What Are the Leading Theories Explaining Dark Matter?

[Erenjaeger]

Im doing a group presentation in one of my astrophysics papers this semester, and my part of the presentation is to research and outline the various theories for what dark matter could be. Does anyone on the pf know of any sites they may think will be helpful in my research, or any ideas on what theories I should include in the presentation and/or any other things that might help me with this assignment.
Thanks.

 

[ISamson]

Good doc for a start:


Wikipedia is always a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Lots of articles:
https://arxiv.org/

 

[Erenjaeger]

This is a very good doc for you:


Wikipedia is always a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Lots of articles:
https://arxiv.org/

Thanks that last link looks like its got a TON of information that will be super useful, exactly what i was looking for. Google just keeps returning links for Erik Verlinde's recent theory.

 

[ISamson]

Yeah, arxiv.org is very useful.

 

[Simon Peach]

Looks like Dark matter may have been wheedled out of the spaces it inhabits as this article in the Newscientist is correct https://www.newscientist.com/articl...es-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found

 

[phinds]

Looks like Dark matter may have been wheedled out of the spaces it inhabits as this article in the Newscientist is correct https://www.newscientist.com/articl...es-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found

You have misunderstood the article. This has nothing to do with dark matter.

 

[Kuzon]

goodluck mate. and when you get up there, remember to speak nice and loud, big chest! be confident and those ladies and men will be gushing with excitement! best of luck! always blow on the pie too.

You have misunderstood the article. This has nothing to do with dark matter.

hmm, I am not sure that is correct. i appears to be about mostly dark matter in fact i can see the words "dark matter" in the article not once, but a couple of times. did you click on the correct link? the internet can be tricky sometimes, my grandfather often will tell me a link doesn't work when in fact it does.

 

[Simon Peach]

yep your right I was getting all excited but then there is this paragraph You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

 

[phinds]

hmm, I am not sure that is correct. i appears to be about mostly dark matter in fact i can see the words "dark matter" in the article not once, but a couple of times. did you click on the correct link? the internet can be tricky sometimes, my grandfather often will tell me a link doesn't work when in fact it does.

READ the article, don't just skim it for words.

 

[Kuzon]

READ the article, don't just skim it for words.

yeah it's a great article - did you manage to connect to it? my grandfather always messses up computer stuff too, I'm actually staying at his house at the moment! ill copy the link below. if it doesn't work then try to copy the text (click and drag) then paste it into the search bar (with right click, and a menu will pop up that says paste). PM me if you have any struggles :)! happy learning.

this is the link:
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...es-missing-matter-has-just-been-finally-found

 

[phinds]

...did you manage to connect to it?

? So you think I addressed Simon's misunderstanding AND yours both without having read the article ?

 

[mfb]

The total amount of non-dark matter has been known before, just the distribution was less clear than it is now with the recent research. We now know better how that mass is distributed, the total amount didn't change.

 

[rootone]

The OP is asking what are the current theories concerning dark matter.
Well currently the betting is on WIMPS,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles
Particles which are unlike the (atomic) baryronic matter that makes the material stuff of stars and planets and people.
The paper referenced in earlier posts is about the distribution of baryonic matter, not dark matter.

 

[Kuzon]

?

if are struggling can pm me about it a bit busy to discuss it here bud :)

have tried just right clicking the link that posted in previous post? happy to help buddy :D can help me with physics can help you with computersby the way feel free to like my post if helped!

 

[Erenjaeger]

? So you think I addressed Simon's misunderstanding AND yours both without having read the article ?

I think you have maybe read a different article, try and see if you can open the link that Kuzon has posted that is the one the original poster was referring to. Have you had much experience with computers before ? I'm sure Kuzon would not mind answering any questions you have if you wanted to send him a private message.
Good luck!

 

[phinds]

if are struggling can pm me about it a bit busy to discuss it here bud :)

have tried just right clicking the link that posted in previous post? happy to help buddy :D can help me with physics can help you with computersby the way feel free to like my post if helped!

I can't tell if you are trolling or just seriously not paying attention to what is going on but either way, it's not looking good for you.

 

[phinds]

I think you have maybe read a different article, try and see if you can open the link that Kuzon has posted that is the one the original poster was referring to. Have you had much experience with computers before ? I'm sure Kuzon would not mind answering any questions you have if you wanted to send him a private message.
Good luck!

This is REALLY getting weird. BOTH links (post #5 & post #10) point to exactly the same article. Read this thread carefully.

 

[Erenjaeger]

This is REALLY getting weird. BOTH links (post #5 & post #10) point to exactly the same article. Read this thread carefully.

Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !

 

[Kuzon]

I can't tell if you are trolling or just seriously not paying attention to what is going on but either way, it's not looking good for you.

what? i was just try to help you out man

 

[phinds]

Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !

*I* understood the article, but others did not, thinking incorrectly that it was about a discover regarding dark matter (which is the subject of this thread). I simply pointed out that it was NOT about dark matter and then things just got weird.

 

[phinds]

what? i was just try to help you out man

I am utterly at a loss to see how. You misunderstood the article that was being immediately discussed, as did Simon Peach, and I pointed that out and then you suggested that I had not read the article. You really need to go back over this thread carefully.

EDIT: and by the way, I DO recognize that the tone of your posts seemed to be intent on helping, but they also seemed to be completely out of touch with what was being said in the thread.

 

[George Jones]

Oh very sorry, my apologies I didn't realize that both links were to the same article, but are you sure that is the article that you have read? Only asking because it seems although you were talking about another article, or maybe didn't understand the linked one fully? Computers sometimes do this to us !

@phinds is correct. I think that you and @Kuzon should have read the New Scientist article a little more carefully. In particular, the first three paragraphs state

The missing links between galaxies have finally been found. This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe – protons, neutrons and electrons – unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space.

You have probably heard about the hunt for dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to permeate the universe, the effects of which we can see through its gravitational pull. But our models of the universe also say there should be about twice as much ordinary matter out there, compared with what we have observed so far.

Two separate teams found the missing matter – made of particles called baryons rather than dark matter – linking galaxies together through filaments of hot, diffuse gas.

At the end of the New Scientist article, there is link to the actual journal paper on which the New Scientist article is based,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024

From the first two paagraphs:

In the now-standard ΛCDM cosmology, more than 95% of the energy density in the universe is in the form of dark matter and dark energy, whereas baryonic matter only comprises 4.6% (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a; Hinshaw et al. 2013).

At high redshift ($z \gtrsim 2$), most of the expected baryons are found in the Lyαabsorption forest: the diffuse, photo-ionized intergalactic medium (IGM) with a temperature of $10^4$ - $10^5$ K (e.g.,Weinberg et al. 1997; Rauch et al. 1997). However, at redshifts $z \lesssim 2$, the observed baryons in stars, the cold interstellar medium, residual Lyα forest gas, OVI and BLA absorbers, and hot gas in clusters of galaxies account for only ∼50% of the expected baryons– the remainder has yet to be identified ...

Also, did you read what @mfb and @rootone wrote in this thread?

 

[Erenjaeger]

@phinds is correct. I think that you and @Kuzon should have read the New Scientist article a little more carefully. In particular, the first three paragraphs stateAt the end of the New Scientist article, there is link to the actual journal paper on which the New Scientist article is based,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024

From the first two paagraphs:Also, did you read what @mfb and @rootone wrote in this thread?

I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!

 

[Erenjaeger]

I am utterly at a loss to see how. You misunderstood the article that was being immediately discussed, as did Simon Peach, and I pointed that out and then you suggested that I had not read the article. You really need to go back over this thread carefully.

EDIT: and by the way, I DO recognize that the tone of your posts seemed to be intent on helping, but they also seemed to be completely out of touch with what was being said in the thread.

Sorry mate, I just think it is actually you that hasn't fully understood it, maybe if we both have another read you will be able to understand. good luck my friend !

 

[phinds]

Sorry mate, I just think it is actually you that hasn't fully understood it, maybe if we both have another read you will be able to understand. good luck my friend !

see post #22

 

[George Jones]

I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!

No, actually, it isn't.

From Table 9 for thye 2015 Planck results
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2016/10/aa27101-15.pdf

non-baryonic (i.e., not protons and neutrons) dark matter makes up 25.8% of the mass/energy density budget of the universe, and baryonic (i.e., protons and neutrons) normal matter makes up 4.8%.

The 4.8% normal matter component is inferred from stuff like patterns in the anisotropies of the CMB, i.e., it does not come from direct astronomical observation. Prior to the results published in the papers referenced in this thread, only about half of the 4.8% of the normal matter component had been observed "directly". The results in the papers account for more of the 4.8% normal matter component (without increasing the number 4.8), and say naught about the 25.8% non-baryonic dark matter component.

 

[Erenjaeger]

see post #22

see post #24

 

[phinds]

I guess its just all a matter of opinion isn't it haha!

No, as George has already pointed out, it is NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You just don't seem to have been paying attention to what's being discussed in this thread and to the article that was linked to twice.

 

[Simon Peach]

My god wish I'd never read the article incorrectly.

 

[phinds]

My god wish I'd never read the article incorrectly.

Nah, don't feel bad. You didn't start this latter nonsense. You made a simple error which you quickly recognized and acknowledged so this is not on you.