STEN 1. Mass of Universe decreased in 8–16 times. Alexander Nych ©
E-mail: nych100@mail.ru
Published 10 October 2013
ABSTRACT
Context.The theory STEN is based on the
analysis of the phenomena observed in earth laboratories. Its
application to cosmology problems conducts to the solution of the basic
cosmological problems. It is the mechanism of Big Bang and inflation,
dark energy (DE), dark matter (DM), low density of a modern Universe,
high speeds of galaxies clusters. Also the unknown phenomena are
predicted in earth and space physics. Decreasing of Universe mass (DUM)
is most significant of these for cosmology.
Aims.To show two of independent unambiguous observational confirmations of DUM in в ≈11 times.
Methods. 1) The analysis of speeds of
galaxies clusters. 2) Comparison of density of a modern Universe with a
prediction of inflationary model of a Big Bang.
Results. 1) High speeds of galaxies
clusters can not be explained simply by their gravitational interaction,
because their mass 3–5 times less than required for this, therefore
it is sometimes called "gravitational anomaly". Observed speeds of
clusters are explained, if the mass of Universe was initially in NU=7–12 times times more, than now. 2) The inflationary
model predicts Ω=1 with large accuracy. But the density of the modern
Universe corresponds Ω0=0.09×1.5±1. Hence, the mass of Universe has decreased after inflation in NU=11×1.5±1 times.
Conclusions. Results 1) and 2) are
received from absolutely independent data, but they coincide. It
confirms them conformity of the reality, i.e. that the mass of a
Universe has decreased in NU=8–16 times. It confirms conclusions of theory STEN.
Key words. cosmological parameters – inflation – galaxies: interactions – galaxies: groups – Local Group
1. INTRODUCTION1.1. A modern cosmology and astrophysics.
In the past 20 years in astronomy a revolutionary progress is
observed, it is associated, in particular, with quality improvement of
tools:
1) The creation of large ground-based and space telescopes
all ranges – from radio to gamma rays and neutrino. In 1994–1998
began to work 10 telescopes with a mirror diameter of 8–11 m.
2)
The use of new extremely sensitive radiation detectors which accept
50–90 % of the photons, it is 30 times more than the film.
3) Application of computers for automation of supervision,
the analysis of their results and numerical modelling of space objects.
Expenses for the separate implemented projects, motivated
primarily by problems in cosmology and astrophysics, – Hubble Space
Telescope (HST, USA), Large Hadron Collider (Europe) – nearby $10
billion. In a stage of manufacturing is tools of following generation,
such as a space telescope James Webb (JWST, USA), with diameter of the
mirror 6.5 m, whereas at the operating since 1994 HST – 2.4 m.
This made possible to observe distant supernews type 1a
(SN1a), it provided the data, on which basis was made the conclusion,
that the expansion of Universe is accelerating, i. e. the cosmological
constant Λ is greater than zero, as assumed Einstein at her
introduction in general relativity [Einstein 1917].
"For the discovery of the acceleration in the expansion of Universe by observing supernew"
and causing its DE Saul Perlmutter, Adam G. Riess, Brian P. Schmidt
received the Shaw Award in Astronomy in 2006 and the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 2011.
Since is discover acceleration of expansion of Universe in
1998, to research its, and causing its DE, paramount significance is
attached. Modern tools provide reception of the numerous and various
data about DE and DM. So, if the conclusion about acceleration of
expansion of the Universe in 1998 was based on observations of 42
distant (0.18 "Supernova/Acceleration Probe"
(SNAP, USA) based on a special space telescope with diameter of a
mirror 2 m is targeted for registration within three years 6000 supernew
with z to 1.7 [Wikipedia]. Two other special projects of researches of
the accelerated expansion of Universe and DE – "The Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)/Ω" (USA) and "SPACE (SPectroscopic All-sky Cosmic Explorer) Building the 3-d Map of the Accelerating Universe" (USA) – originally estimated at $1.6 and $1.5 billion [Gehrels 2010; Wikipedia].
Now the conclusion about acceleration of the expansion of
Universe and the existence of DE do as well on the basis of
determination by X-ray space telescopes of evolution of the mass
function of clusters, and of the evolution of the mass ratio baryon and
nonbaryon matter in clusters of galaxies.
Also actively and aggressively investigated and a dark
matter (DM), the existence which reasonablely assumed Zwicky in 1930th
years [Zwicky 1933, 1937].
Astronomical discoveries of recent decades, the flow of
astronomical information cause a great interest to this science. The
American Astronomical Society (AAS) holds meetings twice a year. In the
221 meeting AAS, which has taken place 6–10 January, 2013 in Long
Beach, California, was attended by about 3000 professors and
researchers, including Nobel laureates and the top management NASA. At
the international conference "Modern Radio Universe–2013" (Bonn, on
April, 22–26nd 2013) 228 reports on radio astrophysics and the
instrumental engineering are presented.
In general, a large amount of accurate and diverse
astronomical data allowed to determine the basic cosmological parameters
with high accuracy – the quantity of DE ΩΛ=0.725±0.016, nonbaryon DM Ωch2=0.1126±0.0036, baryon matter Ωbh2=0.02255±0.000054, the Hubble parameter h=0.702±0.014 [Komatsu et el. 2010].
But obvious progress of observational astronomy has not led
to the solution major, fundamental cosmological and physical problems
– the existence and nature of nonbaryon DM, DE, the reason and the
physical mechanism of the Big Bang and inflation.
Cosmological problems are sharp for a modern science – DM
is not explained since 1933, and DE since 1917. Moreover, the mass of
the DM 50 and DE 200 times more then of stars mass, which is about 0.4 %
of Universe mass.
"It is no exaggeration to say that the elucidation of
the physical nature of dark energy – is the central problem of modern
science" [Lukash, Rubakov 2008].
"Dark matter problem has become one of the greatest
mysteries of the century, the nature of dark matter is not known to this
day, despite the thousands of articles devoted to it!" – J. Einasto [2006].
The situation reminds crisis of physics in late 19–
early 20 centuries, when with positions of classical physics for
decades, it was not possible to explain the linear spectrum of gas,
spectrum of thermal radiation, thermal capacity at low temperatures,
stability of atoms. This was explained in the new – quantum –
physics. Therefore, it is possible to expect that the solution of
existing cosmological problems will be complex, radical, comprehensive
and productive.
