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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quds Akbar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wimps
AI Thread Summary
WIMPs are generally favored over MACHOs as dark matter candidates due to the latter's insufficient abundance and visibility. Evidence for dark matter is strongly supported by Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) data, which predates the formation of compact objects. While MACHOs could theoretically explain dark matter, their viability is undermined by constraints from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which indicates that dark matter cannot consist of ordinary baryonic matter. Additionally, the possibility of primordial black holes as dark matter candidates has been largely dismissed due to mass range limitations. Overall, the consensus leans towards WIMPs being the more promising dark matter candidate.
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.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top