Why are dark matter halos of ultra-diffuse galaxies so odd?

[BeAChooser]

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-dark-halo ... s-odd.html

Why are dark matter halos of ultra-diffuse galaxies so odd?

A study co-led by physicists at UC Riverside and UC Irvine has found that dark matter halos of ultra-diffuse galaxies are very odd, raising questions about physicists' understanding of galaxy formation and the structure of the universe.

… snip …

In the following Q&A, Hai-Bo Yu, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at UCR, shares his thoughts on the findings he and UCI's Manoj Kaplinghat, his long-term collaborator, have published in The Astrophysical Journal about newly discovered ultra-diffuse galaxies and their dark matter halos.

… snip …

Q. You've found that dark matter halos of the ultra-diffuse galaxies are very odd. What is odd about them and what are you comparing them to?

The ultra-diffuse galaxies we studied are much less massive compared to, say, the Milky Way. They contain a lot of gas, however, and they have much higher gas mass than total stellar mass, which is opposite to what we see in the Milky Way. The ultra-diffuse galaxies also have large sizes.

The distribution of dark matter in these galaxies can be inferred from the motion of gas particles. What really surprises us is that the presence of baryonic matter itself, predominantly in the form of gas, is nearly sufficient to explain the measured velocity of gas particles and leaves little room for dark matter in the inner regions, where most of the stars and gas are located.

This is very surprising because in the case of normal galaxies, whose masses are similar to those of the ultra-diffuse galaxies, it's the opposite: Dark matter dominates over baryonic matter. To accommodate this result, we conclude that these dark matter halos must have much lower "concentrations." That is, they contain much less mass in their inner regions, compared to those of normal galaxies. In this sense, dark matter halos of the ultra-diffuse galaxies are "odd."

At first glance, one would expect that such low-concentration halos are so rare that the ultra-diffuse galaxies would not even exist. After looking into the data from state-of-the-art numerical simulations of cosmic structure formation, however, we found the population of low-concentration halos is higher than the expectation.

Now here’s a thought, folks. Maybe ultra-diffuse galaxies lack the organizing electric currents and magnetic fields that … say … spirals have? In other words, they’re not big homopolar motors. So, in a PC/EU universe, the motions would be based solely on the amount of matter and only gravity. That contrasts with a spiral which has a homopolar motor governing motions, which produces rotation velocities and rotation curves that, to a mainstream that doesn't believe that electric currents affect plasma galaxies the way Anthony Peratt’s simulations showed they do, seems to require dark matter. So maybe this observation is yet more confirmation of Plasma Cosmology’s theories about the formation and dynamics of galaxies?

Here, by the way, is what a diffuse galaxy (lacking DM they say) looks like (on the left) compared to a normal spiral (on the right) with (supposedly) DM:

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... galaxy.jpg

Here’s another picture of a diffuse galaxies without DM …

https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge4/im ... 52-DF2.jpg

As NASA says (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... er-deepens ) this latter galaxy (DF2) "doesn't appear to have a noticeable central region, spiral arms, or a disk. The team estimates that DF2 contains at most 1/400th the amount of dark matter than astronomers had expected. How the galaxy formed remains a complete mystery based on the team's latest measurements."

Now the mainstream has theorized that DM was "stripped out" of these galaxies by a near collision with another galaxy ... but what if they formed that way? What if this is what happens when Birkeland currents don’t dominate a galaxy's creation … only gravity does? After all, it seems to me there must be cases in a plasma universe where gravity would be the only thing available to bring a lot of matter (stars) together … rotating only due to whatever slow background rotation the cloud they formed from might have had.

Now there have been some diffuse galaxies that the mainstream claimed had lots of DM ... in fact, primarily DM. For example, a few years ago, the earth based Keck Observatory discovered a diffuse galaxy, Dragonfly 44 (DF44), that they claimed was 95% dark matter!

But then, in 2020, that claim went poof. Phys.org reported (https://phys.org/news/2020-10-puzzle-st ... -dark.html ) that "An international team .. snip ... has found [using Hubble] that the total number of globular clusters around Dragonfly 44 and, therefore, the dark matter content, is much less than earlier findings had suggested, which shows that this galaxy is neither unique nor anomalous." It turned out that DF44 only masses about 1/1000-th of what they initially thought. However, they still claim that the amount of DM in this galaxy is about 300 times the luminous matter, i.e., they say "normal for this type of galaxy." Now some scientists are suggesting (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3 ... 213/abb886) that maybe DF44 isn't even a diffuse galaxy, but instead a typical dwarf galaxy.

