Dark matter: Physicists may have found piece of the puzzle

Apr 01, 2009
This August 2008 image taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory show a clear separation between dark and ordinary matter during a clash 5.7 billion light years from Earth. European astronomers said on Wednesday that an anomalous energy signal detected by an orbiting satellite could be a telltale of the enigmatic substance known as dark matter.

European astronomers said on Wednesday that an anomalous energy signal detected by an orbiting satellite could be a telltale of the enigmatic substance known as dark matter.

The researchers, in a study appearing in the British journal Nature, say the hunch is that they picked up a signature of this strange phenomenon, but more work is needed.

Some years ago, astrophysicists calculating the amount of matter in the Universe arrived at the startling discovery that ordinary material -- atoms -- comprises perhaps as little as five percent of the stuff in the cosmos.

The rest, they believe, comes from the "dark" sector: matter and that appear to be pervasive but whose nature remains a puzzle.

, which believes to account for 23 percent of the Universe, has been detected only indirectly, through the gravitational pull it exerts on visible matter.

What it is has ignited huge debate, including the hypothesis that dark matter is a new dimension of the Universe.

Another theory is that dark matter must be a new particle, or particles, that interact so weakly with ordinary matter that it does not produce light-emitting reactions. WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) are among the candidates for this.

Another idea is that dark matter is linked to "supersymmetric" particles, or partners to known sub-atomic particles.

A team led by Piergiorgio Picozza of the University of Rome Tor Vergata looked over data sent back by a European satellite called PAMELA between July 2006 and February 2008 and found a unusual abundance of positrons, the counterpart to the electron, in at a high part of the energy spectrum.

"Some scientists [in the team] think this is dark matter, while others think we have to study contributions" from other positron sources, Picozza told AFP.

These include positrons that are produced by pulsars, or magnetised neutron stars that emitted regular pulses of radiation, he said.

"We need much more verification, which can come from other observations," he said.

Around 72 percent of cosmic matter is dark energy, which could be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe.

(c) 2009 AFP

Explore further: Watching the structure of glass under pressure

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What if dark matter particles aren't WIMPs?

Dec 12, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- For years, many physicists have accepted that dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). The fact that WIMPs can naturally explain the amount of dark matter in the universe – ...

The end to a mystery?

Jan 31, 2008

Astronomers at the University of St Andrews believe they can “simplify the dark side of the universe” by shedding new light on two of its mysterious constituents.

New detector will aid dark matter search

Dec 10, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Several research projects are underway to try to detect particles that may make up the mysterious “dark matter” believed to dominate the universe’s mass. But the existing detectors have ...

Study sheds light on dark matter

Feb 06, 2006

British astronomers say they have, for the first time, determined some of the physical characteristics of dark matter.

Is dark matter composed of sterile neutrinos?

Jan 15, 2007

“If you ask the question, ‘What is the content of the universe?’ the answer is not so simple,” says Mikhail Shaposhnikov, a scientist associated with the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and CERN, both ...

Recommended for you

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

7 hours ago

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

10 hours ago

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

12 hours ago

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 28

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2009
Positrons are dark matter ... what?
Alizee
Apr 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
Apr 01, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
earls
4.7 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2009
Why not? Because it's "dark" matter, as in it doesn't interact electromagnetically, whereas positrons do... Or at least that's the impression I was under.

I sense there's more to this story, but it ended up being more of a (poor) definition instead of an actual news article.

Heh, perhaps this is an April Fool's joke? (I hope!)
Arikin
4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2009
Can you say pulsar? One more time, pulsar :-)

The simplest answer is usually correct. Or we can wait until we get Fermi or LHC data.
japeney_jolly
4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2009
Nope - the positrons appear because whenever dark matter collides with other dark matter it annihilates and creates positron/electron pairs. Its the AMOUNT of positrons that are appearing that seem to indicate dark matter, as it isn't clear precisely what other source could be causing the extra positrons to appear, while the presence of dark matter would explain the observations very simply.
jeffsaunders
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2009
So two dark matter crash and we get a positron and an electron. Very good, as so far we have only conjecture as to what constitutes "dark matter" yet we already "know" that if you add two together you get a positrons and an electrons, I like that.

