Disturbances in the dwarf galaxies of one of Earth’s closest galaxy clusters point to a different gravity theory.
Dwarf galaxies are small, faint galaxies that are often found in or close to bigger galaxies or galaxy clusters. As a result, they could be impacted by their larger companions’ gravitational effects.
“We introduce an innovative way of testing the standard model based on how much dwarf galaxies are disturbed by gravitational tides’ from nearby larger galaxies,” said Elena Asencio, a Ph.D. student at the University of Bonn and the lead author of the story.
Tides occur when gravity from one body pulls on various areas of another body differently. These are comparable to tides on Earth, which form when the moon exerts a stronger pull on the side of the Earth that faces the moon.
The Fornax Cluster is home to a rich population of dwarf galaxies. Recent observations suggest that several of these dwarfs seem distorted as if the cluster environment had perturbed them. “Such perturbations in the Fornax dwarfs are not expected according to the Standard Model,” said Pavel Kroupa, Professor at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague. “This is because, according to the standard model, the dark matter halos of these dwarfs should partly shield them from tides raised by the cluster.”
The scientists examined the expected amount of disturbance of the dwarfs, which is determined by their internal properties and distance from the gravitationally powerful cluster center. Large galaxies with low stellar masses, as well as galaxies near the cluster center, are more easily perturbed or destroyed. They matched the findings to the amount of disturbance shown in photos taken by the European Southern Observatory’s VLT Survey Telescope.
“The comparison showed that, if one wants to explain the observations in the standard model” – said Elena Asencio – “the Fornax dwarfs should already be destroyed by gravity from the cluster center even when the tides it raises on a dwarf are sixty-four times weaker than the dwarf’s own self-gravity.” Not only is this counter-intuitive, she said, it also contradicts previous studies, which found that the external force needed to disturb a dwarf galaxy is about the same as the dwarf’s self-gravity.
Contradiction to the standard model
From this, the authors concluded that, in the standard model, it is not possible to explain the observed morphologies of the Fornax dwarfs in a self-consistent way. They repeated the analysis using Milgromian dynamics (MOND). Instead of assuming dark matter halos surrounding galaxies, the MOND theory proposes a correction to Newtonian dynamics by which gravity experiences a boost in the regime of low accelerations.
“We were not sure that the dwarf galaxies would be able to survive the extreme environment of a galaxy cluster in MOND, due to the absence of protective dark matter halos in this model – admitted Dr. Indranil Banik from the University of St. Andrews – “but our results show a remarkable agreement between observations and the MOND expectations for the level of disturbance of the Fornax dwarfs.”
“It is exciting to see that the data we obtained with the VLT survey telescope allowed such a thorough test of cosmological models,” said Aku Venhola from the University of Oulu (Finland) and Steffen Mieske from the European Southern Observatory, co-authors of the study.
This is not the first time that a study testing the effect of dark matter on the dynamics and evolution of galaxies concluded that observations are better explained when they are not surrounded by dark matter. “The number of publications showing incompatibilities between observations and the dark matter paradigm just keeps increasing every year. It is time to start investing more resources into more promising theories,” said Pavel Kroupa, a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Areas “Modelling” and “Matter” at the University of Bonn.
Dr. Hongsheng Zhao from the University of St. Andrews added: “Our results have major implications for fundamental physics. We expect to find more disturbed dwarfs in other clusters, a prediction which other teams should verify.”
Reference: “The distribution and morphologies of Fornax Cluster dwarf galaxies suggest they lack dark matter” by Elena Asencio, Indranil Banik, Steffen Mieske, Aku Venhola, Pavel Kroupa and Hongsheng Zhao, 25 June 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Resuĺts are good to permit in the concerned field of astro-observation,but this is limited.
However,caĺculations for obsrvations of dark matter cosmology and MOND astro-observations are always supported by rotation of galaxy,also which gives theory of coevolution of supermassive black hole at the centre of galaxy and stars.
GODBLESS your Gravity is part of Dark matter, which is the HOLY GOD, AN The HOLY SPIRIT of the HOLY GOD, be BLESSED
I’m not sure what to say about the vast number of scientists who are surprised to find that they found something new about the universe.
