earth or a matching sun somewhere in space about 20,000 or 20 billion light years away ! Is it not true that what they claim to have now found and got even some pictures, may have been the situation billions of years ago, not now ? Any idea they can advance about the present location of those bodies claimed to have been found? Do they have any facility, machine or formula that can travel thousands of times faster than the speed of light to MEASURE the time and space, because no human being is known to have lived for more than a thousand years?
I asked these questions to our respected Dr. Jayant V. Narlikar, but did not get any response.
Your question 1: The big bang according to the theory occurred everywhere. There is no special place for the point of the expansion to come from because all points in the big bang universe move away from all other points. You would probably know of the expanding balloon analogy. Please see figure here. So no there is no ever increasing void left behind. The alleged big bang is a smooth expansion space, according to the theory.
Your question 2: I have never heard of such a claim. Possibly it is a misunderstanding resulting from someone saying that with so many billion trillions of stars in the universe that somewhere there must be a similar sun with a similar earth-like planet. Since big bang cosmology requires that our planet/sun system is not special in any way that this might be said. So I would say that idea you suggest has only come as a result of a belief in a big bang universe. It has no basis in fact.
The Dark matter article led me back to origins regarding whether the universe is eternal. But surely if the universe always existed in time then we could never have got to this point in time because there would always be eons of time before that and before that to an infinite past? So there must have been a beginning? Or am I way off in my thinking?
In regards to your question of the eternal universe, have you read the article An eternal big bang universe?
The are several physical problems with such a universe, besides the obvious problem of its eternal existence. The idea of infinity, an infinite time in the past, may be mathematically tractable but I think physically impossible. You are not way off at all.
Hello again - I have to jump in here and quote a Rev Nicholas Sykes, who is paraphrasing others:
"The astrophysicist Hannes Alfvén came up with an electric galaxy theory as early as 1981. Alfvén observed that galaxies resemble the homopolar motors invented by Michael Faraday. A homopolar motor is driven by magnetic fields induced in a circular aluminium plate or some other conductive metal. The metal plate is placed between the poles of an electromagnet that causes it to spin at a rate proportional to the input current.
Galactic discs behave like the conductive plates in a homopolar motor. Birkeland currents flow within the galactic disks, powering their stars. The galaxies are, in turn, powered by intergalactic Birkeland currents that are detectable by the radio signals they induce. Since Birkeland currents are drawn toward each other in a 1/r linear relationship, dark matter can be dispensed with when electric currents flowing through 'dusty plasma' are recognized as providing the attractive force that is otherwise unaccountable in a gravitational model of the universe and its galaxies."
There are many other references to this. It appears that the universe should be described primarily via electrical theory, with background plasma making up the medium for intergalactic currents.
"But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell’s equations are! Why do astrophysicists grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one?"
- Professor of Electrical Engineering Don Scott, "The Electric Sky"
This is a great article! Thanks John!
One question that remains for me is: what then is the better explanation for these galaxies whose apparent "rotational speeds" (measured via blueshifts and redshifts) would seem to make them fly apart in a short time?
Are the galaxies young? (But if so, how would this fit with the creationist theories that suggest that billions of years of galactic time were happening during Day 4 on earth, due to relativistic gravitational time-dilation effects?)
Or, are the galaxies indeed billions of years old by their clocks, but you would say the laws of physics need to be revised somehow? (If so, how?) Would you still recommend the Carmeli approach as explained in your 2006 and 2008 IJTP articles and your J.Creation 2007 article?
In my opinion there are two possibilities:
1) New physics is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves, which is what I attempted with Carmeli's 5D description of a galaxy in an expanding universe, explained in Starlight Time and the New Physics;
2) To look at the assumptions again. Is the universe expanding? Is it actually gravitationally in equilibrium? The universe was only created 6000 years ago, and just maybe those stars are flying apart. I explored this idea in this article A biblical creationist cosmogony with a sequel and a summary.
Genesis does not say that distant galaxies were created 6000 years ago. That is your construction. Why not let God speak for himself through nature rather than tell him what he has to say.
We should read Genesis as actual history. The Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies give a timeline which adds up to about 6000 years, plus or minus a little, depending on how you anchor your dates in known history. Bishop Ussher famously calculated a begging of Creation in the year 4004 B.C.. God gave us those genealogies as a dating method. Ok, that then means He created the earth on Day 1 about 6000 years ago. Four days later He created the Sun and the moon (Genesis 1:14-16). In the verse Genesis 1:16 we read "And God made ... the stars also." The words "he made" before "the stars also" were inserted by the translators to give the correct meaning, but even without them it is clear that God made, not only the Sun and moon that day, but also the stars. Of course, the timing of these events was according Earth time, measured from the beginning. So God does speak for Himself here. He says in Genesis He made them in words which are clear. It is much more difficult to read nature, without an absolute reference. And God does provide that in the history book He has given us.
