Preprint
Article
Mach's Principle Versus Dark Matter
Altmetrics
Downloads
90
Views
19
Comments
0
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
05 August 2024
Posted:
06 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
Abstract
HIGHLIGHTS Mach's principle is linked with inertia and the mass around. Nowadays, physicists believe its effect is infinitesimal, so Mach's principle is simply ignored. This paper looks at the consequence of applying Mach's principle. It could replace dark matter. ABSTRACT After seeing the history of Mach's principle, we will work out a new model of galaxies inspired by Mach’s principle, which is more satisfactory than current dark matter models. This new model is just maths and needs an explanation. One possible explanation is obviously that Mach's principle is at work in a galaxy.
Keywords:
Subject: Physical Sciences - Theoretical Physics
History of Mach's Principle
Mach had a big influence on Einstein and he had a
problem with the inertial reference. Absolute space as the inertial reference
was justified by Newton because of the famous Newton's bucket. Behind this
reasoning, Newton wanted to reach ‘universality’ (of his law of gravity);
Newton's bucket experiment fitted very well.
Mach found Newton’s absolute inertial reference
troubling. An interesting question posed by Mach is this: “Newton’s experiment
with the rotating vessel of water simply informs us that the relative rotation
of the bucket with respect to the sides of the vessel produces no noticeable
centrifugal forces, but that such forces produced by its relative rotation with
respect to the mass of the Earth and other celestial bodies. No one is
competent to say how the experiment would turn out if the sides of the vessel increased
in thickness and mass, until they were ultimately several leagues thick” [1]. Mach had a point; Newton’s argument is
incomplete and not rigorous.
In 1916, Einstein wrote a 3-page-long article with
a strong message about ignoring inertia, a “complacency [which] will appear
incomprehensible to a later generation”1.
In parallel with that warning, in 1918, he wrote: “... in a consistent
relativity theory there cannot be inertia relative to “space” but only inertia
of masses relative to each other”. He did not expound on it but that was
the beginning [2]. Later in life, he retracted
his support of Mach's principle because he had linked it to general relativity,
which aroused criticism.
There is an excellent review here [3] containing an important quote from James
Isenberg: “…the distribution of matter and field energy-momentum everywhere at
a particular moment in the Universe determines the inertial frame at each point
in the Universe”.
Mach's principle implies a local inertial frame of
reference, which is contrary to Newton’s absolute inertial frame of reference.
From Isenberg's and Einstein’s quotes we could conclude that the inertial frame
of reference is defined by the masses around; from Mach’s quote, we could
conclude that the inertial frame of reference is the wall of Newton's bucket,
if that wall is large enough to counteract the mass of the Earth.
One main objective of this paper is to present a
model of a galaxy inspired by Mach’s principle. The output of any model should
fit two observations: the stellar density and the rotational curve. With the
rotational curve, current dark matter models (DM models) are marginally better
than the model of this work, but current DM models don't fit with the observed
stellar density; whereas our model does.
Application of Mach's Principle to a Galaxy
What does it mean for a galaxy if “… the
distribution of matter … determines the inertial reference...” The stars
are the matter and determine the inertial reference. As the stars are rotating,
the inertial reference is rotating with the stars. As the inertial reference is
rotating, individual stars have no relative speed (relative to the inertial
reference), so no centrifugal force, no reason for the stars to escape the
galaxy and no need for dark matter.
Hubble's Formula
At the time of Hubble, only the stellar density was
available. From many pictures, Hubble had been able to deduce that the stellar
distribution was respecting a law. At that time, that law was called Hubble's
law. Nowadays, Hubble's law is about the expansion of the universe so I will
call it Hubble's formula. In the case of Andromeda, that formula fits the
observation very well as you can see with Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Matter distribution as a function of the distance from the galactic centre in Andromeda. The density is in (106M☉ arcsec-2), the radius is in (kly). The solid line and the dots close together are from Tamm et al [4] and represent respectively the observed distribution of stars and the stellar matter output from the best model (Einasto’s model). The dash-dot line has been added and is the result of Hubble’s formula.
Figure 1.
