Missing dark matter located: Intergalactic space is filled with dark matter

Feb 13, 2012
The two images illustrate the effect of gravitational lensing. A massive galaxy at the center of the right panel causes the images of the background galaxies (white spots) to be enlarged and brightened.(Image credit: Joerg Colberg, Ryan Scranton, Robert Lupton, SDSS

Researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) and Nagoya University used large-scale computer simulations and recent observational data of gravitational lensing to reveal how dark matter is distributed around galaxies.

The new research concludes that galaxies have no definite “edges.” Instead galaxies have long outskirts of dark matter that extend to nearby galaxies and the intergalactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.

The surface mass density as a function of distance (in units of a hundred thousand light-years). The blue points are observational data, whereas the solid line is the result of a computer simulation. The contributions from the central galaxy (red line) and from nearby galaxies (dashed line) are also shown.

The research article has been published in the February 10th issue of The Astrophysical Journal. (preprint)

It is well known that there is a large amount of unseen matter called “dark matter” in the universe. It constitutes about 22 percent of the present-day universe while ordinary matter constitutes only 4.5 percent. An important question still remains: Where is most of the dark matter in the universe?

A computer simulation shows dark matter is distributed in a clumpy but organized manner. In the figure, high density regions appear bright whereas dark regions are nearly, but not completely, empty.

Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicts that a light ray passing near a massive object such as a galaxy is bent by the effect called “gravitational lensing”. For example, the effect causes the image of a distant galaxy to be deformed and brightened by an intervening galaxy. However the effect itself is very small and so cannot be easily detected for a single galaxy. Only recently, images of millions of galaxies from Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) made it possible to derive an averaged mass distribution around the galaxies. Earlier in 2010, an international research group led by Brice Menard then at University Toronto and Masataka Fukugita at IPMU used twenty four million galaxy images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and successfully detected gravitational lensing effect caused by dark matter around the galaxies. From the result, they determined the projected matter density distribution over a distance of a hundred million light-years from the center of the galaxies.

Masataka Fukugita and Naoki Yoshida at IPMU, together with Shogo Masaki at Nagoya University, used very large computer simulations of cosmic structure formation to unfold various contributions to the projected matter distribution. They showed that galaxies have extended outskirts of dark matter, well beyond the region where stars exist. The dark matter distribution is well organized but extended to intergalactic space, whereas luminous components such as stars are bounded within a finite region. More interestingly, the estimated total amount of dark matter in the outskirts of the galaxies explains the gap between the global cosmic mass density and that derived from galaxy number counting weighted by their masses. A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is now solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with .

Explore further: Planet-forming lifeline discovered in a binary star system

Provided by Nagoya University

4.7 /5 (43 votes)

Related Stories

Mapping dark matter from galactic ripples

Jan 09, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sukanya Chakrabarti, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physics for the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science at Florida Atlantic University, has developed a way to discover and map dark matter in galaxies. ...

Dark matter mystery deepens

Oct 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter ...

Astronomers find a dark matter galaxy far, far away

Jan 18, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- A faint “satellite galaxy” 10 billion light years from Earth is the lowest-mass object ever detected at such a distance, says University of California, Davis, physics professor Chris ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Recommended for you

When did galaxies settle down?

3 hours ago

Astronomers have long sought to understand exactly how the universe evolved from its earliest history to the cosmos we see around us in the present day. In particular, the way that galaxies form and develop ...

Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

4 hours ago

This neat little galaxy is known as NGC 4526. Its dark lanes of dust and bright diffuse glow make the galaxy appear to hang like a halo in the emptiness of space in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space ...

Planet-forming lifeline discovered in a binary star system

23 hours ago

Scientists using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have detected a streamer of dust and gas flowing from a massive outer disk toward the inner reaches of a binary star system. This never-before-seen ...

Astronomy & Astrophysics: Planck 2013 results

Oct 29, 2014

Astronomy & Astrophysics is publishing a special feature of 31 articles describing the data gathered by Planck over 15 months of observations and released by ESA and the Planck Collaboration in March 2013. ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2012
So, silly question time

In the upper atmosphere, we have gravitational waves that arise when two mediums ( 2 different densities of ionospheric plasmas, which are sheet currents ? ) are moving at different velocities relative to each other, and energy is propagating between the inter-facial boundary between the current sheets ?

Hence the supposed scientific explanations for the " strange noises " in the sky ( acoustic gravity waves )

http://geochangem...Itemid=9

Is this BS ? Or does this supposed interstellar " fluff cloud "

http://science.na...voyager/

carry enough potential energy, ~ 5 microguass, to cause these sounds ?

I guess what I'm really asking is, how do magnetogravity waves propagate through space ? How does this relate if at all, to DM ?

