The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects

MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1258
Advance Access publication 2024 May 14
The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects
Richard Lieu‹
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA
Accepted 2024 May 10. Received 2024 March 19; in original form 2023 December 4
ABSTRACT
Assuming spherical symmetry and weak field, it is shown that if one solves the Poisson equation or the Einstein field
equations sourced by a topological defect, i.e. a singularity of a very specific form, the result is a localized gravitational
field capable of driving flat rotation (i.e. Keplerian circular orbits at a constant speed for all radii) of test masses on a thin
spherical shell without any underlying mass. Moreover, a large-scale structure which exploits this solution by assembling
concentrically a number of such topological defects can establish a flat stellar or galactic rotation curve, and can also deflect
light in the same manner as an equipotential (isothermal) sphere. Thus, the need for dark matter or modified gravity theory is
mitigated, at least in part.
Key words: (cosmology:) dark matter – galaxies: clusters: intracluster medium – galaxies: structure – gravitational lensing:
weak.
1 INTRODUCTION
The nature of dark matter (DM), defined specifically in this letter as
an unknown component of the cosmic substratum responsible for the
extra gravitational field that binds galaxies and clusters of galaxies,
has been an enigma for more than a century since the pioneering
papers of Kapteyn (1922) and Oort (1932), Spitzer observation
(Morales-Salgado et al. 2022), and Gaia observation (Battaglia &
Nipoti 2022) on galactic scales, and Zwicky (1933) and Chaurasiya
et al (2024) on the scale of clusters. Although the laboratory search
for DM is an ongoing effort, see e.g. Aalbers et al (2023) and Cebrian
(2023), alternative theories of gravity were also proposed to enable a
considerably smaller amount of matter than is required by Newtonian
gravity (and General Relativity in the weak field limit) to produce
the same gravitational field strength, see Nojiri et al. (2017) and
references therein.
The purpose of this paper is to revisit the logical steps that connect
DM existence to the standard theory of gravity. It turns out that, in the
weak field limit where Newtonian theory suffices, there are two types
of impulsive source term ρ(r) for the gravitational Poisson equation,
which can lead to an attractive central force as the solution. The first
has magnitude ∝ 1/r2
and is associated with an underlying spherically
symmetric mass distribution, while the second has magnitude ∝ 1/r
and is associated with no underlying mass if space is isotropic.
The first is evidently Newton’s law of universal gravitation, but
our interest here is in the second solution because not only has it
been ignored, but it can also yield a flat stellar rotation curve in an
equipotential environment (apart from a logarithmic increase of
with radius r) in the absence of mass.
Of course, the availability of a second solution, even if it is highly
suggestive, is not by itself sufficient to discredit the DM hypothesis –
E-mail: lieur@uah.edu
it could be an interesting mathematical exercise at best. One naturally
queries (a) the physical meaning of the singular sources of the type
which give rise to the solution; (b) the stability of the solution; (c)
the robustness of the model in accounting for a variety of flat rotation
curve of galaxies and velocity dispersion in clusters of galaxies; and
(d) observational evidence (beyond the virialized motion of stars in
a galaxy and galaxies and hot gas in clusters) of such sources.
We will address (a) in the next section, and (b) in Section 3
where we will demonstrate stability by solving the Einstein field
equations to show that the metric tensor for the new solution is time-
independent. Next, (c) and (d) are the subjects of Sections 6 and
7 where we shall argue that the properties of the massless singular
shell sources capable of driving an attractive central force field are
specified by several parameters having values to be determined
observationally; moreover, the increasing frequency of sightings
of ring and shell like formation of galaxies in the Universe lends
evidence to the type of source being proposed here. Beyond that, we
will also show in Section 5 that, in respect of (c), the proposed model
can reproduce the bending of light, hence the gravitational lensing1
by a DM isothermal sphere without necessarily enlisting DM.
2 BIRKHOFF THEOREM FROM POISSON
EQUATION: GRAVITY ON A MASSLESS
SPHERICAL SHELL IN EMPTY SPACE
We begin with the gravitational Poisson equation as applied to an
isotropic environment
∇2
=
1
r2
d
dr

r2 d
dr

= 4πGρ(r). (1)
1Gravitational lensing probes the metric tensor in a manner not shared by the
observation of motion of material bodies.
© 2024 The Author(s).
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Downloaded
from
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/531/1/1630/7673084
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

