Dark matter may be massive: Theorists suggest the Standard Model may account for the stuff

November 4, 2014
A massive cluster of yellowish galaxies, seemingly caught in a red and blue spider web of eerily distorted background galaxies, makes for a spellbinding picture from the new Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. To make this unprecedented image of the cosmos, Hubble peered straight through the center of one of the most massive galaxy clusters known, called Abell 1689. The gravity of the cluster's trillion stars — plus dark matter — acts as a 2-million-light-year-wide lens in space. This gravitational lens bends and magnifies the light of the galaxies located far behind it. Some of the faintest objects in the picture are probably over 13 billion light-years away (redshift value 6). Strong gravitational lensing as observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in Abell 1689 indicates the presence of dark matter. Credit: NASA, N. Benitez (JHU), T. Broadhurst (Racah Institute of Physics/The Hebrew University), H. Ford (JHU), M. Clampin (STScI),G. Hartig (STScI), G. Illingworth (UCO/Lick Observatory), the ACS Science Team and ESA

The physics community has spent three decades searching for and finding no evidence that dark matter is made of tiny exotic particles. Case Western Reserve University theoretical physicists suggest researchers consider looking for candidates more in the ordinary realm and, well, more massive.

Dark matter is unseen matter, that, combined with normal matter, could create the gravity that, among other things, prevents spinning galaxies from flying apart. Physicists calculate that dark matter comprises 27 percent of the universe; normal matter 5 percent.

Instead of WIMPS, weakly interacting massive particles, or axions, which are weakly interacting low-mass particles, dark matter may be made of macroscopic objects, anywhere from a few ounces to the size of a good asteroid, and probably as dense as a neutron star, or the nucleus of an atom, the researchers suggest.

Physics professor Glenn Starkman and David Jacobs, who received his PhD in Physics from CWRU in May and is now a fellow at the University of Cape Town, say published observations provide guidance, limiting where to look. They lay out the possibilities in a paper at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.2236.pdf.

The Macros, as Starkman and Jacobs call them, would not only dwarf WIMPS and axions, but differ in an important way. They could potentially be assembled out of particles in the Standard Model of particle physics instead of requiring new physics to explain their existence.

"We've been looking for WIMPs for a long time and haven't seen them," Starkman said. "We expected to make WIMPS in the Large Hadron Collider, and we haven't."

WIMPS and axions remain possible candidates for dark matter, but there's reason to search elsewhere, the theorists argue.

"The community had kind of turned away from the idea that dark matter could be made of normal-ish stuff in the late '80s," Starkman said. "We ask, was that completely correct and how do we know dark matter isn't more ordinary stuff— stuff that could be made from quarks and electrons?"

After eliminating most , including failed Jupiters, white dwarfs, neutron stars, stellar black holes, the black holes in centers of galaxies and neutrinos with a lot of mass, as possible candidates, physicists turned their focus on the exotics.

Matter that was somewhere in between ordinary and exotic—relatives of or large nuclei—was left on the table, Starkman said. "We say relatives because they probably have a considerable admixture of strange quarks, which are made in accelerators and ordinarily have extremely short lives," he said.

Although strange quarks are highly unstable, Starkman points out that neutrons are also highly unstable. But in helium, bound with stable protons, neutrons remain stable.

"That opens the possibility that stable strange nuclear matter was made in the early universe and dark matter is nothing more than chunks of strange nuclear matter or other bound states of quarks, or of baryons, which are themselves made of quarks," he said. Such dark matter would fit the Standard Model.

The Macros would have to be assembled from ordinary and strange quarks or baryons before the strange quarks or baryons decay, and at a temperature above 3.5 trillion degrees Celsius, comparable to the temperature in the center of a massive supernova, Starkman and Jacobs calculated. The quarks would have to be assembled with 90 percent efficiency, leaving just 10 percent to form the protons and neutrons found in the universe today.

The limits of the possible dark matter are as follows:

  • A minimum of 55 grams. If dark matter were smaller, it would have been seen in detectors in Skylab or in tracks found in sheets of mica.
  • A maximum of 1024 (a million billion billion) grams. Above this, the Macros would be so massive they would bend starlight, which has not been seen.
  • The range of 1017 to 1020 grams per centimeter squared should also be eliminated from the search, the theorists say. Dark matter in that range would be massive for gravitational lensing to affect individual photons from gamma ray bursts in ways that have not been seen.

If dark matter is within this allowed range, there are reasons it hasn't been seen.

  • At the mass of 1018 grams, dark matter Macros would hit the Earth about once every billion years.
  • At lower masses, they would strike the Earth more frequently but might not leave a recognizable record or observable mark.
  • In the range of 109 to 1018, dark matter would collide with the Earth once annually, providing nothing to the underground detectors in place.

Explore further: A warm dark matter search using XMASS: Editors' suggestion of Physical Review Letters

More information: arxiv.org/abs/1410.2236

Related Stories

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

On the hunt for dark matter

August 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Recommended for you

Inventing a new kind of matter

March 24, 2017

Imagine a liquid that could move on its own. No need for human effort or the pull of gravity. You could put it in a container flat on a table, not touch it in any way, and it would still flow.