Complex solution the collected scientific problems usually
associates with a change of outdated paradigms. Einstein said about
this: "significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking at which we created them". But, at the same time, as noted M. Planck, new paradigms meet in the following order: 1) It can not be! 2) In this something is? 3) Well, who does not know it!
From the foregoing, it is clear that promotion of new
hypotheses, the theories directed on the decision of basic cosmological
problems – is actually. Especially those in which the solution is
comprehensive and clear, that is not achieved by the introduction of new
dark concepts.
1.2. About the theory STEN
STEN theory is based on analysis of microphenomena observed
in laboratories. It was unexpectedly, that STEN describes some
phenomena both in microscopic objects, and in such large as Universe,
because these phenomena are related. But objectively, it is not
surprising, because all basic physical theories is also applicable from
subnuclear (10–16 m) to cosmology (1026 m) scale,
being based on same initial concepts and principles. It turned out that
STEN leads to complex decision major cosmological problems: the
mechanism of Big Bang, inflation, dark matter (DM), dark energy (DE),
low density nearby Universe and high velocities of galaxy clusters –
"gravitational anomalies".
On the other hand some of findings STEN, relating to
unexplored areas of terrestrial and space physics, contradict popular
principles of standard physics and required to qualify them, that is, a
paradigm shift. For example, STEN leads to conclusion that Universe
mass decreases, which contradicts the law of conservation of mass and
energy. Similar deductions if there are no the observant confirmations,
usually provoke obstruction or ignoring of theory. Therefore, it seems
more appropriate to represent STEN from the end – from those
unexpected findings relating to cosmology, which have observational
evidence, i. e., they can serve as evidence of adequacy of theory.
Especially since it leads to solution of important cosmological
problems. And if these findings STEN are confirmed and adequately
appreciated, it will be possible to present whole theory.
So in this article is shown that conclusion about decrease
of Universe mass (DUM) is confirmed by observed velocities of galaxies
and clusters. DUM also is confirmed by low density of near Universe
Ω=0.09×1.5±1, despite the fact that according to inflationary Big Bang model Ω=1. In this case it is obvious that popular value Ω≈0.3 correspond to average age of Universe and is equally average geometrical initial density Ω=1 and modern Ω≈0.09.
Also in cosmology easier to recognise unusual phenomena,
such as appearance (especially disappearance) of matter or energy. For
example, in 1950–60 years had quite a lot of support of cosmologists
the theory of stationary Universe (Steady State theory, Infinite
Universe theory, continuous creation), proposed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle,
Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and others as an alternative to the Big Bang
theory. In this model, Universe is expanding with acceleration
(Λ>0), but its density is constant through continuous "creation" of
matter from a special "energy field" [Klimishin 1986, p. 506].
Note that any physical reasons for "creation" are missing. Only
discovery of quasars and space microwave radiation dramatically reduced
the number of supporters of this model at end of 1960s.
Consistent application of STEN to problems of cosmology
leads to conclusion that during the existence of Universe its mass has
decreased in 8–16 times. It contradicts physics principles – to
law of conservation of mass and energy. For this reason such idea could
not arise heuristically – by itself, but only as output of theory.
In this connection it is necessary to add following:
1) In following publications will be given the proof and
theory DUM that are part of STEN, consistent with the standard physics
after specifying or limiting some of its not well-founded
generalizations. Meanwhile DUM can have the status of a new heuristic
cosmological hypothesis. Its validity confirm, at least, the streams of
the galaxies ("gravitational anomalies") and low density of nearby
Universe, as it is shown in this article.
2) Hypothesis DUM is opposite of the aforementioned popular
in 1950–60 years of the theory of a stationary Universe with
continuous "creation" of a substance from a special "energy field". But
continuous increase of the mass of Universe has no physical basis, while
the DUM have absolutely clear physical nature and theory.
3) If the DUM in 8–16 times throughout of all time of its
existence still seems improbable in terms of standard physics, it
should be remembered that, according to popular models of modern
cosmology, the entire Universe originated during of 10–33 s in result of quantum fluctuations in the volume 10–99 sm3. And of the like universes was formed at once 10500, or even 1010107 [Linde, Vanchurin 2010]. Let's note that no more than 1095 particles is in the observable Universe, including photons and neutrinoes.
Against such bold models a hypothesis about a DUM in
8–16 times look even too simple and modest – naive, though also
unexpected.
And else this dark couple – Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
They are very unusual, mysterious and suspicious. It is possible to expect any meanness from them. Even a reducing the mass of Universe in 11 times – given that them so many – in 50 and 200 times more than the stars. For example, if in the beginning nonbaryon DM was 10 times more than the baryon, and now its no.
2. THE OBSERVANT CONFIRMATIONS A DUM2.1. Bulk flow of galaxies – "gravitational anomalies".
The bulk flows of galaxies, which by standard models are not explained, at DUM find a simple and natural explanation.
2.1.1. Local group (LG) of galaxies is moving
relative to the background radiation in the direction of the Shapley
supercluster (Sh) with a speed 561–689 km/s [Lauer, Postman 1994;
Kocevski et al. 2004; Surdin 2003]. The smaller supercluster Great
Attractor (GA), being between the LG and Sh, and the clusters being
behind LG, also moves to Sh. The total length of the flow and the speed
is 200 Mpc and 600–450 km/s [Mathewson et al. 1992], 60–150/h Mpc
and 720 km/s [Willick 1999], 60–600/h Mpc (flows in Universe) and 630
km/s [Hudson et al. 1999], where h≈0.7.
According to inflationary CDM-model the probable velocity
of galaxies streams in size 70 Mpc – 110 km/s. Probability of flows
larger than 50/h Mpc with a velocity 400 km/s <1 % [Perivolaropoulos
2011], <0.1 % [Willick 1999]. Therefore, the observed flow can not be
explained by random movements in time of inflation.
According to satellite COBE LG moves relative to
background radiation with a speed 620–627 km/s in the direction
l=271–276o, b=+29±30o [Smoot et al. 1992; Kogut et al. 1993].
Stream of galaxies, which includes LG, is moving at 720–700 km/s in
the direction l=266–272o, b=+19±10o [Willick 1999].