Thanks
Skepticus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 13, 2012
Now the question is how this pervasive intergalactic dark matter can be employed for intergalactic FTL travel? :-)
MrGrynch
3.3 / 5 (34) Feb 13, 2012
"It is well known that there is a large amount of unseen matter called dark matter in the universe. "

Ridiculous! It is widely speculated. Nothing is known about dark matter except for gaping holes in existing dogma which can only be explained by such inventions.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2012
..The new research concludes that galaxies have no definite edges...
Such a simulations are made routinely. We have full web of cosmic webs simulations, some of them are ten years old... http://visservice...0001.jpg
javjav
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2012
Now the question is how this pervasive intergalactic dark matter can be employed for intergalactic FTL travel? :-)


What?

Even if dark matter exists, and even if you find a way to interact with it (which is a big "if"), it could not be better than using standard matter, you can not accelerate any kind of matter FTL because it would require infinite energy.

Maybe you are confusing dark matter with dark energy, which could be more useful for your purposes, if it exists and if you discover a way to control it in order to "expand" the space behind you (what is called a "warp drive" in science fiction).
dtyarbrough
1.1 / 5 (18) Feb 13, 2012
"There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

If you read my theory, this will not come as a surprise. I've been saying this for years. The earth's atmosphere is a perfect example. At altitudes where gravity is reduced to 1/4 surface gravity, molecular density is 1/billionth of surface density. But unseen particles(electrons, protons, photons etc.) make up the remaining density. This dark matter is not just between the galaxies, it's everywhere. It accounts for 95.5% of the universe. There is no dark energy. Read http://www.scribd...universe

typicalguy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2012
"There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

If you read my theory, this will not come as a surprise. I've been saying this for years. The earth's atmosphere is a perfect example. At altitudes where gravity is reduced to 1/4 surface gravity, molecular density is 1/billionth of surface density. But unseen particles(electrons, protons, photons etc.) make up the remaining density. This dark matter is not just between the galaxies, it's everywhere. It accounts for 95.5% of the universe. There is no dark energy. Read http://www.scribd...universe


Are you kidding me? It wanted me to download a PDF. Thanks for the virus offer but no thanks.

So what exactly IS dark matter?
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2012
If Dark Matter is this common, then shouldn't stellar mass black holes grow at an obscene rate? since the WIMPs (or whatever DM is,) would fall into the black hole 4 or 5 times more often than ordinary matter, but should still be trapped by the event horizon?

Whereas DM orbiting a star, whether in a circular orbit or in a pogo orbit through it's CoG, would behave as a halo.

But DM that hits a black hole would be trapped, and indistinguishable from a black hole composed of 100% ordinary matter.

Additionally, in galaxy mergers, a HUGE amount of DM should fall into the SMBH of one another and into any "stellar" black holes in one another, which should be detectable over a period of several years or decades, since you should be able to observe some sort of gravitational anomaly or wave associated with this behavior.

If DM is everywhere, then merging galaxies should go critical mass and become quasars, or even galaxy mass black holes before the first pass is even complete.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2012
cont...

Reasoning is that when any black hole in either galaxy enters the other galaxy's alleged DM halo, it should "eat up" all DM along it's ballistic path (plus any sucked in by gravity over time,) and this should already be happening eons before either Galaxy's ordinary matter contacts one another.

Additionally, there should be DM "galaxies" in optimal positions between hyperbolic orbits of ordinary galaxies.

A pure dark matter galaxy would not enteract with itself, so it's DM particles, if they exist, would be in a continual pogo orbit with one another, which would effectively produce a 3-dimensional sine wave (of Dark Matter matter) in space moving through time.

If this was aimed just right, it might travel very far before it encountered another ordinary matter galaxy, and because pogo orbits on a cluster with a very high mass could be EXTREMELY long in both directions, detecting the actual clump could be very, very hard.

See below...
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2012
Now here's a thought.

If DM is undetectable, then couldn't it simply be photons?

If the universe is ridiculously and ridiculously big, then you can imagine a never-ending stream of photons headed in every direction from every direction for 15 billion years, then there should be a huge amoung of photons passing through every single point in space from every other point.

But the problem with this, is photons interact.

But photons passing on paths between galaxies um...aren't being "observed" by anyone or anything, and so they have a large, large amount of "mass" hidden in the form of energy stored in them.

Photons that pass into intergalactic space and never collide with anything would represent "mass" in intergalactic space.

Over many eons, for the entire universe, a very, very large amount of photons, from nearly every object in the universe, would be accumulated in any given point in "empty" space.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2012
Preguntas?

What HAPPENED to all of the allegedly "First Generation" Stars?

Why the hell aren't there a couple hundred billion neutron stars and black holes left over from the allegedly "First Generation Stars" in the Milky Way galaxy?

Burnt out "first generation" supernova remnants should be everywhere if the standard model of solar system formation and standard model of the universe are true, seeing as how we've discovered rocky/metallic exoplanets everywhere now.

For the standard models to be true, there needs to basically be a neutron star or black hole in the milky way for every one star which has a terrestrial planet...

Where are they?

A much more sensible theory is that all of the existing stars, or nearly all of them, are first generation, and that heavy elemental matter in planets was created through a different process.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2012
If you took all of the alleged matter in the Milky Way and started assuming it was hydrogen, then by the time you got through the p-p chain so that it was all something heavier than hydrogen, there would be an amount of photons released having an amount of energy who's mass equivalent is 7 BILLION solar masses.

