Mystery of dark matter may be near to being deciphered

Sep 04, 2012
Mystery of dark matter may be near to being deciphered
The ESA satellite Planck was launched on the 14th of May 2009. The satellite does not just remain still in space, but changes direction every hour as well as rotates once a minute on its own axis. These movements mean that it scans the entire surrounding Universe in the course of six months.

(Phys.org)—The universe is comprised of a large amount of invisible matter, dark matter. It fills the space between the galaxies and between the stars in the galaxies. Since the prediction of the existence of dark matter more than 70 years ago, all sorts of researchers – astronomers, cosmologists and particle physicists have been looking for answers to what it could be. With the latest observations from the Planck satellite, researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute, among others, may be closer than ever to a solution to the origin of the mysterious dark matter.

The Planck satellite, which was launched in 2009, has extremely sensitive instruments that can map in the entire sky with great precision. The latest data from the reveals unusual radiation from our own galaxy, which open a new direction in understanding the most of the space, time and matter in the Universe.

Radiation from dark matter

"We have observed a very unique emission of radio radiation from the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way. By using different methods to separate the signal for very broad range of   wavelengths, we have been able to determine the spectrum of the radiation. The radiation originates from synchrotron emission, i.e. electrons and circulating at high energies around the lines of the Magnetic Field in the centre of the galaxy, and there are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter," explains Pavel Naselsky, professor of cosmology at the Discovery Center at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

The image shows emission from the centre of the Milky Way, detected by PLANCK satellite. The black zone mask is emission from the galactic disk, the blue-red-white zone in the centre of the map is the new abnormal radiation.

Pavel Naselsky explains that leading scientists like Niels Bohr professor Subir Sarkar have predicted, using calculations, that dark matter may consist of very heavy particles that are around 10 times as heavy as the , that is to say, 1,000 times heavier than a proton. But they have very and do not interact with 'normal' matter particles. Dark matter particles are also usually very scattered and do not interact with each other.

"But we know from theoretical predictions that the concentration of dark matter particles around the centre of galaxies is very high and we have a strong argument they can collide there and in the collision electrons and positrons are formed. These electrons and positrons start to rotate around the magnetic field at the centre of the galaxy and in doing so produce this very unusual synchrotron radiation.

It has simply not been possible to observe this radiation in such detail before, as previous instruments have not been sensitive enough. But with Planck, this unusual radiation is seen very clearly.

"The radiation cannot be explained by the structural mechanisms in the galaxy and it cannot be radiation from supernova explosions. We believe that this could be proof of dark matter. Otherwise, we have discovered absolutely new (and unknown for physics) mechanism of acceleration of particles in the Galactic centre", says Pavel Naselsky, and he expects exciting new results already within the next few months.

The results have been published in ArXiv:1208.5483 and submitted to the scientific journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Explore further: Two families of comets found around nearby star Beta Pictoris

More information: Article in ArXiv: arxiv.org/abs/1208.5483

Related Stories

Dark matter is held together by 'attractors'

Aug 10, 2010

The universe consists of a large amount of invisible matter - dark matter. We do not know what it is, but we know that it is there and that without dark matter there would be no galaxies, and hence stars, ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

Dec 06, 2011

Dark matter, the mysterious stuff thought to make up about 80 percent of matter in the universe, has become even more inscrutable.

Physicists on the prowl for dark matter

Jul 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- 95%. That is the percentage of the known Universe that is missing. As in it is not there. Or at least if it is there, we can't see it. We call this unseen stuff "dark matter". That has been ...

Has PAMELA Already Seen Dark Matter?

Aug 25, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Back in 2006, PAMELA (a Payload for Antimatter Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics) was launched with the purpose of detecting cosmic radiation and looking for clues pointing ...

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

New window on the early Universe

Oct 22, 2014

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

Chandra's archives come to life

Oct 22, 2014

Every year, NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory looks at hundreds of objects throughout space to help expand our understanding of the Universe. Ultimately, these data are stored in the Chandra Data Archive, ...

New robotic telescope revolutionizes the study of stars

Oct 22, 2014

In the last 8 months a fully robotic telescope in Tenerife has been carrying out high-precision observations of the motion of stellar surfaces. The telescope is the first in the SONG telescope network and ...