Binding of cosmological structures 1631
MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
It is readily seen that for a continuum mass distribution a radially
directed force per unit mass of the form −ˆ
rd/dr = −Gm(r)ˆ
r/r2
is implied by equation (1), where m(r) is the underlying mass, or the
integral of ρ(r) over the spherical region of radius r. Specifically, the
solution of equation (1) for an inverse-square density source ρ(r) =
A/r2
is (r) = 4πGAlog r, where the constant A = m(r)/(4πr) with
m(r) ∝ r being the enclosed mass within radius r, which leads to the
requisite force per unit mass of a flat rotation curve F = −ˆ
rd/dr =
−4πGAˆ
r/r. The amount of source mass m(r) underlying a Keplerian
circular orbit of radius r and velocity v is then given by the
equation v2
= 4πGA = Gm(r)/r, which for a typical observed orbital
velocity v = 300 km s−1
at r = 3 kpc is a colossal m = 1.2 × 1044
g,
almost an order of magnitude larger than the mass of all the
observable baryons within such a galactic scale (Bland-Hawthorn
Gerhard 2022; Chan 2019); hence, the existence of DM seems to be
a justifiable conjecture. Such a conclusion is inevitable because both
the test mass acceleration v2
/r and the mass encumbering beneath
the orbital radius are proportional to A, hence to each other.
While attempting to look for a way out, consider a discrete density
source in the form of a thin spherical shell centred at the origin of
total mass M, which is a constant, radius R 0 (also a constant) and
density
ρ(r) =
Mδ(R − r)
4πr2
, (2)
where δ(x) is the 1D Dirac delta function. The total mass enclosed
by a spherical surface of radius r is
m(r) = 0, r R; and M, r R. (3)
The general solution of equation (1) has two constants of integration.
By choosing them to ensure there is no singularity of at the origin
and → 0 as r → ∞, one obtains
(r) = −
GM
r
r ≥ R, and −
GM
R
r R. (4)
This gives, in essence, the Birkhoff theorem in the weak field
limit where General Relativity reduces to equation (1), namely the
force field −d(r)/dr vanishes in the region r R inside the shell
(analogous to Newton’s hollow sphere) and is radially attractive
outside the shell, being given by the inverse square law with M as
the source of gravitational mass.
At this point, we depart from the conventional approach. Apart
from equation (2), there is at least one other type of shell singularity,
or more precisely, an isotropic impulsive source term in the form of
a topological defect, capable also of producing a central force field.
Consider replacing ρ(r) in equation (2) by a linear combination of
δ(R − r) and δ
(R − r), namely
ρ(r) =
c2
8πG

2αs
r2
δ(R − r) +
2αs
r
δ
(R − r)

, (5)
where α 0 is dimensionless and s → 0+
is a length, such that
sδ(R − r) = 1 at r = R. (6)
In this formulation, the mass within a sphere of radius r R is
m(r) =
r
0
4πr
2
ρ(r
)dr
=
αsc2
G
r
0
[δ(R − r
) + rδ
(R − r
)]dr
=
αsc2
G

r
δ(R − r
)
r
0
= M

r
δ(R − r
)
r
0
= 0, (7)
where M = αsc2
/G.
Consequently, the singular shell structure contributes nothing to
the total mass of the spherical cavity within which it resides. Thus,
the mass of the shell itself must vanish.
To analyse further the mass distribution, note that part of the source
function represents the topological defect of a dipole shell because
the derivative of a Dirac delta function at r = R is the limiting case
of a half Gaussian for r R joining with an inverted half Gaussian
for r R, with the former corresponding to a thin positive density
shell and the latter negative of the same magnitude. Since the outer
shell has a slightly larger radius, the total mass of both shells ought
to be negative, had it not been for the presence of another term in the
density function (5), which is proportional to δ(r − R). When both
terms in equation (5) are included, the total enclosed mass for any
radius r R vanishes exactly.
Moreover, as the width of the two Gaussians tends to zero, there
is no finite spherically symmetric region (be it cavity or shell) over
which the integral of ρ(r) yields a resolvably negative mass m(r) and
its potentially undesirable consequences. Thus, if one computes the
mass of the inner half of the shell where the density is positive by
applying (6) and (7) with r = R, one obtains2
m(r = R) = αRc2
/G
0. But if one lets r exceed R by any finite amount, equation (7)
would give m(r) = 0 because one has now included the irresolvable
outer half of the shell where the density is positive, together with
any hollow region which may lie beyond it. Further discussions on
equations (5) and (7) will take place below.
The potential gradient, on the other hand, is obtained by integrating
equation (1) once, with ρ as in equation (5), with the result is an
inward acceleration of (or an attractive radial force on a test particle
of unit mass),
F = −
d
dr
= −
αsc2
r
δ(R − r) = −
GM
r
δ(R − r). (8)
Thus, on the singular shell itself, there is a gravitational inward pull
of magnitude ∝ 1/r, the basic characteristic of a force field capable
of driving a colour red of stellar velocities, even though the shell
is massless. With a sufficient number of such unresolvably closely
spaced singular shells, the potential is effectively a continuous
function. One could then envisage a galaxy or cluster of galaxies, both
being populated by discrete clumps of baryons, namely the stars and
galaxies, respectively, as well as thermal gas as a virialized ensemble
with the force responsible for binding them given by equation (8).
Since the shells themselves are massless, the ensuing total mass
of each large-scale structure is simply the mass of the baryons, and
the need for enlisting DM is mitigated, at least in part. The shells can
be spaced 0.1 au apart in galaxies and 100 pc apart in clusters (see
2This strictly speaking is the total mass of the central and hollow region 0 ≤
r R where both the density and mass vanishes, and the inner half of the
spherical shell where both are positive.
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

