I Could dark matter be just too reflective?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeth Orensin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark matter Matter
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the idea that dark matter could be highly reflective, potentially making it visible, but this notion is largely dismissed. Participants argue that if dark matter were reflective, it would actually enhance visibility rather than hinder it, as it would reflect light from numerous stars in various directions. The physics of light reflection suggests that a collection of reflective dark matter would create observable effects, such as dimming background stars, rather than being invisible. The conversation emphasizes that the interaction of light with dark matter would make it detectable, countering the initial premise of it being too reflective to see. Overall, the consensus is that reflective properties would aid in observing dark matter rather than complicate it.
Jeth Orensin
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone.

I was watching this :


and this question popped up in my mind ... could dark matter actually be visible, but it is so reflective on every electromagnetic spectrum that we cannot glimpse it from a distance .?. I would like to know if this question is in fact valid or totally silly (sorry about that, in the latter case) and if it has some merit, could it really be a factor .?.

Thank you for your time.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Jeth Orensin said:
I would like to know if this question is in fact valid or totally silly
It's totally silly. Think about it. Totally reflective means we have a BETTER chance of seeing it. Totally UNreflective (which is what it is) would mean we can't see it based on reflectivity.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2 and ohwilleke
phinds said:
It's totally silly. Think about it. Totally reflective means we have a BETTER chance of seeing it. Totally UNreflective (which is what it is) would mean we can't see it based on reflectivity.

I am thinking about it, that is why I came here :)

If being totally reflective would turn a moon sized object almost invisible in such a small (astronimically speaking) distance, then what chance do we have to be lucky enough to be in the right angle to observe totally reflective objects from light years away .?.

If it does give us a better chance indeed, I would like to understand the physics behind it ... I do not hold a physics degree, but I think that I can understand most of the basic concepts involved and I am really interested in learning why answers are what they are, and not what the answers are.
 
Jeth Orensin said:
If being totally reflective would turn a moon sized object almost invisible in such a small (astronimically speaking) distance
It would not. It would reflect stars and the Sun, and would still be highly visible to all our telescopes and to the naked eye as well - as moving stars, for example.
Jeth Orensin said:
then what chance do we have to be lucky enough to be in the right angle to observe totally reflective objects from light years away .?.
We are talking about billions of objects that can reflect billions of other objects each. Averaged over them we don't have to be lucky. Reflective surfaces would make things easier to observe, not harder. Absorption is easy to notice as well if you expect light but don't see it. The only way to be invisible is to not interact with light (let it pass through in a straight line).
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and QuantumQuest
Jeth Orensin said:
I am thinking about it, that is why I came here :)

If being totally reflective would turn a moon sized object almost invisible in such a small (astronimically speaking) distance, then what chance do we have to be lucky enough to be in the right angle to observe totally reflective objects from light years away .?.

If it does give us a better chance indeed, I would like to understand the physics behind it ... I do not hold a physics degree, but I think that I can understand most of the basic concepts involved and I am really interested in learning why answers are what they are, and not what the answers are.

The difference between the example given for the Moon and reflective dark matter is that for the example in the video, they are only considering a source of light (the Sun) which is close to being a point source at a distance so that the rays are nearly parallel and all coming from the same direction. However, with reflective dark matter in a galactic halo, it would be lit by all the stars in the galaxy, and from a much larger range of directions. While the chances of anyone of those rays being reflected to us is extremely small, there are so many rays hitting it from so many directions, that enough of them will be reflected to us.

So for example, let's say that this is our reflective object (shown as non-reflective so that it can be used as a reference for the rest of the images.)
reflection3.png

If it's a perfect reflector, reflecting a single sun-like object in roughly the same direction of the camera you get this:
reflection.png

It doesn't reflect enough light to the camera to be seen.

Now however, if we replace the sun-like object with a much larger object to be reflected, we get this.

reflection2.png

The larger range of directions from which our light is coming from ensures that a good proportion of them are reflected to the camera. The white circle is smaller than the reflecting object would appear, but still large enough to see.

Now consider that dark matter would not consist of a single reflective object, but a number of them scattered through space, each reflecting some light to our eyes, and you get something like this:
reflection4.png

Which shows a small group of smaller reflective objects. Each dot is the light reflected from each object. In reality, you would have a lot more objects spaced closer together. Even if each individual object reflected just a small percentage of light to us, taken all together, a good deal of light would be reflected in our direction, and we would see this collection of reflecting objects as a haze surrounding the galaxy rather than it not being visible at all.

Then there is the fact that these reflective objects would also block light from sources on the other side of the galaxy from getting to us. Even with the Moon example, while we would be lucky to get a brief glimpse of sunlight reflected off the Moon, the Moon would still block the light of stars behind it, and we would see a moon shaped hole in the back drop of the stars.
In the same way, reflective dark matter would dim background objects in the region of the galaxy, which would indicate its interaction with light.
 

Attachments

  • reflection.png
    reflection.png
    119 bytes · Views: 468
  • reflection2.png
    reflection2.png
    458 bytes · Views: 488
  • reflection4.png
    reflection4.png
    1 KB · Views: 431
  • reflection3.png
    reflection3.png
    6.6 KB · Views: 440
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, Buzz Bloom, jim mcnamara and 3 others
Janus said:
The difference between the example given for the Moon and reflective dark matter is that for the example in the video, they are only considering a source of light (the Sun) which is close to being a point source at a distance so that the rays are nearly parallel and all coming from the same direction. [...]

Wow. Thank you very much for your time, examples and very detailed explanation. I now understood what the other members meant with their answers. :)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top