Searching for axion dark matter with a new detection device

February 14, 2017 by Jim Shelton
Credit: Yale University

A detection device designed and built at Yale is narrowing the search for dark matter in the form of axions, a theorized subatomic particle that may make up as much as 80% of the matter in the universe.

Led by Yale physicist Steve Lamoreaux, a team of scientists announced the first results of the project, called Haloscope At Yale Sensitive To Axion Cold Dark Matter (HAYSTAC). The findings appear in the journal Physical Review Letters.

"The existence of dark matter has been established with a high degree of confidence. However at present nobody knows what it is, and it remains among the outstanding questions of modern science," said Lamoreaux. "Our work is setting important limits on a leading ."

That theory centers on the axion, a particle that was proposed in the 1980s. Lamoreaux said the axion—which has no charge, no spin, and a miniscule amount of mass—has all of the necessary properties to be a compelling dark matter candidate. The observed dark matter density in our galaxy requires roughly 10 trillion axions per cubic centimeter; however, their direct interactions with ordinary matter are so feeble that their detection requires extremely sensitive experimental techniques.

Using a new instrument built at Yale's Wright Lab, Lamoreaux and his colleagues widened the possible parameters for detecting axions. Their study demonstrates the instrument sensitivity required to detect axions that are 10 times heavier than those targeted by previous experiments.

Axion detectors use intense magnetic fields to convert axions into detectable microwave photons at a specific frequency determined by the unknown axion mass. Previous experiments have searched for low-mass axions. Pushing the search to higher masses has been challenging for scientists because it requires high-frequency detectors that are physically smaller, and the signals from axion conversion in such cases is weaker.

"Our major breakthrough was making the detector colder and quieter than ever before, by adapting amplifiers developed for quantum computing research whose noise performance approaches the fundamental limits imposed by the laws of quantum mechanics," Lamoreaux said. "With the first data from our detector, we have set limits on the interactions of dark matter axions and opened a new portion of the allowed axion mass range to experimental investigation."

The first author of the paper is Ben Brubaker, a graduate student in the Lamoreaux lab at Yale. Additional Yale co-authors are Ling Zhong, Yulia Gurevich, Sidney Cahn, and Kelly Backes. Other co-authors are from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Colorado, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

"The axion experiment at Yale pushes the frontiers of particle astrophysics," said Karsten Heeger, director of the Wright Laboratory. "It is a shining example of a university-based experiment that uses cutting edge instrumentation and leverages local infrastructure to address one of the fundamental questions about the universe and train the next generation of scientists. We are excited to have such a world-leading effort here on campus at the Wright Lab."

Explore further: Physicist suggests new experiments could make or break axion as dark matter theory

Related Stories

Team simulates a magnetar to seek dark matter particle

October 7, 2016

MIT physicists are proposing a new experiment to detect a dark matter particle called the axion. If successful, the effort could crack one of the most perplexing unsolved mysteries in particle physics, as well as finally ...

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

44 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Merrit
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2017
Found nothing as expected :) alot of time and effort is spent searching for imaginary particles.
malapropism
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2017
@Merrit
But the thing is, if nobody looks how do we know they are not there?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2017
FTA;
"however, their direct interactions with ordinary matter are so feeble that their detection requires extremely sensitive experimental techniques."

One of the best and most common-sense descriptions of "dark matter" I've read so far...
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2017
This does present a quandary...
Would 10 trillion in a cubic centimeter qualify as an "aether"...?
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 14, 2017
This does present a quandary...
Would 10 trillion in a cubic centimeter qualify as an "aether"...?
Wonder how that would compare with one Planck volume. They say there is mass in spacetime so it has to be somewhere.
RealScience
5 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2017
Would 10 trillion in a cubic centimeter qualify as an "aether"...

and
Wonder how that would compare with one Planck volume


Not even close - it is only one per ~25000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Planck volumes (if I counted the 84 zeros correctly).

Ten trillion per cm3 isn't really that many - there are roughly 2 billion times that many water molecules in a cm3 of water, and a typical water molecule has 18 electrons, 18 protons and 8 neutrons in its 3 atoms ...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2017
Not even close - it is only one per ~25000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Planck volumes (if I counted the 84 zeros correctly).

Ten trillion per cm3 isn't really that many - there are roughly 2 billion times that many water molecules in a cm3 of water, and a typical water molecule has 18 electrons, 18 protons and 8 neutrons in its 3 atoms ...

