I Can magnetic fields explain anomalous galaxy rotation curves?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the proposal that magnetic fields could explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies, traditionally attributed to dark matter. While the idea suggests that an azimuthal magnetic field can influence the motion of slightly ionized gas, critics argue that evidence for dark matter is stronger in galaxy clusters and cosmic microwave background observations, where magnetic fields are less organized. Historical evaluations of this hypothesis have shown that magnetic fields cannot fully account for the effects attributed to dark matter, although they may play a minor role. Recent studies reaffirm that while magnetic fields should not be ignored, they do not replace the need for dark matter in explaining galactic dynamics. The consensus leans towards the necessity of dark matter as a more comprehensive explanation for observed phenomena.
elcaro
Messages
129
Reaction score
30
TL;DR Summary
The anomolous behaviour of galaxies rotation curves is predominantly attributed to the existence of dark matter or to modified gravity. But an alternative explenation for the anomalous rotation curves could be formed by magnetic fields

Magnetic fields as an alternative explanation for the rotation curves of spiral galaxies

ABSTRACT
THE flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies are usually regarded as the most convincing evidence for dark matter. The assumption that gravity alone is responsible for the motion of gas beyond the visible disks of galaxies leads directly to the conclusion that there must be perhaps 10 times as much dark matter as visible matter. Other forces besides gravity are usually neglected, as order-of-magnitude arguments seem to suggest they cannot be important. The existence of dark matter is, however, so important an issue that we believe it is wise to consider other possibilities. Here we argue that an azimuthal magnetic field can carry slightly ionized gas with the general galactic rotation, rendering dark matter unnecessary (a related idea was first proposed by Nelson1). For the illustrative case of M31, a magnetic field of 6 μG is required, and the synchrotron emission of relativistic electrons in this field is compatible with the observations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336378361_Effect_of_magnetic_field_on_the_rotation_curves_of_spiral_galaxies​

 
Space news on Phys.org
This sounds like a complete non-starter. The much more convincing evidence for dark matter stems not from galactic rotation curves, but from galaxy clusters and the CMB in particular. Both of which would have far, far less of an organized magnetic field than do spiral galaxies.
 
Almost certainly not. We are very good at measuring electromagnetic fields and their indirect effects and haven't seen them. And, most of the things affected by phenomena attributed to dark matter are electromagnetically neutral.

The idea may have made sense in 1992 (a publication in the premier journal Nature isn't made available to people who are crackpots at the time they're doing their work), but 19 years later, we have far more observations and if it was viable it would have been pursued more actively in that time frame.

For example, a 2020 paper re-evaluated the hypothesis in light of dwarf galaxies and concluded that magnetic fields could not account for all of the effects attributed to dark matter, although it could conceivably account for some portion of the effect. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AIPC.2234d0028W/abstract

Another paper ruling out this hypothesis in 2013 is https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.433.2172S/abstract

At most papers have found that magnetic fields are a non-negligible factor that shouldn't be completely disregarded when trying to estimate the true dark matter attributed portion of the phenomena.
 
Last edited:
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top