Then we collide the electron and the positron and we get photons?
Alexa
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2009
I cannot follow the paths of cosmologists thinking... On one hand they're saying, here's a mysterious lack of antimatter, on the other they're developing a sophisticated WIMPS particles, how to produce it.

By my opinion dark matter consist of antiparticles from its very beginning. In addition, I'm not sure, if SUSY particles can exists standalone, i.e. without theirs superpartners at all.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2009
If positrons are dark matter the galaxy's halo would be blazing with gamma ray emissions...

I can't see this as anything other than bunk.
earls
3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2009
I believe japeney_jolly has the correct interpretation of the article, but as jeffsaunders followed up, it is still patently absurd.
Shootist
4 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2009
Wasn't there an article about a gamma ray glow at 511 Gev (electron/positron annihilation) in the Halo, or was that the Shapley Center?
Alexa
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2009
..If positrons are dark matter the galaxy's halo would be blazing with gamma ray emissions..
Nope, if the rest of gallaxy halo is formed by positivelly charged atom nuclei. I explained this before two years here, too.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2009
..If positrons are dark matter the galaxy's halo would be blazing with gamma ray emissions..
Nope, if the rest of gallaxy halo is formed by positivelly charged atom nuclei. I explained this before two years here, too.


I'm sure the Galaxy is greatful...*rolls eyes*
Alexa
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2009
I can just ask, why astronomers, who are looking for missing antimatter in Universe from the very beginning of BigBang theory (Lemaître 1931) didn't considered the posibility, dark matter may be composed of antimatter from the very beginning of dark matter observation (Fritz Zwicky, 1933).

In another way - why publicity should pay scientists for seventy years of research of another explanations, if they ignore these most simplest one? This situation just illustrates, science needs a through public control by the same way, like every other branch of society. Arrogance isn't in place here.
earls
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2009
"The hot gas in this collision was slowed by a drag force, similar to air resistance. In contrast, the dark matter was not slowed by the impact, because it does not interact directly with itself or the gas except through gravity. This produced the separation of the dark and normal matter seen in the data."


So how does oppositely charged matter (anti-matter [dark matter]) avoid the same laws of physics that the "hot gas" was subject to?

In addition, why can't it be directly detected? Anti-matter would interact with itself generating photons.
Weir
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2009
In a letter to a friend Einstein questioned the spacetime continuum basis of his GR theory late in life, in which case, quote: %u201C%u2026my castle in the sky amounts to nothing, but so does the rest of modern physics.%u201D In a discontinuous universe a very different perspective of relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and astrophysics necessarily emerges. Spacetime concepts derived a posterior from creation are not arbitrarily raised to a priori status to explain creation. Atoms are projected as very rapid series of space frames linked up by light in a cosmic movie. Atoms are particles and waves at the same time because one oscillation defines one primary interval of time. Light can only travel a limited distance with respect to each atom in each space frame so its speed is universal. It defines external space with respect to the internal spherical space of an atom. There is no other universal measuring rod out there. Patterns of inertial momentum are distinct from gravity consistent with Foucault%u2019s pendulum and they introduce a small family of quantum forces associated with the need for a preponderance of synchronicity in the universe as a whole. These quantum forces regulate gravitational attraction at cosmic, galactic, stellar and planetary levels in an analogous way that a spinning top does not fall over or a gyrocompass maintains its orientation to the fixed stars. It is these hitherto unrecognized quantum forces that account for dark energy and the missing mass. See the website article Gravity, Historic Coordinates & System 3 and related articles at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.

s0cratus
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2009
Where does the mass of the particle come from?

Now the physicists use the Higgs mechanism to give all the
elementary particles masses.

The mechanism requires the Higgs field to be nonzero in the vacuum,
exactly like spontaneous symmetry breaking. In this case, the broken
symmetry is gauged, meaning that the field which fills all of space,
the Higgs condensate, is charged. Gauge fields become massive
when there is a charged condensate, this is called superconductivity.

