Could LIGO Have Detected Dark Matter?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for LIGO to detect dark matter, particularly in the context of gravitational wave observations and the implications of primordial black holes as a candidate for dark matter. Participants explore theoretical possibilities, constraints, and the current state of research in this area.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a study suggesting that if dark matter consists of primordial black holes (PBHs), the merger rate of such black holes could align with observed gravitational wave events.
  • There is skepticism about the likelihood of LIGO detecting dark matter, with one participant suggesting it is "highly unlikely, but not impossible," and outlining conditions that would need to be met for such a detection.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the limitations of current observational data, with estimates suggesting a very low detection rate of black hole mergers in the universe.
  • Some participants express doubts about dark matter as a concept, comparing it to historical theories like the Ether, while others defend its validity based on diverse evidence.
  • There is discussion about the sensitivity of detection instruments and how improvements could affect the detection rate of gravitational waves.
  • Participants debate the definitions of dark matter, including references to cold dark matter (CDM) and supersymmetry (susy), indicating a lack of consensus on the specifics of dark matter candidates.
  • Technical details about future gravitational wave observatories, such as LISA, are mentioned, highlighting differences in design and expected sensitivity compared to LIGO.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the possibility of LIGO detecting dark matter, with no clear consensus. Some are optimistic about future detections, while others remain skeptical about the existence of dark matter itself.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the need for more data and independent methods to confirm the existence of primordial black holes as dark matter candidates. There are also discussions about the limitations of current observational techniques and the challenges in measuring dark matter properties.

wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,411
Reaction score
551
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160615134951.htm
From science daily
Date:
June 15, 2016
Source:
Johns Hopkins University
Summary:
When an astronomical observatory detected two black holes colliding in deep space, scientists celebrated confirmation of Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves. A team of astrophysicists wondered something else: Had the experiment found the "dark matter" that makes up most of the mass of the universe?

Apparently there are pages of calculations in the original paper, what do you think are these objects dark matter?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: protonsarecool, 1oldman2, anorlunda and 1 other person
Well, it seems as though the researchers are unsure. They're merely exploring the possibility and looking for new constraints.
I'm assuming this is the paper they are talking about (or a pre-print thereof).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00464
arxiv said:
In this Letter, we show that if DM consists of 30 M BHs, then the rate for mergers of such PBHs falls within the merger rate inferred from GW150914.
 
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
Well, it seems as though the researchers are unsure. They're merely exploring the possibility and looking for new constraints.
I'm assuming this is the paper they are talking about (or a pre-print thereof).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00464
It definitely sounds like it's plausible given the observations, there will need to be a lot more data needed to confirm.

Naively, I'd say it's highly unlikely, but not impossible. What it would take to convince me:
1. Measurements of many more BH-BH mergers (at least a hundred), so that we can actually get some reasonable statistics on their properties to see if they actually match the primordial black hole hypothesis.
2. At least one completely independent method of measuring the primordial black holes, such as signatures in the CMB or measurements of their collisions with normal matter.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BiGyElLoWhAt
I've somewhat lost faith in dark matter. It's too "perfect" of a solution, sort of like the Ether. 100% Opinion, there.
Well, the problem with that observation limitation is that there are only ~2/year/gigiparsec^3. (I believe that's what they said).
I'm not sure what the volume of our universe is estimated to be, but a cubic gigiparsec is pretty dang huge! That means a pretty low rate. What this says to me (not a cosmologist, also not an astrophysicist, or really anything... yet...), is expect between 0-2 a year.
 
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
I've somewhat lost faith in dark matter. It's too "perfect" of a solution, sort of like the Ether. 100% Opinion, there.
There's quite a lot of diverse evidence for dark matter, while all of the alternatives have failed to fit with observations. There's just no reason to doubt it any longer.

BiGyElLoWhAt said:
Well, the problem with that observation limitation is that there are only ~2/year/gigiparsec^3. (I believe that's what they said).
I'm not sure what the volume of our universe is estimated to be, but a cubic gigiparsec is pretty dang huge!
The size of the observable universe is approximately 12,000 Gpc^3. So yes, the rate is quite small, but it's a very big universe.