Physicist develops drip-free wine bottle

March 23, 2017

Drips are the bane of every wine drinker's existence. He or she uncorks a bottle of wine, tips it toward the glass, and a drop, or even a stream, runs down the side of the bottle. Sure, you could do what sommeliers in restaurants ...

39 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nevermark
5 / 5 (15) Nov 04, 2014
There have been so many attempts to identify what causes the dark matter effect, in terms of particles we understand, proposed particles, and adjustments to General Relativity, that it is going to be a very interesting day when any proposed explanation is confirmed.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
Between 55 grams and 1024 grams. That is quite a narrow range.
And what is "1017 to 1020 grams per centimeter squared" ?
chardo137
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
MACHO: Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Object.http://en.wikiped...o_object
chardo137
5 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
https://sciencex....twocts/, re 1017 to1024, this is a way of expressing scientific notation. It means 10 to the 17th power & 10 to the 24th power.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 04, 2014
The article didn't do a very good job of indicating that they were talking about 10 to the whatever power. At least add an indicator; 10^24 would have done it. Alternatively, note that a complete set of subscripts and superscripts in Unicode is available from multiple sources; I use Wikipedia's List of Unicode Characters, myself: http://en.wikiped...aracters

You can just cut and paste, like this: 10²⁴. It would make the article much more comprehensible.
hemitite
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
If these macro particles are on the large side, 10^20 up, then I wonder if the conditions in a large black hole's accretion disk would be hot enough to trigger what would most likely be a rather energetic decay process that might be detectable.
Tangent2
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
Between 55 grams and 1024 grams. That is quite a narrow range.


The article expressed the range as 55 to 10^24 grams, which is anywhere from 55 to 1 million billion billion grams, quite a vast range really.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
The article didn't do a very good job of indicating that they were talking about 10 to the whatever power. At least add an indicator; 10^24 would have done it. Alternatively, note that a complete set of subscripts and superscripts in Unicode is available from multiple sources; I use Wikipedia's List of Unicode Characters, myself: http://en.wikiped...aracters

You can just cut and paste, like this: 10²⁴
Funny, thats just how they look to me in the article. Maybe its time to upgrade your browser. I usually assume the professionals who work here know about things like unicode.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
They fixed it. Good job.
Horus
1 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
They should be stating 10EE24 to clarify it's the 24th power, or 1EE25.
Graeme
5 / 5 (1) Nov 04, 2014
The 55 gram limit comes about through the observation of mica not being damaged. However could such a "nugget" pass through mica without causing harm to the crystal structure? Its effect could be somewhat similar to slow neutrons, so it could easily pass a long way through without visible effect. If they can pass right through the earth, perhaps the only effect would be via a direct hit on a nucleus, or via its gravity. This is either unlikely or very weak.
tritace
Nov 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
1 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2014
dark matter is just another aether form......
tritace
Nov 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2014
dark matter is just another aether form......
Not really. Aether was disproved in 1887; dark matter was discovered in 1933 by Fritz Zwicky, and has not ever been disproved. In fact the latest observations confirm it.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2014
dark matter is just another aether form......

It isn't - it fills the space, whereas the aether forms the space.
@ZEPHIR
actually, it does neither and it has been proven that it does not form OR fill space
in fact, they experimented and showed empirical evidence to an incredibly high degree that there is no aether in the following study:
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

there is no real shortage of proof that it is debunked either: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

just like there is no empirical evidence proving it correct, feasible etc
there is especially nothing out there refuting the above studies
(except zephir's continual insistence that they are wrong... and conjecture is not equivalent to empirical evidence)

aether is PSEUDOSCIENCE
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Camphibian
5 / 5 (5) Nov 05, 2014
Oliver Lodge admits on page 747 that ''It is noteworthy that not one of the methods is able to establish the existence or non-existence of general ethereal drift near the earth."

So he didn't 'demonstrate that aether drag is invisible around rapidly moving celestial bodies." as you claim.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2014
At least add an indicator; 10^24 would have done it.

Common problem on physorg, as they copy and paste these articles form elsewhere and formatting often does not survive (just google for the first sentence and you will find where the original article with the correct formatting comes from).
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2014
Dark matter and energy are in fact added amounts of mass and energy in the formulas of the officially accepted cosmological theory, which should conceal its failure regarding the realistic description of our reality. Where theories differ from the reality smartest approach is to adjust or change the theory, rather than inventing new invisible reality that fits the assumptions and hipotesis of this theory. During the Middle Ages, this reality was the flat Earth and then scientists experts ridiculed Galileo for his bold proposals. But in science usually has many professionals and few inventors.
OZGuy
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2014
During the Middle Ages, this reality was the flat Earth

Wrong - no educated person believed the Earth was flat in the Middle Ages.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2014
Does that mean that Galileo was the official representative of the Guild of educated scientists?
tadchem
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 05, 2014
"Dark Matter": Periodic (not steady state) solutions to the Schroedinger Equation - N is a non-integer - a small rational number - result is a form of H atom that cannot absorb or emit photons - delta L = 0 - still has the mass of an H atom - no electronic charge - no bonding possible - formed via inelastic collisions from very abundant hydrogen in interstellar space
zz5555
5 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2014
"During the Middle Ages, this reality was the flat Earth and then scientists experts ridiculed Galileo for his bold proposals."