Thank-you for the point-by-point criticism of the 'holes' in dark matter. Were you also aware of the work of other astro- and plasma- physicists, that do provide a very good alternative to the 'majority' view of the 'astro-gravitational-physicists"?
Namely, things like rotational behaviour of galaxies, comet tail behaviour, etc are completely explicable if conventional plasma-physics are used. My understanding is that this is covered by the work of scientists such as Halton Arp (red-shift re-interpretation), and a whole 'school' of astro-plasma-physicists: Kristian Birkeland, Oskar Klein, Ralph Juergens, László Körtvélyessy, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Timothy E. Eastman, Anthony L. Peratt, Rainer Beck, Mauri J. Valtonen, Gene G. Byrd, Eric J. Lerner, William Peter, Paul Marmet, John Kierein, Jean-Pierre Vigier, Daniel R. Wells; with Hannes Alfvén being pre-eminent.
Their works propose (amongst many things) the existence of cosmic-sized, low-density currents that power galaxies and stars via electromagnetic z-pinch effect (my paraphrasing); and does away with the need for things like dark matter, WIMPS, MACHOS etc.
For me, it has been a wonderful boost to my faith that another field of (experimental) physics happens to be supporting a non-long-age belief.
Thank-you for your articles.
What about Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. One sentence but all the dark matter/energy thinkers to shame.
Thank you for that enlightening article.
I would like to hear Dr Brian Cox's response to such it.
Dark matter? What is it? -- the product of darkened grey matter, perhaps?
Are galaxies really falling apart due to velocity of the stars? Can we observe stars drifting apart? If so, how can one assume a halo of dark matter around a galaxy to fix the problem if you can see that it doesn't work (from the naturalistic point of view, of course)? Or am I missing something?
Assuming all the matter we see in a galaxy is all there is, and that the stars in the outer disk regions are moving as fast as they are measured, then given sufficient time, hundreds of millions of years, the galaxies would fly apart.
It is implicitly assumed that the galaxies are gravitationally and temporally stable over their lifetimes of order 10 billion years; since they formed, about a billion years after the big bang. Therefore it is assumed there must be a halo of invisible (read 'dark') matter around the galaxies to keep them stable. This halo is illustrated in figure 2 in the article--the faint blue halo. Of course this is not seen, only assumed to exist.
We do not live very long compared to the alleged lifetimes of galaxies. To add to that the distances stars would need to travel to see any appreciable changes would be enormous and hence would take millions of years. Thus it is impossible to see these alleged changes in real time. Therefore an astronomer would look for more galaxies of the same type at a different stages of evolution. He just collects more examples of what he considers are different evolved stages. You see how akin that is to the circumstantial evidence of the fossil record for biological evolution?
It appears that the indicators for dark matter falls into three categories (a) it can explain stable galaxies (b) it can be used as a smudge factor for calculating the supposed evolution of galaxies and (c) it can explain various gravitational lensing phenomena.
Now I can understand why CMI has a problem with (b), but I do not understand why CMI is against dark matter in the other cases. On things that do not contradict the Bible I have found that CMI takes either a neutral stance or favourable stance towards the accepted theories (I understand how the evidence for dark matter is far weaker than the evidence for the theory of relativity, but on other hand the evidence for MOND is even weaker than that for dark matter because MOND type theories struggle to explain (c) - thus dark matter is the most acceptable theory even if it has a low level of acceptability).
In conclusion I wonder why is CMI not neutral on dark matter.
Personally I hope that dark matter exists and that it will show that every galaxy was tailor made with just the right amount of dark matter in just the correct distributions which would point to a Designer; but otherwise I am neutral to it.
It would probably be best if you read all the related articles linked at the bottom of this article if you want a clear answer why a biblical creationist should be skeptical of dark matter. In those articles you will find that your category (a) suffers from its underlying assumptions. Dark matter to explain stable galaxies means you have assumed that the physics is correct. Your category (b) is more than just about the evolution of galaxies but actually their origin, their birth as well as the birth of the stars in them. Without dark matter the secularist has no way to explain their existence. It may explain some gravitational lensing but actually not always. One recent example, Missing matter mostly missing in lensing galaxy. See also "Is Dark Matter the Unknown God?" Creation magazine 37(2):22-24, 2015. In that article (p. 24) you'll read that the proposer of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), Mordehai Milgrom, offers an alternative explanation and refutes the claims that the Bullet Cluster with the assumed gravitational lensing proves the existence of dark matter.
Fascinating reading. Probably the simplest but most in depth article I've read on the 'dark matter' phenomenon. Thanks for breaking it down for us 'dummies'!