Monday, January 12, 2015

Further progress in the understanding of dark matter and energy in TGD framework

At Thinking Allowed Original (thanks for Ulla!) there was an extremely interesting link to a popular article about a possible explanation of dark matter in terms of vacuum polarization associated with gravitation. The model can make sense only if the sign of the gravitational energy of antimatter is opposite to that of matter and whether this is the case is not known. Since the inertial energies of matter and antimatter are positive, one might expect that this is the case also for gravitational energies by Equivalence Principle but one might also consider alternative and also I have done this in TGD framework.

The popular article lists four observations related to dark matter that neither cold dark matter (CMD) model nor modified gravitation model (MOND) can explain, and the claim is that the vacuum energy model is able to cope with them.

Consider first the TGD based model.

  1. The model assumes that galaxies are like pearls along strings defined by cosmic strings expended to flux tubes during cosmic expansion survives also these tests. This is true also in longer scales due to the fractality if TGD inspired cosmology: for instance, galaxy clusters would be organized in a similar manner.

  2. The dark magnetic energy of the string like object (flux tube) is identifiable as dark energy and the pearls would correspond to dark matter shells with a universal mass density of .8 kg/m2 estimated from Pioneer and Flyby anomalies assuming to be caused by spherical dark matter shells assignable to the orbits of planets. This value follows from the condition that the anomalous acceleration is identical with Hubble acceleration. Even Moon could be accompanied by this kind of shell: if so, the analog of Pioneer anomaly is predicted.

  3. The dark matter shell around galactic core could have decayed to smaller shells by heff reducing phase transition. This phase transition would have created smaller surfaces with smaller values of heff=hgr. One can consider also the possibility that it contains all the galactic matter as dark matter. There would be nothing inside the surface of the gigantic wormhole throat: this would conform with holography oriented thinking.
I checked the four observations listed in the popular article some of which CMD (cold dark matter) scenario and MOND fail to to explain. TGD explains all of them.
  1. It has been found that the effective surface mass density σ = ρ0R0/3 (volume density times volume of ball equals to effective surface density times surface area of the ball for constant volume density) of galactic core region containing possible halo is universal and its value is .9 kg/m2 (see the article). Pioneer and Flyby anomalies fix the surface density to .8 kg/m2. The difference is about 10 per cent! One must of course be cautious here: even the correct order of magnitude would be fine since Hubble acceleration parameter might be different for the cluster than for the solar system now.

    Note that in the article the effective surface density is defined in the article as σ= ρ0r0, where r0 is the radius of the region and ρ0 is the density at its center. The correct definition for a constant 3-D density inside ball is σ= ρ0r0/3 and I use this so that the value given in the article is scaled down by factor 1/3.

  2. The dark matter has been found to be inside core region within few hundred parsecs. This is just what TGD predicts since the velocity spectrum of distant stars is due to the gravitational field created by dark energy identifiable as magnetic energy of cosmic string like object - the thread containing galaxies as pearls.

  3. It has been observed that there is no dark matter halo in the galactic disk. Also this is an obvious prediction of TGD model.

  4. The separation of matter - now plasma clouds between galaxies - and dark matter in the collisions of galaxy clusters (observed for instance for bullet cluster consisting of two colliding clusters) is also explained qualitatively by TGD. The explanation is qualitatively similar to that in the CMD model of the phenomenon. Stars of galaxies are not affected except from gravitational slow-down much but the plasma phase interacts electromagnetically and is slowed down much more in the collision. The dominating dark matter component making itself visible by gravitational lensing separates from the plasma phase and this is indeed observed: the explanation in TGD framework would be that it is macroscopically quantum coherent (heff=hgr) and does not dissipate so that the thermodynamical description does not apply.

    In the case of galaxy clusters also the dark energy of cosmic strings is involved besides the galactic matter and this complicates the situation but the basic point is that dark matter component does not slow down as plasma phase does.

    CMD model has the problem that the velocity of dark matter bullet (smaller cluster of bullet cluster) is higher than predicted by CMD scenario. Attractive fifth force acting between dark matter particles becoming effective at short distances has been proposed as an explanation: intuitively this adds to the potential energy negative component so that kinetic energy is increased. I have proposed that gravitational constant might vary and be roughly twice the standard value: I do not believe this explanation now.

    The most feasible explanation is that the anomaly relates to the presence of thickened cosmic strings carrying dark energy as magnetic energy and dark matter shells instead of 3-D cold dark matter halos. This additional component would contribute to gravitational potential experienced by the smaller cluster and explain the higher velocity.

If I want to believe in something I have two options to choose. TGD indeed allows to understand dark matter and much more or Universe is playing cruel game with me by arranging all these numerical co-incidences.

For details see the chapter TGD and Astrophysics or the article Pioneer and Flyby anomalies for almost ten years later.

1 Comments:

At 12:12 PM, Blogger Ulla said...

http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.astronomy.20130201.02.html
This seems interesting :)
a growing hbar...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home