WIMPs or MACHOs: Which Dark Matter Candidate Holds More Promise?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Quds Akbar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wimps
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparative viability of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) versus Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) as candidates for dark matter. WIMPs are favored due to their theoretical underpinnings and the lack of sufficient evidence for MACHOs, which do not exist in large quantities. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) provides strong evidence for dark matter, reinforcing the notion that it cannot consist of ordinary baryonic matter, thereby disqualifying MACHOs. Additionally, the constraints from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis further eliminate MACHOs as a plausible dark matter candidate.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs)
  • Familiarity with Massive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs)
  • Knowledge of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data
  • Basic principles of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the theoretical framework of WIMPs in dark matter models
  • Explore the implications of CMB data on dark matter theories
  • Investigate the role of primordial black holes in dark matter discussions
  • Study the constraints imposed by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis on baryonic matter
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and researchers in cosmology who are exploring the nature of dark matter and its implications for the universe's structure.

Quds Akbar
Messages
124
Reaction score
6
I have been thinking about this quite often, and I know that usually WIMPs are taken more seriously than MACHOs, and I know it is because MACHOS don't exist in such huge amounts, but why are they considered better candidates for Dark Matter?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Quds Akbar said:
I have been thinking about this quite often, and I know that usually WIMPs are taken more seriously than MACHOs, and I know it is because MACHOS don't exist in such huge amounts, but why are they considered better candidates for Dark Matter?
The evidence of dark matter is seen clearly in the CMB, which was emitted before any compact objects could have formed.
 
Aha, I had been wondering about this quite a while, why have MACHOs been discounted as a DM candidate by most people working on it.
The idea that DM could be explained by there being a large amount of small material objects which simply are not visible to us because they are too small and dark always did seem like a simplest explanation to me.
Is the evidence of DM existing in the CMB data a hard certainty, or is it the 'strongly likely' category?
 
There are certain asumptions used that could affect our interpretations regarding dark matter. For example, it is assumed radiation density in the early universe was fixed. If you relax that assumption other interpretations are possible. See http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/driving2.html for discussion. There was a time it was speculated primordial black holes could account for dark matter, but, after extensive study and analysis of the permissible mass range for PBH's has nearly exhausted any possibility of them as a dark matter candidate.
 
Also, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis very tightly constrains the baryon content of the universe, and the required baryon content is quite consistent with what is derived from the CMB. So the dark matter can not be made of ordinary atoms. This pretty much eliminates MACHOS as a possibility.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K