Does gravitational lensing indicate dark matter is low-mass?

[Ranku]

Is there any indication, such as through gravitational lensing, that dark matter has a low-mass compared to visible matter?

 

[Orodruin]

Are you referring to the dark matter particle mass or the total mass of dark matter?

In the first case no, you have viable dark matter candidates in a very large span of masses. In the second, the total mass of dark matter in the Universe is about five times that of normal matter.

 

[Ranku]

Are you referring to the dark matter particle mass or the total mass of dark matter?

I meant in the first case. Does gravitational lensing indicate anything, one way or another?

 

[Orodruin]

I meant in the first case. Does gravitational lensing indicate anything, one way or another?

Micro-lensing rules out some range of masses for quite massive objects such as primordial black holes. When it comes to fundamental particle candidates, it does not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Is there any indication, such as through gravitational lensing, that dark matter has a low-mass compared to visible matter?

I think you need to clarify this question. How much are we talking about? A kilogram of each weighs the same, no?

 

[Ranku]

I think you need to clarify this question. How much are we talking about? A kilogram of each weighs the same, no?

I mean in terms of comparable volumes of visible and dark matter - although not sure how practically feasible it is to compare between volumes.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In the galaxy as a whole, there is more dark matter. In the earth, there is more baryonic matter.

 

[snorkack]

If there were dense lumps of dark matter then microlensing of light by such dense lumps of dark matter would show up as low angle scattering.
Absence of such low angle scattering suggests lack of lumps of certain sizes, and that dark matter is divided into big but low and smooth density lumps.