So for every 90 galaxies, they would produce an amount of photons just from the p-p chain which would have energy equivalent to an entire galaxy's mass...

If you add up this for all galaxies in the universe, the amount of photons in intergalactic space has energy with mass equivalent of several billion galaxies, even if you only count the p-p chain...
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 13, 2012
NOW.

If the universe is several times larger in radius as it's alleged age is (assuming inflationary theory before the speed of light became what it is,) then there could be far more photons in intergalactic space than what I just postulated, because there would be that much more starting volume and matter, even though much of it would be outside our current light horizon at present day.

light horizon might not even be what we think it would be anyway, it could just be some sort of quantum decoherence or some other crap that happens when measuring that far away, instead of anything related to the hubble constant or relativity.

Now what you have to realize is this adds up to an OBSCENE amount of energy from one side of the universe to the other, since for every 90 galaxies there is 1 galaxy worth of mass "hidden" as photons between galaxies.

When these photons hit galaxies, they transfer MOMENTUM to those galaxies, which is DARK ENERGY...i.e. linearly grows with distance
Graeme
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2012
Lurker2358: A stellar mass black hole does not have a very big cross section, actually much smaller than a normal star so it will not be sweeping up much matter.

If we can truly work out the gravitational potential energy for various points, this may also demonstrate the mass of the surrounding material. This should be measurable with red shift, and it would be confirmed if there were apparent blue shifted objects at low gravitational potentials, say in galactic voids.

My earlier proposal was that fast moving intermediate mass black holes could be forming a halo around galaxies is still feasible with this finding. The other part of this was gravitational radiation, which could be around 50% of the "mass" in the universe. Since this travels at the speed of light it should be much more dispersed. On a time scale of 100000000 (10E8) years it would fill up voids and not appearing as a halo.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
My God...

Ok, no it doesn't damn.

It explains a maximum of about half of 1% of the acceleration between and among galaxies, assuming a universal diameter of 30gly.....wtf...how can that be?

But then, maybe I'm on the right track anyway?

Radiation pressure caused by ordinary matter would produce a linearly scaled "force", exactly like Dark Energy.

But what I just figured up is much too small.

Could Dark Energy be a massless particle emitted like photons, but interacting in some way? Not neutrinos, because neutrinos MOSTLY only interact if they fall into a black hole.

maybe ther's like "virtual photon-anti-photon" pairs being produced eveywhere in the universe simultaneously...if these point sources were distributed evenly, they would scale linearly, and produce Dark Energy....but these virtual particles would need to be somehow interacting, but not produce heat, but transfer momentum to galaxies and not be detectable by our instruments...
epsi00
1 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2012
Dark matter? Can't see it, can't smell it but it's there. How about something simpler?

http://msp.warwic...-gal.pdf
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
...

Which is not to say that it isn't theoretically observable, but the amount of energy any one particle would represent is so incredibly SMALL that we don't notice the difference compared to ordinary radiation.

After all, Dark Energy is interacting over obscenely long time scales, so the instantaneous power observed, say in "watts," might not be much at all.

Now if I did some math right, the amount of energy needed ideally to accelerate 1kg of matter from 0.98c to 0.99c is 9.55E16Joules per kg...

(picking a distance close to the edge of the universe over which to further accelerate a galaxy in said time frame..."

Which means that Dark Energy is only representing 6.866E-10 Joules per meter of space between objects, linearly...over 150 million years, gives just 1.45E-25 Watts per linear meter per kg...

Which is about 8 or 9 orders of magnitude smaller than anything we could detect for any given instant...
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2012
But if you multiply 1.45E-25 Watt/m*kg, by the mass of a galaxy, to cancel out kg in the bottom, you get:

2.88E17 Watts per linear meter.

Which is higher than the solar constant on the entire earth surface.

This suggests that every cubic meter of space-time produces an amount of Dark Energy nearly twice as powerful as the solar flux on the entire Earth surface...in every possible vector direction...
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2012
Maybe I should just play jacks or something, LOL.

Dark Energy just doesn't make sense.

How can there be that much "new" energy PRODUCED in every cubic meter of space every second, without roasting us or making some sort of time warp or something?
dankkster
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2012
@Lurker2358 - I really like the photon postulate you wrote about earlier in the comments. It sure would be easier to explain dark matter then... possibly even dark energy or whatever we call it these days.

Don't play jacks, keep on thinking. ;) I am sure that someone will come along and negate the possibility of photons actually being dark matter and provide proof, but it is a really bright idea (no pun intended).
Lurker2358
Feb 13, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
StarGazer2011
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2012
Lurker2358: Excellent point about colliding galaxies, the DM interactions should be apparent long before the NM interactions. I think the cross sectional argument against SMBH is possibly ok, but DM should even be falling into regular stars and upsetting the fine balance between gravity and fusion there. No evidence of that either. I think WIMP's are a little bit 'climate science'.

