Revisiting Dark Matter Estimates in Axially Symmetric Galaxies

Click For Summary
The study examines exact stationary axially symmetric solutions of the 4D Einstein equations, focusing on co-rotating pressureless perfect fluid sources relevant to galaxy dynamics and dark matter. It highlights a specific solution that yields an approximately flat rotation curve, revealing that traditional Newtonian methods overestimate the required matter by over 30%. The authors argue that general relativity (GR) effects can account for a significant portion of dark matter, approximately 30%, without resorting to exotic matter or singular disk issues. This approach is considered more plausible than previous analyses, although its effectiveness in large-scale structures remains uncertain. The findings contribute to ongoing discussions about the nature of dark matter in galaxies.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602519

Authors: H. Balasin, D. Grumiller
Comments: 11 pages revtex4, 4 eps figures
Report-no: LU-ITP 2006/002

Exact stationary axially symmetric solutions of the 4D Einstein equations with co-rotating pressureless perfect fluid sources are studied. This is of physical relevance for the dynamics of galaxies and questions concerning dark matter. A particular solution with approximately flat rotation curve is discussed in some detail. We find that simple Newtonian arguments over-estimate the amount of matter needed to explain these curves by more than 30%.
 
Space news on Phys.org
That's very interesting. Basically, they've done an analysis similar to that of Cooperstock and Tieu (the "GR accounting for dark matter" folks), but avoiding all of the "exotic matter" and "singular disk" problems. They find that GR effects can account for a small (~30 percent), but non-negligible, fraction of the dark matter. I must admit, it's still surprising to me that GR would be necessary at all in this limit, but I find this result to be much more plausible than the Cooperstock one.
 
Agreed, ST. It is a plausible approach. However, I question how well it would work with large scale structures.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
22K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K