You are on page 1of 11

1

GALAXY ROTATION WITHOUT DARK MATTER


IN THE MATTER-TIME UNIVERSE

Stephen F. Agnew
Principal Scientist
Columbia Energy and Environmental Services, Inc.
1806 Terminal Dr., Richland, WA 99354
sfagnew[atSign]gmail.com
July 18
th
, 2014

ABSTRACT
Matter time is a very simple yet unique conjecture for unifying charge and gravity force where
the universe is a time matter pulse that is a finite Fourier transform of a spectrum of matter
amplitudes. What this means is that most of the universe is in the form of very small bosonic
matter particles, with mass m

, that the universe is shrinking not expanding, and the shrinkage is


the source of all force and action.

With some very basic assumptions about the way space and matter both decay or shrink over
time, the mystery of constant galaxy rotation is a natural consequence of the coupling of the
matter decay of stars with the matter decay of a galaxy.

2

Introduction
In matter time, there are just three fundamental constants that determine all others and certain
properties, like the speed of light, fine structure constant, and Plancks constant, slowly change
in concerted ways over cosmic time. Since these properties change together, distant galaxies
seem to be expanding by the Hubble red shift when in fact they are actually shrinking.

There is now a trivial unified gauge for both charge and gravity fields with a universal matter
decay as
( ) ( ) ( ) u u
t
, , , , t m t m
im
t
g q
u + u +
c
c
=
c
c

, (1)
with charge, ( ) m
q
u , and matter, ( ) m
g
u , spectra as opposed to the four-vector 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 matter-wave 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 matter-wave forces out
from and into the bulge-disk 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

r and u which then results in the spiral exponential as



u tan
e R r
g
=

(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 bulge-disk 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 NED-IPAC, 2013, except for Milky Way.
4. Pitch angles from (Jun 2001a, 2001b) .
5. Velocities v
g
(Sofue et al. 1999).

The well-known Tully-Fisher 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 Tully-Fisher 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 Tully-Fisher 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

that need to be accounted


for in distant galaxies.

Nevertheless, such a simple explanation for galaxy structure and dynamics, if proven valid,
would indeed be extraordinary evidence for the unification of force in matter time. Dark matter
has occupied the imagination of science for some years now and even though it cannot be
directly observed, the CDM halos around galaxies have become a part of space time.

Conclusion
It is particularly interesting that matter time predicts forces on the scale of galaxies that are
consistent with the known structure and the star mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda
galaxies. Furthermore, matter time provides a star mass prediction for the Whirlpool galaxy and
the mass predictions of matter time are consistent with galaxy structure and dynamics without
the presence of any dark matter.

Matter time represents a significantly different interpretation of physical reality as compared to
space time. Discussed here is but one example that illustrates where matter time might be
usefully applied. More detailed analyses and comparison with observations will either affirm or
deny the matter time conjecture.


9

Definitions
Three fundamental constants of matter time:

c/ = m
dot
/ m
r
= 4.11e10 m/s, gaechron velocity
m
dot
= 1.12e-10 kg/s, flux line matter decay rate
m

= 8.68e-69 kg, mass of fundamental gaechron particle

given:

h

= h/c
2
= 2.74e-21 kg s, matter-scaled Planck's constant

Space-time constants are not constant for all matter-time 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

= , definition of matter-scaled Planck's constant


c/ gaechron velocity, 137c = 4.11e10 m/s
G gravitational constant
2
c h h =

= matter-scaled Planck's constant, 7.35e-51 kg.s


2
c =

= matter-scaled Planck's constant divided by 2, 1.17e-51 kg.s


L
g
galaxy luminosity as nm
m

gaechron mass, 8.68e-69 kg


m
r
gaechron Cartesian scaling, 2.74e-21 kg/m
m
d
mass defect, kg
m
dot
gaechron matter decay, 1.13e-10 kg/s
m
e
electron mass, 9.11e-31 kg
m
H
mass of hydrogen atom
m
p
proton mass
m
R
= R
y
/c
2
, Rydberg mass, kg
s
m star matter decay, kg/s
m, t, u matter time coordinates kg, s, radians
n galaxy star number
)

(t

universe wavefunction

r Cartesian distance for matter wave, m

r matter wave decay, m/s


r
o
bulge disk transition, kpc
t time

10

Acknowledgements
The author is very thankful to the two qualia that along with action have provided all of us with a
wonderful universe, matter and time.

