, (1)
with charge, ( ) m
q
u , and matter, ( ) m
g
u , spectra as opposed to the fourvector potential that is the
gauge for the standard model. These details will be described elsewhere.
Galaxy Constant Rotation without a Dark Matter Halo
The stars of a galaxy show a fairly constant rotation as a function of radius and a constant
rotation irrespective of radius is in contrast to the predictions of Keplerian dynamics. In
Keplerian dynamics, rotational velocity decreases with radius as a function of the square root of
the radius as
v = rdu/dt = k
G
/r
1/2
. (2)
But galaxy stars instead have constant rotational velocity over a wide range of r which means
v = rdu/dt = constant = v
g
(3)
Persistent spiral features of galaxies are related to the constant radial velocity of its stars and
represent a resonant behavior that has been well described (Lin & Shu 1964). However, this
description for persistent spiral resonance does not explain the forces responsible for constant
rotation, but rather just assumes that such forces exist. The persistent spiral features of galaxies
do not have the velocity of its constituent stars since such spirals would wind up and therefore
not persist over time.
The force responsible for constant galaxy rotation velocity has been largely associated with a
complementary disk halo of cold dark matter (CDM) that is distributed around each galaxy in a
way consistent with Newtonian gravity (e.g., Bosma 1981; Kent 1986; Sofue 1996). A constant
rotational velocity for matter independent of radius from the galaxy center means that there is a
force in addition to the gravity force of galaxy baryonic matter that holds each star in a galaxy.
The force of gravity for a given star at radius r is
2
r
m r GM
force
s g
) (
= (4)
3
where M
g
is the sphericalized mass of the galaxy up to r, m
s
is the mass of the star, and G is the
universal gravitational constant. In addition to gravity force, in matter time there are other
contributions to force on each star on the scale of a galaxy. A new force term along with other
terms are present as a result of the universal matter decay that unifies forces, an important term
being the product of star decay with the decay of space as
= r
star
m force . (5)
since only certain terms become significant on galactic and cosmic scales.
This force couples matter decay of a star,
s
m , with galaxy spatial matter decay
r and is
intrinsically part of a unified matter time force, with matterwave energy, r m
s
r . In effect,
each stars matter decay interacts with matter waves that transfer momentum from inner to outer
stars, bonding a galaxy together by slowing inner stars and increasing outer star velocities.
However, the stars only couple into the matter waves when they pass through them and so the
stars themselves are not rigidly bound to the galaxy matter waves.
These star decay forces mean that in a galaxy, inner bulge stars actually orbit more slowly than
predicted by Newtonian gravity while outer disk stars rotate more rapidly. In effect, matter
waves transfer the inner momentum of galaxy bulge rotation to the outer momentum of stars in
the disk and a galaxy appears as a rigid rotor.
The matter wave acts between a galaxy inner bulge, which is slightly more massive than
Keplerian predictions, and the outer disk. Therefore inner bulge stars rotate more slowly than
Keplerian predictions while outer disk stars rotate more rapidly. Galaxy matter waves transfer
orbital energy from the inner bulge to the outer disk in a cosmic ballet. The square of the radial
galaxy velocity as a function of r now includes both gravity and star decay terms and is then
g
s
g
M
r m n
r
GM
+ ~
r