Your calcs about DE are interesting, maybe someone could follow up on that?
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (8) Feb 13, 2012
Lurker2358:your idea about photons is also interesting, i suspect the counter argument will be the absence of a 'bright sky' at night, although the sky is bright at microwave frequencies isnt it?
Its worth remembering that DM was only invoked as a patch to explain the rotational rates of galaxies, thats the only evidence of 'missing mass', that the outer regions of galaxies are rotating at the same frequency as the inner regions, implying a higher velocity which cant be explained by gravitation as we know it.
brodix
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2012
The problem I see is that it doesn't make sense in terms of explaining the effect for which dark matter is postulated to explain; Why the outer bands of galaxies spin as fast as the inner bands. If intergalactic space is filled with gravitationally attractive matter, wouldn't this serve as a drag on the outer bands of galaxies? The only way it makes sense is if what is there is expanding like gas, or radiation and creating external pressure on those galaxies. Where would that radiation be coming from? Considering the galaxies themselves are radiating out enormous amounts, maybe there is a cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing gas/mass. Then when we observe distant galaxies, this light only travels across intergalactic space, which causes the waves to expand, creating the impression the universe is expanding, when it is only the space between galaxies that is expanding.
Graeme
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2012
Lurker2358: I get only 139.47 mass fraction lost for hydrogen burning to helium. And some of that will be in the form of neutrinos as well as photons. This is not enough to make a big dent in missing mass. However neutrinos are a possible constituent for the galactic halo. They must have other sources too besides P P. I also do not think that what is happening beyond the event horizon of creation will have a physical effect on what we see. After all for us that is before time began.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2012
I'm going to sleep.

Thanks for replys, and don't take my calculations too literally, because I forgot to account for VOLUME vs linear, so it's probably not right.

I thought I was on to something a minute ago, but I'm getting a bit too tire to think clearly.

I was trying to think about an infinite gravity sphere and shell theorem and some freaky paradoxes it produces. Such as a person on the inside experiences no gravity, but a person on the outside would see it as a black hole...

anyway...that's physics...
Shabs42
5 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2012
Lurker: You make several salient points, but saying that "God did it" is simpler, and therefore more likely to be correct is very weak. That sort of reasoning is what has been backing believers into a smaller and smaller corner throughout human history. It was simpler to say that God caused thunder, droughts, floods, and earthquakes before we figured out the true causes of each, which all include much more than one factor.

It took us thousands of years to figure out the causes for those and we've only been tinkering with space seriously for the last couple of centuries. I don't think anyone would claim that current DM or DE theory is perfect and explains everything, but it is our current best fit for the evidence. The theory will be refined and close in on the correct laws or it will be overturned by better scientific views.

And for the standard final line: Saying "God did it" has always raised more questions than it solved.
brant
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
I smell another Nobel prize that they should take away...
MaxwellsDemon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2012
It seems to me that this sort of finding argues against dark matter being some kind of real material particle, because if it were material, then wouldn't it accumulate with a distribution more closely resembling that of all the other matter comprising the galaxies? Instead, this non-localized pattern seems to argue for revisions to our model of gravity, or the vacuum, or both.

Are there any dark matter professional astronomer advocates around here who can explain why this data supports the dark matter hypothesis over alternative models?
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
Now the question is how this pervasive intergalactic dark matter can be employed for intergalactic FTL travel? :-)


What?

Even if dark matter exists, and even if you find a way to interact with it (which is a big "if"), it could not be better than using standard matter, you can not accelerate any kind of matter FTL because it would require infinite energy.

Maybe you are confusing dark matter with dark energy, which could be more useful for your purposes, if it exists and if you discover a way to control it in order to "expand" the space behind you (what is called a "warp drive" in science fiction).


Oops, my mistake. You are right
eric96
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
Wake up scientists.
I wouldn't say this article proves 100%, by 1 study, that space is filled is any more intelligent then saying space is empty because when we travelled through it, we felt no friction. Oh what they didn't say that, did they not write in the science books that space was empty. They did, they should have said we neither know space is empty or filled, but we know there is no detectable friction. The stupidity within astrology / physics is mind boggling. That was a massively embarrasing mistake; I hold you all to account. The part you had right, is you strongly suspected space was filled hence the emergence of dark matter, but could not prove until now. The amount of ressources invested just to find out space is filled could have done so much more. If I ponder the matter myself, there was never a reason to suspect there was any void at all, beyond those narrow-minded individuals and their friction ideology.
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
The effort and resources spent to support the notion that dark matter exists is amazing.

You can always create a simulation to support your pet theory.

Not one particle of dark matter has ever been observed. That is the fact of the matter.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Feb 14, 2012
"I guess what I'm really asking is, how do magnetogravity waves propagate through space ?" - Issacs

Your first link is speculative and the video bordering on quackery.

Your second link refers to a magnetic phenomenon not one that is due to gravitationally induced pressure differences.

Neither link has anything what so ever to do with dark matter.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Feb 14, 2012
Well.. No you can't actually. But you can always jabber nonsense about it.