But either way, they're still claiming there needs to be a lot of dark matter in DF44 to account for it's rotation rate. But what if it's a failed spiral? Back when the DF team was claiming it had 1000 times the mass, their explanation was that it was a failed spiral. Here, according to mainstream source back then ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... xy/502418/

Abraham and van Dokkum first noticed their smudges in the spring of 2014. Since then, similar “ultra-diffuse galaxies,” or UDGs, have been discovered in other galaxy groupings like the Virgo and Fornax clusters. And in the Coma cluster, one study suggested, there may be a thousand more of them, including 332 that are about as large as the Milky Way.

Meanwhile, the Dragonfly team has been advancing the case that these new dim galaxies really are oddballs that challenge current theory. They’re failed galaxies, this argument holds. Dark matter planted the seeds of a spiral disk and stars, but somehow the luminous structure didn’t sprout.

That argument has convinced outside experts like Ostriker, who finds van Dokkum’s prior record highly credible. “There are many, many other people who could have ‘discovered’ this where I’d be much more skeptical,” Ostriker said. “The simplest way of putting it is: His papers aren’t wrong.”

So what prevents the current DF44 from being a failed spiral or at least a galaxy where electromagnetism might have initially rev'd up the rotation but then the homopolar motor failed to start ... leaving the diffuse mass of stars rotating faster than they should without dark matter, according to non-Peratt believing Big Bang scientists? And if this explanation might work for DF44 ... how about all the other diffuse galaxies supposedly having DM?

All this sort of makes sense to me. Comments?

[jacmac]

BeAChooser:
Do You know how gas is distinguished from plasma when they look at these galaxies ??
I don't.
Published articles very often say "gas" when clearly "plasma" should be used.
(I am not saying in this case they should say plasma)
They talk about the dark matter they "SEE" due to movements of other particles,
when they also say the dark matter is invisible.
Excellent technology, observations, math, etc. do not make good results if the underlying assumptions are flawed.

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser:
Do You know how gas is distinguished from plasma when they look at these galaxies ??
I don't.
Published articles very often say "gas" when clearly "plasma" should be used.

That's right, as I've pointed out often in my posts.

Excellent technology, observations, math, etc. do not make good results if the underlying assumptions are flawed.

Exactly.

[jackokie]

@BeAChooser & @jacmac Wouldn't it depend on the spectrum their images cover? I asked a while ago but don't remember the answer, so I'll ask it again here: Have there been any experiments to detect EM emissions from plasma in dark mode? Any results? I only found one applicable reference at Thunderbolts, and Stephen Smith's characterization of dark mode discharges as "not readily visible" is ambiguous.

However, dark mode discharges, as their name implies, are not readily visible, but they are just as capable of electromagnetic interactions as the other modes. Picture of the Day, Stephen Smith, June 10, 2019

My search of the internet didn't turn up anything relevant (unless "magnetic plasma" is a thing).

[BeAChooser]

Here's a brand new article on this topic ...

https://www.wired.com/story/the-enigma- ... invisible/

The Enigma of Dragonfly 44, the Galaxy That’s Almost Invisible

A growing catalog of huge but dim “ultra-diffuse” galaxies is forcing astronomers to invent new theories of galactic evolution.

IN 2016, ASTRONOMERS led by Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University published a bombshell paper claiming the discovery of a galaxy so dim, yet so broad and heavy, that it must be almost entirely invisible. They estimated that the galaxy, dubbed Dragonfly 44, is 99.99 percent dark matter.

LOL! What a crock. Not only can't they find dark matter (DM), but now the mainstreamers are claiming that some galaxies are almost entirely made of the *substance*. Call DM a SUPER-gnome.

The article continues ...

As gravity brings clumps of gas and stars together, their combined energies and momentums cause the mashup to inflate and rotate. Eventually a galaxy emerges.

But as the article then points out, without something else going on, momentum would stop the formation of stars and galaxies by halting their collapse. The mainstream's solution was to invent a gnome (DM) that would overpower the momentum with additional gravity from an unseen source. But here we are over 50 years later, having spent billions and billions and billions of dollars looking for DM ... without success.

