Dark Matter, what do you know of it?

Electro522

Registered Senior Member
I have seen numerous articles and television shows that simply discuss Dark Matter, but none of them try to explain it. So far, the only explanation I have seen is it is the "glue" of galaxies, and without it, the expansion of the universe would tear all matter, even atoms, apart (aka "The Big Rip"). I know that we do not know much (or anything, for that matter) about Dark Matter, so I was hoping if all you could possibly post some of your own ideas about it just to get some clarification on what it might be.
 
We know from observation that there is a so far undetected gravitational source surrounding and permeating galaxies. While we can't detect the cause, we can observe the effects. The high velocity of stars at the outer edges of the rotating galaxy can only be explained by this gravitational field.

It is hypothesized that the gravity is produced by some form of matter which does not interact electromagnetically. This is what is called Dark Matter.
 
I have seen numerous articles and television shows that simply discuss Dark Matter, but none of them try to explain it. So far, the only explanation I have seen is it is the "glue" of galaxies, and without it, the expansion of the universe would tear all matter, even atoms, apart (aka "The Big Rip"). I know that we do not know much (or anything, for that matter) about Dark Matter, so I was hoping if all you could possibly post some of your own ideas about it just to get some clarification on what it might be.

If you look at galaxy collisions, you can see dark matter separating from normal matter, and from what scientists see they've concluded that dark matter has no electrical charge, meaning that it doesn't interact electromagnetically. Also, its noted to not be influenced by friction, either by normal matter or other dark matter. And as the name suggests, it neither emits nor absorbs radiation/light.


I found this at nasa.gov but I don't have enough posts to post the link yet :(

We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution.

However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).
 
Since I can't post links yet, and that NASA site has a good overview of dark matter candidates in one of their links, I thought I'd just copy and paste some of the material, hope everyone is okay with that.

MACHOs are objects ranging in size from small stars to super massive black holes. MACHOS are made of ordinary matter (like protons, neutrons and electrons). They may be black holes, neutron stars, or brown dwarfs.....

Because [neutron stars and black holes] result from supernovae, they are not necessarily common objects. As a result of a supernova, a release of a massive amount of energy and heavy elements should occur. However, there is no such evidence that they occur in sufficient numbers in the halo of galaxies....

While they have been observed, astronomers have found no evidence of a large enough population of brown dwarfs that would account for all the dark matter in our Galaxy.

WIMPs are the subatomic particles which are not made up of ordinary matter. They are "weakly interacting" because they can pass through ordinary matter without any effects. They are "massive" in the sense of having mass (whether they are light or heavy depends on the particle). The prime candidates include neutrinos, axions, and neutralinos....

The neutrino does not have enough mass to be a major component of Dark Matter.....

Axions are particles which have been proposed to explain the absence of an electrical dipole moment for the neutron. They thus serve a purpose for both particle physics and for astronomy. Although axions may not have much mass, they would have been produced abundantly in the Big Bang.....

Neutralinos are members of another set of particles which has been proposed as part of a physics theory known as supersymmetry. This theory is one that attempts to unify all the known forces in physics..... Astronomers and physicists are developing ways of detecting the neutralino either underground or searching the universe for signs of their interactions.....

Observations have so far not detected axions or neutralinos..... Recent results by the WMAP satellite show that our universe is made up of only 4% ordinary matter. This seems to exclude a large component of MACHOs. About 23% of our universe is dark matter. This favors the dark matter being made up mostly of some type of WIMP.

When I get a few more posts in and can link to the site I'll do so.
 
However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

I found this at nasa.gov but I don't have enough posts to post the link yet :([/QUOTE]

Wow give me some more fudges I am sure there will be some more .
Can you guy scrap and stat all over ?
 
Wow give me some more fudges I am sure there will be some more .
Can you guy scrap and stat all over ?

It's pretty conclusive that dark matter exists, we unequivocally see its gravitational effects where there is no visible matter in any spectrum range. The question is 'what is it?' No one really knows, but there are viable candidates as you can read about above.

Of course, we could all just throw up our hands and give up, attributing the mystery to God and whatnot, but that isn't doing science nor is it going to get us anywhere in further understanding the world we live in.

What do you think of dark matter beyond it's all "fudges"?
 
However, at this point, there are still a few dark matter possibilities that are viable. Baryonic matter could still make up the dark matter if it were all tied up in brown dwarfs or in small, dense chunks of heavy elements. These possibilities are known as massive compact halo objects, or "MACHOs". But the most common view is that dark matter is not baryonic at all, but that it is made up of other, more exotic particles like axions or WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

I found this at nasa.gov but I don't have enough posts to post the link yet :(


It can't be baryonic matter. The amount of deuterium in the universe is an independent check on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe, which is consistent with the current estimate of ~ 5%.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty conclusive that dark matter exists, we unequivocally see its gravitational effects where there is no visible matter in any spectrum range. The question is 'what is it?' No one really knows, but there are viable candidates as you can read about above.