Thanks, RS...:-)
I thought about trying it, but then said - naaagh... the must be SOMEone around here focused enough to take on (and trained well enough to know how to calculate) that particular little detail...
Cuz, it sure ain't me...;-) My ADHD is too well engrained.
ADHD is the acronym for "Always Did Hate Details"...:-)
How bout - how many photons can you fit in a Planck Space?
And what would be a proper comparison value of axions vs photons?
Kron
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2017
There is no known point in space that is empty. Take a star as an example, it is visible from all angles. Why? Because it is emitting photons in all directions. The visible universe is the "visible universe" because it is full of photons. Particles annihilate to photons, photons create particles. The universe is pure energy. The emergences we view as material are no more physical than regions we view as void of matter. Absolute zero energy is an unreal concept. Where there is energy there is the equivalent of mass. Since energy is everywhere so is there mass. The interstellar and intergalactic regions are themselves massive. One not need to look to darkmatter for answers. We know gravity bends the path of light. Galaxies "pull" photons closer to themselves, so the space surrounding galaxies has a massive photon "halo". Now imagine these halos building up, the lensing effect they could produce.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2017
There is no known point in space that is empty. Take a star as an example, it is visible from all angles. Why? Because it is emitting photons in all directions. The visible universe is the "visible universe" because it is full of photons. Particles annihilate to photons, photons create particles. The universe is pure energy. The emergences we view as material are no more physical than regions we view as void of matter. Absolute zero energy is an unreal concept. Where there is energy there is the equivalent of mass. Since energy is everywhere so is there mass. The interstellar and intergalactic regions are themselves massive. One not need to look to darkmatter for answers. We know gravity bends the path of light. Galaxies "pull" photons closer to themselves, so the space surrounding galaxies has a massive photon "halo". Now imagine these halos building up, the lensing effect they could produce.

A little wordy, but your implication is density...
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 15, 2017
Absolute zero energy is an unreal concept.
Sure does violate the uncertainty principle anyway.
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2017
FTA;
"however, their direct interactions with ordinary matter are so feeble that their detection requires extremely sensitive experimental techniques."

One of the best and most common-sense descriptions of "dark matter" I've read so far...

This is just a different way of saying "we know it's there, we just can't see it"....please point me toward the "common sense".

Your imaginary substance doesn't interact with light at all, based on our understanding of the nature of matter which Kron laid out pretty well above...there is no common sense approach that says something can't interact with light but can interact with matter. There is also no "common sense" approach to detecting said matter if it is possible for something of it's nature to exist in our universe. Think about it...it doesn't interact with light...so how do you expect to find it through "heavier" interactions when you need a photon as evidence of said interaction?
bschott
5 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2017

Think about it...it doesn't interact with light...so how do you expect to find it through "heavier" interactions when you need a photon as evidence of said interaction?

Transparent in the EM spectrum means there is no EM content. This means it cannot produce a photon because it has no energy to put into one. So how do you expect to define the reactive boundary of the particle when there is no EM present? If there is no EM present then it cannot interact directly with any or react to any EM boundary....which is present in all matter.
Axion detectors use intense magnetic fields to convert axions into detectable microwave photons

They want DM to interact with a magnetic field....then sense it....based on photonic evidence...I'm sorry that I am the only one who finds this pretty funny.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2017
This does present a quandary...
Would 10 trillion in a cubic centimeter qualify as an "aether"...?

Answer - would depend on how it is arranged...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2017
... their direct interactions with ordinary matter are so feeble that their detection requires extremely sensitive experimental techniques."

One of the best and most common-sense descriptions of "dark matter" I've read so far...

This is just a different way of saying "we know it's there, we just can't see it"....please point me toward the "common sense".

In that they tacitly agree it DOES interact.
And they say HOW it interacts - very weakly...
And they admit our observational limitations...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2017
Transparent in the EM spectrum means there is no EM content.

No, it means we haven't figured out the HOW of seeing it.
This means it cannot produce a photon because it has no energy to put into one.

No, it just means INSUFFICIENT to produce one.
So how do you expect to define the reactive boundary of the particle when there is no EM present? If there is no EM present then it cannot interact directly with any or react to any EM boundary....which is present in all matter.

