LHC@home

http://www.cerncourier.com/

It's my first time reading the Cern Courier.

I like this article about how Dark Matter is not needed if you model a galaxy using relativistic physics instead of newtonian mechanics.

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/45/8/8

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

Given the controversy surrounding dark matter, I am surprised with the thought that no-one else has worked the problem with relativistic principles. A far more complex solution to be sure, but it's pretty much accepted that a relativistic solution will always supercede a newtonian one.

It will certainly an embarassment for half the world's physicists today, if it is found they've been dreaming up fantastic theories in order to justify a fallacious result. Particularly when the correct tools for the job have been 'common' knowledge for an entire century. Hmmm, sounds a little like a return to Plato? ;)

If that article turns out to be right, it could make a huge change to the emphasis of physics today. Neutrinos could lose their place in the spotlight, and since dark matter is no longer required, perhaps infinite expansion of the universe becomes accepted.

---

I linked to a pretty effective rebuttal to this idea on the E@H board, here.

Specifically, see Blob's post from the BAUT board thread linked there, and Ben Owen's comment toward the end of the E@H thread.

---

Ken

I, for one, would like to see Cooperstock and Tieu have the opportunity to challenge Blob's rebuttal.
At the very least, there'd be intelligent debate. At the best, there'd be an intellectual smackdown with high entertainment value.

;)

I linked to a pretty effective rebuttal to this idea on the E@H board, here.

Specifically, see Blob's post from the BAUT board thread linked there, and Ben Owen's comment toward the end of the E@H thread.

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

Actually, the rebuttal paper is Korzynski's, whose abstact is here. Blob was just summarizing its conclusion. I'm sorry, Alex, for any confusion.

You can indeed follow the debate, by clicking on the "cited by" link toward the bottom of the abstract. Any reply on arXiv would be listed there. The rebuttal was posted on 17 August, and so far there have been no replies from anyone, least of all Cooperstock & Tieu.

For reference, the original abstract of Cooperstock & Tieu's paper is here; so far the only citation it has received is Korzynski's rebuttal.

Note also that C&T's paper has only been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal (July 26); you can be sure if it is ever accepted there will be plenty of publicity.

As I say, I don't follow the math in either paper, but reading abstracts on arXiv's astro-ph can often be enlightening. And if you like vigorous debate on theories that may be a bit against the mainstream, there is no place better than the section of the BAUT forum of that name, IMO.


Note also: the Ben Owen whose comment I noted in my post is one of the chief scientists of Einstein@Home; it's just my opinion, YMMV, but based on reading his excellent posts on their board, if he says something is a high school error, you can take it to the bank. :)

---

Ken

Ah, it's more clear now.

Thanks.
The Math in the C&T paper is something I'm not an expert at either.
I'm sure it's not a high school error, because they didn't use those upside down triangles in high school math class.

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

There is in fact now a reply to Korzynski's critique of C&T.

We analyze the presence of an additional singular thin disk in the recent General Relativistic model of galactic gravitational field proposed by Cooperstock and Tieu. The physical variables of the disk's energy-momentum tensor are calculated. We show that the disk is made of exotic matter, either cosmic strings or struts with negative energy density.

I honestly don't know whether this helps or hurts C&Ts case!

One would have thought a galaxy composed even mostly of dark matter was simpler than one needing strings and negative energy?

And there's still the stubborn problem that you can't analyse a singularity with general relativity -- the theory simply does not apply to non-analytic functions.

You can't just say, "OK we have a singular disk, but let's go ahead and compute its properties with GR anyway!"

Again, just my opinion. And I agree with you Alex that since calculus and the absolute value function's properties are college subjects, Ben Owen overstretched to say they were high school errors. :)

---

Ken