Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

[keermalec]

Hi, I really am not knowledgeable on the matter but one big criticism of BB which one often hears and is talked about on this thread is the question of Dark Matter.<br /><br />Now it seems to me DM could be simply accounted for by the following three groups of cosmic bodies:<br /><br />1. Dead stars<br />2. Bodies insufficiently massive to become stars<br />3. Stars insufficiently bright to be visible at such long distances<br /><br /><br />1. "Dead" stars<br />--------------------<br />Doesn't the BB theory imply that 10 billion years ago therer was a massive production of first-generation "giant" stars? We know that giant stars die quickly, and form black holes. Can't this massive population of black holes form a significant portion of the Dark Matter which we can't observe but who's gravitational effect is established?<br /><br /><br />2. Low-mass objects<br />--------------------------<br />If stars form the same way planetoids accrete in a protostellar disk (as i believe has been modelled), then the mass of small objects outweighs the mass of large objects. Therefore there should be more "dark" matter than "bright" matter.<br /><br /><br />3. Dim stars<br />---------------<br />I can't help but notice in common star charts, that the further away from Earth one goes, the less one finds dim stars. Isn't this simply because we can't see them?<br /> <br /><br />Have these three populations been quantified at all?<br /><br />My impression is there is no need to "invent" a "Dark Matter" with special physical characteristics to explain why visible stars do not account for gravitational effects observed. I do realise this is only a part of the discussion above but I believe it is an important point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

Well, as long as you stick with a variation of "MACHO" theory, and you aren't relying upon non-baryonic forms a mass, I can't really complain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

A MACHO (Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object) is a small chunk of normal baryonic matter, which emits little or no radiation and drifts through interstellar space unassociated with any solar system. Since MACHOs would not emit any light of their own, they would be very hard to detect. MACHOs may sometimes be black holes or neutron stars as well as brown dwarfs or unassociated planets. White dwarfs and very faint red dwarfs have also been proposed as candidate MACHOs. The term was chosen whimsically, by contrast with WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), another proposed form of dark matter.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our best efforts to detect MACHOs can only come up with enough mass to account for a maximum of 20% of the mass required to account for dark matter.<br /><br />The MACHO Project: Microlensing Results from 5.7 Years of LMC Observations <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

In the sense that normal baryonic mass has been demonstrated to exist in nature in controlled experimentation, proposing "MACHOS" to explanation some distant missing mass is not an "extraordinary" claim. The idea we are proposing to explain the massing mass may lack direct supporting evidence, but we are not proposing any new forces of nature, or anything that is not known to exist in nature to explain this missing mass.<br /><br />If however we intend to propose an unknown form of non-baryonic matter as an explanation for "missing mass', we have made an additional, and rather extraordinary claim that requires additional support. There is no empirical support for SUSY theory, or for theorized SUSY particles. Without empirical evidence that SUSY particles exit in nature, we have no evidence that any amount of "missing mass" can be "explained' with non baryonic forms of mass.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Yes, quite right.<br /><br />We have observations that require an explanation. We have certain theories that fit within the standard model (some physical and some metaphysical) to explain these observations. Currently we are looking at both the physical and metaphysical explanations and have no proof as of yet that either is the cause.<br /><br />Either the standard model is wrong and there is no missing mass at all, or there <i>is</i> missing mass and we have yet to find out what that missing mass is, be it physical or metaphysical in nature.<br /><br />But we have no other model that explains so many of our observations as well as the standard model, which is why we are firstly trying to find out if there is an explanation that fits within the model, rather than abandoning it and using alternative models that as of yet aren't as robust as the standard one! <br /><br />The truth will out in the end, I'm sure. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/BirkelandCosmology.pdf<br /><br />Well, the "physical ones", the ones with empirical support are worth exploring IMO. The ones that don't involve some controlled experimentation like Birkeland performed, are a bit too metaphysical for my personal tastes.<br /><br />Keep in mind that he created rings, aurora, and coronal loop activity without resorting to any sort of metaphysical place holder terms, and by using only known forces of nature. IMO that kind of "physical science" warrants further study.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[nova_explored]

""I can't help but notice in common star charts, that the further away from Earth one goes, the less one finds dim stars. Isn't this simply because we can't see them? ""<br /><br />Remember you're also looking back in time to a much earlier universe the further out you look, so not seeing dim stars is just what would be expected (under an expanding baby universe/big bang model).<br /><br />On the note of MACHOS, i find it hard to believe they can account for over 90% of mass AND explain uniformity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>