Dark matter could play 'matchmaker' for supermassive black holes

[Admin]

Dark matter could act as a cosmic matchmaker between dark matter and merging supermassive black holes, solving astronomy's "final parsec problem."

Dark matter could play 'matchmaker' for supermassive black holes : Read more

 

[Questioner]

I'm quite certain the "the final parsec problem" is due ro an incomplete understanding of mass.

Mass fields shorten distances as well as slow time.

I'm quite sure the differentiation is measurable.
It will require similar precision as detecting time dilation.
Direct internal mass field measurements will be shorter than trigonometric measuring from 'outside' the/a mass field.

That is the specifically spatial non-Euclidean character of mass fields.

The Case for Gravity as a Function of Reduced Space in Mass Fields

The Case for Gravity as a Function of Reduced Space in Mass Fields 2024 June 01 Per Time Dilation Why Time Dilation is Insufficient for Gravity With time-dilation alone a perpendicular span of light running through a mass field would all run in parallel trajectories in Euclidean normal...

forums.space.com

Hypothetical DM is once again used as the all-purpose 'duct tape' of astrophysics since it has no grounding in tangible evidence.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This article states "gravity is hypothesized to use a boson called a gluon" for the force carrier of gravity. I thought that the gluon was the force carrier for the strong nuclear force, and that the hypothesized force carrier for gravity is called a "graviton".

Yes, there are some who are trying to combine the two. See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/graviton-vs-gluon-ball-can-graviton-replace-gluon.236010/ . But, that is not the mainstream position, I think.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Regarding Questioner's complaint about "Hypothetical DM is once again used as the all-purpose 'duct tape' of astrophysics," I am going to speak-up and say that this article is written in a manner that I think is appropriate.

In previous posts, I have also argued that too much of the Big Bang Theory relies on unverified assumptions about types of matter and forces that are not constrained by anything other than the imaginations of the theorists.

But, studies like the ones in this article are done on the "what if" basis, to see if observations can be explained with various theories and assumptions - they attempt to understand how things might work and how they would not workout. I think that is a fully valid scientific process. It helps us learn about some options for how to think about observations, and even suggests additional types of observations that can be used to test the theory.

My objections to other articles and theories sometimes presented here and elsewhere comes from the tendency for some theorists and many journalists to state results of such theoretical studies as established facts. At best, they are theories that seem to work to some degree, but still have a lot of holes left to fill. So long as that perspective is kept, I do not object.