"You can always create a simulation to support your pet theory." - DogberTard

If there is gravitational lensing then this immediately implies that either general relativity is wrong or there exists in he void, energy-momentum sufficient to cause the bending of light.

If there is energy-momentum and you can't see it, then it is dark, and since it differs from vacuum energy and the cosmological constant, and since it appears to cluster more than pure energy, which must have a velocity = c, then you might as well refer to it as matter.

I fail to see your problem. Other than the obvious psychological one of course.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (44) Feb 14, 2012
Not to mention the stupidity of confusing astrology with cosmology.

"The stupidity within astrology / physics is mind boggling." - Eric96

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Feb 14, 2012
"because if it were material, then wouldn't it accumulate with a distribution more closely resembling that of all the other matter comprising the galaxies?" - Maxwells

Normal matter clumps into larger and larger pieces. Does dark matter? Normal matter can be scattered if it has a charge.

Can dark matter take on a charge? Probably not since it's scattering should cause the emission of EM radiation if it had a charge.
Kinedryl
2 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2012
The effort and resources spent to support the notion that dark matter exists is amazing. You can always create a simulation to support your pet theory. Not one particle of dark matter has ever been observed. That is the fact of the matter.
The neutrinos were observed. But I suspect, the theorists will prefer the way of new particle invention, because it will provide them more fame and grant support. During time the following particles were proposed: "scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter, axions, inflatons, heavy photons, fat strings, sterile neutrinos, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gravitinos and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs and micro-black holes". And I probably missed many others... Noone of these clever people proposed classical neutrinos.

The physicists are working like the Big Pharma companies, which are ignoring generic solutions, because they're not patentable and they cannot mine money for it.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
The dense aether model explains gravity with shielding of gravitational waves and the cold dark matter with shielding of this shielding with neighbouring massive bodies. The hot dark matter is formed mostly with neutrinos, which are solitons of these gravitational waves. They're attracted to dark matter shadows. What this model predicts?

For example the formation of dark matter fibbers. One object is shielding gravity in small extent, but more objects arranged in line will shield it more. The more galaxies are sitting in one line, the stronger the dark matter fibber, which mutually connect them will be. This provides an algorithm for determination of distribution of dark matter across random field of dense points in the role of galaxies.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
...intergalactic space is not empty but filled with dark matter.


Intergalactic space is not empty, but filled with energized plasma. This we already know to be true. That being the case, and once the ramifications are understood, it becomes unnecessary to invent (or buy into) the computational fudge factor known as "dark matter".
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Feb 14, 2012
"Intergalactic space is not empty, but filled with energized plasma." - Shelgeyr

If so, then the scattering of electrons and positive charge particles withing that diffuse plasma should produce radiation that should be visible.

Why hasn't it been seen?

Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
It seems to me that this sort of finding argues against dark matter being some kind of real material particle, because if it were material, then wouldn't it accumulate with a distribution more closely resembling that of all the other matter comprising the galaxies? Instead, this non-localized pattern seems to argue for revisions to our model of gravity, or the vacuum, or both.

Are there any dark matter professional astronomer advocates around here who can explain why this data supports the dark matter hypothesis over alternative models?


If DM is weakly interacting then it can't clump together, presumably even with itself, except inside an event horizon of an ordinary matter black hole.

Instead, the particles exist only in a cloud which would be in combinations of both elliptical and pogo orbits.

A pogo orbit occurs when weakly interacting particles pass through one another, and then start falling back towards one another...only to pass through again...
xamien
4 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
"It is well known that there is a large amount of unseen matter called dark matter in the universe."

I can't help but reiterate a previous objection to this sentence. It is widely speculated. The use of "known" implies we have experimental evidence that irrefutably proves its existence. At best, we have some anomalous measurements that are good candidates.

Furthermore, the subject of dark matter and energy should have been treated with more care by the scientific community as a whole, given that the pseudoscience crowd is having a field day with it. (in one direction or another...)
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
whenever ordinary matter is on a course which would make a pogo orbit, such as a galactic collision, the ordinary matter can interact through electromagnetism and physical collisions. This causes the ordinary matter to eventually clump together and fall deeper and deeper into the center of gravity of the two initial objects or systems. An example of this is that whenever gas from one galaxy falls into a black hole of the other galaxy, the two galaxies trade angular and linear momentum, gradually bringing them to relative rest over many eons, after 3 or 4 passes, they merge into a single super-massive galaxy, which is probably unstable and collapses to a gigantic black hole.

youtube.com/watch?v=Cd9cBlvfjow&feature=fvwrel

The galaxies interact, so they cancel each other's relative momentum.

if they were not interacting, i.e. solid dark matter, they would just oscillate back and forth, passing through one another indefinitely...unless a freak black hole formed to trap matter...
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
the subject of dark matter and energy should have been treated with more care by the scientific community as a whole, given that the pseudoscience crowd is having a field day with it
The problem of dark matter is not so complex conceptually - but it's a mixed product of longitudinal and transverse waves of vacuum, during which the observational perspectives are switched. The existing models are demonstrating the limits of formal approach here, because they're becoming singular, inconsistent and contradicting mutually. The effort of mainstream physics community becomes contraproductive, because every new model of dark matter/energy just increases the level of conceptual confusion even more.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
if Dm is a cloud of oscillating particles having roughly 4 to 5 times the mass of the ordinary matter in the galaxy, why don't we observe macroscopic fluctuations in the Solar System's orbits and in stellar orbits?

