More problems for CDM

http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048
provides a more detailed analysis of the Abell 520 dark matter phenomenon.

In article ,
Oh No writes:
I don't profess to follow all the analysis. I merely note that the CDM
mass distribution is inferred by lensing and that, in the few instances
where this has been done, the mass distributions appear to display
little in the way patterns which can be easily explained, or which fit
with physical laws as we understand them. This is interesting to me as
the teleconnection predicts different lensing formulae from standard. If
this is correct the apparent distributions of CDM are illusory.

I don't see how the teleconnection can predict _very_ different
lensing formulae. The deflection magnitudes may differ a bit (though
they better agree with solar system results), and the distances of
the light source and the lens will differ, but the basic "bending
towards the mass" has to be the same. That means the location of the
dark matter, as derived from the standard formulae, can't be grossly
wrong, doesn't it?

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Thus spake Steve Willner
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048
provides a more detailed analysis of the Abell 520 dark matter phenomenon.

In article ,
Oh No writes:
I don't profess to follow all the analysis. I merely note that the CDM
mass distribution is inferred by lensing and that, in the few instances
where this has been done, the mass distributions appear to display
little in the way patterns which can be easily explained, or which fit
with physical laws as we understand them. This is interesting to me as
the teleconnection predicts different lensing formulae from standard. If
this is correct the apparent distributions of CDM are illusory.

I don't see how the teleconnection can predict _very_ different
lensing formulae. The deflection magnitudes may differ a bit (though
they better agree with solar system results), and the distances of
the light source and the lens will differ, but the basic "bending
towards the mass" has to be the same. That means the location of the
dark matter, as derived from the standard formulae, can't be grossly
wrong, doesn't it?

The behaviour of light from distant objects under the teleconnection is,
admittedly, pretty weird as it must be treated in the quantum domain. It
gives a different formula for bending of light from a distant object
than for bending in the inner solar system by the sun, where the
classical treatment works. The quantum treatment requires special
coordinates, which have a radial stretching of 2 and a transverse
stretch of 1/2, giving 4pi in a circle - this seems to have something to
do with spin 1/2 and the behaviour of fermion phase under rotation. The
net result is a bending four times greater than classically by an object
of the same mass.

Definitely odd, but I have to hide behind the defence of quantum
theorists, that the mathematical theory is consistent. If a unification
theory was not going to be weird, it would have been found before now.
Perhaps more reasonably I can point to the fact that MOND has a problem
reconciling galactic masses to the observed bending, whereas CDM has a
problem reconciling mass profiles.

But anyway, in answer to your question, yes, a factor of four is quite
enough to cause the standard formulae to lead to a completely illusory
dark matter distribution.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email