Dark matter candidates, what chances would you give them?

[EL]

That was my point when I said DM won't turn out to be of just one type. Neutrinos, some WIMPS, a bit of undetected baryonic matter, a pinch of salt, some tabasco, etc. What new species? I've already mentioned that I think some will be massive particles formed by vacuum fluctuations. If some other particles are found to be massive enough to count and interact (with gravity) then they would be WIMPS, no? Maybe in the future we'll have sub-classes of WIMPS. Everything new we may find will have to be named something.

So maybe we're just talking around each other, but what I was reacting to was that I got the impression you didn't like the thought of non-baryonic dark matter:

If they interact (and exist) then would we always have to think "non-baryonic"? I'm not a fan of weird and mysterious matter lurking around in a universe blasted out of baryonic matter.

As we have argued, the known particle species will hardly make up any greater part of the matter density needed. This means that (if the dark matter problem is solved by particles, which I'm a great fan of) the DM has to be made up by some species we havn't found in the laboratory yet.
I can understand if you object to inwoking new particle species at all, but why would it be so strange if this new particle was non-baryonic?
I mean I can't see why non-baryonic particles are not in any way more "mysterious" that baryonic...

 

[EL]

I only take issue with the 1-2% versus my 70%.The rest is fine

Well, I based my 2% on the fact that despite many attempts, no one (at least that I have heard of) have managed to cook up a mond theory consistent with observational data. Mond isn't a hot candidate in the scientific society at the moment.

 

[EL]

Come on.. we are talking about \Omega_{DM} \sim 0.23 here!

But I wasn't talking about dark matter. I was just trying to make clear that non-baryonic matter is not in anyway stranger than baryonic, which I got the impression Labguy was saying.

Well as I replied to SpaceTiger, the conclusions from WMAP are model dependent.

Sure you are of course right about that, but I'm just not a fan of leaving mainstream models.

The FCM universe expands more slowly than the standard \Lambda[/tex]CDM model so there is more than twice the time available for structures to form at the high (&gt;1) z epochs.<br />

<br /> Interesting. Are there any simulations done? Will the FCM model account for the structures we observe today?

 

[Garth]

But I wasn't talking about dark matter. I was just trying to make clear that non-baryonic matter is not in anyway stranger than baryonic, which I got the impression Labguy was saying.

Okay, crossed posts, always a problem on PF!

Interesting. Are there any simulations done? Will the FCM model account for the structures we observe today?

I'm working on it! Actually I do not have the facilities to run such simulations, perhaps after GP-B comes up trumps somebody else will do it for me. [Anybody out there willing to have a go?]

All I have done are 'back of the envelope' Jeans mass and free fall time estimations.

Garth

 

[Labguy]

I can understand if you object to inwoking new particle species at all, but why would it be so strange if this new particle was non-baryonic?
I mean I can't see why non-baryonic particles are not in any way more "mysterious" that baryonic...

Yo!, Stop!, Halt! and Alto!:

That part is my fault and from your other posts just above it seems we do agree. With WIMPS, neutrinos, mesons and even virtual particles all being known or soon-to-be-known (?) items and "particles", I was thinking (dangerous for me) "non-particle" instead of "non-baryonic". There is nothing at all mysterious about these particles not fitting the definition of baryonic that I posted before.

I started out by voting/betting with Chronos on WIMPS as a large candidate and mentally ruling out such things as large masses of anti-matter or any possibility of any EM or gravitational waves (gravitons?) etc. as having a property fitting the apparent observations indicating that DM is out there in great abundance.

It is all from my own foul-up of not paying attention to the difference in the definitions between baryonic and particle; I was just thinking too fast and too wrong! Anyone reading my posts should look at the signature first and then read the post..

But, I will still give a fair percentage of the various DM possibilities to virtual particles of any mass being formed from vacuum fluctuations. In their short-lived existence they would have a property affected by gravity, exert a gravitational influence and blink out with an energy return. If they are a seething and self-replacing mass, that might explain why they don't have the other observational properties (non-interacting) of baryonic matter that all DM is also lacking.

Is it possible that galaxies/clusters/superclusters is where DM is most easily detected because more energy (gravitational, magnetic/EM and angular momentum) is available there and therefore would lead to higher virtual particle production than more "empty" space?? (rhetorical question).