I remain in a constant state of knowing that I don’t know it all.
Colliding galaxies can loose most of their dark matter. Bigger galaxies can siphon off the dark matter of smaller galaxies. Dark matter is like gas in a gas tank it can be anywhere from full to empty.
My theory of liquid and gaseous dark matter with black holes acting as either a vaporizer or condenser also moves that full or empty gauge.
Many dwarf galaxies lie in a very thin plane extending from the poles of their parent (such as the Milky Way or Andromeda galaxies) in direct contradiction to the accepted idea that a halo of Dark Matter surrounds the parent and that dwarfs should be formed all over. But also reports that many dwarf galaxies without obvious Dark Matter have stars that orbit their cores much faster than expected suggest that a significant modification of the Cold Dark Matter paradigm or new mass profiles may be needed. NAOC research suggests that unusual kinds of Dark Matter (warm, fuzzy) creates those dwarfs. There are also reports that very unexpected supermassive Black Holes have been found in some of these tiny dwarfs. What’s going on?
Specifics on this can be found by searching YouTube for “Dwarf Galaxies – A String Theory Way”
Science is partially trustworthy.
I will be aware of what scientists say today and what they will say tomorrow.
Equations that work on one scale often do not work at larger scales. For example, electons do not behave like billiard balls. Similarly, Einstein’s theory of gravity works very well on the scale of a solar system but it seems unjustified to say that it also works on the scale of galaxies. With the appropriate modifications to GR, we may finally be able to get rid of black matter.
There’s a saying in motivation: things fall apart to fall into place (or fall together better). Gravity does this. So maybe the shifting in the centre occurs because atoms arrange themselves more comfortably and stably.
Opposite charges attract but similar charges repel. And the force of attraction or repulsion is relative to their magnitudes.
Did I understand the author to say that there is some kind of inverse relationship between acceleration and the force of gravity?
All the author said was “?”
Dark Matter has always felt like a temporary placeholder until we discover a more robust solution to astrophysics. I have been hopeful for MOND to gain some traction. This is good to hear about more supporting observations for MOND.
It seems almost comical at this point. We all know GR and newtonian gravity do not represent the whole picture, we know the theories are “incomplete” non-renormalizable, why don’t we just sit down and rewrite it all… it has to be done everyone knows we need a new theory we cannot continue to work within a broken mathematical model and expect to get correct results, it needs to be reworked and until that becomes the focus of the group we are stuck in this cycle, it should not fall on an individual to produce a new theory when we all know it needs to be done.
Just assume gravity is speed dependent, G proportional to square of speed, the present G being that of Earth moving at 30Km/s.Galaxies moving at very high speeds have a higher G, and so require only less matter. Available matter is enough, no dark matter is required.
Well there IS that other business of Plasma Cosmology that is patiently waiting around for all of you guys to just decide to dump gravity & admit there is another way to describe what’s out there, and that has so many advantages that don’t need your math equations (which have to be mollycoddled to make them work anyway) to explain the glorious view of what we can see in xray & other normally invisible views – plasma, plasma everywhere & nothing else needed !!!
It seems to me that given the increasing amount of evidence that the standard model is flawed and that ongoing efforts to prove the existence of Dark Matter have all turned up a blank, that it really is time to grasp the nettle and consider that MOND might be a better theory.
However the science community can be very reluctant to give up old paradigms – esp in Physics.
It could be possible that these dwarf galaxies might remnants of a larger galaxy that was intersected by another galaxy and spun off. That could have happened recently enough that this particular galaxy hasn’t had a chance to reorganize itself yet.
Spyroe theory is a new concept for quantum gravity. The propeller design based on the theory, theoretically can sync to the universal field to capture its energy.
I don’t where the misconception that MOND stands for “Milgrommian dynamics” came from, but it’s incorrect: it stands for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. A quick fact-check can confirm.
I have known since I first heard of dark matter that it was not real. Just something made up to make the current math work. Very obvious that the theories are wrong, but instead of admitting that and trying to move forward, they come up with excuses, such as “dark matter” Ok, next….