2
g
v (6)
with a simple  geometric factor to account for matter distribution and the sign of
r
s
m first
decreases star radial velocity with inner stars and then increases outer star velocity.
A recent paper showed (Sofue, et al. 2009) that the v
g
of the milky way galaxy was consistent
with an inner bulge of 1.7e10 m
sun
and an outer disk mass of 3.4e10 m
sun
. In order to account for
the constant outer radial velocity of galaxy stars, a CDM halo surrounded the visible or baryonic
mass of the galaxy with over ten times the baryonic galaxy mass, 6.5e11 m
sun
, leaving a
baryonic mass fraction that was just 6% of total CDM + baryonic mass (Sofue, et al. 2009).
Matter waves, however, result in constant galaxy rotation without any CDM and show that there
is rather an extra potential energy associated with the star matter decay that binds the outers stars
of the galaxy disk. This extra potential energy comes from slowing the stars of the inner bulge
and increasing the inner bulge mass by ~6%, which is well within the uncertainty of the inner
bulge mass. At a radius of ~4.6 kpc, our galaxy transitions from its inner bulge to outer spiral
disk as shown schematically in Fig. 1 and most galaxies have this transition as well although at
4
different radii. The inner bulge to outer disk boundary is a galaxy matter wave transition from a
pushing force that slows inner stars to a pulling force that increases outer star velocity (arrows in
Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Milky Way schematic showing sun, its orbit, center bulge as bar, with matterwave forces out
from and into the bulgedisk transition (Benjamin 2008).
While increasingly accurate star counts and other measurements constrain the baryonic mass of
the galaxy outer disk, there is much more uncertainty with the baryonic mass of our galaxy inner
bulge. In fact, the usual definition of inner bulge mass comes from assuming that inner bulge
stars show only Keplerian rotation and this is not true for star decay forces.
Matter time supposes that the inner bulge mass increases by c = 6%, which results in an increase
in potential energy that equals the average kinetic energy differential of the outer disk stars by a
simple calculation as
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
} }
= +
Mg
r M
r M
o
o
r dM r r r dM
r
r M
G ) ( v v ) (
2
o
2
g
2
1
1
0
2
c (7)
Given Sofue's galaxy density model, this simple calculation actually predicts more potential than
kinetic energy, but a 6% increase in bulge mass then agrees with a r
o
= 4.6 kpc transition from
pushing (i.e. bulge) to pulling (i.e. disk) matter waves, as shown in Fig. 2.
5
Figure 2. Galaxy rotational velocity for bulge plus disk without CDM (  ). The 6% more bulge mass
along with rotational velocity calculated with matter wave that agrees with observed rotation (). Also
shown are the integrated galaxy masses with and without the extra 6% bulge mass.
The Schrdinger equation for a galaxy matter wave is
d
m
i (8)
were m
d
is the mass defect that is the stabilization energy of the galaxy matter wave resonance.
In addition to gravitational and kinetic energy, large scale matter waves also contribute to galaxy
stabilization and the coupling of star matter loss rates to the galaxy matter wave generates a kind
of rigid rotation that in effect transfers angular momentum from the inner to the outer galaxy
stars.
The galaxy matter wave due to matter decay is the wavefunction norm
d
m
c
r
=
o
*
(9)
where the matter defect, m
d
, is the galaxy total energy as a function of r as
( )


\

+ + =
r m n r
r
GM
M
c
r m
g
g d
2 2
g
2
5
3
2
v
1
. (10)
Integrating
r
dt
m
c
dr
d
=
o
*
(11)
and substituting time for u
t
u
g
v
=
r
t (12)
results in
sun
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0 5 10 15 20
radius kpc
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
k
m
/
s
0.E+00
1.E+10
2.E+10
3.E+10
4.E+10
5.E+10
6.E+10
7.E+10
m
a
s
s
a
s
m
s
u
n
v obs. and calc. km/s
v bulge +disk km/s
total mass
total mass without 6%
6
( )
+ = = dr d r
m
c
dt
m
c
dr
d d
u u
t
o
o
g
* *
v
1
(13)
u
t
o
u
t
o
d
m
c
m
c
r d
d
d
g
g
v
1
v
=
*
*
ln . (14)
In order to integrate this into a spiral exponential, we must have
( )
( ) u t
o +
=
1
1
r m
r c
d g
*
v
(15)
for all
(16)
with the tangent of the spiral pitch angle as the ratio of matter decay wave and galaxy
stabilization energies, which at u = 0 is
g
*
v
tan
t
o
d
m
c
= . (17)
Averaging over r and 2 radians, this ratio becomes the ratio of the two average energies with a
characteristic r
o
, which is taken to be the radius of the bulgedisk intersection and
2
0
2
0
2
c
m n r
dr d
s o
r
o
g *
v
t o u
t
=
} }
. (18)
This completes an expression for tan as the ratio of matter wave to total energies
d
s o
m c
m n r
c
2
2
o
o = tan (19)