/ http://en.wikiped...echanism]http://en.wikiped...echanism[/url] /

My comment.
1.
We have Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is also the homogeneous Space of the lowest
( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
The question is: %u201C How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken?%u201D.
2.
If the Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space, so according
to the Quantum Theory it must contains only
the physical - quantum - energetic particles. We named them
%u201C virtual particles%u201D. The %u201C virtual particles%u201D is not a %u201C pure
philosophical concept %u201C that is never observed in practice.
The Quantum Theory says that :
%u201C Its effects can be observed in various phenomena
(such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the
van der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought
to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe
on cosmological scales. %u201C

/ http://en.wikiped...m_energy /.

3.
Question:
How can %u201C the virtual particles%u201D change the homogeneous Vacuum?

The Higgs mechanism. !!!???

In 1964 Higgs had %u201Cone big idea%u201D, which could hold a clue
to how matter in the universe got its mass in the billionth
of a second after the Big Bang.
Higgs eventually came up with his theory of the Higgs boson,
a boson that gives mass to all other subatomic particles that
happen to interact with it in a %u2018Higgs field%u2019.
The more they interact, the heavier they become.
And the ones that don%u2019t interact don%u2019t gather mass.
The theory could not only throw further light on the creation
of the universe, but also help explain the shape of it.
At the European Centre for Nuclear Research
(CERN) in Switzerland the protons will be smashed against
each other at great speed and as result the first Higgs boson
nicknamed the %u2018God particle%u2019 will actually observe .
???
#
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks%u2026etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - %u201C the big bang%u201D or the vacuum ?
The physicists created %u201C Europe%u2019s Large Hadron Colider %u201C
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
%u201Cbig bang%u201D. They didn%u2019t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: %u201C big bang%u201D or vacuum?

#
The Higgs mechanism can be considered as the superconductivity
in the Vacuum.
/ http://en.wikiped...echanism]http://en.wikiped...echanism[/url] /


My question:
How can %u201C the natural virtual particles%u201D create superconductivity
space in Vacuum?
My answer:
Because %u201C the natural virtual particles%u201D itself is energetic particles
and they create the superconductivity space therefore we are surprise
to see that this space haven%u2019t electrical resistance.
And on my opinion this process in Vacuum connected with
gravity%u2019s creation, with star%u2019s creation.
===========================..
Question:
How can the homogeneous Vacuum be broken without using
%u201C Europe%u2019s Large Hadron Colider %u201C (not by compulsions )
but using %u201Cthe natural virtual particles%u201D ?

On my opinion to solve this problem we must understand
only three thing:
1.
What Vacuum is
2.
That physical and geometrical parameters have
%u201Cthe natural virtual particles%u201D in Vacuum.
3.
What %u201EThe Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to %u201C the natural virtual particles%u201D .
============ . .
P.S.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body ( Kirchhoff%u2019s Vacuum
radiation /Max Laue / ) and does not radiate back,
then %u201C terminal dead %u201C comes. In order to save the
quantum of light from death Planck decided that
it is possible that quantum of light will radiate this
quantum of light back with quantum unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck%u2019s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 photon flies with speed c=1.
This unit doesn%u2019t come from formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced unit h phenomenologically
So, where does the Planck%u2019s constant ( h) come from?
#
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have
no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture
that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. %u201D
(Feynman. 1987)
So, where does the energy come from?
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.physfo...pic=2548

================..