 

[turbo]

But, I will still give a fair percentage of the various DM possibilities to virtual particles of any mass being formed from vacuum fluctuations. In their short-lived existence they would have a property affected by gravity, exert a gravitational influence and blink out with an energy return. If they are a seething and self-replacing mass, that might explain why they don't have the other observational properties (non-interacting) of baryonic matter that all DM is also lacking.

Is it possible that galaxies/clusters/superclusters is where DM is most easily detected because more energy (gravitational, magnetic/EM and angular momentum) is available there and therefore would lead to higher virtual particle production than more "empty" space?? (rhetorical question).

Vacuum polarization as a gravitational effect - exactly. With the very large calculated mass-equivalence of the quantum vacuum, it would be very surprising if it did not play a role in gravitation.

 

[Gerinski]

Sure. The dark matter should be all around us, and there are plenty of experiments around the world trying to detect it.
There should be an excess of DM around strong gravitational sources (e.g. the sun. or why not even better: the galactic centre). However a DM particle propagating in the direction towards a massive body, will certainly just pass through it, just like neutrinos do.

Sorry, I'm just a layman beginner next to all of you here, but there's still something I don' get...

As far as I know, during the development of the Universe the main mechanism for matter aggregation into forming galaxies, solar systems, planets and so on has been gravity. The other forces do not act significantly until matter has got clumped very near to each other.

If non-baryonic DM is maybe around 4 or 5 times more abundant than baryonic matter and it interacts gravitationally, it should have followed the same aggregation flow as baryonic matter, should't it?
or rather even, it should have been the baryonic matter getting aggregated to/towards (expectedly bigger) clupms of non-baryonic DM.
Why should't we expect the Earth (or any body) to be formed by a combination of non-baryonic DM and baryonic matter in a ratio of 4 or 5 to 1 ? (mostly by non-baryonic DM).

I can understand your point that if a non-baryonic DM particle travels towards a massive baryonic body, it may just pass through it because the gravitational attraction is not enough to slow down its inertial movement, but, in the grand scheme of matter aggregation to form structures in the Universe, I don't see why non-baryonic DM shouldn't have followed the same gravitational aggregation pattern that baryonic matter did. And once gravitationally bound, why should it fly away?

If the amount of non-baryonic DM was small (let's say 10%) compared to baryonic matter, I could understand that it may have mostly drifted appart.
But with a ratio of 4 or 5 to 1, one would expect that a significant part of any celestial body be composed of non-baryonic DM. And certainly such a big mass contribution would be detectable by gravitational effects?
Once again, it seems like it should have been more like the abundant non-baryonic DM dominating the gravitational aggregations, and the scarce baryonic matter just falling into it.
So it might be more likely to find galaxies of non-baryonic DM surrounded by halos of baryonic matter than the other way around!

I know I'm most likely wrong but please explain me why! :-)

 

[EL]

I'm working on it! Actually I do not have the facilities to run such simulations, perhaps after GP-B comes up trumps somebody else will do it for me. [Anybody out there willing to have a go?]

All I have done are 'back of the envelope' Jeans mass and free fall time estimations.

That's always a good starting point. Btw, when is gravity probe B planned to?

 

[EL]

Yo!, Stop!, Halt! and Alto!:

Ok, so we were just misunderstanding each other somewhat.
However, I'm not sure I really get what you mean by virtual particles as a DM candidate. Could you elaborate more?

 

[Garth]

That's always a good starting point. Btw, when is gravity probe B planned to?

I'm getting masses of 10⁸M_Solar forming and fragmenting 10⁶ yrs after recombination at 13 Myrs i.e. at 14 Myrs, the process finishing ~ 10⁸ yrs. ~ z = 100.

The GP-B team will know late this summer but not publish until April 2007 after cross checking with outside authorities on the results.

Garth

 

[EL]

These are some nice questions Gerinski. I'll try to give a short answer, but I'm sure someone else here can certainly fill in more details.

As far as I know, during the development of the Universe the main mechanism for matter aggregation into forming galaxies, solar systems, planets and so on has been gravity. The other forces do not act significantly until matter has got clumped very near to each other.

Yes, but I think you underestimate the importance of these forces, which makes the difference between the structure formation of ordinary and dark matter.