Sh and GA are on distance 200 and 60 Mpc in the direction
l=310o and 320o, b=+30o and 0o [Hoffman et el. 2001; Woudt et el.
2007;
Kolatt et el. 1995]. Center of Virgo cluster, which includes 160 large
galaxies, is center of local supercluster and is on distance of 16 Mpc
in the direction l=284o, b=+74o.
These data show that LG and local flow of galaxies is
moving in direction of nearest greatest mass – Sh+GA and Virgin
supercluster (VS). This indicates that local flow of galaxies is caused
by gravity. If it was caused by other factors, such as random motions
during inflation, probability of accidental flow in "right" direction
with accuracy 30–45o – between nearest greatest mass – GA+Sh and
VS – would be 7–15 %. But in fact takes place this improbable, but
"right" direction. It with probability of 93–85 % indicates that
direction of flow is determined not by random movements during
inflation, but gravitational pull.
But mass of Sh and GA according to various estimates from 3
till 50 times less than required for acceleration LG to observed
speed. Therefore, it is called "gravitational anomaly" [Wikipedia –
Great Attractor]. But our place in Universe is not a dedicated, special,
"anomaly". Therefore, the fact that our place is involved in
"gravitational anomaly" indicates that "gravitational anomalies"
prevalent everywhere in Universe.
Centre Sh is on distance of 14000 km/s (200 Mpc). That the
attraction to Sh could accelerate LG to 600 km/s, it must have mass of
4.5×1017Ω0.4/h M⊕ [Quintana et el. 1995; Reisenegger et el. 2000], (2–5)×1017Ω0.4/h M⊕ [Hoffman et el. 2001], 2.8×1017/h M⊕ [Reisenegger et el. 2002]. M⊕ – the mass of Sun.
Reisenegger et al. [2000, 2002] used spherical model of
collapse and found that mass of Sh in radius of 8.5/h Mpc at most
(2–13)×1015/h M⊕. Ragone et el. [2006] have defined in Sh and vicinities the mass of individual clusters of galaxies in range of 1013–15 M⊕, the sum is of MSh=(4.8–11)×1015/h M⊕. his is lower estimate, since it does not take into account groups <1013 M⊕
and lonely galaxies. Note that estimates are received by different
methods, but practically coincide, and the found mass of Sh MSh≈6×1015/h M⊕ is 46 times is less than necessary..
Proust et el. [2005] found that density (luminosity) of
galaxies in Sh and vicinities in 5.4 times more than average in Universe
(superdensity). From this they calculated MSh=5.4Ω×σcrV=5×1016/h M⊕
(Ω=0.3 – the material density of Universe, V – researched
volume), which is 4 times larger than the estimate Ragone et al. [2006]
for same volume. In terms of concept DUM this discrepancy is related to
fact that in nearby Universe Ω is much smaller than the "average"
value of 0.3. In nearby Universe (at z<0.002) Ω0≈0.09. For Sh z=0.04–0.055 and Ω≈0.15. Then on the basis of data Proust et el. [2005] obtain MSh=2.5×1016/h M⊕. This is 11 times less than the needed mass for acceleration LG to 600 km/s.
Between LG and Sh on distance 4000–5000 km/s (70 Mpc) is
the supercluster Great Attractor (GA), which also move to Sh with speed
700–950 km/s [Erdo'gdu et al. 2006, Fig. 20]. That the attraction to
GA could accelerated LG to speed of 570 km/s, its mass must be 5.4×1016 M⊕ [Lynden-Bell et el. 1988].
But volume and number of galaxies of GA in ≈10 times
smaller Sh [Proust et al. 2005, fig. 3, 4; Reisenegger et al. 2002, Fig.
1]. Woudt et al. [2008, fig. 1] has found in GA 6 major isolated
clusters. The virial mass of central and largest cluster in GA is 1015 M⊕.
The cluster second for mass on 50–70 % less massive. From this and
from the data Woudt et al. [2008, fig. 1], we can estimate that the mass
of GA, probably not more than (5–10)×1015 M⊕,
that 6–11 times less than required for acceleration LG to 570 km/s.
Radburn-Smith et al. [2006] believe that the mass of GA may be more than
1016/h M⊕, that still is 4 times less than required for acceleration LG to 570 km/s.
The relative contribution of Sh and GA in LG acceleration
remains poorly defined and is the subject of debate [Woudt et al. 2008].
Based on these data we can estimate that for acceleration LG to speed
of 600 km/s mass of Sh and GA should be ≈4 times larger than it is.
Here it is necessary to make improvement. According to COBE the
LG moves with a speed of 624 km/s relative to CMB in direction l=273o,
b=+30o [Smoot et al. 1992; Kogut et al. 1993]. It is between direction
of GA+Sh and direction of Virgo supercluster (VS), center of which is at
a distance of 16 Mpc in direction l=284o, b=+74o. LG velocity vector
have angle ≈40o with a direction on GA+Sh. Therefore speed of LG
towards GA+Sh is 624×cos40o=537 km/s, and their mass, considering an
attraction to VS, should be more in ≈4×537/600=3.6 times. Angle between
direction of GA+Sh and direction of VS is ≈70o. Given the
contribution of gravity to VS in acceleration LG in direction GA+Sh, an
estimation of necessary mass GA+Sh should be further reduced. Final
score – for accelerate LG to observed speed, mass of GA+Sh must be
greater than it is in 3.1 times. In terms of theory DUM this means that
the average mass of GA+Sh were 3.1 times greater than that observed at
present time at z≈0.03. Assuming most simple – linear – dependence
of mass from time we find that to z≈0.03 it decreased in 5.2, and to
now GA+Sh mass is decreased in 6 times.
2.1.2. "Dark flow", is probably the similar
"gravitational anomaly", but very large, and therefore noticed. It is a
flow of more 1000 clusters, removing at a speed of 600–1500 km/s
relative to the CMB. These clusters are located at distance from less 1
to more 3 billion light years, the flow has size more 800 Mpc
[Kashlinsky et al. 2008, 2009, 2010;
Wikipedia – Dark flow].
"Dark flow" 3–10 times more than a local stream to Sh+GA
and has in 1.5 times great speed, therefore probability of its
inflationary origin according of Λ-CDM model is absolutely small.
