A study by the University of Bonn: Observations fit poorly with the Standard Model of Cosmology.
The Standard Model of Cosmology describes how the universe came into being according to the view of most physicists. Researchers at the University of Bonn have now studied the evolution of galaxies within this model, finding considerable discrepancies with actual observations. The University of St. Andrews in Scotland and Charles University in the Czech Republic were also involved in the study. The results have now been published in the Astrophysical Journal.
Most galaxies visible from Earth resemble a flat disk with a thickened center. They are therefore similar to the sports equipment of a discus thrower. According to the Standard Model of Cosmology, however, such disks should form rather rarely. This is because in the model, every galaxy is surrounded by a halo of dark matter. This halo is invisible, but exerts a strong gravitational pull on nearby galaxies due to its mass. “That’s why we keep seeing galaxies merging with each other in the model universe,” explains Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa of the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn.
Prof. Dr. Pavel Kroupa (left) and Moritz Haslbauer (right) with a projection of the Andromeda galaxy. Credit: Volker Lannert/University of Bonn
This crash has two effects, the physicist explains: “First, the galaxies penetrate in the process, destroying the disk shape. Second, it reduces the angular momentum of the new galaxy created by the merger.” Put simply, this greatly decreases its rotational speed. The rotating motion normally ensures that the centrifugal forces acting during this process cause a new disk to form. However, if the angular momentum is too small, a new disk will not form at all.
Large discrepancy between prediction and reality
In the current study, Kroupa’s doctoral student, Moritz Haslbauer, led an international research group to investigate the evolution of the universe using the latest supercomputer simulations. The calculations are based on the Standard Model of Cosmology; they show which galaxies should have formed by today if this theory were correct. The researchers then compared their results with what is currently probably the most accurate observational data of the real Universe visible from Earth.
“Here we encountered a significant discrepancy between prediction and reality,” Haslbauer says: “There are apparently significantly more flat disk galaxies than can be explained by theory.” However, the resolution of the simulations is limited even on today’s supercomputers. It may therefore be that the number of disk galaxies that would form in the Standard Model of Cosmology has been underestimated. “However, even if we take this effect into account, there remains a serious difference between theory and observation that cannot be remedied”, Haslbauer points out.
The situation is different for an alternative to the Standard Model, which dispenses with dark matter. According to the so-called MOND theory (the acronym stands for “MilgrOmiaN Dynamics), galaxies do not grow by merging with each other. Instead, they are formed from rotating gas clouds that become more and more condensed. In a MOND universe, galaxies also grow by absorbing gas from their surroundings. However, mergers of full-grown galaxies are rare in MOND. “Our research group in Bonn and Prague has uniquely developed the methods to do calculations in this alternative theory,” says Kroupa, who is also a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Units “Modelling” and “Matter” at the University of Bonn. “MOND’s predictions are consistent with what we actually see.”
Challenge for the Standard Model
However, the exact mechanisms of galaxy growth are not yet fully understood, even with MOND. Additionally, in MOND, Newton’s laws of gravity do not apply under certain circumstances, but need to be replaced by the correct ones. This would have far-reaching consequences for other areas of physics. “Nevertheless, the MOND theory solves all known extragalactic cosmological problems despite being originally formulated to address galaxies only,” says Dr. Indranil Banik, who was involved in this research. “Our study proves that young physicists today still have the opportunity to make significant contributions to fundamental physics,” Kroupa adds.
Reference: “The High Fraction of Thin Disk Galaxies Continues to Challenge ΛCDM Cosmology” by Moritz Haslbauer, Indranil Banik, Pavel Kroupa, Nils Wittenburg and Behnam Javanmardi, 4 February 2022, Astrophysical Journal.