1632 R. Lieu
MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
Section 6 for details). For telescopes with resolving power ≈1 arcsec,
stars which are 1 pc or further away from the observer will not reveal
the shell spacings, nor will galaxies in a cluster located 1 Gpc or
further from the observer reveal the shells in clusters.
3 STABILITY OF THE SECOND SOLUTION
In order to demonstrate the stability of the model, one must find
a time-independent metric tensor solution to the Einstein field
equations with the stress-energy tensor being that of pressureless
matter of density ρ(r) as given by equation (5). If such a solution
exists and has the same physical properties as the previous section in
the non-relativistic and weak field limit, i.e. with the metric tensor
reducing to the static potential function (r), it would mean the
model is stable.
For steady state and isotropic space, a line element is expressible
in the form
ds2
= c2
g2
(r)dt2
− f 2
(r)dr2
− r2
(dθ2
+ sin2
θdφ2
). (9)
The Einstein tensor Gμν = Rμν − gμνR/2 of this metric is
r2
G00 = 1 −
1
f 2(r)
+
2
f 3(r)
rf
(r); (10)
and
r2
G11 = 1 − f 2
(r) +
2rg
(r)
g(r)
; (11)
and
G22 =
r{f (r)[rg

(r) + g
(r)] − g(r)f
(r) − rf
(r)g
(r)}
f 3(r)g(r)
; (12)
and
G33 = G22 sin2
θ. (13)
We shall consider the limiting case in which the functions f(r) and
g(r) are expressible in the form f(r) = 1 + δ1 and g(r) = 1 + δ2,
where δ1,2 are generally r-dependent perturbations obeying |δ1,2|
1 at least for the range of r of interest. This depicts the weak field
limit where the line element (9) tends to Minkowski as δ1,2 → 0.
Then the simplest way of constructing a flat rotation curve
environment, valid to order δ1,2 is by writing
f (r) = 1 + α; g(r) = 1 + γ log(r), (14)
where α and γ log (r) are 1, the latter at least within a certain
range of r relevant to observations. When (14) is substituted into
(10) through (12) to calculate the Einstein tensor one finds, to order
α and γ ,
r2
G00 = 2α; r2
G11 = 2(γ − α); G22 = G33 = 0. (15)
In the case of pressureless and non-relativistic matter, one can ignore
fluid pressure P and bulk flow velocities3
ui (namely, P ρc2
, where
ρ is the mass density of the fluid, and uiui
c2
); the corresponding
stress energy tensor Tμν = (ρ + P/c2
)uμuν − Pgμν has T00 as its only
non-negligible component.
Thus to lowest order in α and γ , equations (9) and (14) form a
solution of the Einstein field equations
Gμν =
8πG
c4
Tμν =
8πG
c4
uμuν
c2
ρ (16)
3ui = giνdxi/dτ ≈ −dxi/dt = −ui because the lowest order approximation to
f(r) and g(r) is f(r) = g(r) = 1.
if
G00 =
8πGρ
c2
; and G11 = G22 = G33 = 0, (17)
to this order. From equations (15) and (5), one finds that
α = γ, (18)
in which case
G00 =
2α
r2
. (19)
When the angular momentum of a test particle is finite, the time
homogeneity and azimuthal symmetry of equation (9) allows it to be
recast in a form (assuming an orbital plane at θ = π/2) involving the
constants of the motion = g2
dt/dτ and = r2
dφ/dτ with cdτ = ds,
as
f 2
g2
c2

