Unraveling the Mystery of Dark Matter: The Missing 96% of the Universe

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnsmith123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark matter Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of dark matter, its implications for cosmology, and the various hypotheses regarding its existence and properties. Participants explore theoretical aspects, observational evidence, and alternative explanations for phenomena typically attributed to dark matter.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that ordinary matter constitutes only about 4% of the universe, with dark matter being a significant missing component, as inferred from gravitational effects on galaxies and light bending.
  • There are claims that dark matter cannot simply be explained by dark clouds of dust or dead stars, as attempts to detect such matter have largely failed.
  • Participants mention leading candidates for dark matter, including neutrinos, neutralinos, and axions, which are theorized to be stable and electrically neutral.
  • One participant questions the purpose of the initial post, suggesting it lacks a specific question and emphasizing the mystery surrounding dark matter.
  • Concerns about plagiarism are raised regarding the initial post, with multiple participants noting similarities to existing articles.
  • Another participant provides links to papers and articles discussing dark matter, indicating ongoing research in the field.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of observed effects of dark matter within individual star systems, with one participant questioning why dark matter is not more concentrated in such areas.
  • Responses clarify that the density of dark matter is too low in individual star systems to significantly affect dynamics, and that ordinary matter clumps more effectively due to its ability to emit electromagnetic radiation.
  • Some participants express skepticism about alternative explanations for dark matter, such as strangelets or magnetism, with one noting that pop-sci shows are not valid sources for scientific discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of dark matter, with some agreeing on its mysterious properties while others debate alternative explanations and the validity of certain sources. No consensus is reached on the specific candidates for dark matter or the implications of its properties.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of dark matter's role in cosmology and the limitations of current understanding, particularly regarding its effects on smaller scales and the challenges in detecting it.

Johnsmith123
All the ordinary matter we can find accounts for only about 4 percent of the universe. We know this by calculating how much mass would be needed to hold galaxies together and cause them to move about the way they do when they gather in large clusters. Another way to weigh the unseen matter is to look at how gravity bends the light from distant objects. Every measure tells astronomers that most of the universe is invisible.

It's tempting to say that the universe must be full of dark clouds of dust or dead stars and be done with it, but there are persuasive arguments that this is not the case. First, although there are ways to spot even the darkest forms of matter, almost every attempt to find missing clouds and stars has failed. Second, and more convincing, cosmologists can make very precise calculations of the nuclear reactions that occurred right after the Big Bang and compare the expected results with the actual composition of the universe. Those calculations show that the total amount of ordinary matter, composed of familiar protons and neutrons, is much less than the total mass of the universe. Whatever the rest is, it isn't like the stuff of which we're made.

The quest to find the missing universe is one of the key efforts that has brought cosmologists and particle physicists together. The leading dark-matter candidates are neutrinos or two other kinds of particles: neutralinos and axions, predicted by some physics theories but never detected. All three of these particles are thought to be electrically neutral, thus unable to absorb or reflect light, yet stable enough to have survived from the earliest moments after the Big Bang.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Hi, @Johnsmith123, and welcome to PhysicsForums!
With all respect, what is the purpose of your post? I do not see any specific question posted. If the question is merely "What is dark matter?" the answer is "we do not yet know". The question of dark matter is one the greatest scientific mysteries of today.
 
This serves as a nice little introduction to dark matter, but some mentor has to move it to the cosmology forum I think.
 
DennisN said:
what is the purpose of your post?

The post was plagiarized from http://discovermagazine.com/2002/feb/cover magazine.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DennisN
Vanadium 50 said:
The post was plagiarized from http://discovermagazine.com/2002/feb/cover magazine.
When I read it first, it sounded like it came from somewhere else, but I assumed good faith.
 
The short answer is dark matter is the stuff that gravitates without emitting any EM radiation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: stoomart and Delta2
Any serious consensus on strangelets as a candidate for dark matter? I've also heard on some recent pop-sci shows that magnetism may explain the stellar and galactic behavior for which dark matter was invented, any real science behind this claim?
 
stoomart said:
Any serious consensus on strangelets as a candidate for dark matter?

No.

stoomart said:
I've also heard on some recent pop-sci shows

Which are not valid sources here on PF.
 
  • #10
While we're on the subject, I have a question: I understand dark matter is invoked to explain the observed orbital dynamics of stars within galaxies. Why do we not see its effects within individual star systems? IOW, why isn't the Sun's gravitational attraction higher that we would expect given the amount of observed ordinary matter? If the answer is that dark matter is diffuse, why would that be if it only interacts gravitationally? It seems that dark matter would collect everywhere there is a significant accumulation of ordinary matter.
 
  • #11
sandy stone said:
Why do we not see its effects within individual star systems?

Because on the scale of an individual star system, the density of dark matter is too small to affect the dynamics significantly.

sandy stone said:
It seems that dark matter would collect everywhere there is a significant accumulation of ordinary matter.

No, it won't. Ordinary matter clumps much more effectively than dark matter does, because ordinary matter can lose energy by emitting EM radiation, which causes it to form tightly bound systems like stars and planets and star systems. Dark matter can only interact gravitationally, and the only gravitational interaction that can cause an isolated system to lose energy and become more tightly bound is the emission of gravitational radiation, which is extremely weak compared to the EM radiation emitted by ordinary matter as it clumps.
 
  • #12
Well, I hadn't considered that. Fascinating, thank you. .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K