If modern astrophysicists actually were practicing science, they'd rethink their initial assumptions at this point. Maybe DM doesn't exist. But, by and large, they refuse to do that. They just keep spending more billions of dollars looking for their holy grail while making excuse after excuse after excuse for their failure to find it. They are a cult that worships DM and in cults belief is all you need to stay true to the faith ... and paid.

There is only a small group of mainstreamers who are now suggesting the theory of gravity itself is wrong. They propose Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. But they, too, invoke a gnome. As the article points out, the MOND gravitational force of a galaxy is calculated from the mass-to-light ratio of its stars. But, "MOND theorists do not speculate as to why the force would depend on this ratio." Hence, it's a gnome, not all that different from DM.

But there is another approach to solving the problem. One they should have thought of in the first place. Instead of increasing the gravity, get rid of the momentum. More than 30 years ago, Alfven and Lerner explained how, using already known and quite ordinary physics, that would work. But the mainstream was and still is DEAF to that alternative. They don't appear to even educate future astrophysics about plasma cosmology or the work of people like Peratt. So I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that is going to topple DM, is if we get taxpayers to take away the mainstream's funding. But we're not going to do that by just offering an alternative in venues like this or scientific papers that hardly anyone outside of astrophysics reads. Our side has been trying that approach for 5 decades and we have less influence now than ever. Sad but true.

So what we should do is literally REVOLT against astrophysics in general ... at least the portion of it that focuses on stuff outside the solar system ... by attacking the immense waste of such ventures in a time of increasingly limited resources (both manpower and money) and dire social needs. It would require a sacrifice on our part (no more *gee, that's neat* space projects to ogle over), but not that much of a loss. Truth is that most of their results are pretty pictures or artists conceptions with lots of circles, arrows and paragraphs that are meant to propagandize the mainstream's view of what the pictures show so the funding will continue to flow. Surely we can live without yet another artist's conception of the next *closest* black hole?

In any case, read the rest of the article and you'lll see the mainstream really doesn't have a clue what's going on out there with regards to ultra-diffuse galaxies, or any galaxy for that matter, since DM just isn't doing what they expected. In fact, at the end of the article they quote Pieter van Dokkum, author of the paper they are discussing, saying "“The big takeaway is that we still don’t know what’s out there."

You'll also read that Dragonfly 44 is also supposedly very ancient, which is a problem for the mainstream because because it's much too big according to their theories of galaxy evolution (which is one of the problems that Dr Lerner has been pointing out about the JWST results recently). Plus, the article says that if it's as old as they say and as loosely bound as it appears, it should have been "completely torn apart by now." It's just a big fat conundrum for them, isn't it. And they'll waste lots of your money trying to solve it because ... heck ... it's your money, not theirs. Just saying ...

[Cargo]

The oldest trick in the book, is gas and wind. There is no Gas or Wind in outer space.

[Maol]

The oldest trick in the book, is gas and wind. There is no Gas or Wind in outer space.

What are the appropriate terms to describe plasma in motion?

Is it a matter of semantics to describe interstellar and intergalactic plasma as a diffuse gas and the motion of such matter as wind?

Is "Solar Wind" not an appropriate term for the plasma flowing away from the Sun?

[nick c]

Is it a matter of semantics to describe interstellar and intergalactic plasma as a diffuse gas and the motion of such matter as wind?

Is "Solar Wind" not an appropriate term for the plasma flowing away from the Sun?

The Merriam-Webster on line dictionary defines "euphemism" as: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant

Merriam Webster:

solar wind: : plasma continuously ejected from the sun's surface into and through interplanetary space

plasma : a collection of charged particles. (as in the atmospheres of stars or in a metal) containing about equal numbers of positive ions and electrons and exhibiting some properties of a gas but differing from a gas in being a good conductor of electricity and in being affected by a magnetic field

electric current : a movement of positive or negative electric particles (such as electrons) accompanied by such observable effects as the production of heat, of a magnetic field, or of chemical transformations

Since by these defintions it is obvious that the "solar wind" is an "electric current". We can conclude that the name "solar wind" is a euphemism for "electric current" which was (and is) quite offensive and unpleasant to the astronomers who coined and continue to use the term "solar wind".