Of course, we could all just throw up our hands and give up, attributing the mystery to God and whatnot, but that isn't doing science nor is it going to get us anywhere in further understanding the world we live in.

What do you think of dark matter beyond it's all "fudges"?

# 1 Can you measure it , Does it have a mass.
# 2 Does emit or reflect light
Note I am not bringing God into the discussion .
The force that holds the galaxy , Why not the gravity from the Black Hole ? could not that account for lensing ?
 
# 1 Can you measure it ,
Yes. Well, not me personally, but scientists yes.
Does it have a mass.
I think all evidence points to yes.
# 2 Does emit or reflect light
Not that I know of, same with absorption (does a black hole do that?).
Note I am not bringing God into the discussion .
I have noticed. I met someone before who didn't accept dark matter because he/she believed that scientists were making it up to disprove God. So I just threw it out there, didn't mean anything by it.
The force that holds the galaxy , Why not the gravity from the Black Hole ? could not that account for lensing ?

I don't think so. The details of the lensing are properties of the mass of the object, so I think you can tell where and how massive said object is through lensing. Scientists can measure where the mass is, and it is in a halo around galaxies. If you're talking about the black holes in the center of the galaxy I think it is in the wrong place.

Because of things like looking at galaxy collisions, we know that dark matter must not interact with electromagnetism and has very little friction from either normal matter or other dark matter. From what I understand it is unlikely that dark matter collides with other dark matter or regular matter, and again I don't think that is a property of black holes.

In case you missed it, the nasa page I found said that "Because [neutron stars and black holes] result from supernovae, they are not necessarily common objects. As a result of a supernova, a release of a massive amount of energy and heavy elements should occur. However, there is no such evidence that they occur in sufficient numbers in the halo of galaxies."

Because of stuff like this most scientists have concluded that dark matter isn't the "MACHOs" which black holes are a part of. Rather part of the "WIMPs", which you can read about in my above post with the nasa quotes.
 
I'm fairly sure you could get around the no-posting-links restriction by leaving out the http/www bit.
 
Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Some Galaxies have planets that orbit so fast that the planets should fly out of the Galaxy.

I think what Pincho is referring to is that there are stars at the outer edge of the galaxy, in orbit around the galactic center, which are moving faster than they should be in the absence of a greater gravatic field then can be accounted for by the visible matter in the galaxy.
 
I think what Pincho is referring to is that there are stars at the outer edge of the galaxy, in orbit around the galactic center, which are moving faster than they should be in the absence of a greater gravatic field then can be accounted for by the visible matter in the galaxy.
Wait. If dark matter has gravity, why wouldn't it tug stars out of galaxies? Because its force pushing galaxies apart and such is stronger?
 
Moderator note: "Alternative" theories of dark matter have been split to a separate thread.

[thread=111722]Link[/thread]
 
One thing that needs to be taken into account, before we assume dark matter, is the Compton Effect. The Compton effect is when photons of energy interact with electrons. The result will be the electrons gaining energy and the photon losing energy and thereby red shifting. This can be demonstrated in the lab.

The neccessity for dark matter is connected to the assumption of a pure doppler shift, in light of the amount of matter observed. But if part of this red shift is due to the Compton effect, the need for dark matter is less or not at all. This may be why we can't prove dark matter with hard data in the lab, but only through inference based on biased assumptions.

Grote Reber predicted that this interpretation (Compton effect) of the red shift would result in a dispersion in the arrival times of extragalactic signals. The pinpointing of the extragalactic nature of gamma ray bursts and the delay in arrival times of longer wavelength radiation from these events confirms this prediction as shown in Dark Matter by John Kierein.

The bottom line is we can't even predict weather on earth with perfect accuracy, so to assume we can pin point creation is naive. It comes down to opinion and traditions, with traditions having an advantage.
 
The neccessity for dark matter is connected to the assumption of a pure doppler shift, in light of the amount of matter observed. But if part of this red shift is due to the Compton effect, the need for dark matter is less or not at all. This may be why we can't prove dark matter with hard data in the lab, but only through inference based on biased assumptions.

Why are the assumptions biased? Why would someone be biased towards dark matter - it is silly. Dark matter arises from many observations. How do you explain rotation of the galaxies? How do you explain the lensing of the bullet galaxy cluster.

You, my young fellow, are the one who appears biased, why you are biased against dark matter I cannot guess.:shrug:
 
Origin Post #18 "How do you explain rotation of the galaxies? How do you explain the lensing of the bullet galaxy cluster. "

IMO (OOB) here) . . . Bullet galaxy looks strangely reminiscent to a 'bow' wave and 'wake' from an object moving rapidly through some spatial media.

wlminex
 
Origin Post #18 "How do you explain rotation of the galaxies? How do you explain the lensing of the bullet galaxy cluster. "

IMO (OOB) here) . . . Bullet galaxy looks strangely reminiscent to a 'bow' wave and 'wake' from an object moving rapidly through some spatial media.

wlminex

OOB thinking is fine, but 'looks like' from a nonprofessional, is not science, it is simply idle conjecture that is not worth considering.
 
Back
Top