B Could dark matter be regular matter?

AI Thread Summary
Dark matter cannot be regular matter because Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and cosmic microwave background radiation impose strict limits on the amount of ordinary matter in the universe. If dark matter were ordinary atoms, there would be more heavy nuclei than observed. Gravitational lensing measurements indicate that the distribution of dark matter is too clumpy to be primarily composed of ordinary baryonic matter. Additionally, direct detection experiments have failed to identify dark matter as regular matter, further supporting its distinct nature. Consequently, the evidence strongly suggests that dark matter is not just poorly lit ordinary matter.
kolleamm
Messages
476
Reaction score
44
What if dark matter is just regular matter that's not very well lit up? What do you think?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
No. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) places very stringent limits on the amount of ordinary matter (baryons) in the universe. If all of the dark matter were made up of ordinary atoms, there would have been many more heavy nuclei created during the big bang than we see. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation also places limits on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. Bottom line - it is very clear that the dark matter is not made up of ordinary atoms.
 
  • Like
Likes kolleamm
The problem is that if dark matter is really just regular matter, it should be lit up. With all the EM radiation shooting through the cosmos we should be able to see it if it were just regular matter. But we can't see it. So something is up.
 
  • Like
Likes kolleamm and Redbelly98
kolleamm said:
What if dark matter is just regular matter that's not very well lit up? What do you think?

Define "regular matter".

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
ZapperZ said:
Define "regular matter".

Matter that isn't dark, of course!
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy, kolleamm and Dale
kolleamm said:
What if dark matter is just regular matter that's not very well lit up? What do you think?

There are a variety of ways that we measure the amount of dark matter that is out there. One is to use gravitational lensing to estimate the mass of an entire galaxy or galactic cluster, and then to estimate ordinary matter based upon the luminosity of the visible stars which astronomy observations lead us to infer constitute the vast majority of baryonic matter, and then to adjust slightly for non-luminous sources of ordinary matter like neutrinos, interstellar gas, planets, stellar black holes, MACHOs etc.

The disparity is too great to be accounted for with ordinary baryonic matter. It isn't implausible that are best estimate of ordinary matter is a bit low and misses some of the non-luminous part of ordinary matter. But, the amount of dark matter observed through gravitational lensing and the apparent spatial distribution of the dark matter rule out the possibility that is is mostly ordinary matter. Dark matter is arranged in space in a manner that is too clumpy to be neutrinos (a.k.a. "hot dark matter") and that is not clumpy enough to be ordinary baryonic matter.

Also, because we can estimate the mass of dark matter per volume in our part of the Milky Way to better than an order of magnitude based upon the dynamics of the Milky Way' visible matter, we know that if dark matter were ordinary matter that we could have detected it in direct dark matter detection experiments. But, the null detection in those experiments rules out that possibility.
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...

Similar threads

Back
Top