User comments : 77

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

flashgordon
1.7 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2012
I don't suppose the LHC will be able to ramp up a thousand times anytime soon. Even the super Lhc might not be able to produce them and study them. But, mathematics and some space telescopes were able to find a shortcut!
NOM
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2012
"But we know from theoretical predictions that the concentration of dark matter particles around the centre of galaxies is very high"

So most of what is being pulled into the super massive black hole will be dark matter. What radiation would this give off?
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (21) Sep 04, 2012
IMO dark matter is very composite effect, where both electrons, positrons or atom nuclei, neutrinos, axions and space-time fluctuations of the different degree of condensation play the same role. The presence of WIMPs, i.e. heavy massive particles was doubted with many experiments already, unfortunately the dark matter search business attracted too much money and job places already, so we are facing way much inertia here. We should realize, that this finding proves nothing else than the electrons and positrons. Why the dark matter couldn't be formed just with these particles directly?
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2012
"We should realize, that this finding proves nothing else than the electrons and positrons. Why the dark matter couldn't be formed just with these particles directly?"

If I had to guess the answer to this, it would be that if it were formed in that fashion then it would have been detectable long before the Planck started searching.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2012
it would have been detectable long before the Planck started searching
You're right and the 511 keV signal was actually observed a long time ago - from this perspective the Planck observation is nothing new for me. Such an article could be written easily a forty years before, when Johnson and Haymes observed the positron signal at the center of Milky Way galaxy first in 1970. The same story is just recycled again and again ad nauseum...
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2012
The problem is, the civilians (i.e. the layman society) have no idea, how repetitive this research actually is, so they're willing to pay another and another grants for it under hope, the scientists are just close to its solution. Every ignorance comes with its own price, the ignorance of scientific research is no exception. If you will not care about results and convergence of this research, then you may be fooled with promises of nearby results in similar way, like the benefactors with alchemists of medieval era.
dogbert
2 / 5 (27) Sep 04, 2012
Everything we see and everything we fail to see becomes evidence of dark matter because we have invested belief in dark matter. Even normal matter (electrons and positrons) are morphed into evidence of dark matter.

Yet we cannot find a single particle of dark matter and dark matter is curiously absent from high energy collisions.

It is difficult to map fantasy on top of reality, but we manage.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2012
IMO the positron signal near central black hole is actually the confirmation of quite different theory, which is denied obstinately with mainstream physics instead and which was conjectured with French astronomer LaViolette before many years already (in his thesis in 1970). It's the radiation of central black hole itself. After all, the dark matter is behaving differently: it's usually concentrated along galactic plane at the perimeter of galaxy, not along its axis. We know from rotational curves of stars inside of Milky Way and many other galaxies, that the highest concentration of dark matter is around galaxy, not at its center. IMO the central black hole radiates the stream of fast neutrinos from its poles, which are slowed down with interstellar gas and photons of CMBR radiation under formation of gamma rays and occasionally electron-positron pairs. In this sense the central black hole is behaving like the weak neutrino pulsar.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (19) Sep 04, 2012
In this article we can read about beams of gamma rays coming from center of Milky Way and the positron signal observed may be tangible remnant of it. There is some evidence, that the central black hole shots the beams of gamma rays less or more regularly at different directions on the sky.
julianpenrod
1.2 / 5 (24) Sep 04, 2012
In many, if not most, cases where "science" exuberantly embraced erroneous claims, the invalidity was always touted as eminently apparent. In many cases, "rank and file" failed to notice "science's" failures because important information was withheld, but it was always a case where "science's" mistake was obvious. "Dark matter" is a fraud and, when it is brought down, it will be for something outlandishly obvious. One good candidate would be high energy events, like rotating neutron stars, which would damp down within only years of the magnetic field interacting with something like "dark matter". Or they'll say "dark matter" should funnel down black holes causing much more massive effects than are seen.
Tuxford
1.2 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2012
Val,

LaViolette is not French, but rather from New York. And in his SubQuantum Kinectics, dark matter is a subquantum etheric precondition to the nucleation of matter particles therefrom, with said precondition enhanced near matter, resulting in the observed galactic halos of dark matter. Consequently, it is easy to predict that contrarily, it will eventually be observed that dark matter is largely absent within galaxies, especially near the galactic core.

His 'continuous creation' theory seems far more reasonable given recent observations, than the fantasy of expanding nothingness, infinite densities, and non-detectable dark particles. Science is stuck on math, it seems, rather than on logic. Lazy thinking rules.
Kahzei
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 04, 2012
Science is stuck on math, it seems, rather than on logic. Lazy thinking rules.