dr
dτ
2
+
2
g2
c2r2
+ g2
− 1 = 2
− 1. (20)
In particular, for circular orbits where r is constant and the first term
vanishes, differentiating the remaining terms in equation (20) w.r.t.
r yields
g
g
−
2
c2r3
= 0 ⇒ αc2
=
2
r2
⇒ v =
√
αc (21)
in the weak field and low-velocity limit, where v = /r is the
(constant) tangential speed of the test particle. Thus, one finds a
centrifugal acceleration
v2
r
=
αc2
r
. (22)
In fact, the constancy of v in equation (21) accounts for the flat
rotation curve of galaxies.
For a typical speed of v ≈ 300 km−1
, one requires α ≈ 10−6
.
This also means the G11 tensor component, which is only finite to
O(α2
), lies below G00 by a factor ≈106
, consistent with G11/G00 ≈
u2
r /u2
0 ≈ u2
r /c2
≈ 10−6
. This reality check can also be applied to G22
and G33 leading to the same conclusion.
Is the centrifugal acceleration (22) driven by an amount of underly-
ing mass consistent with Newton’s law of universal gravitation, as is
to be expected given that v c? To check that, we may use the density
ρ(r) of the non-relativistic and pressureless cosmic substratum, as
inferred from equation (5) and the value of G00 in equation (19), to
compute the equivalent Newtonian mass4
m(r) within a circular orbit
of radius r, namely
m(r) =
r
4πr
2
ρ(r
)dr
=
αc2
r
G
(23)
after ignoring any factor f(r) in the integral which is O(1) by equation
(14). Thus, the Newtonian acceleration is −Gm(r)/r2
= −c2
α/r,
which is in agreement with equations (22) and (21). Moreover,
comparing to the Poisson equation approach to the same problem,
one finds that the two treatments yield the same amount of underlying
Newtonian mass equivalent because γ relates to the constant A in
the first paragraph of the last section by the equation α = 4πGA/c2
.
The development so far simply spells out the obvious, i.e. General
4The term refers to the equivalent total mass of an underlying (or enclosed)
spherically symmetric matter-energy distribution which produces the same
attractive central force (by Newton’s theory of universal gravitation) as a shell.
As proven earlier, the actual total mass of the shell itself vanishes exactly,
even though the attractive force it exerts on a test particle riding the shell is
finite and given by equation (8).
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
Relativity reduces to Newtonian Physics in the weak field and non-
relativistic limit. There is no explicit time dependence in the metric;
and hence, both the solution and the source are stable.
4 FLAT ROTATION CURVE
What sort of line element in General Relativity would correspond in
the weak field limit to the Newtonian (Poisson equation) approach
to the 1/r attractive force on the massless singular spherical shell
described in Section 2? The reader could easily verify that a line
element with exactly the same characteristics is given by equation
(9) having
f (r) = 1 + αsδ(R − r); g(r) = 1 +
αsθ(r − R)
R
+ 0, (24)
where θ(r) is the Heaviside step function. In equation (24), g(r)
differs infinitesimally from unity because s → 0, equation (25). By
letting s be the width of the Dirac delta function, i.e. s → 0 such that
sδ(R − r) = 1 at r = R. (25)
Further, by letting the dimensionless parameter α satisfy α 1 and
restricting oneself to lowest order terms in α it can readily be shown,
using equations (10) through (13), that
G00 =
8πGρ(r)
c2
G11 = G22 = G33 = 0, (26)
where ρ(r) is given by equation (5). Thus, equation (26) is consistent
with equation (17). In particular, the total mass the shell contributes
to a concentric spherical region of radius r R, as given by equation
(7), which is just the integral of ρ(r) from the origin to r R,
vanishes. According to equation (22), the centrifugal acceleration
of a test particle anywhere on the shell itself, namely r = R, has
magnitude
g
c2
g
=
f 2
− 1
2r
c2
=
αsc2
r
δ(R − r) =
αc2
r
, r = R
0, r = R
(27)
where the last equality is enforced by equation (25). Note that
equation (27) is consistent with the equipotential sphere result,
namely equations (22) and (8). The speed of the test particle on
the shell is v =
√
αc, in agreement with equation (21). In this way,
if there are N concentric singular shells with density satisfying (5)
within a galaxy or cluster,
f (r) = 1 + αs
nL
n=1
δ(nR − r) ;
g(r) = 1 + αs
nL
n=1