Weir
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2009
The essential point is that atoms oscillate between space frames and quantum frames. In each atomic space frame they are three dimensional particles. In each quantum frame they are spatially indeterminate bundles of energy. All atoms have a universal aspect that is confined like quarks and intimately binds photon, electron, and proton as one in each atom in an identical way such that separate physical atoms are all the same and all subatomic particles are correlated. In the quantum frame the universal aspect is the reciprocal. It unifies all the quantum energy equivalents of all atoms as one boundless and timeless quantum energy field, called the Void, distinct from the vague concept of the vacuum. The Void is orthogonal to the integrated fabric of space-time. Because it is timeless it spans and meaningfully integrates the linear succession of synchronous atomic space frames. It spans and integrates history. This requires that it is a master sensorium or memory bank for the whole of creation. This is implicitly required by the nature of universal wholeness, consistent with the evidence. We all seek a unifying perspective to make sense of phenomenal experience. A universal methodology that complements the sciences is introduced in the website article Unified Theories, Fantasy, and Cosmic order at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
yyz
4 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2009
A recent paper posted on the arXiv site (co-authored by Dr. Picozza) discussing the PAMELA anomaly here: http://pamela.rom...0-4995v1 looks at three possibilities for these observations 1) annihilating DM, 2) decaying DM and 3) nearby pulsar(s). While having a different take on the 600 GeV feature detected by ATIC, the authors rigorously look at all three scenarios and studied the perspective to discriminate among these models by using synchrotron and IC radiation generated by these positrons-electrons. Seems lots of astronomers and physicists are keenly following these lines of research.
yyz
4 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2009
Investigators deduced the positron excess as being the result of 1) annihilating DM or 2) a nearby pulsar. How to tell which is the origin of this positron excess? Another group using ATIC to measure the electron spectrum have detected something of a dropoff of energetic electrons and positrons around 600 GeV. The paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3362 by Jeter Hall and Dan Hooper posits that this dropoff of very high energy electrons and positrons is trying to tell us something about the nature of the excess. They propose using ground-based Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescopes (ACTs) like HESS, MAGIC and VERITAS to tease out the details of their 600 GeV feature in the electron spectrum. A steep dropoff of the spectrum favors Kaluza-Klein DM while a smoother decay in the spectrum indicates a pulsar origin. Their short (4 page) paper includes predicted electron energy spectrum diagrams for each possibility. Although ATIC and PAMELA look at different energy regimes, their observations along with WMAP and ground-based ACTs may be combined to solve this mystery, whatever the outcome.
yyz
not rated yet Apr 04, 2009
The paper referenced in my first post should be found here: http://arxiv.org/...22v3.pdf
Trippy
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2009
So two dark matter crash and we get a positron and an electron. Very good, as so far we have only conjecture as to what constitutes "dark matter" yet we already "know" that if you add two together you get a positrons and an electrons, I like that.

Then we collide the electron and the positron and we get photons?


You're aware that there are multiple theories of dark matter right?
And you're also aware that these theories make predictions about what Dark Matter actually is right?
Some of these theories predict that dark matter is the lightest SUSY partner, and that it decays in specific ways, and those decay paths result in the production of positrons and electrons.
s0cratus
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2009
Matter and %u2018dark matter.%u2018
Fact and Speculation.
=========.
1.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot %u201C close %u201C the Universe and therefore
our Universe as whole is %u201C open%u201D, endless.
But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don't know.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
Therefore they invented an abstract "dark matter" and " dark energy".
They say: " 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
And nobody knows what it is.
2.
Speculation.
Unknown %u201Cdark matter %u201C it is matter which makes up the difference
between observed mass of a galaxies and calculated mass%u2026%u2026
which%u2026.will %u2026%u201D close %u201C %u2026.the Universe, as %u2026%u2026.
as%u2026%u2026the astrophysicists want.
3.
The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
/ V. H. Vergon. /
==============..
The Dark Energy and the Vacuum.

"Dark energy, this mysterious stuff in the vacuum of space
which makes the universe want to accelerate, is the basis
for standard cosmology today because it explains much
of what we see,"
/ Research by Dr David Wiltshire, from
New Zealand's University of Canterbury /.
============= . .
My opinion.

The Dark Energy is the Vacuum.
Vacuum is not a dead space as the Classic Physics says.
Vacuum is some kind of Energetic Space as the
Quantum Theory says.
The Energetic Vacuum itself is %u2018 The Dark Energy %u2018.
The physicists only invent new word %u2018Dark Energy %u2018 instead of
to say %u2018 ENERGETIC VACUUM %u2019.
#
Dark Energy may be Vacuum
http://www.eureka...1607.php
========== . .
Everything began from Infinite Energetic Vacuum: T=0K.
Somehow, the energy is extracted from the Vacuum
(the Energetic Dirac Soup) and turned into particles.
The Materialistic World gets its finite being
from an Infinite Energetic Being %u2013 Vacuum: T=0K.

