The physics of dark matter & energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of dark matter and dark energy, exploring their definitions, properties, and implications in cosmology. Participants examine how dark matter differs from ordinary matter, the potential identification methods for dark matter, and the role of dark energy in the universe's composition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that dark matter is defined by its lack of interaction with light, suggesting it may behave like a perfect black body.
  • Others argue that for dark matter to exhibit a blackbody distribution, it would need to be relativistic, which is inconsistent with current theories and observations of dark matter clumping around galaxies.
  • There is a discussion about the tools available in physics to analyze dark matter behavior, including the observation of rotation curves of spiral galaxies.
  • Participants inquire about the nature of dark energy and its distinction from familiar forms of energy, with references to WMAP observations and their implications for dark energy density.
  • One participant notes that WMAP is not a strong probe for dark energy due to its observations being from a time when dark energy density was low, but it can measure total matter content and the flatness of the universe.
  • There is mention of how the total density of the universe relates to dark energy density, and how this can be inferred from WMAP data in conjunction with other measurements of accelerated expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, with no consensus reached on the definitions or implications of these concepts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the identification methods for dark matter and the interpretation of dark energy's role in the universe.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on specific definitions of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the unresolved nature of certain mathematical and observational claims related to their properties.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
i want to know, do we have a physics of this undefined term?
as far as i can tell, the hypthesis is that dark matter differs from "ordinary" matter by the fact it doesn't ommit light, if that's right beside the point of how can you find it with astronomical tools (which depend mainly on light and its interaction with matter), it might raise the point that dark matter is actually really a black body situation, perhaps a perfect one, and perhaps one way to identify is by checking black body radiaton near its surroundings, but is my conjecture even right and really dark matter is a case of a perfect black body?

and do we have tools in physics to anlayse its behaviour?
and what sort of energy is dark energy and how does it differ from the energies we are acquianted to?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
loop quantum gravity said:
as far as i can tell, the hypthesis is that dark matter differs from "ordinary" matter by the fact it doesn't ommit light, if that's right beside the point of how can you find it with astronomical tools (which depend mainly on light and its interaction with matter),

That's how it was originally defined, yes. What people usually mean by "dark matter" nowadays is non-baryonic, weakly-interacting, massive particles. Since these particles are thought to make up the majority of the truly "dark" mass, the definitions are similar.

it might raise the point that dark matter is actually really a black body situation, perhaps a perfect one, and perhaps one way to identify is by checking black body radiaton near its surroundings, but is my conjecture even right and really dark matter is a case of a perfect black body?

For the dark matter to have a blackbody distribution, it would have to be a relativistic species (behaving like radiation). For it to be relativistic at this epoch, it would have be of very low mass, even lower than neutrinos. Aside from not being expected from theory, this possibility can be ruled out from the fact that dark matter clumps around galaxies. Relativistic matter wouldn't remain bound to a galaxy or cluster of galaxies.

and do we have tools in physics to anlayse its behaviour?

We can observe the positions and motions of objects in the universe and infer some things about the dark matter. The simple classic example is the rotation curves of spiral galaxies.

and what sort of energy is dark energy and how does it differ from the energies we are acquianted to?

I wrote up a review of this a while back: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=893482&postcount=82"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ST -- or anyone who knows:

Can you give a brief description of what it is in the WMAP observations / analysis that provides support for dark energy and for the estimate that it comprises ~70% of the stuff in the universe? Thanks.
 
PhysicsDilettante said:
Can you give a brief description of what it is in the WMAP observations / analysis that provides support for dark energy and for the estimate that it comprises ~70% of the stuff in the universe?

WMAP alone is actually a very poor probe of dark energy because at the time that the CMB was made (z~1100), the dark energy density was negligibly small. However, there's more to the story. Roughly, WMAP is capable of measuring the total matter content of the universe (this contributes to the formation of the acoustic peaks in the power spectrum, especially the third one) and the flatness of the universe (roughly determined by the angular scale of the first peak). It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea.

If the universe is measured to be flat, then the total density of everything must equal the critical density, so one way to infer the dark energy density is to say that it makes up the remainder of the closure density. This can be done with WMAP alone and is consistent with more direct measurements of accelerated expansion (from looking at SNe). If the dark energy is a cosmological constant, then we know the effect it has on the expansion rate of the universe. If we also know the density, then we can actually determine the distance to the surface of last scattering expected with that amount of dark energy. If this number is consistent with the measured distance to the surface of last scattering (and it is), then the model is self-consistent.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K