Matter distribution as a function of the distance from the galactic centre in Andromeda. The density is in (106M☉ arcsec-2), the radius is in (kly). The solid line and the dots close together are from Tamm et al [4] and represent respectively the observed distribution of stars and the stellar matter output from the best model (Einasto’s model). The dash-dot line has been added and is the result of Hubble’s formula.
Andromeda is a spiral galaxy. The observation of
stellar density doesn't allow us to differentiate between inside the spiral and
outside; so the observation at about 60kly is an average which could explain
the difference with Hubble's formula. This is an ad hoc explanation and would
need more studies.
Hubble's formula is about fluid mechanics and it is
an equilibrium between weight and pressure (or energy density) that gives an
isothermal density distribution. As soon as the rotational speed of stars
around the galaxy was observed, a centrifugal force was expected and the
physics behind the formula lost validity so it was abandoned. With Mach's
principle, the formula makes sense and can be justified.
There is an important point: Kepler's simulation
(the new model) doesn't depend on the validity of Mach's principle. For
Kepler's simulation, the density of stars is needed. Instead of doing
interpolation between observed density of stars, it is easier to use Hubble's
formula. If the scientific community subsequently were to establish that Mach's
principle shouldn't be applied to a galaxy, Hubble's formula wouldn't make
sense on physics ground but it fits the observation as on Figure 1. So Hubble's formula is an easy way to
calculate the density of stars. It is used only because its fits; not because
it is justified by Mach's principle.
Kepler's Law
To recover the observed rotational curve, we will
use the third law of planetary motion of Kepler that I simply call Kepler's
law. That law is famous because it recovers the rotational speed of planets
around the sun. With a galaxy, Keplerian decrease was expected and not
observed; that is one reason for dark matter. Kepler's law is simply about the
rotation of an object in space: rotation around the sun or rotation around the
centre of a galaxy.
Kepler's law is using the mass of the sun (or of
the galaxy) and the distance of the object rotating, and predicts the
rotational speed of that object. Mach's principle suggests a local inertial
reference so, instead of applying Kepler's law at a global level (taking the
galaxy as a whole), I decided to apply Kepler's law at a local level (from star
to star). From a mass and a distance, the result of Kepler's law is a speed. In
Kepler's simulation, Kepler's law is used to calculate a speed between two stars
side by side as if one star is rotating around the other. Most stars in a
galaxy are not rotating around each other but only the speed is used, not the
rotation. The origin of this idea is explained in detail in a book [5]. What is important is the result of Kepler's
simulation, not Mach’s principle.
Kepler's Simulation
From the stellar density obtained with Hubble's
formula, we obtain the mass and the distance between two stars side by side so
we can apply Kepler's law. The result is a speed of one star compared to the
other; that will be Kepler's speed. If the two stars are side by side along the
radius of the galaxy, Kepler's speed will be interpreted as the difference of
rotational speed between those two stars. The fact that they don’t rotate
around each other is explained in [5]. Moving
along the radius by choosing two more stars etc. we can observe a change of the
rotational speed as in Figure 2. Kepler
simulation is simply that idea expressed mathematically in the appendix.
Figure 2.
The rotational speed is plotted against the distance from the galactic centre. The dashed line is Kepler's simulation, the asterisks are the observed values from Tamm et al. [4]. The plain line is the output of the best dark matter model presented by Tamm et al.
Figure 2.
The rotational speed is plotted against the distance from the galactic centre. The dashed line is Kepler's simulation, the asterisks are the observed values from Tamm et al. [4]. The plain line is the output of the best dark matter model presented by Tamm et al.
Astronomers will assert that there are data up to
2,000kly and that Kepler's simulation won't fit those data. That is correct. In
fact there is a change of mechanism at around 350kly, the other mechanism
involves a new speed-force as briefly described in [6].
A proper description of the other mechanism can be found in [5]. Data up to 2,000kly will fit with the other
mechanism.
The result obtained in Figure 2 has nothing to do with Mach's
principle. Kepler's law existed before Mach's principle. Here also Mach's
principle will justify the use of Kepler's law with the local inertial
reference, but the fit with the observation has nothing to do with the justification.
Mach's principle is one possible explanation why Kepler's simulation works so
well; scientists are welcome to look for another explanation to justify
Kepler's simulation.
A Case for Kepler's Simulation
I have some very strong arguments against dark
matter models; I have been told, as an excuse to reject my submission, that
many models do seem to work, so I have to compare Kepler's simulation to DM
models.