To understand this %u2018speculation%u2019 we must know:
1. What is Vacuum: T=0K ?
2. Which virtual particles can exist in Vacuum?
3. How can virtual particles turn into real particles?
======== .
Until now the physicists ignore the Vacuum Energy T=0K
because it is the Zero Point Energy for our measuring devices.
Because the Absolute Zero Point Energy is border for our
measuring devices.
Can this fact be enough reason to stop our investigation?
==========..
#
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing%u2014the vacuum, that endless
infinite void.
http://discoverma...cs/space
http://discoverma...erything
================ . .
Please, have patience and wait %u201Cwhen the next revolution rocks physics.%u201D
===============. .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Apr 07, 2009
Weir said

The essential point is that atoms oscillate between space frames and quantum frames. In each atomic space frame they are three dimensional particles. In each quantum frame they are spatially indeterminate bundles of energy. All atoms have a universal aspect that is confined like quarks and intimately binds photon, electron, and proton as one in each atom in an identical way such that separate physical atoms are all the same and all subatomic particles are correlated....


We definitely need another continuum if we have a digital universe as described above in the frame to frame concept. In a digital universe there can be no movement in normal space. Because everything is stationary at each instance in time. Stationary objects need an extra dimension in order to contain that aspect of their character which is movement, or to put it another way what will shift an object from one place/frame to another when it is stationary at each instance of time?

So if we have (as has been conjectured and may well be true) the possibility of having the smallest unit of time that actually exists and an absolute velocity of c which is controlled by the smallest possible unit of movement - i.e. the wavelength of a photon in alternate space between one frame of time and the next.

This concept has been used to explain much that is strange in quantum world. Maybe it is real - maybe we can have unit of time as well as unit of wave and these things interact in creation of absolute velocity and probably also assist in describing universe and the way it exists now.

The inter-frame gap may have no explainable description in the 3 dimensional world but it would be a requirement for the three dimensions we live in to exist or perhaps the 4 dimensions in which we exist if we call time a dimension.

It may make photon transmission easier to describe if we have an oscillating waveform that oscillates through the alternate space.

As for all the theories on Dark Matter - we probably should consider looking laterally. That is, it will become clear the more we understand about what we can see and then extrapolating from what we can see rather than making up theories about what we can't see.

Perhaps not all ordinary matter has conglomerated into galaxies stars and black holes - after all it has only been 14 billion years and perhaps there forces that resist the pull of gravity for some matter - such as charged particles or ions including plasmas.

If large parts of space contain charged particles with the same charge then they will not coalesce under the force of gravity. And any movement or momentum these particles may have, may well keep them out of gravity wells.
earls
not rated yet Apr 07, 2009
"If large parts of space contain charged particles with the same charge then they will not coalesce under the force of gravity."

This is an interesting suggestion. This may explain the irregular behavior of the dark matter versus the hot gas... But still, wouldn't a mass of like-charged particles still be subject to photon emission/transmission? And technically they are in a gravity well, it's just that their collapse has been halted further.

ZOMG AGM!
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Apr 16, 2009
yes earls,

Like charged particles would still be in the gravity well but since the charge is a greater force than gravity (the weakest of the forces) the particles would still be spaced further apart and would tend to make a large cloud of matter around the outskirts of a galaxy.

And yes such particles would still release photons occasionally due to collisions etc. These have been detected. After all these clouds that can be seen by these instruments are being observed because they give off photons.

The important points is that these clouds of charged matter would tend to push themselves apart and would thus try and disperse at the outer area of gravity wells and not collapse readily into stars etc.

And that they could well make up a large part of the universe.
earls
not rated yet Apr 16, 2009
"After all these clouds [dark matter clouds?] that can be seen by these instruments are being observed because they give off photons."

False.
smiffy
not rated yet Apr 16, 2009
If there were such a thing as a halo of same-charged particles around a galaxy wouldn't many of these particles get drawn in by gravity into the ordinary neutral stuff of the galaxy and thereby impart a slight electric charge?
Wouldn't this charge be detectible?
Tissa_Perera
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2009
Where have all the matter gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the energy gone?
Long time ago

The answer my friends
is flowing in the web

See http://cosmicdarkmatter.com/
When will they ever learn?
When will they everrrrr learn?
knobface
not rated yet Aug 17, 2009
hahah so obviously non of u know excactly what u r talking about iv learned more of wikepedia and im just a surfer "bum" haha ..if u guys knew u would be as great as einstein show me the calculations guys