θ(r − nR)
nR

+ 0, (28)
where in equation (28) 0 is a constant but the shells need not be
evenly spaced, i.e. N ≤ nL and the sign is because in the summation
sign of equation (28) n can change in steps δn 1.
The total mass of the galaxy (cluster) still vanishes5
; but its
baryonic contents, namely stars (galaxies) and gas, are primarily
moving in bound orbits or random walk (i.e. in thermal virialized
form) on the shells, giving the impression of a large amount of DM
5The enclosed mass is finite if the spherical surface coincides exactly with a
shell, but the probability of coincidence is zero because the shells are infinitely
thin. Rather, such singular shells manifest themselves by the orbital motion
of stars and galaxies (and thermal motion of virialized baryons) riding on
them, or the deflection of light passing through them.
hidden within each spherical shell. The magnitude of the inwardly
directed radial acceleration a test particle experiences on-shell is
independent of R, and according to equation (27) is given by αc2
/r
provided equation (25) holds. The value of R is arbitrary, but for a
galaxy is likely to be below the mean spacing between stars.
5 GRAVITATIONAL BENDING OF LIGHT
Since evidence of DM in galaxies, groups, and clusters come not
only from stellar rotation curves and viralized thermal gas but also
gravitational lensing (Massey 2010; Hoekstra et al 2013; Vegetti
2023; Zürcher 2023), we examine in this section how the currently
proposed configuration of concentric singular spherical shells could
possibly bend light in the same manner as an equipotential sphere.
In general, for the line element of equation (9), the gravitational
inward deflection of a light ray propagating along the z-direction and
skirting a large-scale structure at impact parameter a as measured in
the y-direction is, in the weak field limit,
θ =
2a
c2
∞
a
1
√
r2 − a2

g
g
−
f
f

dr. (29)
For a point mass M at the origin where f = 1 + GM/r, g = 1 − GM/r,
equation (29) yields the standard result θ = 4GM(c2
a). For the line
element of equation (14), one obtains instead
θ = απ, (30)
which is the constant deflection scenario of an equipotential (isother-
mal) sphere.6
The question, therefore, is whether the line element of concentric
singular shells, equation (28) could also lead to a constant inward
deflection like equation (30). Applying equations (28) and (29), one
finds, after accounting for the oddness of δ
(x),
θ = 2αs
nL
n=nS
∞
a

aδ(nR − r)
r
√
r2 − a2
+
a
√
r2 − a2
δ
(r − nR)

dr ,
(31)
where the smallest shell is indexed nS and satisfies nSR − a ≈ R
a; and the largest shell is indexed nL which satisfies nLR a.
The first integral corresponds to the dg/dr term in equation (29)
and equals θ1 = απs/R. The second comes from −df/dr term in
equation (29) and may be written after integration by parts as
θ2 = 2αs
nL
n=nS

aδ(r − nR)
√
r2 − a2
∞
a
+

anRθ(r − nR)
(n2R2 − a2)3/2
∞
a

, (32)
where a ≤ nR. The first term of equation (32) vanishes unless the delta
function is satisfied at either one of the two limits (it is not satisfied at
the upper limit, which lies beyond the large-scale structure), which
is improbable for a random sightline because the shells are thin (see
equation 25). Thus, this term is ignored.7
The second term is finite
only at the upper limit, and equals 2αs

nanR/(n2
R2
− a2
)3/2
. The
summation over n is dominated by the term at which n2
R2
− a2
is
minimized, namely at the lower n limit (for the given a) where nR
a, or more precisely nR − a ≈ , where is the average distance
6Ignoring the logarithmic increase in g(r) in equation (14).
7Even though at the lower limit r = a the denominator vanishes, resulting
under the r = nR scenario in an indeterminate of the form 0/0, this is resolved
by applying L’Hospital rule once to obtain the form δ(r − nR)
√
r2 − a2
which clearly vanishes at r = a = nR.
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

1634 R. Lieu
MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
the light path at the r = a position is from the nearest shell. Thus the
result is
θ ≈ θ2 =
αs