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac46ac
Another possibility, from a view of String Theory, is that Dark Matter appears to us as an effect of string/anti-string annihilations. As you may know, quantum mechanics requires that strings must be formed as pairs in the quantum foam – a string and an anti-string – that immediately annihilate each other. Quantum mechanics also requires both the string and anti-string to be surrounded by “jitters” that reduce their monstrous vibrating energies. What if this jitter remains for a fraction of an instant after their string/anti-string annihilations? This temporary jitter would be seen by us as matter, via E=mc2, for that instant before it too returns to the foam. That’s why we never see it – the “mass” lasts only for that instant but is repeated over and over and over, all over. As masses (stars, planets) form, Einstein noted that space curves around them, creating a more dense area containing more string annihilations than non-mass space. In other words, no Dark Matter halo.
Specifics on all this can be found in my YouTube, Dark Matter – A String Theory Way at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N84yISQvGCk
What happens when one attempts to fit the “reality” into a handy “box”, fitting to the model only; and a tight fit at that.
Brings to mind a child’s conundrum: what am I wearing that has its inside skin-side inside, outside and its outside skin-side outside inside?
Hint: Silly Wabbit! You’ve had a hand in it.
Good to know about different theoritical models related to dark matter(/energy) and their applications to real universe.
The acronym MOND stands for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.
All theoretical models of dark matter(or energy) are framed to describe rotation of galaxies for specific conditions and backgrounds are good to an average level,if not total accurate.So,thanks to the authors.
The MOUND model of cosmology is able to predict an average result,less than the exact value for dark energy causing acceleration in galaxy’s expansion.But,this method is on the path.
Babu G. Ranganathan*
(B.A. Bible/Biology)
HUGE PROBLEMS WITH BIG BANG THEORY
Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away (Red shift), but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies, and there are galaxies even running towards us (Blue shift). All this is contrary to Big Bang. Also, if Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.
The uniform distribution of gasses throughout the universe would have made sure that the gasses didn’t have enough gravitational attraction to form into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been increasingly discredited.
Big Bang scientists have never proved the existence of dark matter. They only assume that it exists. The latest technologies to detect dark matter have come up empty. Big Bang scientists must hope that dark matter exists so that it would provide enough gravitational force for planets, stars, and galaxies to form.
Big Bang scientists believe that dark matter can be the only gravitational explanation for how galaxies behave. However, other scientists have successfully shown an alternative explanation to dark matter known as MOND, which stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics. In other words, it is not necessary to believe that 80% of the universe must be made up of dark matter in order to explain certain behavior and movement of galaxies.
“The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation” (Dr. Duane T. Gish, “The Big Bang Theory Collapses.” Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Gravity may explain how that order is maintained, but mere gravity alone cannot explain the origin of that order!
The disorder in the universe can be explained because of chance and random processes, but the order can be explained only because of intelligence and design.
Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn’t support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It’s one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.
Read the Internet article, ‘SMOKING GUN’ PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert. Most people don’t realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn’t report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.
Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.
Babu G. Ranganathan:
…And yet, the “science” of Creationism, whether or not it attempts to fly under the laughably decorated flag of “Intelligent Design,” offers precisely *nothing* to support its claims, surviving only on the scraps of genuine debate.
Note that even if the “Big Band,” Standard Model and such are ultimately proven to be completely off track, that does not in any manner support a Christian, or indeed, any other creation myth in *any* way. It would simply mean that the theories are not supported by observation. That in no way lends more credibility to reading chicken entrails exxplanations.
Amen!
Since a theory is as good as its predictions, maybe this one should be dropped at last. At least that’s what real scientists would do. But instead the academia are playing with fairytales about dark stuff and creation myths.
Hey Babu,
Why would an Omnipotent and Omniscient being need you to convince sane people of its existence? Wouldn’t we, shouldn’t we, just know? Seems like it is either incompetent or imaginary. I’ll go with imaginary. Perhaps Meds are the answer.
I feel for the man with little faith why would he want us to just know he wants us to choose him. Don’t worry I will pray for you. Know this my friend I to was weak in faith at one time and then my eyes were opened I only wish it wouldn’t have taken me so long to realize so when you lack in faith I will lend you mind and I will pray the lord touches your mind and heart cause there’s still some truth in most myths correct.
You better pray hard and a lot. Cause whatever you are doing it is not working. Why don’t you pray to that being for the words to convince me that it exists? should be easy. I will wait. And why would that being need you to tell me that it exists?