Kashlinsky et al. [2008, 2010] are associating an origin it with before
inflationary heterogeneity and considers that the mass, to which
aspires "dark flow", is beyond observable Universe.
2.1.3. Collision of two clusters 1E0657–56 (Bullets)
with speed 4700 km/s determined by observations of shock wave in
X-ray gas [Clowe et al. 2006]. Masses of clusters within 250 kpc found
by lensed method – 2.8 and 2.3×1014 M⊕ [Brada'c et el. 2006]. Virial radius of larger cluster is 2.3 Mpc, its mass is 1015/h M⊕measured
by weak lensed method and X-rays [Springel, Farrar 2007]. Mastropietro
and Burkert [2008] found that the mass of smaller cluster of 6 times
less, and that initial relative velocity of clusters should be 3000
km/s. Lee and Komatsu [2010] found that probability of such speed in
standard inflationary Λ-CDM model, less than 10–9, so this event contradicts Λ-CDM model..
It supports put forward concept that the observed speed of
collision of clusters is caused not by inflationary chaos, but their
gravitational interaction, like others "gravitational anomalies", and
the observed lack of necessary for this of mass is evidence of DUM.
Table 1 shows the necessary mass of clusters 1E0657–56,
calculated by using formula (2), on base of published data about speed v0 and distance r0 between clusters before collision. Clusters 1E0657–57 have z=0.296, which is equivalent to age of Universe 9.25×109
years. Given the formation time the clusters and their time of
"penetrating" collision, time of acceleration from v=0 is accepted
T=8×109 years.
Table 1. Clusters mass 1E0657–56 needed for their gravitational acceleration to speed v0, distance r0 for 8×109 years.
| Source | v0, km/s | r0, Mpc | M, 1015 M⊕ |
|---|
| Allen, Schmidt, Fabian [2002] | 1600 | 3.5 | 1.8 |
| Springel, Farrar [2007] | 2057 | 3.37 | 2.6 |
| Mastropietro, Burkert [2008]; Lee, Komatsu [2010] | 3000 | 5 | 8.3 |
| The arithmetic mean | | | 4.23 |
Clusters mass 1.17×1015/h M⊕ is 2.6 times less than is required 4.23×1015 M⊕ for gravitational acceleration to observed speed. Adopting a simplest assumptions – that 4.23×1015 M⊕ is average mass of system for the all time, and mass decreases linearly – we find that initial mass was 4.2 times greater than is observed. Thus, by age of Universe 9.25×109 years, in which we see these clusters (z=0.3), their mass is decreased in 4.2 times. Then to modern age 13.7×109years, at preservation same rate of decrease their mass, it has decreased still in 2–4 times. From this it is estimated that for the all time of existence of the Universe the mass 1E0657–56 has decreased in 10–15 times.
Thus, the observed mass is several times less than is
required for acceleration to the found speed of Bullets collision, and
it is contrary to standard Λ-CDM model inflation. Therefore, the
decrease of mass of Bullets clusters to age of Universe 9.25×109 years in 4.2 times is the only hypothesis which, in principle, explain this fact.
2.1.4. Fast motion of galaxies in the Coma 1 complex.Center of the Coma 1 is on distance of 15 Mpk from us and on distance of 15 Mpk to a north from the center Virgo cluster. Makarov & Karachentsev [2011] had found that the Coma 1 complex consists of 8 groups, 5 triples, 10 pairs and 83 single galaxies – in the sum 206 galaxies with total mass 4.7×1013 M⊕. Karachentsev, Nasonova & Courtois [2011] had found that in this complex distant galaxies (25 Mpk) move with a speed –700 km/s, and near (10 Mpk) +200 km/s relative to the Habbl's flow. That gravitation caused it, the mass of a complex of the Coma 1 should make 2×1014 M⊕, i.e. 4 times more than the mass the found by virial method and Tully-Fisher relation. Therefore authors name it "dark attraсtor" (a synonym "gravitational anomaly"). And, the dark matter should be out of virial areas or even is disposed irrespective of an observable matter [Karachentsev 2012, 2001].
From the point of view of the theory STEN now quantity of not registered DM in the Coma 1 is not great, i.e. the full mass in a volume of the Coma 1 is close to measured 4.7×1013 M⊕. But on the average for all life time of a Universe the mass in a volume of the Coma 1 was 4 times more than now. Therefore galaxies of the Coma 1 had received much higher speeds, than their modern mass could to cause. Assuming the elementary – linear – relation of mass to time, we find that originally the mass in a volume of the Coma 1 was 7 times more, than now.
2.1.5. Approach of Milky Way (MW) and M31. Kahn and Woltjer [1959] concluded that mass of MW and M31 is 4 times less than required for a explain their approach by gravitational interaction. Einasto and Lynden-Bell [1982] by same virial method, but on more exact data, found that for this purpose mass of Local Group (LG) should be (4.5±0.5)×1012 M⊕ [Einasto 2010].
But measured by method of zero speed the mass of LG is (1.2±0.2)×1012 M⊕ [Karachentsev 2001, 2005], (1.3±0.3)×1012 M⊕ [Karachentsev et el. 2002, Karachentsev, Kashibadze 2005], (1.9±0.2)×1012 M⊕ [Karachentsev et el. 2009], ie, in 2.5–3.5 times less than required.
Let's find necessary mass by exact decision a task of two bodies.
For two bodies the law of conservation of energy can be recorded in a kind:
r = r0 / ( 1 – a + a v2 / v02 ), or v = v0 [ ( r0 / r – 1 ) / a + 1 ] 1/2 (1)
where: r0, r – initial and final distance between bodies;
v0, v – module of vector difference of their speeds in initial and final state;
a = r0 v02 / ( 2 M G ) – ratio of kinetic energy to potential multiplied by –1;
M – mass of system; G=6.67×10–11 m3/kg/s2 – gravitational constant.
If tangential component of velocity is zero, dr/dt=v,
and equation (1) can be integrated analytically. For related systems
(a<1), we obtain:
T = t – t0 = { A – A v / [ v0 ( 1 – a + a v2 / v02 ) ] + [arctg A – arctg ( A v / v0 ) ] / ( 1 – a ) } A r0 / v0 (2)
where: A = [ a / ( 1 – a ) ] 1/2; t0 and t – initial and end time.