a
2
1/2
, (33)
which is θ1 since a R.
In order for the deflection angle θ ≈ θ2 to be the constant of
the equivalent equipotential sphere (30) one must have, by equation
(33),
= 2−1/3
π−2/3
s2/3
a1/3
, (34)
where it is understood that s R ࣠ a. A gradual change in
the s/ ratio may be interpreted as a mathematical way of enforcing
uneven spacing in the sum over shells of equation (28), i.e. both
s and R may themselves be constants, but the spacing between
adjacent shells becomes wider towards larger radii because not every
integer n corresponds to a shell. This does not affect the acceleration
of stars and galaxies on each shell, as it is determined only by the
coefficient α of the delta function in equation (27).
Before leaving this section about light deflection, it should be
noted from the discussion immediately preceding (33) that although
the quantity nR − a in equation (32) is finite for most line of sights,
being given by equation (34) on average, there will inevitably be
a small fraction of them for which nR − a → 0, resulting in a
large θ2. This offers a possible discrimination between the current
model and standard DM theory; namely, according to the former,
the bending of light from background sources by intervening large-
scale structures is not totally smooth despite one restricting one’s
observation to the weak lensing scenario of large impact parameters
which take the ray through the structure’s outskirts. That in turn is
because if this outermost ray touches one of the shells, it will still be
deflected substantially, causing an unusually large tangential shear
of the image of the background source, even possibly magnification
(i.e. strong lensing). DM models do not predict such a possible
behaviour. Detailed mapping of background sources behind the outer
parts of a cluster or galaxy, in search of large convergence fluctuations
there, could offer a scrutizing test.
6 ROLE OF THE BARYONS
How may one expect actual rotation curves, as predicted by the shell
model, to look like when baryons are taken into account? On galactic
scales, the baryon to DM mass ratio is below the cosmological
average of ≈20 per cent (Fukugita et al. 1998), and most of the
baryons are in stars if one considers only the galactic disc by ignoring
the halo (Cautun 2020). Since the model adopted here is spherically
symmetric, with applications also to clusters of galaxies,8
the halo
gas has to be taken into account. For a galaxy like the Milky Way, the
inclusion of halo gas would double the stellar mass, and leads to a
total baryonic mass of ≈10 per cent of the DM mass (Cautun 2020).
In this section, we estimate the effect of baryons on galaxy rotation
curves in the context of the shell model, by assuming the baryons
as a gas in hydrostatic equilibrium in the potential field of the
massless shells, with both the gas distribution and the shells being
spherically symmetric. Under this scenario, two equations govern
the two unknowns ρb(r) and T(r), respectively, the density and
8In clusters, the baryon fraction is quite close to the cosmological value
(Fukugita et al. 1998).
temperature profile of the baryons (Bulbul et al. 2010). They are
1
μmpne(r)
dP
dr
= −
d
dr
; ne(r) = neS

T
TS
p
, (35)
where ne is the number density of electrons in the halo gas, which
is treated here as a plasma of mean molecular mass μ, P = P(r) =
ne(r)kT(r), mp is the proton mass, p 0 is the polytropic index of the
plasma, and the subscripts S and L refers, respectively, to the smallest
and largest radii within which the hierarchical shell structure exists
(i.e. in the notation of equation (28) we have rS = nSR and rL = nLR).
Now in equation (28) one may in the limit of many shells,
approximate the summation by an integral, namely
g(r) = 1 + (r), (36)
with
(r) = 21/3
π2/3
s1/3
αc2
r
rS
ξ−4/3
dξ + 0
= −3 × 21/3
π2/3
αc2
s1/3
r−1/3
. (37)
In equation (37) ξ = nR, and use was made of equation (34).
Specifically, due to the change in the shell index n becoming δn
1 towards larger radii, fewer shells are summed compared to the
regular spacing scenario of δn = 1. This means, starting with the
continuum representation of the regular spacing case,
(r) = αsc2
nL
n=nS ,1
θ(r − nR)
nR
+ 0, (38)
one must now replace dξ by Rdξ/ dξ, which is what we did
(equation 37). Moreover, in arriving at the last step of equation (37),
we fixed the constant 0 such that (r) → 0 as r → ∞. Note that the
shells must share a common acceleration parameter α to yield a flat
rotation curve for stars in a galaxy. The continuum approximation in
equation (37) means the baryonic gas is able to occupy the space in
between shells by collision and subsequent virialization, while stars
are bound to the shells and follow circular orbits.
The three equations (28), (36), and (35) may then be solved to
yield
T (r) = −
1
1 + p
μmp
k
(r) =
3 × 21/3
π2/3
αc2
s1/3
1 + p
μmp
k
1
r1/3
; (39)
and
Mb(r) =
12πμneSmpr
p/3
S
9 − p