But is math not logic itself?
El_Nose
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2012
I was corrected earlie this year so I am spreading the love

The LHC is supposed to be able to produce DM. This is the next particle they are seeking to produce, and probably why they are going to have a 1.5 year shutdown to up the energy levels it can produce.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (25) Sep 04, 2012
Everything we see and everything we fail to see becomes evidence of dark matter because we have invested belief in dark matter. Even normal matter (electrons and positrons) are morphed into evidence of dark matter. Yet we cannot find a single particle of dark matter and dark matter is curiously absent from high energy collisions. It is difficult to map fantasy on top of reality, but we manage.
Substitute the word 'god' for 'dark matter' and you would be right.

Only scientists are qualified to tell us whether things like god or dark matter exist. Currently there is lots of good hard evidence for the latter but absolutely none for the former. But - I suppose you are more than welcome to speculate idly about either, dog.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 04, 2012
El_Nose,
The LHC is supposed to be able to produce DM.


And how was that determination made? How do you predict you can produce something when you do not know the properties of that something?

No dark matter has been observed anywhere, not in the universe at large and not in any collision in any collider anywhere.

malapropism
3.3 / 5 (16) Sep 04, 2012
"Very unique." Grrrr! A pet peeve and PhysOrg writers should know better. One thing to quote it, quite another to ape the error in the article text. Something is either unique or it is not. There are no shades of uniqueness, very or otherwise.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Sep 04, 2012
Great article, look forward to reading more about this galactic radio signal.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2012
Synchrotron radiation from the galactic core is central to LaViolette's Galactic Superwave theory. This prediction dates to his thesis in the early 80's. If a superwave hit's us tomorrow, we will all be reading up on this prediction.

http://starburstf...perwave/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (30) Sep 04, 2012
And how was that determination made? How do you predict you can produce something when you do not know the properties of that something?
Here you go dog:

"Scientists hope that the 2020 upgrade, dubbed "super-LHC", will allow them to see rare particles including something they can identify as dark matter.

"It will allow us to greatly extend the reach to search for new physics as well as make some very precise measurements, for example, to potentially address the nature of dark matter," physicist Phil Allport of the University of Liverpool told The Telegraph."

-I found it on the INTERNET. With GOOGLE.
No dark matter has been observed anywhere, not in the universe at large and not in any collision in any collider anywhere.
And yet scientists are mapping it, determining quantities, and accumulating more evidence all the time per the article. What, you want a wad of it to sit on your kitchen table?
TheOtherGhost ofOtto
2.1 / 5 (30) Sep 04, 2012
Congarats, Otto. And all you had to do is take your other hand and put it on the keyboard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Sep 04, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 04, 2012
The radiation originates from synchrotron emission, i.e. electrons and positrons circulating at high energies around the lines of the Magnetic Field in the centre of the galaxy, and there are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter," explains Pavel Naselsky, professor of cosmology at the Discovery Center at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

This guy seriously needs a lesson in plasma physics, it's no wonder astrophysics is totally at a loss to understand concepts that an undergraduate electrical engineer would know, with "professors" teaching this nonsense!
jeremy_thompson_7737769
3.2 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2012
Finally someone says something, yes this is a physics site and lately I been seeing bluntly put ignorant comments about the articles thank you Otto
bewertow
2.6 / 5 (24) Sep 05, 2012
Science is stuck on math, it seems, rather than on logic. Lazy thinking rules.


Logic is math you retard.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (23) Sep 05, 2012
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
Pkunk_
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
But we know from theoretical predictions that the concentration of dark matter particles around the centre of galaxies is very high and we have a strong argument they can collide there and in the collision electrons and positrons are formed.

Dark holes , anyone ?
Phil DePayne
3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2012
This, along with the recent discoveries by Fermi of gamma ray emission at the galactic centre --> http://phys.org/n...nce.html seems to support theoretical predictions of dark matter. Let's hope that this data can be used to refine experimental searches on Earth.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2012
Nice to have so much confirmation (Planck, WMAP, Fermi). The image is actually a Planck/Fermi composite.

Added to that is a localized ~ 130 GeV source a bit off from the galactic center, precisely where models predict the DM concentration is largest in the barred MW. [ http://astrobites...lky-way/ ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2012
@ flashgordon:

Supersymmetry (which necessitates a lowest energy WIMP DM candidate) can be found at lower energies in LHC though, by looking at quark-gluon interactions.