If non-baryonic DM is maybe around 4 or 5 times more abundant than baryonic matter and it interacts gravitationally, it should have followed the same aggregation flow as baryonic matter, should't it?

No, see above. There's been plenty of simulations of structure formation from both WIMP dark matter and ordinary baryonic matter. Due to the difference in strengths of interactions other than gravity, they actually end up somewhat different, with DM more smoothly distributed.

 

[EL]

I'm getting masses of 10⁸M_Solar forming and fragmenting 10⁶ yrs after recombination at 13 Myrs i.e. at 14 Myrs, the process finishing ~ 10⁸ yrs. ~ z = 100.

Ok. I admit I don't know what to expect just by hand. But I guess this is acceptable or?

The GP-B team will know late this summer but not publish until April 2007 after cross checking with outside authorities on the results.

I'll guess you are looking forward to April next year then...

 

[jimpy]

I supposethat roger penrose,william clifford,felix klein,later oskar klein,earlier weyl et al might be really impressed with a curvature driven model.isn't that really the issue?

 

[Garth]

I'm getting masses of 108MSolar forming and fragmenting 106 yrs after recombination at 13 Myrs i.e. at 14 Myrs, the process finishing ~ 108 yrs. ~ z = 100.

Ok. I admit I don't know what to expect just by hand. But I guess this is acceptable or?

The Jeans Length works out as 12000 lgt.yrs, i.e roughly one halo per ~ 10⁴ lgt.yrs, or an average of one every 10⁷ lgt.yrs. today.

If the density anisotropies are at the ~ 10^-5 level and kinetic energies of forming halos follows the potential energy of these wells, their relative velocities would be expected to be of the order 10^-2.5c, which is the OOM of our own galaxy's motion relative to the CMB.

To an OOM take a lower limit typical velocity for these halos to be ~ 10^-3c, (300 km/sec), collisions between them would be expected every ~ 10⁷ yrs.

About 10⁴ mergers would be required to make up a typical spiral halo, or elliptical galactic, mass of 10¹² M_Solar.

Thus such halo masses might form after, a very hand waving estimate, ~ \sqrt N of 10⁷ x 10² = 10⁹ yrs, which would be seen today in the FCM model at z = 13, and onwards at lower z towards the present. This is where the earliest galaxies appear to have formed Detecting Reionization in the Star Formation Histories of High-Redshift Galaxies

Massive galaxies are routinely being detected at red-shifts z > 6 (Bouwens et al. 2005), in some cases with sufficient data for a detailed analysis of the stellar content. For example, Mobasher et al. (2005) have recently reported the discovery of HUDF-JD2, a galaxy which is potentially at z ~ 6.5, although spectral lines were not detected and thus the redshift is based on the shape of the spectrum.
If the high redshift is a correct inference, then the galaxy possesses almost 10¹²M_⊙ in stars. Further analysis of the
spectral shape indicates that the galaxy formed the bulk of its stars at z > 9 and could have reionized its surrounding region at z > 10 (Panagia et al. 2005). Also, Eyles et al. (2005) analyzed two galaxies at z > 5.8 that had been found by Stanway, Bunker, & McMahon (2003). They showed that these galaxies had stellar masses of > 10¹⁰M_⊙ and had formed most of their stars at z > 7.5 while a minority formed closer to the detected redshift.

I'll guess you are looking forward to April next year then...

And how!

Garth

 

[EL]

Looks not to bad...
How many people are actually looking at this FCM model? Hard to persuade someone to do some simulations before GP-B?

 

[Gerinski]

Yes, but I think you underestimate the importance of these forces, which makes the difference between the structure formation of ordinary and dark matter.
No, see above. There's been plenty of simulations of structure formation from both WIMP dark matter and ordinary baryonic matter. Due to the difference in strengths of interactions other than gravity, they actually end up somewhat different, with DM more smoothly distributed.

Do you mean that (for example) the particles making up the Earth, were it not for the EM and nuclear forces, would not make up a stable "solid" body?
That gravity alone wouldn't be strong enough to hold them together and the Earth would evaporate into cosmic particle dust?

On the other hand, one reads frequently statements such as "the size of stars is determined by a delicate balance between the outward forces of the nuclear reactions and the inwards force of gravity. When a star consumes its fuel, gravity wins the game and collapses it into a white dwarf, a neutron star, a black hole or whatever"
Such statements make one feel that gravity is not so weak after all, and that it's perfectly sufficient to hold together a big enough clump of matter (of course the stellar matter also interacts among itself by EM and nuclear forces, but the referred reason for collapse is always gravity).

