Dark Matter Halo & Newton's Shell Theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dark matter halos, particularly in relation to Newton's shell theorem. Participants explore how the existence of a large spherical dark matter halo surrounding the Milky Way can be reconciled with gravitational principles, especially the implications of the shell theorem on gravitational pull within such structures.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the dark matter halo is not a shell, emphasizing its spherical nature and the presence of observable objects at those distances.
  • There is a suggestion that the net gravitational effect within a shell would be zero, raising questions about how a large halo could influence distant objects.
  • One participant notes that the gravitational effects of dark matter halos are more easily observed in other galaxies than in the Milky Way.
  • Another participant points out that the shell theorem requires uniform density for gravitational cancellation, which does not apply to dark matter halos that are inferred to have a non-uniform density profile.
  • There is a discussion about how the existence of large halos is inferred from observations of satellite galaxies and globular clusters around the Milky Way.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Newton's shell theorem in the context of dark matter halos. While some agree on the non-shell nature of the halo, there is no consensus on how to interpret the gravitational effects and the implications for the size of the halo.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of applying the shell theorem to non-uniform density distributions, indicating that assumptions about uniformity may not hold in the case of dark matter halos.

greswd
Messages
764
Reaction score
20
I've read the postulate that there could be a huge spherical dark matter halo extending far beyond the edges of the Milky Way.

However, according to Newton's shell theorem, there is no net gravitational pull within a shell.

How do they arrive at the conclusion of a halo so huge?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It is not a shell.
 
Orodruin said:
It is not a shell.
I was referring to Newton's shell theorem, and applying it to a spherical halo.
 
Yes, the halo is not a shell. It is just spherical. Besides, there are objects at those distances that you can look at as well.

It is easier to do this for other galaxies though.
 
Orodruin said:
Yes, the halo is not a shell. It is just spherical. Besides, there are objects at those distances that you can look at as well.

It is easier to do this for other galaxies though.

The parts of the halo beyond the milky way can be thought of as a really thick shell right?

darkmatter.jpe


So I was thinking that the net gravity would be zero within the shell, you can make the halo as big as you want but you won't make any difference.

How did they conceive the idea of a such a large halo? Was it through observations of the Milky Way or observing the objects within the 'gray zone' as seen in the picture?
 
greswd said:
So I was thinking that the net gravity would be zero within the shell, you can make the halo as big as you want but you won't make any difference.
It will not make a difference for the objects within, but it will make a difference to objects at large distances. Just because most luminous matter is concentrated in the middle does not mean that there is nothing to see further out.

greswd said:
How did they conceive the idea of a such a large halo? Was it through observations of the Milky Way or observing the objects within the 'gray zone' as seen in the picture?
Neither. As I already said, the effect is much easier to see in other galaxies.
 
Orodruin said:
Neither. As I already said, the effect is much easier to see in other galaxies.
I see. So when observing other galaxies, we see that gravitationally they behave like they possesses halos?
 
Shell theorem requires a uniform density in addition to spherical symmetry for cancellation of gravity. Dark matter haloes are not assumed to be of uniform density, the density profile is inferred to be cuspy towards the galactic center. Think of it like the earth, which is also not of uniform density. When you dig a hole and toss something in it falls to the bottom of the hole, it does not however near the surface as you might expect if the Earth were uniformly dense and spherically symmetric...
 
Chronos said:
When you dig a hole and toss something in it falls to the bottom of the hole, it does not hover near the surface as you might expect if the Earth were uniformly dense and spherically symmetric...
That's... not a feature of uniform density, but of a hollow shell of matter. The difference between uniform and nonuniform density in spherical distribution is that the latter does not have a straight-line dependence of force on radius as you dig down.
I'm sure you know that.
 
  • #10
You are correct. I should refrain from posting after 3 am.
 
  • #11
Bandersnatch said:
That's... not a feature of uniform density, but of a hollow shell of matter. The difference between uniform and nonuniform density in spherical distribution is that the latter does not have a straight-line dependence of force on radius as you dig down.
I'm sure you know that.
Did we infer the existence of extremely large halos from observing other galaxies?
 
  • #12
Did we infer the existence of extremely large halos from observing other galaxies?

Yes, satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, along with globular clusters. Similarly looking at stars in the disk of the Milky Way allows computing the amount of dark matter at that radius or inside it.
 
  • #13
eachus said:
Did we infer the existence of extremely large halos from observing other galaxies?

Yes, satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, along with globular clusters. Similarly looking at stars in the disk of the Milky Way allows computing the amount of dark matter at that radius or inside it.

I see. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K