Speed of approach M31 and MW v0=120±6 km/s [Binney, Tremaine 1987; Cox, Loeb 2007; Malik 2002], the modern distance between them r0=780 kpc [Ribas et el. 2005; McConnachie et el. 2005; Evans et el. 2000]. Then, having used formula (2) we find that speed of approach 12 billion
years ago was v = 80, 61 and 0 km/s at M = 1.25, 1.7 and 2.98×1012 M⊕, respectively. If unknown at present time tangential velocity M31 is significant, the required mass will be even significantly more. In (2)
tangential velocity is equal to 0, that explains the virial method found
1.5 times greater appreciation of the required mass – (4.5±0.5)×1012 M⊕ [Einasto & Lynden-Bell 1982, Einasto 2010]. Thus, (4.5±0.5)×1012 M⊕ is likely, and 3×1012 M⊕ is minimum mass LG necessary to explain speed of approach M31 and MW by their gravitational interaction, which is 2–3 times less of modern mass of LG (1.2–1.9)×1012 M⊕.
In terms of DUM this means that the average mass of LG was 3
times more than now. Assuming simplest – linear – dependence of
mass from time, we find that the initial mass of LG was 5 times more
than now.
Probability that the observed speed of approach is not
caused by gravitational interaction, but is random, is insignificant.
Indeed, according to Hubble's law the M31 should be removing from MW at
55 km/s. Instead, it approaches with speed of 120 km/s, ie, speed is
different from Hubble's at 175 km/s. At same time, dispersion of radial
velocities relative to Hubble's of isolated galaxies in Local Universe
in radius of 3 Mpc is
σ=25 km/s [Karachentsev et al. 2002, 2009]. Therefore, speed of
approach is different from the Hubble's 7 σ. Probability of that is less
than 10–9.
2.1.6. Prevalence of "gravitational anomalies".
Thus, our galaxy is involved directly in two "gravitational anomalies"
of different scales – in "local" (approach MW and M31), which is
expressed on scale ~1 Mpc, and associated with movement LG to GA+Sh
of size ~200 Mpc. This shows prevalence of "gravitational anomalies" at
all scales – from groups of size 1 Mpc to superclusters and even
larger structures, such as "dark stream", size 600/h Mpc [Hudson et
el. 1999].
With increase in mass and sizes of structures "anomaly",
i.e. speeds and lack of mass, is increased. If for an explanation of
approach M31 and MW (1 Mpc) with a speed of 120 km/s their mass has
to be in 2–3 times more than is, in case of GA+Sh and 1E0657–57
(20–200 Mpc) in 3–5 times, speed 450–950 and 2000 km/s. Speed "a
dark stream" (1000 Mpc) 600–1500 km/s
[Kashlinsky et el. 2010].
2.1.7. Dekel [1994] being based on analysis of bulk flows of galaxies finds Ω0=0.5–1, at >3σ (>99.7 %) Ω0>0.2–0.3. Estimation Ω0
on bulk flows characterises average density for entire period of their
formation, ie, almost entire history of Universe. Therefore, we can
assume that this estimate is obtained from observational data relating
in average to middle of time of existence of Universe, i.e., to
z≈0.5–0.6.
Thus, on speeds of galaxies streams is defined that mass of Universe, in average on time, correspond to Ω0=0.5–1≈0.75 [Dekel 1994]. But in nearby Universe, we find Ω0=0.09×1.5±1.
This means that at present mass of Universe is 8 times less than was
in average for time of its existence. Assuming simplest – linear –
dependence of mass from time, we find that initial mass of Universe was 15 times greater than at present.
2.1.8. In terms of DUM flows of galaxies,
"gravitational anomalies" have an obvious explanation. In this case, in
early (z>1) and middle (1>z>0.2) periods Sh and GA did have in
average of 3–5 times more mass. At the expense of it LG and GA have
received observed high speed, and now move mostly by inertia. This
explanation is confirmed by fact that LG (620 km/s) and are ahead of it
clusters of GA (700–950 km/s) is moving with higher speed than are
behind (450 km/s), ie, further from Sh, and therefore have received less
speed [Mathewson et el. 1992].
High speed of collision of clusters 1E0657–56, high speed of approach of galaxies in the Coma 1 and high speed of approach M31 and MW have the same explanation.
The above analysis of galaxies streams of different scales
indicates that the initial mass of superclusters and large clusters of
mass 1015–16 M⊕, such as Sh, GA and 1E0657–56, has been in 6–14, groups of mass 1013–14 M⊕, such as the Coma 1, in 7 times, and of small groups, mass of 1012 M⊕, such as LG, 5 times more than at present. Considering all these data, we can estimate, that in average mass of Universe decreased in 7–12 times.
2.2. Density of nearby Universe
2.2.1. Actual density of the near Universe. Rines et el. [2004] on basis of data relating to z=0.02–0.04, found Ω=0.1–0.18. They stressed that "result is difficult to reconcile with independent methods, which offers more Ω0". At z<0.002 find Ω0: 0.2e±0.4 [Davis, Peebles 1983], 0.1–0.3 [Hanski et el. 2001], 0.16±0.05 [Bahcall et al. 2000; Abate, Erdo'gdu 2009], 0.1 [Brown, Peebles 1987, Sandage et el. 1972], 0.08 [Vennik 1984; Tully 1987], 0.08±0.02 [Makarov & Karachentsev 2011], <0.08 (>0.3 – excluded) [Governato et el. 1997], 0.05 [Magtesyan 1988], 0.03–0.07 [Karachentsev et el. 2003], 0.04 [Karachentsev 2005]. At z<0.002 an average geometric Ω0=0.09×1.5±1.
2.2.2. The problem of a lack a DM in a local Universe consists in essential a divergence between estimations of local (Ω=0.08±0.02) and global (Ω=0.28±0.03) average density of substance. Makarov & Karachentsev [2011], Karachentsev [2012, 2001]
discuss three possible explanations of this paradox: 1) clusters and groups are surrounded expanded gallo from a DM which mass is disposed, in the core, out of their virial radiuses; 2) the investigated local volume of a Universe is not representative, being disposed in huge void; 3) the most part a DM in a Universe is not connected with clusters and groups, and distributed as uniform dark "sea" or in the form of massive dark lumps between clusters. Arguments in favor of last assumption are presented.