As you must already know, there is no definitive "reaction boundary". Fields don't work that way. It's fluidic. Dependent on charge distribution within any given "energetic entity".
Axion detectors use intense magnetic fields to convert axions into detectable microwave photons

They want DM to interact with a magnetic field....then sense it....based on photonic evidence...

You mean photon output. Are you so sure about that?
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2017
And they say HOW it interacts - very weakly

Very weakly does NOT describe "how" it interacts.
No, it means we haven't figured out the HOW of seeing it.

If it cannot produce/reflect a photon....you can't see it...the end.
As you must already know, there is no definitive "reaction boundary".

Of course there is. As soon as anything changes an aspect of it's motion due to interaction with anything else the reaction boundary was crossed. In SA particles they call it the charge field.
Fields don't work that way. It's fluidic.

There is a set distance for particle interaction via the charge field which changes specifically based on the temperature of the particles involved...so, yes, they do work that way.
You mean photon output. Are you so sure about that?

Yes....that is why I specifically quoted the line where they intend to convert DM to microwave photons.....which would classify as photon output (generation works as well)

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Your imaginary substance doesn't interact with light at all, based on our understanding of the nature of matter which Kron laid out pretty well above...there is no common sense approach that says something can't interact with light but can interact with matter. There is also no "common sense" approach to detecting said matter if it is possible for something of it's nature to exist in our universe. Think about it...it doesn't interact with light...so how do you expect to find it through "heavier" interactions when you need a photon as evidence of said interaction?

On a scale so small and fast - Magnetism.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Very weakly does NOT describe "how" it interacts.

Semantic nit picking.
If it cannot produce/reflect a photon....you can't see it...the end.

The blind man "sees" without photons. Other technologies.
As you must already know, there is no definitive "reaction boundary". Fields don't work that way. It's more fluidic

Of course there is. As soon as anything changes an aspect of it's motion due to interaction with anything else the reaction boundary was crossed. In SA particles they call it the charge field.

The operative word being "definitive". See Heisenberg.
There is a set distance for particle interaction via the charge field which changes specifically based on the temperature of the particles involved...so, yes, they do work that way.

But there is slop factor...

bschott
5 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
On a scale so small and fast - Magnetism

So you really have concept of EM transparent, or "only interacts gravitationally"... do you?
The blind man "sees" without photons. Other technologies

But...they...are...trying ...to "see" DM....as energy converted to a photon...maybe you should advise the researchers of the "other technologies".
The operative word being "definitive".

Actually the 3 words "definitive reaction boundary" are all equally operative.
But there is a slop factor...

Not in real physics....only when your physics relies upon an "uncertainty principle". Hence why it is a "set distance" and not an approximate one.
Very weakly does NOT describe "how" it interacts.

Semantic nit picking.

OK, go ask a mechanic HOW to change an engine block and when he answers "weakly"...change it weakly.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
Magnetism

So you really have concept of EM transparent, or "only interacts gravitationally"... do you?

didn't SAY gravitationally.
But...they...are...trying ...to "see" DM....as energy converted to a photon...maybe you should advise the researchers of the "other technologies".

Ok, Maybe I used too broad a stroke.
Actually the 3 words "definitive reaction boundary" are all equally operative.

In varying degrees.
But there is slop factor

Not in real physics....only when your physics relies upon an "uncertainty principle". Hence why it is a "set distance" and not an approximate one.

It's a built in property. Don't define physics so exactly. You sound like the "mainstream", so many bitch about...
OK, go ask a mechanic HOW to change an engine block and when he answers "weakly"...change it weakly.

I'd get a 2nd opinion, he should have said "depends on the make and model".
You're still nit-picking...:-)
SiaoX
not rated yet Feb 16, 2017
It's a NMR type device. In brief, they found nothing..
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2017
It's a NMR type device. In brief, they found nothing..

Lot's of data to sort through, tho...

I re-read the article. I think I might "see" the mechanic of it;

"Axion detectors use intense magnetic fields to convert axions into detectable microwave photons at a specific frequency determined by the unknown axion mass. "

They're attempting to excite axion charge via magnetic manipulation. Since they are neutral, the thought would be to facilitate a physical (kinetic) "spin", creation "friction", creating heat, creating charge, creating a wave-form and so on. Enough of them excited together (Maybe even a whole dang cubic centimetere's worth) might provide sufficient charge buildup to produce a photon.
Why MW is my question. Why not a higher frequency?

Of course, it could be just an author's lack of familiarity with the subject matter, too...

RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
Hi Whyde, bschott. :)

A brief observation re your exchange:

You (Whyde) seem to be the one introducing semantics, not bschott. You also seem to evade the obvious explanatory example re the 'how' of said alleged 'interaction' rather than the 'how strongly/weakly' of said alleged 'interaction'. I would add another example: We can measure 'how strongly/weakly' a gravitational interaction occurs, yet the standard model is still silent regarding the actual mechanistic entities/processes involved in the 'how' per se OF said interaction. I trust you will now admit bschott's point?....that here is a gulf of important meaning between the ADVERBIAL PHRASE 'how strongly/weakly' and the NAKED ADVERB 'how' per se.

Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
Hi Whyde, bschott. :)

A brief observation re your exchange:

You (Whyde) seem to be the one introducing semantics, not bschott. You also seem to evade the obvious explanatory example re the 'how' of said alleged 'interaction' rather than the 'how strongly/weakly' of said alleged 'interaction'. I would add another example: We can measure 'how strongly/weakly' a gravitational interaction occurs, yet the standard model is still silent regarding the actual mechanistic entities/processes involved in the 'how' per se OF said interaction. I trust you will now admit bschott's point?....that here is a gulf of important meaning between the ADVERBIAL PHRASE 'how strongly/weakly' and the NAKED ADVERB 'how' per se.

Cheers. :)

Selective OCD.
In the current context, he really means "why" (my domain).
But you are still the king of "/".
Cheers.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2017
Hi Whyde.:)
You (Whyde) seem to be the one introducing semantics, not bschott. You also seem to evade the obvious explanatory example re the 'how' of said alleged 'interaction' rather than the 'how strongly/weakly' of said alleged 'interaction'. I would add another example: We can measure 'how strongly/weakly' a gravitational interaction occurs, yet the standard model is still silent regarding the actual mechanistic entities/processes involved in the 'how' per se OF said interaction. I trust you will now admit bschott's point?....that here is a gulf of important meaning between the ADVERBIAL PHRASE 'how strongly/weakly' and the NAKED ADVERB 'how' per se.

Cheers. :)
In the current context, he really means "why" (my domain).
But you are still the king of "/".
Cheers.
Mate, you're still doing it! Your own 'friends' (with whom you exchange '5s') will tell you "why" is PHILOSOPHICAL query, not Physics question. Be consistent if you 'critique' his points, mate. :)
Benni
5 / 5 (1) Feb 17, 2017
There is also no "common sense" approach to detecting said matter if it is possible for something of it's nature to exist in our universe. Think about it...it doesn't interact with light...so how do you expect to find it through "heavier" interactions when you need a photon as evidence of said interaction?


This is their default narrative, what they imagine to be clever semantics with which no argument against their position can be generated.
Whydening Gyre
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
Mate, you're still doing it! Your own 'friends' (with whom you exchange '5s') will tell you "why" is PHILOSOPHICAL query, not Physics question. Be consistent if you 'critique' his points, mate. :)

Let's start with your "critique"...
Why and how are completely interchangeable. Notice (how) quickly (and forcefully) you define things.
I see(k) curves, nuance and flow - you see(k) defined contrast. It betrays your limit.
SEE(K) relativity in all things
For Benni,
I have no "position", other than to follow how it all balances out.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Mate, you're still doing it! Your own 'friends' (with whom you exchange '5s') will tell you "why" is PHILOSOPHICAL query, not Physics question. Be consistent if you 'critique' his points, mate. :)

Let's start with your "critique"...
Why and how are completely interchangeable. Notice (how) quickly (and forcefully) you define things.
I see(k) curves, nuance and flow - you see(k) defined contrast. It betrays your limit.
SEE(K) relativity in all things.
Not at all, mate; that distinction was INSISTED upon by YOUR 'friends' (with whom you exchange '5s')!

Are you NOW going to change the agreed meanings/distinction between PHILOSOPHICAL and PHYSICS terms/queries/explanations requirements here for consistency across all discussions?