After all, DM was originally proposed to explain the arms of spiral galaxies.

We are in the arms of spiral galaxy, exactly where DM should be it's densest amount.

Now if there are clouds of DM in elliptical and pogo orbits around all the stars, then we should observe some sort of variation in the force of gravity as the shape of the cloud's member particle's orbits evolve differently. This should be observable both on the Earth, and within the SS and between nearby binary star systems. UNLESS the cloud is distributed perfectly evenly, and with equal particles in all phases of equal orbits, so that it never changes.

therefore, it suggests more or less a field, or a hidden variable in the laws of gravity itself, which is more like MOND.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
The reason I would say it should be a field or MOND, is because when you think about it, even if DM started out in perfectly symetrical systems which are perfectly balanced so that changes don't effect Shell Theorem, etc...

Even in that case, since ordinary matter interacts and clumps, the DM would eventually become biased and in assymetrical patterns if it was a particle, if for no reason OTHER than being trapped in black holes.

But matter trapped in known black holes does not count towards the mysterious DM, because black holes behave as a point mass object, which is allegedly supposed to obey relativistic gravity.

That is, increasing the mass of the SMBH or stellar black holes wouldn't explain it, because then the middle stars would need to be orbitting even faster than they already are.

BUT if DM was a particle, it should usually end up inside the core SMBH or stellar BH eventually anyway... if you follow what I'm saying.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
if Dm is a cloud of oscillating particles having roughly 4 to 5 times the mass of the ordinary matter in the galaxy, why don't we observe macroscopic fluctuations in the Solar System's orbits and in stellar orbits?

Why these particles should oscillate? After all, the content of massive particles inside of dark matter is relatively low - my guess is about 25% of warm dark matter. Most of them are antimatter (20%), the 5% are formed with normal matter. The rest is merely a "field", i.e. the cold dark matter.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
In order for the mysterious DM to do what it allegedly does, IF it is a particle:

All of it must be in perfectly distributed orbits which somehow manage to never fall into black holes, except possibly in galactic mergers, and also somehow manages to never "randomly" fall into a space denser than critical mass that would spontaneously produce a DM black hole.

Considering that we are supposedly dealing with 4 or 5 times as much DM in the universe as ordinary matter, that starts to become a ridiculously tall order.

Just as an example, if a 10M star suddenly passed through a 10M cloud of alleged DM particles, it might obtain critical mass/density and suddenly collapse straight into a black hole for no apparent reason, (as seen by the observer).

or if a binary star system passed through a 10M cloud of DM "particles", it would become unstable and collapse and the stars would collide, for no apparent reason as seen by the observer.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
Additionally, suppose you have a star of 1M mass and it passes through a cloud of DM at 1M mass.

No threat of a critical mass BH collapse.

BUT the star should end up in a pogo orbit fo some sort with the DM cloud, which would imply a star which appears to be orbiting "nothing," in a telescope and perhaps being ridiculous violent and variable from time to time as these two objects pass through one another, or orbit one another in an ellipse. and it would not make a black hole, because the DM isn't interacting. And the two would not "stack" with one another, because the DM isn't interacting and can't cause the transfer of relative momentum to slow them down and causes them to become stacked on the CoG.

So this is another intuitive argument against DM "particles," since no such behavior is observed, reportedly anyway.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
Just as an example, if a 10M star suddenly passed through a 10M cloud of alleged DM particles, it might obtain critical mass/density and suddenly collapse straight into a black hole for no apparent reason, (as seen by the observer).
The DM particles are antimatter ones, they would rather evaporated it. After all, my global warming theory is based on the same mechanism, as I assume, the solar system is passing through cloud of anti-neutrinos. But very large clouds of antimatter could really initiate the spontaneous "dark energy star" or quasar formation. Such a theories do exist long time.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
What if Dark Matter Attracts Ordinary Matter and Ordinary Matter Attracts Dark Matter, but Dark Matter Repels other Dark Matter OR is not effected by itself at all?

I think DM not effecting other DM, or repelling itself, might help get around some of the paradoxes of self-attractive DM that I identified above.

I can't visualize that, but seems like it might have potential to somehow explain both DM and DE simultanseously if DM repels other DM.

But then that is problematic, because how would Self-Repelling DM behave if it was trapped in a black hole (i.e. via head on ballistic collision)?

"Information" isn't supposed to be able to escape the black hole, so how would other DM outside the BH "know" to be repelled by DM inside the BH?

Would the repulsive field escape the black hole? Or would the repulsive field fall into the black hole and be trapped as an abstract form of "mass" or "energy"?