So still, I don't quite understand why did not the non-baryonic DM aggregate by gravity into "solid" DM bodies, with additional baryonic matter aggregating further into them.

 

[Garth]

So still, I don't quite understand why did not the non-baryonic DM aggregate by gravity into "solid" DM bodies, with additional baryonic matter aggregating further into them.

Non-baryonic DM is mysterious stuff, it is given just the right ad hoc properties to fit the cosmological constraints, but what are those constraints and what properties are required to meet them?

It is generally 'non-interacting' so it doesn't form DM 'planets' etc, just deep gravitational potential wells into which ordinary stuff can fall. However, that doesn't quite fit, and so it is thought to be 'weakly interacting' so it doesn't form too deep a well in galactic centres (the 'cuspy' problem).

You need to find a miracle cure that will produce the correct large scale structure and the correct local galacic halo profiles, but what it doesn't do is interact with itself so strongly that it condenses down into ""solid" DM bodies."

On the other hand, it is important to realize that until we have identified the DM particle in a laboratory, (LHC?) measured its properties and found they match the cosmological and astronomical constraints, we do not really know what we are talking about!

Garth

 

[EL]

Non-baryonic DM is mysterious stuff, it is given just the right ad hoc properties to fit the cosmological constraints, but what are those constraints and what properties are required to meet them?

I would not completely agree with this. For example, looking at a specific dark matter candidate: the LSP, lightest supersymmetric particle. The LSP arises in particle physics as an attempt to solve another problem (the hierarchy problem) which is not connected with cosmology. From the theory of supersymmetry it then happens that the LSP in fact have the right properties to be a DM candidate.
That's what I find beautiful about LSP-DM; it is not just an "ad hoc" particle needed for solving the DM, but actually arises from a completely different problem.

 

[Garth]

Okay - I stand corrected.

EDIT - I hadn't realized the LSP had been detected!

We will see whether the LSP does last the course.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

EL, I can think of only a few dozen humans on planet Earth who would so easily make that connection - and most of them work at CERN.

 

[EL]

EDIT - I hadn't realized the LSP had been detected!

That's something I've NEVER said.
If it wasn't for the fact that dark matter particle candidates pop up out of theories needed to solve other non-related problems, I would of course be much more sceptical.

 

[EL]

EL, I can think of only a few dozen humans on planet Earth who would so easily make that connection - and most of them work at CERN.

Que? The LSP is probably the most popular candidate of them all.
Note that I'm not saying it has to be the solution, just the most probable one in my opinion...
I find it more pleasant to inwoke new particles we have hints for that they should exist, than modifying our basic physical laws...

 

[Garth]

EDIT - I hadn't realized the LSP had been detected!

That's something I've NEVER said.
If it wasn't for the fact that dark matter particle candidates pop up out of theories needed to solve other non-related problems, I would of course be much more sceptical.

I was pulling your leg!

But the serious point is that we need to identify the DM particle in the laboratory, measure its properties and prove they are concordant with the cosmological constraints and then and only then will we know what we are talking about.

It is this lack of confirmation that continues to render the standard \Lambda CDM model provisional.

GArth

 

[turbo]

There has been a tremendous expenditure of resources of all types (including peoples' entire careers) thrown at this problem, but I have a question. Why are we building higher-energy colliders to look for the LSP? The concentration should be on the building of detectors, because if the the LSPs exist, they should be everywhere. If lightest supersymmetric particle is truly the lightest, there is no lighter supersymmetrical particle that it can decay to, meaning that if they exist, the universe should be teeming with them already. Every one ever produced still exists - they are immortal. The fact that LSPs have not been detected already should be sobering to the guys building and equipping the collidors. Has this been discussed in the literature, EL?

 

[EL]

I was pulling your leg!

Yeah, I noticed that, just had to defend my case anyway...My capital letters maybe were too much, or at least I should have added a smiley in the end...so I'll do it now instead...

But the serious point is that we need to identify the DM particle in the laboratory, measure its properties and prove they are concordant with the cosmological constraints and then and only then will we know what we are talking about.

Of course. But that's the way it goes for every suggested solution to the problem: We have to find a way to measure its validity!