@ ValeriaT:

They are ruled out by the WMAP results. DM has to be something else than baryons.

@ dogbert:

That is called "testing predictions", which tests your constraints (DM) with.

@ cantdrive85:

And yet you can provide no references but smear working and successful physicists. A pattern search "plasma physics" is pseudoscience at best, a non-evidenced religion of "plasma" tin foil hatters at worst.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2012
Tor,

Plasma physics is pseudo-science? Can you say strawman argument?
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 05, 2012
Tor,

Plasma physics is pseudo-science? Can you say strawman argument?


I think Tor meant plasma cosmology, not plasma physics (as plasma makes up most of the 5% ofdetectable matter in the universe). I think the main downfall for plasma cosmology, is although it doesn't require the insertion of DM into the universal model to make our observations work, there are other observed phenomena that simply don't work in a plasma universe (CMB, lack of high energy protons).
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 05, 2012
rubba, Plasma makes up 99.9999% of the visible Universe, if the properties of that visible matter is correctly accounted for there is no need to add in dark matter. Also, the need for dark energy ceases to exist if a more complete understanding of red-shift values is taken into account, once again incorrect assumptions leads to unnecessary inventions. The filamentary nature of the CMB (and plasma) actually fits quite nicely into plasma cosmology, it is the "standard theory" that struggles to explain this organization of matter. I'm not sure what your reference to the lack of protons, however, I will say that the neutrino count must be much higher than observed if the standard theory is to hold true. Hey, at least you made a claim against the theory (however ill-informed) rather than the blanket, nuh-huh statements I usually receive.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
rubba, Plasma makes up 99.9999% of the visible Universe, if the properties of that visible matter is correctly accounted for there is no need to add in dark matter.


Where is that analysis published?

Also, the need for dark energy ceases to exist if a more complete understanding of red-shift values is taken into account, once again incorrect assumptions leads to unnecessary inventions.


Again, where is this analysis?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2012
NASA readily acknowledges that claim of plasma entailing over 99% of the visible Cosmos, something that has been reported on this website numerous times.

Halton Arp wrote the book "The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" and several papers on QSO's that revealed numerous examples of connected or overlapped cosmic entities that proved that red-shift is being misused by astronomers, information that seems to have been conveniently ignored for some time now.

ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2012
The problem of plasma Universe model is, it lacks the most important parameter: the ratio of charged/uncharged matter and the volume charge density, i.e. the information about the actual content of plasma inside of interstellar gas. Such a gas may be formed with quite neutral particles, which repel with pressure of radiation and with mutual collisions, thus violating this model in quiet. But when some plasma effect is found, then the proponents of Plasma model are screaming: you see - I told you that! In another words, the plasma model is not testable and it leads to qualitative postdictions at the best case.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
NASA readily acknowledges that claim of plasma entailing over 99% of the visible Cosmos, something that has been reported on this website numerous times.


It is well known, there is a useful graphic depiction here:

http://www.univer...tory.png

Halton Arp wrote the book "The Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies" and several papers on QSO's that revealed numerous examples of connected or overlapped cosmic entities that proved that red-shift is being misused by astronomers, information that seems to have been conveniently ignored for some time now.


They were tested and found to be merely chance alignments of unassociated objects. Arp insisted on going against the evidence and that is a sure way to lose your credibility.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2012
Val,
A better understanding of the quasi-neutral space plasma would do you well, check here.
http://www.plasma...utrality
While you're there, spend a little time informing yourself on the other misconceptions you have about plasma and the plasma model.

Fleet,
I would suggest you enlighten yourself with all Mr. Arp's articles and rebuttals to the pseudo-skeptical attacks of his well founded observations.
http://www.halton...articles
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
Fleet

I would suggest you enlighten yourself with all Mr. Arp's articles and rebuttals to the pseudo-skeptical attacks of his well founded observations.


I have been well aware of his work, good and bad, for about 15 years. When observation proves an idea wrong, you have to let it go.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2012
Fleet

I would suggest you enlighten yourself with all Mr. Arp's articles and rebuttals to the pseudo-skeptical attacks of his well founded observations.


I have been well aware of his work, good and bad, for about 15 years. When observation proves an idea wrong, you have to let it go.