From the point of view of STEN a quantity a DM in near, i.e. a modern Universe is really is not great. Therefore value Ω=0.08±0.02 correctly characterizes full density of all Universe now. Value Ω=0.28±0.03 too is correct, but it concerns to last time when the mass a DM in a Universe was many times more. It is received from combination of various data including from data WMAP relating to the earliest Universe when its mass was maximum. Therefore Ω≈0.28 characterizes Universe density on the average for all time of its existence and it is equal to geometric average of initial density after inflation Ω=1 and modern Ω≈0.08.
2.2.3. Universe density in inflationary model.
On the other hand, according to inflationary model of Big Bang the
density should be equal to critical Ω=1 [Linde 1984]. The fact is
that in process of inflation the size of Universe has increased, and
curvature decreased in 1026 times and more (in some models even at 10105–10
times – the exact numbers depend on choice of concrete theory of
elementary particles and of mechanism, which provide inflating). Thus
according to decrease of curvature with big accuracy kinetic energy of
expansion of Universe and its potential energy are equalised. This means
that at end of inflation the density is equal to the critical density
with great precision – Ω=1±δ, where the noncriticality or curvature
of δ<<1. After that, depending on ratio of 1) curvature before
inflation, 2) the reduce of curvature in inflation, and 3) increasing
the curvature in the subsequent expansion by inertia, can be realized
one of two cases.
2.2.3.1. Curvature before inflation is not very large. This case seems more likely. Then, after decrease of curvature of >1026
times during inflation, the increase it during of expansion by inertia
is not enough, that curvature became significant, therefore remains
δ<<1.
At stage of dominance of radiation a growth of curvature
are preventing by radiation pressure p=ε/3, where ε – energy
density. After recombination at age of 380 thousand years, p=0, and
curvature increases according the law δ~t2/3 [Hlopov 1989]. After of recombination the time has increased in 13.7×109/(0.38×106)=36×103 times. Accordingly, the curvature-noncriticality δ~t2/3 grown at 11×102 times, which is much less than decrease in >1026
times during inflation. So in terms of inflationary model the Universe
density at present time must be equal to critical with high accuracy,
for example, Ω=1±10–10...–20.
But observed density of Universe obviously less critical. So in nearby Universe Ω0=0.09×1.5±1. This contradiction to observational data is considered considerable defect of inflationary model.
This defect of inflationary model is eliminated if after inflation mass of Universe is decreased in NU=1/0.09=11 times.
In this case, at end of inflation the density could be equal 1
arbitrarily closely, including, absolutely exactly Ω=1. And observed
the less critical density arose after inflation, owing to not connected
with inflation, understandable, clear and inevitable process DUM.
2.2.3.2. The curvature before inflation is very great.
So great that despite large decrease of curvature-noncriticality during
inflation, its growth during expansion by inertia was enough, that the
density of observed Universe was much smaller than the critical. And in
this case the lack of inflationary model associated with the observed
density of Universe is conserved.
The matter is that transition of character of expansion of
the Universe from near-critical Ω=1±0.1, when the noncriticality
practically is not appreciable, to far noncritical Ω<10–2,
when the noncriticality is obvious, and a question about criticality
would not arise at all, occupies only 3 order of increase
"noncriticality". While for all past tense the "noncriticality" δ at
first has decreased on >26 orders during inflation, and then
increased on >3 orders of magnitude in the expansion process by
inertia.
But it turns out that we exist just at time of transition
from critical to free expansion – in our time a density is clearly
less than 1, but not on many, and only 1 order. Probability that this is
casual coincidence, which does not have the concrete reason, is small.
Indeed, till our time during >24 orders of change δ density was nearly equal to critical Ω=1–10–1...–30, and we could be at that time and see that density is equal the critical.
And after our period during the subsequent lifetime of the
Universe, in principle, infinite, density will be much less critical
Ω<10–2. And we could also to exist at the time and would see that Universe is expanding freely by inertia.
That is, with overwhelming probability we should observe
Universe of critical density or freely expanding. And that fact that we
observe short-term transition from the critical density of Universe to
freely expanding, the inflationary model does not explain. It requires a
special fine-tuning of independent parameters of model: 1) curvature
before inflation, 2) decrease of the curvature during inflation, and 3)
increasing the curvature in process of expanding by inertia, and further
it will be increased infinitely.
So and in this case, the significant lack of inflationary
model, associated with observed density of Universe, is stored in the
form of necessity of fine-tuning of the independent parameters of
Universe.
And in this case shown the lack of inflationary model is eliminated also as well as in the first – if after inflation mass of Universe has decreased in NU=11 times.
Then after inflation the density may be with any accuracy
equal 1, including exactly Ω=1. It does not require of accurate
(unlikely, improbable) tuning. On the contrary – it is the most likely
and natural case, since it is known that during inflation the curvature
or the noncriticality decreased in 1026 and more (up to 101010) times.
And observed the less critical density arose after
inflation, owing to not connected with inflation, understandable, clear
and inevitable process, which cause DUM from Ω=1 to modern Ω0≈0.09.
Popular value Ω0≈0.3 on average obtained from
data relating to the average age of Universe, corresponds to him and
almost exactly equal to average geometrical of the initial density Ω=1
and modern Ω0≈0.09.
Thus concept DUM and the inflationary model complement each
other, at least to explain: 1) observed velocities of galaxies flows,
2) observed density of Universe.
Consequently, if inflation model is correct, then the observed data on density of Universe and on galactic flows is direct acknowledgement DUM.
3. CONCLUSIONS
1. Flows of galaxies at high speed – "gravitational anomalies" – is common on a scale from 1 to 1000 Mpc.
2. Existence of observed large-scale flows of galaxies
can not be explained simply by their gravitational interaction and
contradicts standard Λ-CDM model of inflation.
3. Observed speeds of galaxy clusters can be caused by
their gravitational interaction in early period, if in beginning
clusters was several times more mass than is observed now.
4. From analysis of observational data on flows galaxies follows, that the Universe mass is decreased in NU=7–12 times.
5. Average data on density of nearby Universe correspond to Ω0=0.09×1.5±1. This is consistent with inflationary model of Big Bang if DUM after inflation make NU=11×1.5±1 times. If inflationary model is correct, then data on density of Universe is direct acknowledgement DUM.