No DM models seem to fit the data: look at Figure 1. How can you reconcile the output of
DM models with the observation? In addition, the distribution of DM is ad hoc [7] to fit the rotational curve.
Kepler's simulation has three parameters: the
initial distance from the centre and its corresponding rotational speed plus a
third one. The first two inputs are from observation. A linear regression is
calculated with the observation and any point on that linear regression
provides two inputs. The third input is the stellar density at the centre of
the galaxy. That is an input that cannot be measured accurately enough and is
therefore ad hoc and adjusted to obtain Figure 2.
But once Figure 2 is obtained, that same
input is the input to obtain Figure 1 and
there is only one input for Figure 1. If
the fit were incorrect, it would have implied a mistake. This is what is
missing for DM models. In principle, the third input could be measured from
observation as it would be dictated by the fit to the data of Figure 1. Therefore there is no ad hoc
parameter, all inputs to obtain Figure 2
are from observation. But if we start with the fit to Figure 1, the uncertainty on the third input
would be too large, indeed Figure 2 is
very sensitive to that input as explained in the appendix; that is why it is
adjusted to fit Figure 2 then is used for
Figure 1.
The conclusion is that the result of this model is
an improvement on DM models for two reasons: no ad hoc parameters are used, and
the output is a better fit with Figure 1.
Discussion
Kepler's simulation is a result on its own; Mach's
principle is not involved. But Kepler's simulation requires an explanation: why
does it work? Hubble's formula is reinstated only if there is no centrifugal
force; something justified by Mach's principle. Using Kepler's law for motion
in space as used in Kepler's simulation makes sense only if the inertial
reference is local, as stated by Mach's principle.
Mach's principle is the only explanation I can
think of; it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct. There are more
studies on Mach's principle in [5] but the
most convincing case is Kepler's simulation. Mach's principle could also
explain galaxy clusters.
Another discussion should be about the existence of
dark matter. Stars oscillate around the galactic plane. If dark matter exists,
for a given thickness of a galaxy, the speed of stars perpendicular to the
plane should be affected because that speed gives the thickness of a galaxy.
Near the sun, without dark matter, that perpendicular speed should be around
15m/s; with 20% of dark matter (and 80% of baryonic matter) the speed should be
around 16m/s. Are the observations of speeds and thickness accurate enough to
reach a conclusion?
For over 40 years, there have been non-stop
experiments trying to detect dark matter. Surely a meta study could tell us
whether there is any credible evidence for dark matter.
However, dark matter distribution needed for the
fit of Figure 2 doesn’t follow the
distribution of baryonic matter (it is ad hoc as stated in [7]). To explain that change of distribution would
mean that there is some kind of repulsion (very weak) between dark matter and
baryonic matter. Baryonic matter occupies mainly the space near the centre,
then dark matter occupies the space further away. That repulsion is the reason
why we can’t detect it on earth (full of baryonic matter). That would make dark
matter an elusive matter with the exceptional property of repulsion; if such a
matter can exist then it is a possibility.
One strong objection to Mach’s principle will be
the Foucault pendulum. But it is a gravitational instrument and not an inertial
instrument as suggested in [5]; it doesn’t
show anything about inertia.
Conclusion
This work is a call to the scientific community to
explain why Kepler’s simulation works and to reconsider Mach’s principle. It is
a work in progress: please let me know if you cite this paper in your work.
Comments on Preprint are more than welcomed. A public exchange should be found
(hopefully) on https://physicsoverflow.org/.
Acknowledgements
Professor
G. Gilmore told me the story of Hubble's formula.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. The maths of Kepler's simulation
First, the mass of the sun is assumed to be the mass of all stars mainly because the mass
of the sun is a unit (M☉).
The density of Figure 1 is in the unit of M☉
arcsec-2. With the distance
from the Sun to Andromeda, and using the Pythagorean theorem, one can transform
an angle (arcsec) into a length (ly). So, the new unit of density is M☉ ly-2. The star density ρr (in M☉ ly-2) at radius r is calculated by Hubble's formula
(E1); the third input ρ0 (adjusted
for Figure 2 to 4.34×109 M☉ ly-2) is the density at the galactic centre, and r is
the distance from the centre of the galaxy (in ly).