It is this lack of confirmation that continues to render the standard \Lambda CDM model provisional.

Yepp, as well as all others...

 

[EL]

There has been a tremendous expenditure of resources of all types (including peoples' entire careers) thrown at this problem, but I have a question. Why are we building higher-energy colliders to look for the LSP?

Well, the LSP is just one out of plenty of reasons why we build colliders like LHC. Maybe the most interesting to come out of LHC is something we had not even thought about. But anyway, let's move on:

The concentration should be on the building of detectors, because if the the LSPs exist, they should be everywhere.

Sure, and there are a lot of experiments running and being developed for direct detection. These will probably reach enough sensitivity to scan at least some part of the LSP parameter space in a few years. Besides particle physics constraints on the cross section for interaction with the detector, the chance of succeeding also highly depends on astrophysical conditions; we're not exactly sure of what local density of DM particles to expect. If we're lucky we'll find some evidence for DM through direct detection even before LHC, but due to that the LSP probably interacts very tiny with ordinary matter I personally doubt that.
However, once (and if!) we find the LSP at CERN we of course also need to confirm that it really makes up the DM, so direct detection is of course needed for the complete confirmation.

If lightest supersymmetric particle is truly the lightest, there is no lighter supersymmetrical particle that it can decay to, meaning that if they exist, the universe should be teeming with them already. Every one ever produced still exists - they are immortal.

You're are right to a certain extent. The LSP is forbidden to decay into other particles through a multiplicative quantum number called R-parity which is conserved in supersymmetric theories. (Well, actually there are SUSY theories without conserved R-parity, but for several reasons those are not as intersesting, but let's keep this simple.) Ordninary particles have R-parity (1) while their supersymmetric partners carry (-1). That's why a single LSP cannot decay into anything less massive. However, two particles with R-parity (-1) each, that is a total of (-1)*(-1)=(1) can annihilate into a standard model pair, like two gammas. Observing these gammas (for example from the dense region in the galactic centre) in fact is a way to indirectly detect the LSP, and much work has been put down on clearing such things out too. However it's not clear wheter this signal will drown into the background from other astrophysical sources.

The fact that LSPs have not been detected already should be sobering to the guys building and equipping the collidors.

The missing signal from direct detection of course puts limits on what properties the LSP might have, but the parameter space where the LSP can be is still HUGE, and direct detection need to become much more efficient before it can rule out the LSP as a DM candidate.

Has this been discussed in the literature, EL?

Oh yeah, in hundreds, maybe more, papers over the years. A good one to start with is maybe Jungman et al:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9506380
It's certainly not up to date, but the concepts are nicely explained.

 

[turbo]

Please allow me to clarify, EL. When I asked if "this has been discussed on the literature", I was referring not to "LSP as Dark Matter", which is self-evident, but to the concept that the current non-detection of LSP is a problem for the Standard Model.

I have a very compelling reason to believe that there is no Graviton, no Higgs Boson, no SUSY particles, etc, which I cannot elucidate here due to forum rules, so this is an important subject for me.

 

[EL]

When I asked if "this has been discussed on the literature", I was referring not to "LSP as Dark Matter", which is self-evident, but to the concept that the current non-detection of LSP is a problem for the Standard Model.

But it is not a problem for the Standard Model that the LSP has not been detected yet. Why should it be?

 

[turbo]

But it is not a problem for the Standard Model that the LSP has not been detected yet. Why should it be?

Because the LSP (if it exists) should permeate the Universe, and even if it is extremely weakly interactive, the odds are that we should have seen some hints that they exist. So far, none yet.

 

[Chronos]

The lack of detection is not an issue in the minds of most theorists. Historical, some ideas take longer than others to meet the burden of proof. The atom is a good example. First conceived by Democritus in 460 BC, their detection was not achieved until around 1803: when Dalton conducted experiments suggesting matter was indeed composed of elementary, tiny particles [atoms]. Even so, it was another century before Rutherford and Wilson achieved the first real 'proof' of the atom.

Neutrinos [the other dark matter] also proved elusive. Pauli predicted their existence 1931. First detection was not achieved until 1959 by Cowan and Reines, and the elusive tau neutrino was not detected until 2000. Researchers did not give up on the neutrino for the same reasons they have not given up on their more introverted DM relatives.