Well, then why do they still use red-shift the way they do?
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2012
Sub: Cosmology Under Revision-needs bet of brains trust
Open end approach helps to understand origins-cosmology vedas interlinks- Create Cosmology Chairs for Interaction.Plasma Regulated Electromagnetic phenomena in magnetic field Environment-leads the way from Galactic Plane to higher dimensional comprehension.Dark mode concepts will undergo a change from perception to Cosmic vision index-Cosmological index. see books-
http://vidyardhic...pot.com/
Dan_K
1 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
Dark Matter is nothing more than bleedthrough of gravity from adjacent brane layers.

Dan K
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
Fleet

I would suggest you enlighten yourself with all Mr. Arp's articles and rebuttals to the pseudo-skeptical attacks of his well founded observations.


I have been well aware of his work, good and bad, for about 15 years. When observation proves an idea wrong, you have to let it go.


I hate to play the devils advocate here, but this article is about an effect (gravity) that can only be explained by attributing the effect to a particle that we can only assume exists because of the effect we are attributing to it....

Given that CD85's Plasma model does explain stellar/galactic motion without inserting a hypothetical variable to account for an observed effect, should we let the standard model go?
rug
2 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2012
If it's proven correct yes, but I'm pretty sure this Plasma Model has been proven wrong. Dark matter on the other hand is simply matter we can't see. Well, has to be rather bright for us to see anything from a long distance. Maybe huge amounts of dust, maybe heavy metal dust, planets, or even black holes are really what this stuff is. Simple fact of the matter, no one knows yet.
Dan_K
1 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
If it's proven correct yes, but I'm pretty sure this Plasma Model has been proven wrong. Dark matter on the other hand is simply matter we can't see. Well, has to be rather bright for us to see anything from a long distance. Maybe huge amounts of dust, maybe heavy metal dust, planets, or even black holes are really what this stuff is. Simple fact of the matter, no one knows yet.


I'd take that even further and say that it's an effect that we can't explain. which could possibly be matter that we can't see. There are a whole plethora of other possibilities.eg,
* physics models need adjusting at the super-macro scale,
* bleedthrough of gravity from adjacent reality/brane/universe/dimension.
* Misunderstanding of how the structure of spacetime bends/warps at the galaxy scale,
* Gross error in our ability to measure the actual visible mass in external systems,
* huge excess of Normal matter that is dark in the sense that it is just not illuminated.
etc...

Dan K
rubberman
1.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
I wouldn't say wrong so much as discarded by mainstream science, and I can understand why as I mentioned a couple of discrepancies that I am aware of that don't suit it. My only point in the above post is that Fleet suggests a course of action which is correct, yet observations prove the standard model also wrong....UNLESS we plug the gaping hole our observations have made in it with a hitherto unverified substance. The problem for DM is that it doesn't interact with normal matter in any way other than gravitational influence, all of the things you listed do. Stellar mass black holes would be undetectable until they are forced to interact with other matter, and they would maintain the galactic structure as observed because they occupy the space of their progenitor star, but it is my understanding that the universe is simply not old enough to have enough of them to explain the observed gravitational effect.
rug
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2012
Then instead of creating "Dark Matter" we need to get better tech so we can look further back, maybe universe is older than we think. Maybe there are other elements we are unaware of that would act in this manner. There is really nothing wrong in having a place holder until we find out for sure what should be in its place, but calling it dark matter makes it seem like they don't know what they are talking about.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
The more we learn, the less we know....seems to be almost a law these days.
rug
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
It's not really that less we know, but we can finally see how little we know.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
I would suggest you enlighten yourself with all Mr. Arp's articles and rebuttals to the pseudo-skeptical attacks of his well founded observations.


I have been well aware of his work, good and bad, for about 15 years. When observation proves an idea wrong, you have to let it go.

Well, then why do they still use red-shift the way they do?


Arp suggested that redshift might be quantised based on very limited observations many years ago. Since then new telescopes have vastly increased the number of galaxies measured and showed that the appearance of quantisation was an artefact of the limited data.

He also suggested link between object, especially quasars, based on photometric contour plots but that type of plotting inevitably creates "bridges" where the combined light of two objects exceeds a threshold not met by either on its own. That effect is further exacerbated by "dark plate" processing. There is no evidence at all for any error in the usual interpretation.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2012
I hate to play the devils advocate here, but this article is about an effect (gravity) that can only be explained by attributing the effect to a particle that we can only assume exists because of the effect we are attributing to it..