6. Popular value Ω0≈0.3 received in
average from data, related to average age of Universe, corresponds to
him and almost exactly equal to average geometrical of initial density
after inflation Ω=1 and modern Ω0≈0.09. It explains a known problem of a lack a DM in a near Universe.
7. Concept DUM and inflation model complemented each
other, at least to explain: 1) speed of galaxies flows, 2) density of
nearby Universe.
8. Estimations DUM on speeds of galaxies streams NU=7–12 and on density of nearby Universe NU=11×1.5±1 is obtained from independent data, but they practically coincide. This confirms their a correspond to reality. The final estimation DUM – NU=8–16.
The Nobel winner Niels Bohr has stated the deep thought which has become well-known: That the theory was correct and useful, it should be enough mad. Obviously theory STEN satisfies to this requirement with a large
reserve, even if to judge only on its one conclusion about a DUM in 11
times. It does not leave a place for doubt in its correctness and
useful. The superfluous proof of it is that the conclusion about a DUM
in 11 times directly and unequivocally follows from the observational
data, as shown in the given article, and does not contradict to any
another data. And the facts – a thing obstinate.
In following publications will be described physical nature and theory of DUM, DM and DE will be explained from theory STEN.
REFERENCES
Abate A., Erdo'gdu P., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1541
Allen S. W., Schmidt R. W., & Fabian A. C. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 256
Bahcall N. A., Cen R., Dav'e R., Ostriker J. P., Yu Q., 2000. The mass-to-light function: antibias and Ωm. ApJ, 541, 1. ArXiv:astro-ph/0002310
Binney J., Tremaine S. 1987. Galactic dynamics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 747 p.
Brown M. E., Peebles P. J. E. 1987. ApJ 317:588–592
CoxT. J. and Loeb A. 2007. The Collision Between The Milky Way And Andromeda. arXiv:0705.1170v1
Clowe D., Bradac' M., Gonzalez A. H., Markevitch M.,
Randall S. W., Jones C., and Zaritsky D. 2006. A direct empirical proof
of the existence of dark matter. ApJ 648:109–113
Davis M., Peebles P. J. E. 1983 ApJ 267:465–482
Dekel A. 1994. Dinamics of cosmic flows, Anny. Rev. AA 32:371–418 astro-ph/9401022
Einasto J. & Lynden-Bell D. 1982. On the mass of the Local Group and the motion of its barycentre. MNRAS 199: 67
Einasto J. 2006. The initial reference in Russian: Эйнасто Я. Э. 2006. Сказание о тёмной материи. Тарту, издательство "Ильмамаа" http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1233291 http://www.variable-stars.ru/db/msg/1233291/text.html
Einasto J. 2010. Dark Matter. Tartu Observatory, Estonia. arXiv:0901.0632v2
Einstein A. 1917. Sitz. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Phys.-Math 142
Evans N. W., Wilkinson M. I., Guhathakurta P., Grebel E.
K., and Vogt S. S. 2000. Dynamical Mass Estimates for the Halo of M31
from Keck Spectroscopy. ApJ 540: 9–12
Gehrels N. 2010. The Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM)/Ω. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.4936v1
Governato F., Moore B., Cen R., Stadel J., Lake G. and
Quinn T. 1997. The Local Group as a test of cosmological models. New
Astronomy V2, Issue 2, P. 91–106
Hanski M. O., Theureau G., Ekholm T., Teerikorpi P. 2001.
Kinematics of the local universe IX. The Perseus-Pisces supercluster and
the Tolman-Bondi model. AA 378:345–360
Hicken M., Wood-Vasey W. M., Blondin S., Challis P., Jha
S., Kelly P. L., Rest A., Kirshner R. P. 2009. Improved Dark Energy
Constraints from ~100 New CfA Supernova Type Ia Light Curves.
ArXiv:0901.4804v3 [astro-ph.CO]
Hlopov. The initial reference in Russian: Хлопов М. Ю. Х57 Космомикрофизика. - М.: Знание, 1989. –64 с. – (Новое в жизни, науке, технике Сер. "Физика"; ? 3) http://rusnauka.narod.ru/lib/phisic/microastro/rosmfiz.htm
Hoffman Y., Eldar A., Zaroubi S., Dekel A. 2001, astro-ph/0102190
Hudson M. J., Smith R. J., Lucey J. R., Schlegel D. J. and
Davies R. L. 1999. A large-scale bulk flow of galaxy clusters. ApJ
512:79–82
Kahn F. D. & Woltjer L. 1959. Intergalactic Matter and the Galaxy. ApJ 130:705
Karachentsev I. D. 2001. "Hidden mass in the Local Universe"
Physics-Uspekhi 44(8): 818–821; http://ufn.ru/en/articles/2001/8/i/
In Russian: Караченцев И. Д. 2001. Скрытая масcа в Mестной вселенной. УФН, т. 171, N 8, с. 860–863
Karachentsev I. D., Sharina M. E., Makarov D. I. and other 8 authors 2002. The very local Hubble flow. AA 389:812–824
Karachentsev I. D., Makarov D. I., Sharina M. E. and other 8 authors 2003. Local galaxy flows within 5 Mpc. AA 398:479–491
Karachentsev I. D. and Kashibadze O. G. 2005. Total masses
of the Local Group and M 81 group derived from the local Hubble flow.
ArXiv:astro-ph/0509207v2
Karachentsev I. D. 2005. The local group and other neighboring galaxy groups. AJ 129:178–188
Karachentsev I. D., Kashibadze O. G., Makarov D. I. and
Tully R. B. 2009. The Hubble flow around the Local Group. MNRAS
393:1265–1274
Karachentsev I. D., Nasonova O. G.,Courtois H. M. 2011. Fast motions of galaxies in the Coma I cloud: a case of Dark Attractorar. arXiv:1109.2783v1 [astro-ph.CO]
Karachentsev I. D. 2012. Missing dark matter in the local universe. arXiv:1204.3377v1 [astro-ph.CO]
Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Kocevski D., and Ebeling
H. 2008. A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters
of galaxies: results and cosmological implications. ApJ 686:49–52.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427345.000
Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F.,. Kocevski D,. Ebeling H.