r
(9−p)/3
L − r
(9−p)/3
S

, p = 9. (40)
Such an amount of baryons would provide an extra acceleration
−GMb(r)ˆ
r/r2
which is to be added to the shell acceleration of
equation (27) to obtain the total circular rotation speed of a star, due
to the shell it is on and the baryons underlying it. Results for various
polytropic indices p are shown in Fig. 1, where it can be seen that
a variety of observed rotating curves (see fig. 1 of Zhang 2019) are
reproduced.
Concerning the actual values of the shell thickness s and spacing
R, one could conjecture for galaxies that s = 4 × 109
cm and R =
3 × 1012
cm. This would satisfy equation (34) with n ≈ 109
out to
a radius a ≈ nR ≈ 1 kpc. The actual shell separation at 1 kpc radius
is, by equation (34), ≈ 1.34 × 1013
cm, which is 4 times larger
than R. Thus, at this radius, there is one shell every n ≈ 4. For p =
3/2 and μ = 1, the temperature of the gas from equation (39) is TS ≈
4 × 103
K, and the electron density is obtainable from the second of
equation (35) as ≈neS ≈ 0.127 cm−3
, both evaluated at rS = 0.5 kpc
and with the latter being the value which yields the cosmological
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
Figure 1. Circular velocity of stars in a galaxy, taking into account the extra
centrifugal acceleration provided by the gravitational pull of the underlying
baryons, as well as the singular shell. Here, p denotes the polytropic gas index
of the baryons, and the central electron density neS is chosen to enable the
baryons within 50 kpc radius to equal 18 per cent of the DM thereby mass,
consistent with the cosmological value of this ratio. Note that this way of
fixing neS overestimates the baryons in clusters (see the text for elaboration);
hence, the extra acceleration due to the baryons. Nevertheless, the rotation
curve is still sufficiently flat, indicating that the baryons alone do not play
much role in providing the necessary centrifugal acceleration.
baryon to DM mass ratio of 18 per cent at the radius of 50 kpc. Such
values of TS and neS are consistent with our understanding of the
warm diffuse H II component of the interstellar gas (Cox 2005). In
the case of clusters of galaxies, a pair of galactic rather than solar
system scale lengths, such as s = 3 × 1019
cm (or 10 pc) and R =
2 × 1020
cm, would by equation (34) imply ≈1, 500 shells out to
the radius a ≈ nR ≈ 100 kpc, at which point the actual separation
between consecutive shells is = 2.4 × 1020
cm ≈ R by equation
(34). Moreover, for p = 3/2 a temperature TS ≈ 1.75 × 107
K for the
baryons at rS = 100 kpc radius, by equation (35) with9
α = 10−5
.
Moreover, the baryonic mass between rS = 100 kpc and rL = 1 Mpc
is, by equation (40) with neS = 10−3
cm−3
, Mb = 3.58 × 1013
M
for p = 3/2. This is close to the cosmological baryon mass budget
of ≈18 per cent of the DM mass where, by equation (23), MDM =
αc2
rL/G with α ≈ 10−5
corresponding, via equation (21), to a velocity
dispersion of v ≈ 103
km s−1
which is typical of clusters, as are neS
and TS (see e.g. Kravtsov Borgani 2012).
Lastly, as already pointed out in Section 2, neither the shell
thickness s nor the spacing between adjacent shells is resolvable
by current telescopes. Moreover, the value of s is sufficiently small
that stars in a galaxy only experience an infinitely thin shell, same
for galaxies in a cluster. In both cases, they cannot respond to the
fine details of the double layer (of positive and negative mass) of a
shell.
7 EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE
PROPOSED TOPOLOGICAL DEFECTS
Although topological effects, or singular distribution of mass-energy
in space, have by now been proposed in many and varied forms since
they were first envisaged by Kibble (1976), so long as they are stable,
9Clusters have about 10 times higher α than galaxies because their member
galaxies have a velocity dispersion ≈1000 km s−1 which is ≈3 times higher
than galaxies (see Kravtsov Borgani 2012). Hence, α = 10−5 by equation
(21).
not all of them are understood in terms of their origin. An example
is a thin sheet of negative mass wrapping around a wormhole to
maintain cylindrical symmetry – the system is shown to be stable –
irrespective of origin (Eiroa et al. 2016).
As far as the monopole–dipole shell combination in this work is
concerned, although its origin is uncertain (despite being deemed
stable in Section 3), there are scalar field solutions which can give
rise to it (see Hosotani et al. 2002), and there is a body of evidence
indicative of its existence, namely the discovery of a giant arc of
proper size ≈1 Gpc at z ≈ 0.8 which adds to an already existing
set of cosmologically sized distribution of galaxies in the form of
walls and rings (see Lopez et al. 2022 and table 1 therein). These
galaxy arcs, rings, and walls appear to be particularly singling out
our proposed model because, on Gpc scales, there is simply no way
of attributing to DM overdensity as the source of any centrifugal
force which could bind together structures of such enormity, i.e. the
Universe is too homogeneous by then. Thus, the specific topological
defect proposed in this paper is reasonably corroborated by the
unusually large number of observations of organized shell-like or
(as a projection effect) ring-like manifestations of stars and galaxies
on kpc scales and beyond. Such defects can in principle provide the
necessary centrifugal force without enlisting ‘missing’ mass.
8 CONCLUSION
In addition to the well-known Green function solution of the
gravitational Poisson equation, which gives rise to no net force inside
a thin spherically symmetric shell of mass and an attractive inverse-
square force outside, the existence of another singular shell solution
which sources no mass but drives an attractive 1/r force on the shell
itself is demonstrated in this letter. When a galaxy (cluster) comprises
many concentric singular shells of this type, stars (galaxies) orbit,
and diffuse baryonic gas can be virialized, on each of the shells. The
result is a flat rotation curve with large Keplerian velocities in the
case of orbital motion and high temperature thermal motion in the
case of visualized gases; both phenomena are symptomatic of DM
even though such matter may not exist or exist in an amount smaller
than is required for binding a galaxy or cluster.
The observation of giant arcs and rings (e.g. Lopez et al. 2022)
could lend further support to the proposed alternative to the DM
model. It should be pointed out that the thin shells advocated here
do not have to cover an entire spherical surface to be effective,
i.e. the result of Section 2 is readily shown to apply also to
a topological defect which occupies part of a spherical surface,
although it cannot account for elliptical orbits of a test mass. In this
paper, we also discussed how gaseous baryons can be in hydrostatic
equilibrium with the potential established by the shells, leading to
temperature and density in agreement with observations. Moreover,
their ‘feedback’ effect on the acceleration provided by each shell
was estimated and was shown to be slight, namely it is only a small
perturbation of the shell acceleration of stars and galaxies. Hence,
the flat rotation curve of stars is not distorted by much.
Apart from rotational curves and virialization, this paper also
addresses the other major piece of evidence for DM in large-scale
structures – gravitational lensing. As it turns out, the proposed
concentric singular shells can deflect the light path to a distant point
source by a small and constant angle independently of the impact
parameter in the weak lensing limit, provided the spacing between
consecutive shells widens with radius r as ∝ r1/3
. Thus, again, the
need to enlist DM is not inevitable.
Nevertheless, this paper does not attempt to tackle the problem
of structure formation; nor does it argue against the role of DM
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

