Dark Matter: What Is It & How Was It Formed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Baboon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark matter Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dark matter, its formation, and the various theories and hypotheses surrounding it. Participants explore concepts related to its detection, the role of neutrinos, and alternative theories such as string theory, while also addressing the implications of dark matter on cosmic structures.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants define dark matter as matter that does not emit radiation, inferring its existence from gravitational effects on visible matter.
  • One viewpoint suggests that the discrepancy in observed rotational speeds of galaxies indicates the presence of unseen matter, leading to the hypothesis of dark matter.
  • Participants discuss various candidates for dark matter, including massive remnants of stars (like black holes and neutron stars) and particles such as neutrinos and WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles).
  • There is a suggestion that neutrinos, while potentially a candidate for dark matter, may only account for a small fraction of its total mass and cannot explain large-scale structure formation due to their high speeds.
  • A participant introduces the idea that dark matter could be related to string theory, proposing that it might represent higher vibrations of superstrings, and questions the relationship between this theory and neutrinos.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the notion that dark matter consists solely of neutrinos, suggesting it may involve a different family of particles.
  • There are inquiries about the technology needed to detect dark matter directly, with discussions on current methods in particle physics and the potential role of the LHC in strengthening the case for non-baryonic dark matter.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of dark matter, with multiple competing views presented regarding its composition and the mechanisms for its detection. The discussion remains unresolved with ongoing exploration of various hypotheses.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of dark matter, the unresolved status of various proposed candidates, and the speculative nature of connections to string theory. The discussion highlights the complexity and uncertainty surrounding the topic.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring astrophysics, particle physics, and theoretical physics, particularly in relation to dark matter and its implications for the universe.

  • #31
ranrod said:
I have an admittedly uninformed question about this...
My question is this: Why not just say, "there's an unknown force or error in our understanding of the universe?" Why make it a definite object? Making it an object seems like a narrow-minded way of approaching an unknown problem and assumes too much.

You're right. Your question is uninformed, and calling scientists "narrow-minded" based on your own ignorance says rather more about you than them.

As it happens, there is a theory, called MOND, which attempts to explain galaxy rotation curves by changing the gravitational force law (which is equivalent to adding another force). This theory has its proponents, but is not very popular. One problem is this theory is that different galaxies seem to have different proportions of dark matter. This is natural if dark matter is a substance, but it is decidedly unnatural - and hard to explain - if one tries to explain dark matter as MOND. MOND would suggest a universal curve, and that's not really what's seen.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
You're right. Your question is uninformed, and calling scientists "narrow-minded" based on your own ignorance says rather more about you than them.

I'm afraid I did sound rather disrespectful phrasing it that way, sorry about that. I was saying it's odd that the standard response is not, "we don't know", but instead, "it's this object we just made up called dark matter that we can't find". I got to learn how to rite more better & articulate me thoughts more proprly.

Even if it was a tremendously large concentration of WIMPS, for instance, wouldn't it be just as puzzling to figure out why they're hanging out around the halos of a galaxies?
 
  • #33
I think dark matter/dark energy is a frustrating thing for lay people. The way its presented in popular science might have something to do with it. "Here is this stuff that comprises most of the universe, but there's no way to see it or detect it, and it doesn't interact with anything except by way of gravity."

I remember getting excited when it occurred to me that if the universe was spinning from the moment of the big bang, maybe it was just centrifical force. But I realized that if that were the case, somebody a lot smarter then me would have thought of it already.

While people without backgrounds can certainly question things, there are generally good reasons when physicists achieve some consensus, especially since its such a competitive field. I don't "like" dark matter either, but I realize I don't have the necessary background to form a coherent criticism.
 
  • #34
Galteeth said:
While people without backgrounds can certainly question things, there are generally good reasons when physicists achieve some consensus, especially since its such a competitive field. I don't "like" dark matter either, but I realize I don't have the necessary background to form a coherent criticism.

Thanks Galteeth. I want to apologize once again for sounding condescending. That wasn't my intention, and I'm sorry it came off that way. I meant it when I said I need to work on my writing skills. The work physicists do on this subject is amazing and I didn't mean to be dismissive.

I was trying to express surprise at the prevalency of the physical object "dark matter" theory as an explanation for things, and seeing if anyone would explain more background on that. I think I came off as condescending, criticizing and seemed to be offering crack-pot theories. Although I must say, I got a warm smile when I read Galteeth's idea about it :) I've had similar feelings before about other things, and it reminded me of it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K