Sick paradox yet again...
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2012
The DM particles are antimatter ones, they would rather evaporated it. After all, my global warming theory is based on the same mechanism, as I assume, the solar system is passing through cloud of anti-neutrinos. But very large clouds of antimatter could really initiate the spontaneous "dark energy star" or quasar formation. Such a theories do exist long time.


If DM was antimatter than the ordinary matter would be destroyed in short order.

Stars would be bombarded, planetary and lunar surfaces would be eroded by a constant stream of microscopic annihilation events...and it would be very obvious in the Gamma and X-ray spectrum. You could just look around and see it happening. Particularly if DM is supposedly 4 or 5 times as common as ordinary matter.

Therefore "Anti-matter" and "Dark Matter" probably are not the same thing at all.

After all, we know "Anti-matter": anti-proton,etc is interacting and annihilates. It's been observed. We've even seen "anti-matter" atoms
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2012
Ok, hows' this.

The gravitational constant: 6.67E-11.

Now Suppose DM is attracted to ordinary matter and vice-versa at roughly the same gravitational constant, so that the amount of DM is what it has been estimated to be.

This would appear, with over-simplification and ignoring black hole paradoxes, appears to be the "DM" that makes spiral bands work.

NOW suppose the DM repels itself, but at a much WEAKER rate than it is attacted to ordinary matter. This repulsive effect would be useful for explaining Dark Energy over cosmic distance.

That is, in galaxies ordinary matter and DM hold one another together, since the ordinary matter adds enough attraction to DM to prevent the DM from blowing itself away. The DM adds enough gravity to ordinary matter to explain spiral bands.

over intergalactic distance of million or billion LY, the self- repulsive DM would emulate DE.

You'd need a repulsive gravity constant of a very narrow range to make it work, IF it works at all.
maxcypher
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
I wonder how Lurker's ideas would relate to the anti-matter with anti-gravity theory of DM that has been in the news lately.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
In the absence of ordinary matter, the Self-Repelling DM would attempt to spread itself out throughout the universe in an expanding sphere, much like an explosion, or time-reverse gravity.

However, with ordinary matter clumps having attractive gravity which also attracts teh DM, then clumps of DM could exist in equilibrium inside Galaxies, if the masses and gravitational and anti-gravitational constants are appropriate.

But these DM clumps in the galaxies would still push away from DM clumps in other galaxies, causing galaxies to expand apart from one another.

Since the ordinary matter is attracted to the DM clumps, the ordinary matter is "dragged along" with the DM clumps push one another away...which is potentially Dark Energy...

Would need to do some pretty God aweful hard calculations to see if that's workable.

Obviously, pure conjecture, but WTF, if we are talking about one or two invisible particles or forces anyway, why not make them aspects of the same thing??
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
I attempted to draw a diagram of how these forces could be in equilibrium, and I guess it could conceivably work.

Additionally, I discovered it sould produce DM filaments and sheets in the "empty space between galaxies and perpendicular to the line between each galaxy, or rather at the place where concentric spherical gravity/anti-gravity fields around each galaxy are tangent to one another and in destructive equilibrium.

I also postulate that Dwarf Galaxies or rogue globular clusters might form from ordinary matter ejected from Galaxies in earlier supernova explosions or gravitational ejection events as clumps of ordinary matter might pile up along these sheets and filaments, which should definitely exist if self-repulsive DM exists.

My luck, something like this will end up being true, and win a Nobel, lol.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2012
Again, the idea here is:

1, Since DM and ordinary matter attract one another, the ordinary matter clumps hold together the Dark Matter halos. The Dark Matter halos add enough normal gravity to explain spiral bands.

2, Since DM repels itself, and there is more DM per galaxy than OM, then the DM in one galaxy should repel the DM in other galaxies as well as the DM in filaments and sheets between galaxies.

3, Since OM is attracted to DM and vice versa, the Ordinary matter is dragged along with the DM as the DM halos, sheets and filaments repel one another. We observe this as "Dark Energy" moving galaxies apart over very long distances.

I hope that I am clear here.

Would need a supercomputer to test this idea, and test all reasonable ranges for the "self-repelling anti-gravitational constant" for the Dark Matter, given the assumed amounts of DM needed for spiral banding in galaxies...
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2012
But if you multiply 1.45E-25 Watt/m*kg, by the mass of a galaxy, to cancel out kg in the bottom, you get:
Well look whos back...QC the manic insaniac flooder who just cant stop TYPING when his meds run out. I wonder if you dont get bounced from forum to forum, which would explain your periodic absence, or maybe you lose your computer privileges at the asylum? 'Doesnt play well with others? Cant learn to share?'
1, Since DM and ordinary matter attract one another, the ordinary matter clumps hold together the Dark Matter halos. The Dark Matter halos add enough normal gravity to explain spiral bands.
Do you REALLY need 50 posts a day to demonstrate you dont know what youre talking about?
I also postulate that...My luck, something like this will end up being true, and win a Nobel, lol.
You really are fucking insane you know that? lol
Sick paradox yet again...
Yah you said it.
Lurker2358
Feb 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Lurker2358
Feb 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Baseline
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
Lurker, at least your thoughts are attempts at crtical thinking. However I do find it odd that you would suggest applying a need for rigid proof to theories on cosmology while dismissing such a requirement for theology.
Bear in mind that atheism makes no claims so therefore requires no proof. As an atheist I do not have a need to describe the origins of life or the universe. The only claim an atheist makes is there is no God. Believers on the other hand make a claim that God exists, so prove the claim. Good luck on that proof because so far that proof has been laughable at best.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2012
Hey idiot.