String Theory suggests a way Dark Matter could be a kind of pseudo-matter. Go to YouTube and look up “Dark Matter – A String Theory Way”
What if there was no Big Bang, but a tear in the Time Warp material allowing such things as an alternate reality?
Seems to me that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are simply a mistake. A flawed fudge seeking to explain the greater gravitational pull which normal matter could account for. But just like the “luminiferous aether” was a flawed fudge seeking to explain how electromagnetic radiation could be transmitted, in time we will realise that it doesn’t exist at all. (Which is why we cannot detect it!) Instead what we are detecting is that our understanding of gravity is incomplete, flawed even. We already know that something is wrong due to the incompatibility between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. So it seems to me the direction we should be looking in, is “how do we fix our understanding of gravity” rather than “let’s invent some imaginary material to fix what is clearly wrong”
I suggest that Dark Energy is a mistake, namely a mistake in how we’re measuring the distance to these objects. Go to YouTube and look up “Dark Energy – A String Theory Way”. String Theory also suggests a way Dark Matter could be a kind of pseudo-matter. Go to YouTube and look up “Dark Matter – A String Theory Way”
Let’s see where this leads us tomorrow.
MOND stands for modified Newtonian dynamics, I’m not sure if the person that wrote this article understood what he/she/it/they ect are even on about’
ALLAH made universes
I had a theory. But I falsified it.
“Due to their low surface brightness, dwarf galaxies are particularly susceptible to tidal forces.” This is the first sentence of the abstract to the Asencio et al. paper. The referee should have caught this, since it is incorrect. Surface brightness does not affect dynamics, projected mass density does. Although the informed reader knows that, it is misleading for the lay reader.
mond is crap theory of gravity.
As I have been addressing. Einstein’s theory of relitivity in gravity is misguided. If mass distorts time/space, then what is the force distorting them? And how much mass is required to distort space/ time?
Their has been no real evident to explain what is space/time, how does it pass through matter, or why matter on a smaller scale like on earth is drawn to the center of the earth, not towards mountains. Also why is their no friction in space/time? If it’s distorting then their should be mass of some sort that would induse friction!
We still don’t fully comprehend gravity, is it the distortion of the unknown space/time material or a weak force? Either way it has demonstrated that it’s either a force or a distortion of space/time. All we have proven is that light has mass and it can bend around a star.wether it was pulled by gravity or it rolled around a distortion. But we still don’t fully understand gravity.
It needs a Black Hole for more stability maybe?
Mark my words… There is an extremely weak repulsive Force between SpaceTime and matter. It’s the reason why the universe looks like somebody poured oil on water. It’s also the reason why the universe is expanding faster and faster the more that matter is dispersed the more the expansive Force takes over on macro scales… It’s strength is directly proportional to distance / time from The Big bang. The universe is trying to expand to its ultimate state of expansion the only thing slowing it down is matter / gravity trapped in its web
Science and knowledge should lead us to God because He created what we are trying to understand and comprehend. The creature must look unto the creator for all revelations. God bless all that He has created.
Gravity is an effect, not a force. The sooner this is accepted, the sooner we can start moving physics forward, instead of trying to reconcile antiquated theories.
I have long argued that the hypothesis of the existence of so-called dark matter and energy is fantasy. Ask yourself which is more likely – that the universe is filled with a mysterious substance that can’t be directly observed or measured, and the composition and nature of which are completely unknown – or – some of the basic assumptions of cosmology and the standard model are either wrong or only a partial description? It’s just the same kind of paradigm change as when scientists discovered that the sun, rather than the earth, is at the centre of the solar system, and all the absurd complex explanations for apparent planetary retrograde motion could be discarded. We should always expect the simplest explanation, rather than over-complicating or postulating magic!
Here are a couple of simple explanations. I suggest that Dark Energy is a mistake, namely a mistake in how we’re measuring the distance to these objects. Go to YouTube and look up “Dark Energy – A String Theory Way”. String Theory also suggests a way Dark Matter could be a kind of pseudo-matter. Go to YouTube and look up “Dark Matter – A String Theory Way”
Sem soube que a gravidade era fale…