Face it, Whyde; in this instance, bschott was correctly using the "how" query/term, while you attempted to cloud/evade the issue/point by going the 'semantics' route but not addressing his legitimate/scientific "how". :)
Benni
not rated yet Feb 17, 2017
Face it, Whyde; in this instance, bschott was correctly using the "how" query/term, while you attempted to cloud/evade the issue/point by going the 'semantics' route but not addressing his legitimate/scientific "how


.......because RC, with the Whyguy, it has nothing to do with SCIENCE, it's all about defending the NARRATIVE because that's all he has, a silly & puny narrative totally devoid of substance (literally).
RealScience
4.3 / 5 (4) Feb 17, 2017
... doesn't interact with light at all ... there is no common sense approach that says something can't interact with light but can interact with matter... so how do you expect to find it through "heavier" interactions when you need a photon as evidence of said interaction?


There are already particles that do not interact strongly with light but which have been detected by other interactions with matter. Neutrons are fairly easy to detect because they interact strongly with protons through the strong nuclear force. Neutrinos are much harder to detect because they only interact (as far as we know) through the weak force.

But even something as weakly-interacting as a neutrino can be detected by photons generated by another particle that the neutrino interacts with.

It would be cool if the anomaly is caused by something more exciting than yet-another-tiny-particle, but hard-to-find particles are far from ruled out.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2017
There are already particles that do not interact strongly with light but which have been detected by other interactions with matter. Neutrons are fairly easy to detect because they interact strongly with protons through the strong nuclear force. Neutrinos are much harder to detect because they only interact (as far as we know) through the weak force.

But even something as weakly-interacting as a neutrino can be detected by photons generated by another particle that the neutrino interacts with.

It would be cool if the anomaly is caused by something more exciting than yet-another-tiny-particle, but hard-to-find particles are far from ruled out.

Thanks, RC! You da man!
(for putting it more succinctly than I)
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 18, 2017
.......because RC, with the Whyguy, it has nothing to do with SCIENCE, it's all about defending the NARRATIVE because that's all he has, a silly & puny narrative totally devoid of substance (literally).

If you'll notice, Benni's "narrative" seems to be stuck with a missing percentage and missing photographic evidences. Not exactly a narrative - more a silly schoolyard semantic point of reference...
my exchange with BS was none of you all's business. It was between he and I. I think he has the imagination and cognitive ability to know what you can't.
Mind your own little shops, stay out o mine...
Benni
not rated yet Feb 18, 2017
If you'll notice, Benni's "narrative" seems to be stuck with a missing percentage and missing


.......hey, Whyguy, it's the DM Enthusiasts who started the 80-95% DM Narrative, not me. I'm just having a heap of fun bouncing off their ludicrous numbers by simplifying what real life would look like if their 80-95% numbers were real.

So, once again, go look in a mirror & wonder whether or not 80-95% of that image is MISSING, then wonder what the rest of you looks like if it were true & if you would like to see the MISSING MASS?
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2017
So, once again, go look in a mirror & wonder whether or not 80-95% of that image is MISSING, then wonder what the rest of you looks like if it were true & if you would like to see the MISSING MASS?

Let's try a simple analogy...
Looking in the mirror, again, you see yourself as solid. But if it was really good convex one, you'd see the absolutely immense SPACE between all the atoms.
But as a "Nuclear Engineer" you already know this...
And in that space is a whole host of even smaller, ergo, unseen particles that make the whole network still stick together and work (kinda like wifi, but mass, not RF).
And, as a "Nuclear Engineer", you prob'ly know this, too...
Some bigger, some smaller, but still not visible to our eyes and current technologies. In this analogy, the really good convex mirror isn't good enough.
Hunh...
You'd think a "Nuclear Engineer" working as a Professional in his Field would know this simple kinda stuff.

Hu-u- n-hhh...
Oh, I get it, now...
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2017
So, once again, go look in a mirror & wonder whether or not 80-95% of that image is MISSING, then wonder what the rest of you looks like if it were true & if you would like to see the MISSING MASS?

Or, let's try this less technical one;
You walk into a big great room of your house, newly dry-walled and taped.
You say, "hmmm, this room looks kinda empty..."
Just then the Sun pops through the window.
All of a sudden you say, "Jeez, I can't believe I'm not coughing from all that dust. I'd better get out of here. Glad the Sun came up and showed it..."
That one work for ya?
Benni
not rated yet Feb 18, 2017
That one work for ya?


Whyguy, you live in a bizarre fantasyland dreaming the Impossible Dream. Here you are, retired with nothing to do and your closest companion being your blowtorch.

Oh, yeah, I now see why you either wished 80-95% of your mirror image were missing.........OR, why you're glad that it is.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 18, 2017
That one work for ya?