References
Barrow, J.D., General Cosmological Bounds on Spatial Variations of Physical Constants, 2005,
Phys. Rev. D, 71, 083520
Barranco, J., A. Bernal, Constraining field properties with boson stars as black hole mimickers,
arXiv:1108.1208v1, 2011.
Benjamin, R. A., 2008, The Spiral Structure of the Galaxy: Something Old, Something New..., in
Beuther, H.; Linz, H.; Henning, T. (ed.), Massive Star Formation: Observations Confront
Theory 387, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 375
Bosma, A., 1981, ApJ, 86, 1791
Copernicus, N., 1543, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly
Spheres), Nuremberg, Germany
Dirac, P. A. M. 1937, Nature, 139, 323
Dirac, P. A. M., 1938, Proc. R. Soc., A165, 199
Einstein, A., 1905, Ann. Physik 18: 639641
Einstein, A., 1915, Kniglich Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften 84484
Feynman, R. P., 1962, Quantum Electrodynamics, Addison Wesley, New York, NY
Freedman, W.L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., Ferrarese, L., & Kelson, D. D., 2001, Astrophys.l
J., 553:47-72
Galileo, G., 1632, Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the
Two Chief World Systems), G. Galileo, Florence, Italy
Girard, G., 1994, The Third Periodic Verification of National Prototypes of the Kilogram (1988
1992), Metrologia 31 (4), 317336
Glushkov, A. V., Khokhlov, V. N., Loboda, N. S., Rusov, V. D., & Vaschenko, V. N., 2005,
Climate of the Past Discussions, 1, 193214
Goenner, H.F.M., 2004, Living Rev. Relativity, 7, 2, http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2004-2,
cited on 4 Apr 2008
Jenkins, J.H., & Fischbach, E., 2009, Astropart. Phys. 31, 407
Jun, M., 2001a, Structure and Inclination Angle of the Spiral Galaxy M31, Chin. Phys. Lett., 18
1420, doi:10.1088/0256-307X/18/10/339
Jun, M., 2001b, A Method of Obtaining the Pitch Angle of Spiral Arms and the Inclination of
Galactic Discs, Chin. J. Astron. Astrophys, 1:5, 395405
Kent, S. M. 1986, ApJ, 91, 1301
Liebling, S.L., C. Palenzuela, Dynamical Boson Stars, Living Reviews in Relativity, 15, 2012.
Lin, C.C. & Shu, F.H., 1964, On the spiral structure of disk galaxies, ApJ, 140, 646655
Lisi, A.G., 2007, An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything, http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770
Maxwell, J.C., 1865, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London, 155, 459-512
Milgrom, M., 1983, A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the
hidden mass hypothesis, ApJ 270: 365370
NED.IPAC.caltech.edu, 2013, NED IPAC Database, May 26th, 2013
Newton, I., 1687, Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of
Natural Philosophy, Cambridge, England
Overholt, A. C., Melott, A. L., & Pohl, M., 2009, ApJ Lett. 705:2, L101
11

Planck, M., 1900, Ann. Physik, 1, 4, 719-37
Pugliese, D., H. Quevedo, J.A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, On charged boson stars, Phys.Rev.D, 88, 19
pp., 2013.
Ray, S., Mukhopadhyay, U., Ghosh, P. P., 2007, arXiv:0705.1836v1
Stephenson, F.R., & Morrison, L.V., Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London A313, 47-70, 1984.
Schrdinger, E. 1926, Phys. Rev. 28:6, 10491070
Sofue, Y., 1996, ApJ, 458, 120
Sofue, Y., Tutui, Y., Honma, M., Tomita, A., Takamiya, T., Koda, J., & Takeda Y., 1999,
Central Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies ApJ 523, 136-146
Sofue, Y., Honma, M., & Omakaka, T., 2009, Unified Rotation Curve of the
GalaxyDecomposition into de Vaucouleurs Bulge, Disk, Dark Matter Halo, and the 9-kpc
Rotation Dip, Publ Astron Soc Jpn, 61, 227-36
Steiner, R., Williams, E.R., Newell, D.B., & Liu, R., 2005, Towards an electronic kilogram: an
improved measurement of the Planck constant and electron mass, Metrologia. 42, 431-441
TOE, 2007, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything, http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.0770,
accessed 2013May11
Tully, R.B., & Fisher, J.R., 1977, Astron. Astrophys. 54, 661-73
Tully, R. B, 1982, ApJ, 257:1, 389422
Valle, J.P., 2005, The Spiral Arms and Interarm Separation of the Milky Way: An Updated
Statistical Study, Astron. J. 130:569-575
Webb, J.K., King, J.A., Murphy, M.T., Flambaum, V.V., Carswell, R.F. and Bainbridge, M.B.,
2011, Indications of a spatial variation of the ne structure constant, Phys Rev Lett, 107,
191101-6
Weinberg, S., 1993, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature,
Hutchinson Radius, London
Wetterich, C., 2013, A Universe without Expansion, Astro. Phys. 12 Nov 2013.