2009. A measurement of large-scale peculiar velocities of clusters of
galaxies: technical details. ApJ 691:1479–1493. ArXiv:0809.3733v2
Kashlinsky A., Atrio-Barandela F., Ebeling H., Edge A., and
Kocevski D. 2010. A new measurement of the bulk flow of x-ray luminous
clusters of galaxies. ApJ Letters 712:81–85.
Klimishin I. 1986. The initial reference in Russian: Климишин И. А.. Астрономия наших дней. 3-е изд, М.: Наука, -560 с.
Kocevski D. D., Mullis C. R., & Ebeling H. 2004. ApJ 608: 721
Kogut A., et al. 1993, ApJ 419, 1
Kolatt T., Dekel A., Lahav O., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 797
Komatsu E., Smith K. M., Dunkley J., and other 18 authors
2010. Seven-year Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (WMAP)
observations: cosmological interpretation. Accepted for Publication in
the Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. ArXiv:1001.4538v3
[astro-ph.CO]
Lauer T. R. and Postman M. 1994. The motion of the Local
Group with respect to the 15000 kilometer per second Abell cluster
inertial frame. ApJ 425:418–438
Lee J., Komatsu E. 2010. Bullet Cluster: A Challenge to Λ-CDM Cosmology. ApJ 718: 60. ArXiv:1003.0939v2
Lynden-Bell D., Faber S. M., Burstein D., Davies R. L., Dressler A., Terlevich R., & Wegner G. 1988. ApJ 302: 536
Linde A. 1984. The initial reference in Russian: Линде А.Д. Раздувающаяся Вселенная. УФН. 144: 177–214 http://ufn.ru/ufn84/ufn84_10/Russian/r8410a.pdf
Linde A. and Vanchurin V. 2010. How many universes are in the multiverse? arXiv:0910.1589v3 [hep-th]
Lukash V N, Rubakov V A 2008. Dark energy: myths and
reality. Phys. Usp. 51 283–289. ArXiv:0807.1635v1 [astro-ph]; in Russian: В.Н.Лукаш, В.A.Рубаков. Тёмная энергия: мифы и реальность. УФН, 2008, N 3, т.178:301--308
Magtesyan A. P., 1988, Astrophysics, 28, 150
Makarov D. I., Karachentsev I. D. 2011. Galaxy Groups and Clouds in the Local (z~0.01) Universe. MNRAS, Vol. 412, No. 4, 2498--2520.
Malik T.. Crash Course: Simulating the Fate of Our Milky Way. Space.com (07 May 2002)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/galaxy_collides_020507-1.html
Mastropietro C., Burkert A. 2008. Simulating the Bullet Cluster. MNRAS 389, 2, p. 967–988. ArXiv:0711.0967
Mathewson D. S., Ford V. L., & Buchhorn M. 1992. ApJS, 81, 413
McConnachie A.W., Irwin M. J., Ferguson A. M. N., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., Tanvir N. 2005. MNRAS 356: 979
Perivolaropoulos L. 2011. CDM: Triumphs, Puzzles and Remedies. arXiv:1104.0539v1
Proust D., Quintana H., Carrasco E. R. and other 8 authors
2005. Structure and dynamics of the Shapley Supercluster. Velocity
catalogue, general morphology and mass. A&A 447, 133–144 (2006)
ccsd-00009281, v1 (2005)
Quintana H., Ramirez A., Melnick J., Raychaudhury S., & Slezak E. 1995, AJ, 110, 463
Radburn-Smith D. J., Lucey J. R., Woudt P. A.,
Kraan-Korteweg R. C., Watson F. G. 2006. Structures in the Great
Attractor Region. MNRAS 369: 1131–1142. ArXiv:astro-ph/0603692v1
Ragone C. J.,. Muriel H, Proust D., Reisenegger A.,
Quintana H. 2006. Identification and study of systems of galaxies in the
Shapley supercluster. A&A 445, 819–825
Reisenegger A., Quintana H., Carrasco E. R., Maze J. 2000.
The Shapley supercluster. 3. Collapse dynamics and mass of the central
concentration. AJ 120:523–532. arXiv:astro-ph/0007211v1
Reisenegger A., Quintana H., Proust D., Slezak E. 2002.
Dynamics and Mass of the Shapley Supercluster, the Largest Bound
Structure in the Local Universe. The ESO Messenger, N 107, p.18–23.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2002Msngr.107...18R
http://www.eso.org/sci/publications/messenger/archive/no.107-mar02/messenger-no107-18-23.pdf
Ribas I., Jordi C., Vilardell F., Fitzpatrick E. L.,
Hilditch R. W., Guinan E. F. 2005. First Determination of the Distance
and Fundamental Properties of an Eclipsing Binary in the Andromeda
Galaxy. ApJ 635: 37–40
Rines K., Geller M. J., Diaferio A., Kurtz M. J., and Jarrett T. H. 2004. Cairns: the cluster and infal region nearby survey. II. Environmental dependence of infrared mass-to-light ratios. AJ 128:1078–1111
Sandage A., Tammann G. A., & Hardy E. 1972. ApJ 172:253
Smoot G. F., et al. 1992, ApJ 396, 1
Surdin. The initial reference in Russian: Сурдин В. Г. 2003. Сверхскопление Шепли – крупнейший архипелаг галактик. Природа, ?1, с. 63–66. http://www.abitura.com/modern_physics/surdin.html
Springel V., & Farrar G. R. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 911. ArXiv:astro-ph/0703232v2
Tully R. B., 1987, ApJ, 321, 280-, 1988, Nearby galaxies catalog, Tully R. B., ed.
Vennik J., 1984, Tartu Astrofuusika Observatoorium Teated, 73, 1-, 1987, Dissertation. Tartu
Willick J. A. 1999. The Las Campanas observatory/Palomar
10,000 kilometer per second claster survey. Constraints on large-scale
streaming. ApJ 522:647–660
Woudt P. A., Kraan-Korteweg R. C., Lucey J., Fairall A.
P.,. Moore S. A. W. The Norma Cluster (ACO 3627): I. A Dynamical
Analysis of the Most Massive Cluster in the Great Attractor. MNRAS,
Printed 1 Feb. 2008. ArXiv:0706.2227v1, 2007
Zwicky F. 1933. Helv. Phys. Acta 6 110
Zwicky F. 1937. On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae. ApJ 86:217