Galileo was born in 1564, after Columbus had discovered America and after the Spanish had circumnavigated the world. You're getting your science denier myths mixed up.
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2014
You apparently missed the history of physics
@ZEPHIR
and you, apparently, missed out on both history and physics
that aether drag is invisible around rapidly moving celestial bodies. Frankly, he was much smarter and better informed, than you will ever be
as Camphibian pointed this out before i even read your post, i will give full credit to Camphibian and repeat the compete burn and simple comment that destroyed your entire post
Oliver Lodge admits on page 747 that ''It is noteworthy that not one of the methods is able to establish the existence or non-existence of general ethereal drift near the earth."

So he didn't 'demonstrate that aether drag is invisible around rapidly moving celestial bodies." as you claim.
1- i noticed that you still only have conjecture as a refute
2-epic failure, z
http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.cz/2009/03/is-dark-matter-composed-of-antimatter.html
linking to a known pseudoscience site=trolling
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2014
The idea, that the dark matter
@ZEPHIR/tritace/idiot
and again, using links to known pseudoscience sites as well as using pseudoscience to explain science is like calling a toyota a "lunar lander" because both have wheels...
i also noticed that your evidence includes the EU argument: pretty pictures where you make assumptions without evidence that they describe real science while ignoring the whole empirical evidence part of the equation

you still cannot refute that the above studies are not applicable to daw/aw... you have NO empirical evidence, and even your attempt at using quotes from your religious icons of the past failed as you were not conversant in the paper

again, i will state that your aw/daw is failed and debunked, and empirical evidence shows it is impossible: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

your argument still has not given refute to the science
nor has it been able to provide evidence supporting your "faith" (daw/aw)
tritace
Nov 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Porgie
1 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2014
There is no dark matter. Its never in the same place twice, so come on, what are you trying to pull? Do you just want a hand out for fake research. We are likely seeing gravity drives that cause anomalies. They are used by others to get around and we are far from ready for it so we see the effects but not the cause.
avraam_dectis
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2014
.
Graviton whirpools forming at the center of galaxies.

.
SnowballSolarSystem _SSS_
1 / 5 (3) Nov 08, 2014
They're finally approaching my way of thinking.

Helium and molecular hydrogen near absolute zero are effectively invisible if the luminous stellar metallicity is condensed into icy chondrules. And where might this occur?: in gravitationally-bound globules in halo orbits.

Gravitationally-bound Bok globules, 'the coldest objects in the natural universe' are visible within giant molecular clouds (GMCs) due to their gaseous stellar metallicity, which also lowers the speed of sound, promoting gravitational instability, forming stars.

So if dark, primordial globules on disk-crossing halo orbits are trapped by gMCs where they become visible and condense stars, then astrophysicists have things exactly backwards, where outgassing Bok globules (cometary globules and elephant trunks) create and sustain GMCs, helping to trap the next generation of CDM halo (Bok) globules.

With baryonic dark matter, there never was a 'cuspy halo problem' if globules convert to stars in galactic cores.
SnowballSolarSystem _SSS_
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2014
I just realized my mistake, but can't delete the comment. BBN burned barons formed still earlier at higher temperatures, so I'm wrong.

I suspect a misquote or miscalculation in the temperature of these supposed baryonic MACRO formations, "at a temperature above 3.5 trillion degrees Celsius".

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis occurred in a temperature range 250 to 1000 times cooler, so as I understand, quarks hadn't yet begin forming above 3.5 trillion degrees Celsius.

"The era began at temperatures of around 10 MeV (116 gigakelvin) and ended at temperatures below 100 keV (1.16 gigakelvin)"
(Big Bang Nucleosynthesis--Wikipedia)
EnricM
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
During the Middle Ages, this reality was the flat Earth and then scientists experts ridiculed Galileo for his bold proposals. But in science usually has many professionals and few inventors.


You need to invent yourself a history book: The earth's circumference was calculated already in 240 BC and it's sphericity known from at least the 6th century BC. Galileo did not live in the Middle Ages but in the XVI Century that's the Renaissance. And his dispute with the church was because of the heliocentric model not because of the sphericity of the earth.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2014
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2014
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2014
The dark matter and pilot waves are holographically dual phenomena in some aspects, after all the attempts to describe them so exist already in http://phys.org/n...rk.html. But these analogies have their own limits - just because of duality between energy density and mass density which exists there.


NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

The medium is the aether. In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.

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.