\

+ =
2
v
1
2
g
2
2
g
o
g
d
M
r
GM
c
m  (20)


\

+
=
2
v
2
2
g
2
g
o
g
s o
M
r
GM
m n r
c

o
o
tan (21)
with  the geometric factor for gravitational energy and o the corresponding geometric factor for
the matter wave integration.
Likewise an expression for luminosity is
o
o

tan
o
g
o
g
s
r
c
M
r
GM
m n
2
2
v
2
g
2


\

+
= (83 22)
7
as well as an expression for galaxy mass as
o
o
tan G
m n r
c
G
r M
M
s o
o g
g
2
2
g 2
2
v
= + (23)
o
o
  tan G
m n r
c
G
r
G
r
M
s o
o o
g
2
2
2
g
2
g
2
4
v
4
v
+


\

= (24)
Table 1 shows calculated masses given reported rotation velocities, luminosities, and pitch
angles for Andromeda and Whirlpool galaxies given  = 0.50 and o = 0.96 fixed by the Milky
Way mass. The Whirlpool galaxy, M51a, has prominent spiral arms (Goenner 2004), many
young stars, and a large star formation rate. Its mass has been much less certain and the mass
calculated here, 2.0e10 m
sun
, suggests a mass to light ratio of 0.91, much less than Milky Way or
Andromeda.
TABLE 1.
Reported and Calculated Galaxy Parameters
Galaxy
(4)
g
L as
sun
m
(3)
v
g
km/s
(5)
r
o
kpc
(3)
M
g
as
m
sun
g g
L / M mass
to light ratio
Milky Way
1
12.0 2.1e10 200 4.6 5.2 e10 2.5
Andromeda,
M31
7.9 3.3e10 225 5.8 7.8 e10
(calc)
2
2.4 (calc)
Whirlpool,
M51a
15.8,
16.7
2.2e10 250 1.1 2.0 e10
(calc)
2
0.91 (calc)
1. Milky Way parameters (Sofue et al. 2009, Vallee 2005, Benjamin 2008).
2. Baryonic mass calculated with Eq. (24) with galaxy parameters shown,  = 0.5 and o = 0.96, set by Milky Way
mass.
3. Luminosities and r
o
from NEDIPAC, 2013, except for Milky Way.
4. Pitch angles from (Jun 2001a, 2001b) .
5. Velocities v
g
(Sofue et al. 1999).
The wellknown TullyFisher relation (Tully & Fisher 1977) shows that galaxy luminosity is
proportional to the fourth power of rotation as
4
G
TF
G
v L . (25)
Although the TullyFisher relation implies that the rotation velocity is proportional to the square
of the mass to light ratio (Tully 1982), the reason for this relationship has not yet been clear.
According to matter time, the TullyFisher luminosity follows from Eq. (22), with luminosity
proportional to
4
g
2
g
v v
g s
TF
G
M m n L (26)
8
since the galaxy mass is proportional to
2
g g
M v by the virial theorem. Moreover, Eq. (22)
provides a closed form expression for galaxy luminosity given the approximations associated
with this calculation.
Discussion
The calculation for galaxy structure presented here is only approximate and is not optimally self
consistent. Similar to atom and molecule calculations, galaxy matter waves are a superposition of
star matter decays that affect each other and must therefore be done self consistently. In addition,
there are also cosmic scale matter and time dependences for c and
g
M
= h/c
2
= 2.74e21 kg s, matterscaled Planck's constant
Spacetime constants are not constant for all mattertime scale
h, c, Planck's constant, speed of light, fine structure constant
A
q
=
4
r
B
2
, charge cross section
A
g
gravitational cross section,
q
l H
B
g
A
R m
r
A
2
4
=
h
u
T
m
h
(t
universe wavefunction