Whyguy, you live in a bizarre fantasyland dreaming the Impossible Dream. Here you are, retired with nothing to do and your closest companion being your blowtorch.

At least it's hot, not frigid like your vaunted "ski-trails"...
Oh, yeah, I now see why you either wished 80-95% of your mirror image were missing.........OR, why you're glad that it is.

Hunh?!?
Not retired... My 'puter is in my studio. Phys.org is how I take a break and learn something at the same time.
Looks like you spend as much time (or more) as I on this site (apparently not learning a thing).

Must mean 80-95% of your self-acclaimed Professional Career as a Nuclear Engineer is missing...
And maybe 80-95% of those ski trails, too...:-)
Merrit
not rated yet Feb 19, 2017
How did dark matter particles come to be the dominant DM theory when just taking what we know you can easily discover the absurdity? For one, they are theorized to be particles that interact with matter gravitationaly and weakly or none at all otherwise. This leads to several contradictions.

Firstly, dark matter particles would become trapped inside gravity wells and due to interacting weakly with matter they would ccluster at the center of the object passing through all matter. This would lead to every celestial boy with sufficient mass to have a sizable amount of dark matter in it leading it to appear more massive than what is accounted for from observation. But, this has not been detected
Merrit
not rated yet Feb 20, 2017
Continued.
Secondly, all medium and larger galaxies have the same ratio of matter to dark matter. If dark matter really is just a bunch of particles then when galaxies pass one another the larger should strip a sizable portion of the dark matter halo from the other galaxy. This would cause galaxies to vary in matter to dark matter ratios. Which we don't observe for medium and larger galaxies.

Thirdly, dark matter doesn't clump to form the equivalent of planets stars and black holes even though theory says the interact with matter via gravity. This means they either don't interact at all with each other or repel one another. This would increase the effect of the second point.
Merrit
not rated yet Feb 20, 2017
Continued.

Now the much more obvious answer is we just need to find the missing physics or properly apply what we already know. Take for example a glass of water. The effect of the moons gravity is undetectable. Now if we look at the ocean suddenly the effect of the moons gravity can be seen. Like pretty much everything else different effects can be seen at only certain magnifications. Obviously there are factors that don't make much of a difference at the scale of the solar system, but make big differences at the scale of entire galaxies. We just need to figure out what those factors are, what physics we are missing, miss applying.
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 20, 2017
Thirdly, dark matter doesn't clump to form the equivalent of planets stars and black holes even though theory says the interact with matter via gravity.
Precisely. Dark matter halos don't clump together inside the galaxies. You would think someone would have thought about that when coming up with the dark matter halo idea.
This means they either don't interact at all with each other or repel one another. This would increase the effect of the second point.
Certainly don't repel one another. But filaments of dark matter between galaxies could be considered a gravitational attraction between galaxies or regions of dark matter. IMO gravity is due to less dense regions of spacetime and low pressure regions attract each other which would account for the filaments and gravitational attraction between galaxies. These low density regions would be traceable to the vacuum fluctuations in the early U.
nikola_milovic_378
not rated yet Feb 21, 2017
What does all this look like? These well-paid and idle people call "scientists", all what they have no idea as "dark". See how absurd is the following observation: WATER
Is there any scientific institution to study the formation and origin of water. It is our essential component, is in the oceans, rivers, lakes, in the earth, in the clouds, in air and in SMIM living beings and animals, humans and plant life. Now take a look at what this looks like. They spend billions of dollars on research something that does not exist, but for people of the "high level say that they see it in various experiments. They cheat ourselves and the whole civilization.
If they say that there is dark matter, then surely they do not know what the matter is, in general, and how they arise and disappear. Here are some of studying the water, because it is a form of matter, and let her determine the origin and mode of formation.
nikola_milovic_378
not rated yet Feb 21, 2017
"SCIENTISTS" come to your senses and try to understand the structure of the universe.
In the universe there is something of which matter is formed, and there is a con by which this formation takes place. This compound is an ether. and nothing else!!
All other stories and fabrications were a mirage idle "apprentice"
Seeker2
not rated yet Feb 21, 2017
These low density regions would be traceable to the vacuum fluctuations in the early U.
You might say these fluctuations determined the structure of the U before the U ever cooled down enough to begin baryogenesis. Then when baryogenesis did begin it started in the low density regions which they think is dark matter like in the galaxies. Not really rocket science.

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.