We document on the web, as best we can and within our spare time, the
paradigm change away from the concordance or standard cold or warm dark
matter based cosmological models (the LCDM or LWDM models, together
referred to as the standard model of cosmology, the SMoC) towards a
new understanding of cosmological physics.
Link to unrelated comments to the above contributions is
here (begun in Nov.2013).
Further on this matter:
"Navigating the landscape of fiendish behaviour, funding constraints
and the desire to better understand the mechanisms of the Universe, in
view of most probably very wide-spread mis-conceptions, is very
hard. In the end one's own inquisitiveness, perseverance and elan may
lead one to move forward satisfactorily, at least in one's own eyes"
(PK, July 4th, 2020, in a letter to Vesselin Gueorguiev).
opinion : A view or judgement formed about something, not
necessarily based on fact or knowledge. (from Oxford Living
Thus a scientist must not have an opinion, only inferences based on assumptions and data and a logical procedure to connect the two.
"Nearly every one tries to dismiss MOND as being only phenomenological. I think this is wrong.
MOND is not a phenomenological model but is a formulation based on a
Lagrangian generalised (by Bekenstein & Milgrom 1984 ) from the standard Newtonian one, the
generalisation being motivated by data which includes the Solar System
as well as galaxies, while Newton's uses only Solar System
data. Newton is just as phenomenological as Milgrom, and Einstein
packaged Newton's findings into a sophisticated mathematical language,
which may or may not be the correct physical description (arguably, it
passes all tests when a > a_0).
The very vast majority of the Universe is Milgromian! The
Newtonian/Einsteinian regimes are only tiiiny bubbles in a huge
expanse of scale-invariant dynamics as formulated by Milgrom."
(email to Stacy McGaugh by PK on 16th Jan. 20201 after his Golden Webinar)
Large galaxies like our Milky Way form, in particle-dark-matter
cosmological models (such as e.g. in the standard LCDM or
warm-dark-matter or self-interacting dark-matter models), from a
very large number of mergers, because the dark matter halos, when
they interact, dissipate kinetic energy and merge. The satellite galaxies are a fossil
remnant of this merger history, and the LCDM theory makes very clear
predictions as to the phase-space distribution of these fossils. Is
this phase-space distribution evident in the observed satellite
With the discovery of a nearby third disk-of-satellite system [A whirling plane of satellite galaxies around
Centaurus A challenges cold dark matter cosmology (Mueller,
Pawlowski, Jerjen & Lelli 2018, Science)] the answer is now robust:
Assuming structure formation occurs according to the LCDM model, we expect 3
occurrences of Disk-of-Satellite (or satellite plane) systems amongst
2.4 hundred million MW-type galaxies. Instead, we observe more than
three amongst the five nearest. This consitutes a discrepancy of more
than 5sigma between observation and LCDM theory:
The fossils of the putative merger history are thus not observed, and
structures form differently than in the standard dark-matter
models. This is supported by the result that rotation curves of
many galaxies cannot be reproduced in the standard dark-matter models
unless stars have negative masses,
Rotation curves of galaxies and the stellar mass-to-light ratio
(Haghi et al. 2018, MNRAS). Basically, in many
observed galaxies, the standard dark-matter content is always too
high, and mass then needs to be cancelled away in order to reproduce
the observed rotation curves. Since baryonic matter is not well
understood (or so is usually said), we can speculate that stars can have
negative masses to achieve good fits of the observed rotation
curves given the well-understood dark-matter halos. Clearly this is an unphysical conclusion.
In consequence, because dark matter does not exist,
dynamical friction will neither be evident in the
observed satellite motions nor in the dynamics of compact groups of
galaxies. These tests have been performed:
Using dwarf satellite proper motions to determine their origin
(Angus, Diaferio & Kroupa, 2011, MNRAS) and
Constraints on the dynamical evolution of the galaxy group M81
(Oehm, Thies & Kroupa, 2017, MNRAS). In the LCDM model,
each observed galaxy has a halo made of dark matter particles around
it which is about 50-few100 times more massive and about 20 times larger than the
actually seen galaxy. These dark matter halos exert a strong
breaking force (the "Chandrasekhar dynamical friction") and
dissipate their kinetic energy as they move
through each other. This breaking-effect is not seen in the motions of
Thus, taken all the arguments together, the existence of dark matter
particles is beasically excluded with extremely high
confidence. Such falsifications are an essential procedure in the
natural sciences in order to achieve efficient and rapid progress in
an undersanding of our world. Sticking to a defunct theory halts
Phantom of Ramses (PoR) code for galaxy formation and evolution in
With a small grant from the Rectorate of the University of Bonn PK
received in 2013, Fabian Lueghausen (in collaboration with Benoit Famaey and
Pavel Kroupa) was able to develop in 2014 and 2015 a patch to Romain
Teyssier's RAMSES code to allow dark-matter-free high-resolution simulations of galaxy formation and
Lueghausen, Famaey & Kroupa 2015 Phantom of Ramses (PoR) code is a
patch to RAMSES. By default the patch comes with the
RAMSES code whenever it is downloaded.
Close scrutiny of such claims made by the standard-cosmology teams
have until now always yielded flaws in the applied
analysis. Noteworthy is that some of these claims (notably Maji et al.)
are published on the arXiv before being refereed. With
false claims being made, these authors appear to purposefully distort
the scientific process. This damages science, because many
readers do not have the knowledge of the subject, rely on the
statements made by the authors, and the rigorous mathematical details
may often be too involved for quick understanding.
Is this behaviour a result of over-motivation to demonstrate that LCDM
works? Is it a desire to appear main-stream in the competition for
funds, or for vying for some employment possibility? If this strategy
works, then this part of the cosmological community has a serious
problem in remaining to be viewed as a scientific establishment.
David Merritt provides a critical discussion of the present-day status
of cosmological research in "Cosmology and Convention" (
Merritt, 2017). This situation in cosmology is part of a very
major problem in fundamental physics research as elaborated in "The
trouble with physics" by
Lee Smolin 2006.
In the above Ibata et al. 2015 rebuttal, the authors write in
their abstract: "All these unexpected correlations strongly suggest
that a substantial fraction of satellite galaxies are causally-linked
in their formation and evolution.", in agreement with the
conclusions reached independently elsewhere that most, if not all,
dSph and UFD satellites are old tidal dwarf galaxies without particle
dark matter (2012a, 2012b and 2015; see also 1997).
Links to some of my relevant research papers and the German "Spektrum der
Wissenschaft" article (free of charge, "kostenfrei"):