The effect is measured, for example violation of the virial theorem in clusters. The properties are that whatever causes this appears to be associated with the cluster, not just passing through at relativistic speeds. That implies non-zero rest mass so calling it "matter" fits the observations while making no assumptions about its nature.

Given that CD85's Plasma model does explain stellar/galactic motion without inserting a hypothetical variable to account for an observed effect, should we let the standard model go?


Does that model explain why WMAP finds the universe is flat to within 0.5%, the non-baryonic component identified by the CMB angular power spectrum, Segue 1 and the Bullet Cluster? The DM hypothesis fits them all.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
.. Stellar mass black holes would be undetectable until they are forced to interact with other matter, ..


They are also currently thought to be constrained to a small fraction of the total of DM by microlensing studies.

Other forms of "ordinary" matter are also constrained because, even if it didn't emit, it would be detectable in silouhette as dark nebulae:

http://www.nasa.g..._89.html
TheWalrus
4 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
And I thought YouTube comments were insufferable. How many of you have real training in physics? How many of you have conducted real experiments to back up your claims? How many of you can put your math where your mouth is? You're just a bunch of self-deluded armchair scientists with a crippling need to appear smarter than you are.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
You're just a bunch of self-deluded armchair scientists with a crippling need to appear smarter than you are.
Well, maybe you're right - but such a comment could be interpreted in the very same way. Do you have something on mind relevant to subject? I'm not saying, the comment section here is something special, but maybe you should start with the matter of fact comments yourself.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 08, 2012
And I thought YouTube comments were insufferable. How many of you have real training in physics? How many of you have conducted real experiments to back up your claims? How many of you can put your math where your mouth is? You're just a bunch of self-deluded armchair scientists with a crippling need to appear smarter than you are.
Well somebody needs a colonic now don't they?
sirchick
5 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
And I thought YouTube comments were insufferable. How many of you have real training in physics? How many of you have conducted real experiments to back up your claims? How many of you can put your math where your mouth is? You're just a bunch of self-deluded armchair scientists with a crippling need to appear smarter than you are.


The internet attracts them to all websites sadly. I find it very difficult to believe half the comments are coming from university educated people.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
Curiously enough the research paper itself contradicts the article written about it. The paper only mentions dark matter once at context, which is interesting. From the actual paper ...

"Suggestions include enhanced supernova rates (Biermann et al. 2010), a Galactic wind (Crocker & Aharonian 2011), a jet generated by accretion onto the central black hole (Guo & Mathews 2011; Guo et al. 2011), and co-annihilation of dark matter (DM) particles in the Galactic halo (Finkbeiner 2004b; Hooper et al. 2007; Lin et al. 2010; Dobler et al. 2011). However, while each of these scenarios can reproduce some of the properties of the haze/bubbles well, none can completely match all of the observed characteristics (Dobler 2012)."

So what the paper really says, neither supernova explosions nor collisions of dark matter particles can explain all the properties of this radiation. All the rest of above article is just an invention of PR guy Gertie Skaarup from Niels Bohr Institute.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
The original PR article itself is followed with memorandum:

"The views presented in this article which are not already described in arxiv.org/abs/1208.5483 do not represent the opinion of the Planck Collaboration."
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
BTW The article title "Mystery of dark matter may be near to being deciphered" returns more than 114.000 hits at Google search! This is how the virtual reality is generated. IMO the PR guy responsible for this mystification should be fired and instructed a bit about objectiveness of scientific journalism for future.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2012
The comments attached to this article which attempt to make the case that plasma cosmology has been disproven appear to completely miss the vital point that these new findings support an electromagnetic plasma inference for the dark matter hypothesis. You guys are talking yourselves in circles here, when you refuse to even acknowledge that synchrotron radiation is evidence for electromagnetic interstellar plasmas. If people were to simply carefully map out what the concept of synchrotron radiation means, and what is known about dark matter, it would become clear that dark matter cannot possibly explain the synchrotron, and the synchrotron is evidence for cosmic plasmas which behave as laboratory plasmas do - In other words, they can sustain electric fields, exhibit a finite, albeit tiny, electrical resistance and that their magnetic fields are not "fossils" - but are, instead, dynamic entities - all of which supports the notion that electric currents are flowing over cosmic plasmas.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2012
Re: "I think the main downfall for plasma cosmology, is although it doesn't require the insertion of DM into the universal model to make our observations work, there are other observed phenomena that simply don't work in a plasma universe (CMB, lack of high energy protons)."