Electrons repel one another, but are attracted to protons.

Protons repel one another, but are attracted to electrons, and to neutrons via the nuclear force.

How is that any different?

How is what I'm proposing just automatically invalid just because you weren't smart enough to think of it first?

Jackass.
QC. Everybody here knows your track record. Everybody here knows how you post manically for a few weeks and then get banned for flooding, religious nonsense, stupid pseudoscience, general megalomania and nobel prize coveting.

You are insane and everybody here knows it. As long as you stay you will be reminded of this. What else would you expect?
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2012
just an observation -- did you notice that dark matter patterns resemble brain tissue ??
malapropism
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
The effort and resources spent to support the notion that dark matter exists is amazing.

You can always create a simulation to support your pet theory.

Not one particle of dark matter has ever been observed. That is the fact of the matter.

Well, the thing is, that if the research quoted near the end of this article,
Earlier in 2010, an international research group led by Brice Menard then at University Toronto and Masataka Fukugita at IPMU used twenty four million galaxy images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and successfully detected gravitational lensing effect caused by dark matter around the galaxies
is correct, then _something_ exists to create the lensing effect. Until it's determined what that something is, then "dark matter" is as good a moniker as any, surely?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2012
If DM was antimatter than the ordinary matter would be destroyed in short order.
Neutrinos interact so weakly, they can only accelerate the radioactive decay of observable matter a bit. They're very tiny and weak and interact slightly. Most of antimatter exists in very diluted state only.
Until it's determined what that something is, then "dark matter" is as good a moniker as any, surely
Of course, dark matter is real artifact - no matter if we believe in its particle nature or not.
StarGazer2011
2 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2012
Excuse me, yyz | Gawad | Tseihta | PosterusNeticus | orac | , could one of you explain what your problem is with my comment:

'Its worth remembering that DM was only invoked as a patch to explain the rotational rates of galaxies, thats the only evidence of 'missing mass', that the outer regions of galaxies are rotating at the same frequency as the inner regions, implying a higher velocity which cant be explained by gravitation as we know it.'

Its historical fact, the observation which led scientists to postulate DM was disagreement between theoretical and observed rotation of galaxies. Anyone care to back me up?
StarGazer2011
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2012
@ElNose: I agree with your point that it resembles brain tissue, so do a lot of large scale phenomena (the hot gas filaments between superclusters). Also this isnt a picture of DM, its a picture of lensing events.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2012
Excuse me, yyz | Gawad | ...could one of you explain what your problem is with my comment:

'Its worth remembering that DM was only invoked as a patch to explain the rotational rates of galaxies, thats the only evidence of 'missing mass', ...'

Its historical fact, the observation which led scientists to postulate DM was disagreement between theoretical and observed rotation of galaxies.

Sure thing.

No problem with your bringing up the historical fact that DM was initially postulated to explain galactic rotation.

It's this that was the eye popper: "thats the only evidence of 'missing mass'."

That's patently wrong, and there are a large number of cases of gravitational lensing that don't work with just normal matter--the Bullet Cluster being the most well known--that speak to this. That's in addition to problems with galactic orbits with just normal matter, the CMB and 3rd peak anisotropies, as well as a number of more technical observational evidence. So ya, big big problem.
Au-Pu
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2012
Computer simulations can produce any outcome its programmers want.

This proves nothing other than the creativeness of the programmers.
Kinedryl
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 16, 2012
But it can still keep employment in astrophysics, when money for instrumentation are going down. ;-)
mpc755
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2012
What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

This is what Voyager found evidence of.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.g...ger.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 18, 2012
just an observation -- did you notice that dark matter patterns resemble brain tissue ??

No. It just looks like clusters and filaments. Doctrine of signatures is not applicable here.
Callippo
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2012
It just looks like clusters and filaments. Doctrine of signatures is not applicable here
IMO this similarity is not quite accidental and some connections may still exist here. For example, the dark matter is composed of CMBR noise, which is the most high dimensional object observable inside of our Universe, whereas the brain matter is of similar nature (Boltzmann brain model of human intelligence). In certain sense we can say, the CMBR noise poses the highest intelligence observable in the Universe and we survived the quantum fluctuations during our evolution, so our brains are adopted to its geometry and structure. For example, the wavelength of CMBR noise corresponds the wavelength of brain waves. IMO this coincidence is given with geometry of mutual observations of random Universe with fluctuations of itself via transverse waves.
sandler
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2012
Does it look like cocoon? http://0.tqn.com/w/experts/Entomology-Study-Bugs-665/2009/07/cocoons-everywhere.jpg

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.