Dark Matter Disc Evidence: New Possibilities in Milky Way Galaxy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential evidence for a disk of dark matter in the Milky Way Galaxy, referencing a 2012 article that suggests dark matter may be present near the Sun. Participants explore the implications of this finding, the theoretical underpinnings, and the challenges associated with the existence of dark matter disks.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a 2012 study indicating a possible disk of dark matter near the Sun, suggesting a high density of dark matter that could challenge existing theories.
  • Others express skepticism about the existence of dark matter disks, citing the lack of mechanisms for dark matter to dissipate energy in a way that would allow for disk formation, unlike ordinary matter.
  • A participant mentions encountering similar information about dark matter being found far from Earth, but expresses uncertainty about its reliability.
  • There are requests for sources and further information regarding recent publications on dark matter disks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are competing views regarding the existence and implications of dark matter disks, with some supporting the idea based on recent findings and others challenging it based on theoretical considerations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights uncertainties regarding the mechanisms of dark matter and the interpretation of observational data, with references to statistical confidence levels and the potential for future research to clarify these issues.

Buzz Bloom
Gold Member
Messages
2,517
Reaction score
465
I just came across an August 2012 article that suggests possible first evidence for a disk of dark matter.
Here are some quotes.

Astronomers at the University of Zürich, the ETH Zurich, the University of Leicester and NAOC Beijing have found large amounts of invisible "dark matter" near the Sun. Their results are consistent with the theory that the Milky Way Galaxy is surrounded by a massive "halo" of dark matter, but this is the first study of its kind to use a method rigorously tested against mock data from high quality simulations. The authors also find tantalising hints of a new dark matter component in our Galaxy. The team's results will be published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.​

Lead author Silvia Garbari says: "We are 99% confident that there is dark matter near the Sun. In fact, our favoured dark matter density is a little high. There is a 10% chance that this is merely a statistical fluke. But with 90% confidence, we find more dark matter than expected. If future data confirms this high value, the implications are exciting. It could be the first evidence for a "disc" of dark matter in our Galaxy, as recently predicted by theory and numerical simulations of galaxy formation. Or it could be that the dark matter halo of our Galaxy is squashed, boosting the local dark matter density."​

Over this past year I have been reading several PF threads about dark matter that explain why there should not be any dark matter disks. The argument is that dark matter does not have any known mechanism for converting its gravitational orbital energy into an energy form that dissipates the orbital energy. This is unlike ordinary matter converting some of its orbital energy into EM radiation, which is the mechanism for forming disk-like galaxys.

Does anyone know if over the past 5 years there has been any new publications about dark matter disks.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If have come across a similar information last year. But the dark matter has been found many light years away from Earth. It might have been a fluke but
I don't know.
 
Hi @Copernicus45:

Thanks for your post. Do you by any chance remember the source?

Regards,
Buzz
 
Buzz Bloom said:
Hi @Copernicus45:

Thanks for your post. Do you by any chance remember the source?

Regards,
Buzz

Sorry. I don't remember the website. It might have been LiveScience.com.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
524
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K