View Full Version : Is this the answer to life the universe and everything?

2010-Feb-16, 06:43 PM
Found this July 2009 paper the other day:

Gravitational hydrodynamics of large scale structure formation, by Nieuwenhuizen, Gibson and Schild.


Dry title for quite a startling paper. The structure of the universe and galaxies is explained without recourse to dark-matter or dark energy, as in the current model. The variations in CDM are explained, as are voids and supervoids.

Dark matter consists of primordial Earth-sized cold H/He planets in clusters. These fall out of the equations describing the hydrodynamics of the plasma cloud and hot gas following the big bang. The current average separation is approx. 10^14 metre (which I calculate as 670 AU or 0.01 light year)

Similarly, the voids and supervoids observed in the large scale of the universe also come out of these equations.

They say these planet clusters have actually been observed, in microlensing of quasars and in galaxy collisions.

I have a bit of a difficulty though, surely these massive numbers of free planets would have been noticed by now?

2010-Feb-16, 07:03 PM
I have a bit of a difficulty though, surely these massive numbers of free planets would have been noticed by now?

They wouldn't stay free for very long (gravity tends to clump things together) and I'm inclined to believe that would dramatically alter the appearance of galaxies.

The theory would also need to be reconciled with observations of MACS J0025.4-1222 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACS_J0025.4-1222).

Ken G
2010-Feb-17, 08:24 AM
It doesn't sound like they treat Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which as I recall, rules out the dark matter being hydrogen. I didn't read the paper, but note they do not do away with dark matter, only its more exotic forms (they use both hydrogen and neutrinos), and they make no comment in the abstract about accelerated expansion, so it's not clear they do away with dark energy either.

2010-Feb-17, 12:19 PM
Yes Ken G, there is something about the deuterium to hydrogen ratio and the number of photons in the universe constraining the baryonic mass. This is ignored in this work. It deals with pretty well everything else though !

One of the authors in this paper above, R Schild (now there is a name for the conspiracy theorists to conjure with), in another paper does away with the need for dark energy. It is only hinted at in the paper above.

He says that observations that are used to justify dark energy can instead be explained perfectly well by greater optical depth at high redshift. If I interpret it correctly, the fog of cold H-He planets (or milli-brown dwarfs as he also calls them), would have been denser in the past ie as redshift increases, and that would follow a (1+z)^3 relation. It is claimed this fits the observations rather well.

It seems to be a completely left-field view of things. For example, again if I interpret it correctly, they are saying star formation is by mergers of primordial H-He planets, not collapsing gas clouds.

All authors seem to be in-post academics.

Ken G
2010-Feb-17, 01:40 PM
It sounds pretty ATM, even so. How do they explain T Tauri stars, Herbig-Haro objects, and other kinds of young stars that show gas disks around them?

2010-Feb-18, 06:53 PM
Gas disks around stars are explained as evaporating gas from the H-He planets. In the paper I'm reading now, it is said these objects are plainly visible in HST images of the Helix planetary nebula, embedded in the nebulosity.

The paper argues against the necessity of dark energy. However I was a bit wrong about the non-baryonic dark matter: it IS required in this model (and this might help the H/D ratio difficulty), but it is neutrinos. Galaxy dark halos are entirely baryonic (consisting of clusters of primordial frozen H-He planets), and the mass distribution falls naturally out of the hydrodynamic theory of formation.


Gibson and Schild 2007 "Interpretation of the Helix Planetary Nebula using hydro-gravitational dynamics: planets and dark energy.

I wonder if WISE is capable of detecting any nearby H-He planets? On the face of it, it does not sound hopeful as their surfaces are so cold they are frozen according to the authors.

2010-Feb-20, 06:10 PM
Dragonchild wrote:
The theory would also need to be reconciled with observations of MACS J0025.4-1222.

I think a few people have questioned the NASA interpretation of this anyway. It depends on a long chain of reasoning, and I think alternative hypotheses have been proposed. It's certainly not cut and dried.

But you're right, according to Schild and Gibson, collisions like these should feature large scale star formation as the frozen clusters of planets interact when galaxies merge. I will have to keep searching their papers to see what they make of it.

Gibson contends that non-interacting CDM would not collect in clumps and would be therefore be totally useless as seeding sites for galaxy formation. He says that any that initially happened to find itself in an over-density would diffuse out, not collect together even more. He is apparently some kind of expert in turbulence, fluid dynamics, that kind of thing.

2010-Feb-20, 08:40 PM
As interesting as it is... until its confirmed by observation its not even a theory...

There seems to be some gaps in the logic used.

It is good though that some thought and a great deal of what ifs are being taken seriously.

I will go on record as saying that the idea of Dark mater being explained away..
Is great. I never have found it expectable. I likewise have a issue with Dark Energy.
I will go read this paper again and try to find some logic. 5 x 7 = 42 ," We have a problem." The meaning of life the universe and everything might just be a little more complex. WE are firm in our understanding of stellar formation from gravity driven nebulocity. Gas clouds. I would need confirmation of these other ideas.

Jeff Root
2010-Feb-24, 03:11 AM
I would expect that even if cold dark matter is completely non-interacting
via any force other than gravity, it would clump by gravitational virialization,
just like stars in globular clusters.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

2010-Feb-24, 03:13 AM