1636 R. Lieu
MNRAS 531, 1630–1636 (2024)
in accounting for the ratio of the first two acoustic peaks of the
cosmic microwave background (Roos 2012), and the presence of
trace Deuterium10
from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (Kawasaki et al.
2015; Sibiryakov et al. 2020). Rather, we focussed our attention on
the evidence as provided by galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
No new data were generated or analysed in support of this research.
REFERENCES
Aalbers J. et al., 2023, PRL, 131, 041002
Battaglia G., Nipoti C., 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 659
Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, ARAA, 54, 529
Bulbul G. E., Hasler N., Bonamente M., Joy M., 2010, ApJ, 720, 1038
Cautun M.,, et al, 2020, MNRAS, 494, 4291
Cebrian S., 2023, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2502, 012004
Chan M. H., 2019, Sci. Rep., 9, 3570
Chaurasiya N. et al., 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5265
Cox D.P, 2005, ARA A, 43, 337
10Safe to say that, like baryons and DM, an early Universe comprising only
baryons and shell singularities of the type presented here would probably not
provide enough collisions to annihilate all deuterium.
Eiroa E. F., de Celis E. R., Simeone C., 2016, Euro J. Phys., 76, 546
Fukugita M., Hogan C. J., Peebles P. J. E., 1998, ApJ, 503, 518
Hoekstra H. et al., 2013, Sp. Sci. Rev., 177, 75
Hosotani Y., Nakajima T., Daghigh R. G., Kapusta J. I., 2002, PRD, 66,
104020
Kapteyn J. C., 1922, ApJ, 55, 302
Kawasaki M., Kazunori K., Takeo M., Yashitaro T., 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 751,
246
Kibble T. W. B., 1976, J. Phys. A, 9, 1387
Kravtsov A. V., Borgani S., 2012, ARAA, 50, 353
Lopez A. M., Roger G. C., Williger G. M., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 1557
Massey R., Kitching T., Richard J., 2010, Rep. Prog. Phy., 73, 086901
Morales-Salgado VS., Martinez-Huerta H., Ramirez-Baca P. I., 2022, preprint
(arXiv:2201.05594)
Nojiri S., Odintsov S. D., Oikonomou V. K., 2017, Phys. Rep., 692, 1
Oort J. H., 1932, Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 6, 249
Roos M., 2012, J. Mod. Phys., 3, 1152
Sibiryakov S., S ˜
Ažrensen P., Yu T. -T., 2020, J. High Energ. Phys., 2020, 75
Vegetti S. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2306.11781)
Zhang F., 2019, Galaxies, 7, 27
Zürcher D. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 525, 761
Zwicky F., 1933, Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, 110
This paper has been typeset from a TEX/L
ATEX file prepared by the author.
© 2024 The Author(s).
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal Astronomical Society. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Downloaded
from
by
guest
on
11
June
2024

The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects

More Related Content

Similar to The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects (20)

More from Sérgio Sacani (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The binding of cosmological structures by massless topological defects