ρr = ρ0/(1+r2)
To obtain Hubble’s formula from maths and physics
is not so easy. As the formula already exists, the expression of Hubble’s
formula found in ref [A8] has been used and (E1) is a simplified version of it.
(E1) is directly used to obtain Figure 1.
We need a change from a density per surface to a
density per volume. Andromeda's thickness is assumed to be equal to the
thickness of the Milky Way (1000 ly). The factor of 1000 in formula (E2) is
simply the assumed thickness of Andromeda, and used this way, the density is
back to a mass per volume. As we need the distance between two stars, its cubic
root is taken.
δr = (1000/ρr)1/3
We saw that the value of ρ0 in (E1) is adjusted. What happens if there is an
error in the thickness of Andromeda? Because of how formulae (E1) and (E2) are
written, an eventual thickness error on the 1000 factor would be automatically
corrected by adjusting ρ0. So
it is not simply ρ0 which is
adjusted but the thickness is adjusted as well. It is a little trick but now
you can forget it and consider that only ρ0 is adjusted.
The two other inputs for the simulation, the first
r0 (distance from the centre
of the galaxy: 10kly) and v0 (rotational
speed at r0: 249km/s) are
introduced at this point. Those two inputs come from the linear regression of
the observed data.
At the start of the simulation, the first ρr and δr are calculated for r0. Then the second ρr and δr are calculated with r1 (r1 = r0+δr)
etc. So:
rn+1 = rn+δr.
Kepler’s speed vk between a star at rn and a star at rn+δr is calculated using Kepler's
law (E4); G is the gravitational constant, M☉
is the solar mass, and δr is calculated from ρr at r=rn in
formula (E2).
vk = (M☉G/δr)1/2
The core of Kepler's simulation is that the
difference in speed between stars is Kepler’s speed, vk. We need vncte, the exact speed of the star sn+1 if there was no difference in speed (therefore the indice “cte”). If
there is no difference in angular speed between sn and sn+1,
the linear speed of sn+1 would be vncte which is different to vn because
sn+1 is slightly further from the centre and so
turns slightly faster.
vncte = vn (rn+δr)/rn
Therefore, vk should be subtracted to the speed
vncte. The vncte is just for calculation, and does not correspond to an
observation; it is just geometry.
The final result vn+1 is the rotational speed in linear value of the stars sn+1, and is calculated with formula
(E6):
vn+1 = vncte - vk
Then, vn+1 becomes
the new vn, and rn+1 becomes the new rn, and we restart from formula (E1).
From a first star (the first r0 and
v0), by iteration, the model
can calculate the apparent rotational speed up to the edge of the galaxy.
The number of iterations required is large
(>10,000). A small error on ρ0 will
be added 10,000 times. That is why ρ0 is
a very sensitive parameter.
To build your
own model without being a software expert, insert formulae (E1 to E6) into a
simple spreadsheet with the three inputs; the simulation yields the result
presented in Figure 2.
* - * - *
As the result is a straight line, it means there is a simple law: the speed at any rn is the linear value (at rn) of the angular speed of the first star (r0) minus the sum of all vk from r0 to rn. It is more complex to mathematically find the straight line because δr is continuously changing but that is the law.
The addition of vncte step seems superfluous but without it, the result is not a straight line.
| 1 | From German translated by Gill Bankowsky. |
References
- Mach, E. The Science of Mechanics; Open Court Publishing Co.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1883. [Google Scholar]
- Einstein, A. Prinzipielles zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Ann. Phys.-Berlin 1918, 55, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mach’s Principle: From Newton's Bucket to Quantum Gravity; Volume 6 of Einstein Studies; Barbour, J.B.; Pfister, H. (Eds.) Birkhäuser Boston: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Tamm, A.; Tempel, E.; Tenjes, P.; Tihhonova, O.; Tuvikene, T. Stellar mass map and dark matter distribution in M31. Astron. Astrophys. 2012, 546, A4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danis, F. Einstein revisited” in preparation. 2024. Draft can be sent on justified request until the book is published. [Google Scholar]
- Danis, F. The limits of special relativity. 2024. Preprints. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. Astrophys. J. 1983, 270, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battaner, E. Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated