Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ideas about dark matter and structure

  1. Sep 6, 2008 #1
    Could you be more specific? You suggest that there are methods by which dark matter can dispose of kinetic energy, but can you show a method that is purely a gravitational interaction?

    If dark matter particles ineract with each other non gravitationally then do you agree that the dark matter in the original clusters of bullet cluster collision would have dispersed kinetic energy during the collision and formed a clump at collision point like the hot gas? The colliding hot gas of the colliding clusters interacted and dispersed kinetic energy to form one central clump, while the colliding dark matter haloes did not disperse kinetic energy and "passed straight though" each other. Do you agree that the bullet cluster clearly shows that hot gas has a greater tendancy to clump than dark matter? In that collision the hot gas clumped while the dark matter did not. It could not be clearer.

    Do you agree that for dark matter to gravitationally collapse it has to interact with itself or normal matter in order to disperse kinetic energy?

    Do you agree that my demonstration of an object falling through a hole in planet will continue to oscilate forever without friction dispersing kinetic energy as electromagnetic energy?

    Do you agree that dark matter is generally thought to be non interacting or weakly interacting other than gravitationally?



    Some additional observations can be made from the comparison of the bullet cluster and the train wreck cluster. They appear to give a conflicting image of the nature of dark matter. In the bullet cluster massive galaxies and stars appear to be relatively unaffected by the collision of two clusters and pass straight through the collision area, as does the dark matter, leaving a region of hot gas and relatively little dark matter where the collision took place. This shows the none interacting nature of dark matter.

    In the train wreck cluster, the dark matter seems to have remained with the hot gas at the centre of the collision while the massive gaxies have passed through without any dark matter attached to them. This is the opposite of what appears to have happened in the bullet cluster and it is a big puzzle. A closer look at the train wreck image seems to show that some of the dark matter has been dispersed at right angles to the trajectory of the colliding clusters. If dark matter is generated by black holes as I speculated, then one explanation is that black holes in the original clusters that collided to make the train wreck were thrown out sideways by a slingshot effect due to a very close interaction of the black holes during the collision. it is possible that the original clusters had more than one black hole each, in complex orbits around each other that were inherently unstable and easily sent off at tangents during the collision. The dark matter that seems to have been ejected sideways in the train wreck cluster is possibly generated by the slung shot orbiting black holes spiraling outwards at an unusual angle from the collison. The proof would come from locating the black holes in the bullet and train wreck clusters. My bet is that the dark matter stays with the trajectories of the black holes after the collision and that slung shot black holes will be found way off the collision axis of the train wreck clsuter. It should be noted that at this point, no one has offered a viable explanation of why the bullet cluster and train wreck cluster differ so much in their distribution of dark matter after the collsions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 6, 2008 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Re: More clues about structure formation (e.g. minimum galaxy mass)

    Already did. Please read earlier posts.

    Let's review the basic idea in the initial post news item, so we retain focus. It is too interesting to fritter away in accidental misunderstanding.

    Dark matter presumably starts out more or less uniformly distributed, and self-gravitating clouds of it clump---there are various obvious mechanisms by which a condensing cloud can eject excess kinetic energy and angular momentum---mechanisms involving only gravitational interaction.

    One point is that clouds of dark matter may be able to coalesce without the help of ordinary matter.

    Another point of the research news item is that for some unexplained reason there may be a minimal size of around 10 million solar.

    Here's an excerpt from the article cited in the initial post:
    ==quote==
    ...Since dwarf galaxies are mostly dark matter – the ratio of dark matter to normal matter is as large as 10,000 to one – the minimum-mass discovery reveals a fundamental property of dark matter.

    ... “This helps us better understand the particle that makes up dark matter, and it teaches us something about how galaxies form in the universe.”...

    The scientists say clumps of dark matter may exist that contain no stars...
    ==endquote==

    when one first imagines ways in which coalescing dark matter could eject excess kinetic, one very likely thinks of mechanisms involving ordinary matter----by gravitational interaction the dark transfers kinetic to the ordinary, and the ordinary radiates it away by various means (this was discussed earlier in thread).
    But now it looks like we have to consider ways that the dark matter could eject excess kinetic energy by itself----without the help of ordinary matter!

    There may be processes we don't know about, but one obvious mechanism is that by gravitational interaction some of the particles acquire above average kinetic, and fly away. That leaves the remaining cloud with below average.

    (same mechanism is presumed to have operated in the early solar system---some junk escaped as it settled down, carrying away excess energy---think of the slingshot effect)

    The puzzle that seems so interesting IMO is this minimum of 10 million solar. It might be false. But suppose the research is born out and there really is this minimum. What does this say about dark matter?
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  4. Sep 6, 2008 #3
    Re: More clues about structure formation (e.g. minimum galaxy mass)

    Let's focus on the above statement. Do you agree that if the above statement is true and hot gas has a greater tendancy to clump than dark matter (as the bullet cluster seems to show) then that fact is hard to reconcile with the idea that dark matter is the cause of hot gas clumping in the early universe?


    P.S.

    Do you agree that the difference between the bullet cluster and the train wreck cluster collisions presents a major problem for our current understanding of dark matter?
     
  5. Sep 6, 2008 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    kev's personal ideas about dark matter and structure

    kev has some personal ideas about dark matter which don't fit in to a thread I started about minimal galaxy mass----a recent research paper on observed dwarf clouds of dark matter (around 10 million solar mass).

    I can't respond to kev's personal ideas in that thread without derailing it, because they are too unrelated to the topic. So I [EDIT: support the action of moving his posts to start this new] thread for kev, so he can discuss his ideas.

    I will fetch some quotes from the other thread, where they are off topic. One idea is that dark matter is actually produced by supermassive black holes. Ordinary matter collects and undergoes collapse, eventually forming black holes, which somehow produce dark matter. And that is where dark matter comes from---and why it is found in haloes around galaxies (which, after all, contain supermassive black holes.)

    Another idea is that the primary puzzle we should focus on is the dissimilarity between two collisions between clusters of galaxies----the bullet and the trainwreck. Unfortunately these are processes involving tens of trillions of solar masses, not tens of millions.
    Collisions of clusters of normal-size galaxies (trillion-solar scale) are a whole other topic from the existence of these curious dwarf clouds (million-solar scale). So kev should have another thread to discuss his ideas about bullet & trainwreck cluster collisions.

    I will go fetch some quotes from the other thread, to start this one.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  6. Sep 6, 2008 #5

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: kev's personal ideas about dark matter and structure

    I've moved posts to this thread, thus they are out of order.
     
  7. Sep 6, 2008 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Re: kev's personal ideas about dark matter and structure

    In this post in the other thread, kev asked that we focus on an earlier statement of his. It isn't something I'd want to focus on in the other thread, but people may wish to discuss it here. I might comment too!

    Part of what you say is obvious and part is apparently based on misunderstanding. The example of bullet cluster collision is well-known. Ordinary matter has electromagnetic interaction, can turn collision energy into heat, and can radiate it off. Two clouds of ordinary matter can collide inelastically and fuse into a single cloud, radiating off the excess energy. Ordinary matter has an easier time clumping.

    But dark matter can nevertheless clump. Computer simulations show it coalescing into clouds of about 1 milion solar. And then these mini-clouds coalesce to form larger clouds. Gravitational interaction allows excess energy to be ejected. Also space expansion cools, albeit slowly as Oldman points out.
    hard to reconcile with the idea that dark matter is the cause of hot gas clumping in the early universe?
    Well it is certainly possible to reconcile. Maybe you just need to try harder :smile:
    I wouldn't restrict it to hot gas. Any kind of ordinary matter. The general proposition is that dark matter can collect into clumps and can help ordinary matter to do so. Evidently people run computer simulations where this turns out to happen spontaneously---primarily thru gravitational interaction on the dark matter side, I would suppose.

    Bullet cluster, as I say, is well-known and doesn't preclude this (though I grant that you may think it does.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  8. Sep 6, 2008 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Here is another of kev's ideas, brought from the other thread so it can be discussed, if people want, without interfering with the topic of dwarf dark matter clouds, in the other thread (and the thread's general bias towards conventional science.)

    Whole thing based on a misconception. the example of a particle falling back and forth thru the earth has no bearing, since it does not reflect the complicated gravitational interactions going on in an N-body system. grav'l interactions can give some particles greater than average energy and they can fly out---removing energy from the cloud.

    so your premise---that dark matter cannot condense into clouds----is unfounded. the rest of the speculation is a way of explaining the observed existence of clouds of dark matter (on the false assumption that they cannot form by themselves)
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  9. Sep 6, 2008 #8

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Re: kev's personal ideas about dark matter and structure

    Thanks! The order doesn't matter. Main thing is people can now discuss kev's ideas if they want, without being off topic in other thread.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2008
  10. Sep 7, 2008 #9
    Marcus: Is this really the consensus view on how collapsing dark matter is virialised by gravitational interactions alone? Sounds to me rather like the virialisation of globular clusters on a vaster scale, and perhaps a bit of a stretch.

    If there are other web-accessible references about how dark-matter-collapse is enabled I'd appreciate being steered to them.

    Kev: Your object oscillating in a hole through a planet is a good example of a general need to remove kinetic energy to enable systems to condense , see my post #4 of Marcus' thread More clues about structure formation ..... . The virial theorem just particularises this general phenomenon, as indeed you guessed in your edit.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2008
  11. Sep 7, 2008 #10
    This thread has the potential to become quite interesting.

    Going back over posts I was struck by something Marcus said:
    . Later, he dismissed the premise
    . Maybe so, but there is always a matter of degree with such concusions.

    Dark matter is thought to be very different from ordinary matter. I think it would be surprising if the differences didn't have consequences as far as structure formation goes. What about a compromise?

    Suppose dark matter just clumps differently from baryonic matter (being unable to generate escaping radiation) rather than not at all. Nature may well then have devised an alternative end to the story of gravitational collapse. Without access to an easy method of getting rid of kinetic energy (star formation) collapse is likely to be more rapid, and to resemble to a greater degree the free-fall of Kev's object in a hole through a planet, albeit with many-body complications.

    When one remembers that there are huge amounts of dark matter sloshing around the universe (five times the amount of ordinary matter), and that observations show that dark matter is indeed part of vast structures formed by gravitational collapse, namely galaxies ---it seems to me that Nature's story of collapse could well incorporate the formation of central galactic black holes out of fast-collapsing dark matter.

    Or am I pushing this idea too far?
     
  12. Sep 7, 2008 #11

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    First, a quote from Weinberg's new cosmology book, and then a couple of interesting leads.
    An interesting dark matter conference

    http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2007/lateReg/program.htm

    was held a little over a year ago. Many of the videos are interesting, and the video of the second lecture (Aug. 3) by Risa Wechsler might be particularly relevant.

    This CosmoCoffee discussion

    http://cosmocoffee.info/viewtopic.php?t=367

    might have some interesting references.
     
  13. Sep 7, 2008 #12

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Hi oldman,
    as I think you indicated, ordinary matter does seem to have a much easier time clumping! It has great mechanisms for radiating away energy. With dark matter, condensing into clouds would seem to be more difficult but it evidently does happen.

    As that passage of Weinberg points out, the condensation of dark matter is less complete.

    I think there is no observational evidence to support the idea that dark matter cannot gather into clouds by itself----indeed that paper in the other thread, about dwarf galaxies, says that in some cases the visible matter was only 1/1000 or 1/10,000 of the total mass. One could suppose that, in a galaxy with so little visible matter, the dark matter must have managed most of the condensation "on its own hook"

    However I would expect that wherever visible matter is present in significant amounts, gravitational interaction with visible will help the dark matter shed energy.

    It should be interesting to check out the link(s) that George provided.

    My present view is that not enough is known about dark matter, so that all this is pretty hypothetical. There is a fair amount of evidence that dark matter can gather into clouds (even with very little visible matter present) and therefore it must have means of getting rid of kinetic energy. We can only guess as to which means are the important ones. Gravitational interaction with out-flinging (you mentioned the analogy with globular cluster formation) is surely one possibility but we can't say for sure it is the main mechanism.
     
  14. Sep 8, 2008 #13
    Thanks for these useful references, especially the Weinberg extract. I'm still saving up for his book. It looks as if it is well worth its price.

    Yes, I agree with you. I am sure that there is lots of computer modelling of the collapse of various mixtures of dark and baryonic matter churning away, invoking appropriate virialisation mechanisms. Some serious computer time and complicated software must be involved.

    In the meantime we can ponder the raw observed facts, which are that there do exist clouds of dark matter, which must surely be the result of gravitational collapse.

    But I hope that workers in this field keep in the back of their minds that an extreme 'end game', as it were --- namely free-fall with the eventual formation of an event horizon --- is always available to Nature as a last resort, should virialisation prove to be too slow. And central black holes do nowadays seem to be accepted as a sort of 'observed' reality........ Black holes made from Dark matter have a certain sort of symmetric appeal to me!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Ideas about dark matter and structure
Loading...