Plasma cosmology can explain DM with EMOND. Period. Anybody who reads about PC should be able to recognize this as self-evident. It's important to note that the gravitational constant's error bars have been *increasing* over time, suggesting that the value is possibly not fixed.

Also, anybody who believes that the CMB cannot be explained by PC has some reading to do. There are so many ways to explain the CMB with PC that it's inference cannot possibly validate any cosmology. Gerrit Verschuur, for instance, has identified many dozens of correlations between WMAP hotspots and kinks in the interstellar *filaments* (which mainstreamers incorrectly identify as "clouds"). The WMAP team simply dismisses them.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2012
It's really sad to watch all of the misinformation being spread about plasma cosmology / Electric Universe in theses comments. I strongly advise people to NOT get their information about PC from these threads. These are unreliable sources of information, as it is strikingly obvious that most people talking about PC and EU here have failed to invested any serious time or effort into understanding those worldviews. Their interest is in shooting it down.

The best way to learn PC or EU is through the holoscience.com, thunderbolts.info, or the many supporting IEEE papers by Gerrit Verschuur, Anthony Peratt, Don Scott, etc. For those who have attempted to learn PC/EU, but who have only spent a few hours or days on it, why in the world are you posing as an expert? This is a theory for the universe we're talking about here. You'll have to put more effort into such a thing if you want to build a knowledge structure which will actually be useful for making decisions about press releases.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2012
Re: "How many of you have real training in physics?"

The inherent problem with this line of attack -- and this should be obvious to everybody -- is that mainstream science has become synonymous with the Big Bang cosmology. Those who wish to pursue alternative cosmologies are thus forced to seek that education outside of the university system. Rather than disparaging people for having an opinion on the matter which diverges from conventional wisdom, why not encourage the naysayers to build new systems of investigation which they can use to fully elaborate these competing ideas, outside of the traditional university system? This is, after all, one of the Internet's capabilities. To think that all knowledge must pass through a university or peer review system before it is "legitimized" seems to completely ignore the widespread refusal amongst mainstreamers to investigate any inference which does not validate conventional theory. Is this really what "science" was meant to be?
antonima
1 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2012
Shouldn't dark matter primarily be found on the outer perimeter of galaxies, so that it affects galaxy rotation velocities the way it does?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
.. mainstream science has become synonymous with the Big Bang cosmology.


That has been the case since Robertson and Walker showed that the Friedmann Equations could be derived from the Cosmological Principle alone. Static "steady state" cosmologies suffer from gravitational instability so anyone wanting to offer an alternative needs to be aware of those facts and address them.

Those who wish to pursue alternative cosmologies are thus forced to seek that education outside of the university system.


On the contrary, cranks are generally encouraged to learn the basic principles of physics so they can see why their ideas won't work.

Alternatives such as TeVeS instead of GR are still active areas of development and experimental test:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4880

Here is another example of alternative thinking posted on this site just a few days ago:

http://phys.org/n...ein.html
rubberman
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 22.7% (to within 1.4%) And that matter made up of atoms only makes up 4.6% of the visible universe. - WMAP site.

Three quotes from the article:
" Dark matter particles are also usually very scattered and do not interact with each other"

"The radiation originates from synchrotron emission, i.e. electrons and positrons circulating at high energies around the lines of the Magnetic Field in the centre of the galaxy, and there are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter.."

"..we know from theoretical predictions that the concentration of dark matter particles around the centre of galaxies is very high and we have a strong argument they can collide there and in the collision electrons and positrons are formed."

So we have a substance that doesn't interact with itself, not made of atoms, colliding with itself to form atomic components.
After a re-read, this is BS
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
anybody who believes that the CMB cannot be explained by PC has some reading to do. There are so many ways to explain the CMB with PC that it's inference cannot possibly validate any cosmology. Gerrit Verschuur, for instance, has identified many dozens of correlations between WMAP hotspots and kinks in the interstellar *filaments* (which mainstreamers incorrectly identify as "clouds"). The WMAP team simply dismisses them.