BiGyElLoWhAt said:
That means a pretty low rate. What this says to me (not a cosmologist, also not an astrophysicist, or really anything... yet...), is expect between 0-2 a year.
Depends upon how sensitive our instruments are. More sensitive instruments means being able to detect them from much further away. They're currently working on some pretty dramatic improvements to the sensitivity of LIGO.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BiGyElLoWhAt

This sort of equipment may speed up the detection rate a bit.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Buzz Bloom
It depends on what you mean by dark matter. The lightest susy? Or just "something"? Perhaps they've come off the first for something else, but last I knew that was the idea.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2
1oldman2 said:

This sort of equipment may speed up the detection rate a bit.


Haha, well, when we can mine asteroids... ;-)
It's probably more feasible than that, but I think it will be difficult to maintain if we don't have bots to repair that stuff; I would assume we would use very large distances between mirrors.
 
  • #10
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
It depends on what you mean by dark matter. The lightest susy? Or just "something"? Perhaps they've come off the first for something else, but last I knew that was the idea.

I'd just call it cold dark matter (CDM). While we don't know its exact properties, I believe the CDM version is the best fit at this time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1oldman2
  • #11
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
Haha, well, when we can mine asteroids... ;-)
sooner than anyone thinks would be my guess, never underestimate a profit driven private corporation. :wink:
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
very large distances between mirrors.
Are you referring to the LISA?, I'm not certain but I believe this equipment doesn't use the same mirror arrangement that LIGO on Earth does. I could be wrong and will look into it but I believe LISA is measuring the two blocks distance apart or at least their interaction between one another. I'll do some reading and post what I can find,
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BiGyElLoWhAt
  • #12
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
Haha, well, when we can mine asteroids... ;-)
It's probably more feasible than that, but I think it will be difficult to maintain if we don't have bots to repair that stuff; I would assume we would use very large distances between mirrors.
It's not nearly so bad as that. We have a number of satellites in orbit that are functional for multiple years without any maintenance. The main issue is just getting the funding to launch them. With regard to the long term, it is generally much cheaper to simply launch a new satellite than it is to maintain an existing one.

Now that gravity waves have been definitively detected, I'm really hoping that there will be more enthusiasm behind LISA or another similar proposal. But it will still take many years to build and launch the satellites. For the next decade or so, further improvements to LIGO and Virgo are likely to be our best bet for detecting additional black hole-black hole mergers.
 
  • #13
1oldman2 said:
Are you referring to the LISA?, I'm not certain but I believe this equipment doesn't use the same mirror arrangement that LIGO on Earth does. I could be wrong and will look into it but I believe LISA is measuring the two blocks distance apart or at least their interaction between one another. I'll do some reading and post what I can find,
They're very similar. It's the same basic idea of measuring changes in length across a large distance. The primary difference is that the eLISA satellites would be much further apart from one another than it is possible for a ground-based system to be, and that the satellites will actually be in an orbit revolving around a central point (LISA Pathfinder is at L1, which is between the Earth and Sun).

As I understand it, the main distinction in terms of the observations are that eLISA will be much more sensitive (as it won't have to deal with pesky noise due to the Earth) and has different wavelength sensitivity (the much larger distance between the detectors should allow eLISA to be much better at detecting long wavelength signals in particular).

Apparently eLISA, which will actually be able to detect gravity waves, is currently scheduled for launch in 2034. The current LISA Pathfinder is pretty much just and instrumentation test to make sure the technology works.
 
  • #14
Chalnoth said:
Apparently eLISA, which will actually be able to detect gravity waves, is currently scheduled for launch in 2034. The current LISA Pathfinder is pretty much just and instrumentation test to make sure the technology works.
Thanks for the info, I forgot to post this link while I posted the video.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2016-143
It seems they are pretty pleased with the test results so far, (As they should be) I didn't realize Pathfinder was a only a test of the tech and not the mission, thanks again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K