Dark Matter: Light or Misunderstood?

AI Thread Summary
Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically, which is why it is "dark" and does not emit radiation. The gravitational effects of energy, as described by E=mc², have already been considered in the context of dark matter anomalies. Radiation disperses and cannot remain localized, distinguishing it from dark matter, which does not disperse. The discussion highlights that dark matter must be "cold," ruling out possibilities like photons or "hot" particles such as neutrinos. Understanding these properties is crucial for ongoing research into the nature of dark matter.
excession
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If this is a stupid question, just tell me.

As I understand it, even forms of pure energy can create a gravitational effect in high concentrations due to E=mc2. Would this have enough of an effect to create some of the anomalies prompting the search for DM, or has this already been taken into account?

Or, as is more likely, what have I misunderstood?

Cheers people
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It has already been taken into account.

Lay-friendly description:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=446
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dark matter does not participate in electromagnetic interactions, hence it is dark (does not emit any form of radiation that can be absorbed). Photons interact through the electromagnetic interaction, but not ordinary Coulomb interaction because they are not charged. The main http://mightylib.mit.edu/Course%20Materials/22.01/Fall%202001/photons%20part%201.pdf through which a flux of photons loses energy are:
  • Photoelectric effect
  • Compton scattering
  • Pair production
 
Last edited by a moderator:
excession said:
If this is a stupid question, just tell me.

As I understand it, even forms of pure energy can create a gravitational effect in high concentrations due to E=mc2. Would this have enough of an effect to create some of the anomalies prompting the search for DM, or has this already been taken into account?

Or, as is more likely, what have I misunderstood?

Cheers people

Radiation always travels in a "straight" line at the "speed of light." It cannot remain in one place, it disperses if not contained. Dark matter isn't contained and doesn't disperse, so it can't be radiation.
 
Cheers for that, makes a bit more sense now.

Thanks for taking time to reply.
 
One other thing is that you can model different types of matter by their what's called an "equation of state". Basically it's how much pressure that you get if you squeeze it, and that results in a number called w. For ordinary matter, w=0, which means that the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume. For light, w=1/3, which means that if you squeeze it, then the pressure goes up faster than the inverse of the volume.

One way of thinking about it, is that if you compress gas, it gets hot, when something gets hot, the number of photons it produces goes up very, very quickly.

So you put all of this into your computer program, you figure out the lumpiness factor, and you find out that if dark matter was something like photons, then the universe would be pretty smooth. That rules out dark matter not only being photons, but it also means that it's not a particle like weird neutrinos or anything else "hot." Whatever dark matter is, it's "cold."
 
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
How does light maintain enough energy in the visible part of the spectrum for the naked eye to see in the night sky. Also, how did it start of in the visible frequency part of the spectrum. Was it, for example, photons being ejected at that frequency after high energy particle interaction. Or does the light become visible (spectrum) after hitting our atmosphere or space dust or something? EDIT: Actually I just thought. Maybe the EM starts off as very high energy (outside the visible...

Similar threads

Back
Top