Unless you can explain how many filaments at different distances and hence redshifts should sum to produce the precisely thermal spectrum of the CMBR, everyone with any knowledge of physics will dismiss that idea. You may not accept the GR explanation for redshift, but it's existence is an observational fact so you can't just ignore it.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 10, 2012
So we have a substance that doesn't interact with itself, not made of atoms, colliding with itself to form atomic components.
After a re-read, this is BS


You need to read up on a bit more background. DM particles can self annihilate but at very low rates. For example, just the first hit in Google:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0673
rubberman
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
I would add that the article is based around the detection of a type of radiation near the center of the galaxy, which is also found in plasma physics, emanating from an area of space which contains high concentrations of plasma and intense magnetic fields. They have taken something easily explained with knowledge we already have, and attempted to connect it to dark matter, but have dark matter contradicting it's own hypothetical properties in order to generate what is producing the radiation.
rubberman
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
So we have a substance that doesn't interact with itself, not made of atoms, colliding with itself to form atomic components.
After a re-read, this is BS


You need to read up on a bit more background. DM particles can self annihilate but at very low rates. For example, just the first hit in Google:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0673


Fleet, I must apologize. I read the link you posted and am curious if you have one for the paper in which the models describe the mechanism by which the self annihilation takes place. Not trying to be argumentative but to a non physicist who is interested in science, this particular article appears way off base for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Sep 10, 2012
So we have a substance that doesn't interact with itself, not made of atoms, colliding with itself to form atomic components.


Hmm...Sounds like you are describing the etheric substrate of LaViolette's Subquantum Kinectics, where said substrate in it's critical matter nucleation pre-condition, actually refracts light, resulting in Einstein Rings, for example. Thanks.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2012
.. just the first hit in Google:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0673


Fleet, I must apologize. I read the link you posted and am curious if you have one for the paper in which the models describe the mechanism by which the self annihilation takes place. Not trying to be argumentative but to a non physicist who is interested in science, this particular article appears way off base for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.


No need to apologise, most people here (including myself) are laymen. My knowledge on QM is very out-of-date but most references I have seen to attempts to detect DM are based on self interactions like this. It's difficult when we don't know the nature of the particles but one possibility is that, like photons, they might be their own anti-particle, a majorana particle:

http://en.wikiped..._fermion

If that is the case, they could self-annihiliate. The details depend on the type of particle.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
So we have a substance that doesn't interact with itself, not made of atoms, colliding with itself to form atomic components.


Hmm...Sounds like you are describing the etheric substrate of LaViolette's Subquantum Kinectics, where said substrate in it's critical matter nucleation pre-condition, actually refracts light, resulting in Einstein Rings, for example. Thanks.


Nope, he is asking about serious physics, not pseudoscientific fantasy.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 10, 2012
Fleet, I must apologize. I read the link you posted and am curious if you have one for the paper in which the models describe the mechanism by which the self annihilation takes place.


This one is quite old but as an example it considers self-annihilation of neutralinos. As I say, this is well out of my area of knowledge but offers a list of references that may help:

http://arxiv.org/.../0507127
hagger
2 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
first 5 mins of reading then looked up LaViolette that was 4 hours ago....seems to me this guy got it spot on and now they think it's new..i am a layman..proud of it..but love all the remarks.laugh..nearly bought a round..Paul LaViolette for me is a visionary..maybe more of the blinkered thinkers of today should take him more seriously..considering all his theories have since been proved correct..we live in interesting times..
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
Fleet, thanks again. I found the paper referenced in your link. Very informative, the annihilation referred to in the paper is considerably more plausible than in the article we are commenting on.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Sep 10, 2012
Fleet, thanks again. I found the paper referenced in your link. Very informative, the annihilation referred to in the paper is considerably more plausible than in the article we are commenting on.


We have to remember that these articles are not written by the scientists and simplifying for the target audience often goes too far unless you are already familiar with the background. I always try to find the original papers on arxiv if I can.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
"There are quite strong indications that it could come from dark matter," explains Pavel Naselsky, professor of cosmology at the Discovery Center at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen..
Ironically enough for all supporters of "dark matter annihilation" here, the very same article is interpreted like evidence AGAINST dark matter at physicsworld under name: Dark-matter hope fades in microwave haze (which is consistent with content of original publication, as I explained above). Apparently the observation is one thing, it's interpretation another one. The supporters of "correct science" here should realize it finally.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2012
Agreed Val. Given what I have read on DM, supporters of it's existence shouldn't view the Physorg article as a genuine interpretaion of the original piece.