Is dark matter really a meaningful hypothesis?
$begingroup$
This thought has been bugging me from quite some time so I decided to ask.
According to CMBR the universe was a cloud of plasma and was a perfect black body, $380,!000$ years after big bang.
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody (i.e. sun radiates large amounts of its energy as electromagnetic radiation), so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
cosmology big-bang dark-matter cosmic-microwave-background baryons
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This thought has been bugging me from quite some time so I decided to ask.
According to CMBR the universe was a cloud of plasma and was a perfect black body, $380,!000$ years after big bang.
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody (i.e. sun radiates large amounts of its energy as electromagnetic radiation), so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
cosmology big-bang dark-matter cosmic-microwave-background baryons
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This thought has been bugging me from quite some time so I decided to ask.
According to CMBR the universe was a cloud of plasma and was a perfect black body, $380,!000$ years after big bang.
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody (i.e. sun radiates large amounts of its energy as electromagnetic radiation), so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
cosmology big-bang dark-matter cosmic-microwave-background baryons
New contributor
$endgroup$
This thought has been bugging me from quite some time so I decided to ask.
According to CMBR the universe was a cloud of plasma and was a perfect black body, $380,!000$ years after big bang.
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody (i.e. sun radiates large amounts of its energy as electromagnetic radiation), so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
cosmology big-bang dark-matter cosmic-microwave-background baryons
cosmology big-bang dark-matter cosmic-microwave-background baryons
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
MannyC
1,346314
1,346314
New contributor
asked 5 hours ago
N Pranav SubhravetiN Pranav Subhraveti
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody
Wrong, the sun radiation is approximately fitted as a black body. The word "black body" does not describe the frequencies, but the assumption that it absorbs all radiation falling on it and re-emits it.
Here is the sun, and it fits the black body formula approximately.
Solar irradiance spectrum above atmosphere and at surface. Extreme UV and X-rays are produced (at left of wavelength range shown) but comprise very small amounts of the Sun's total output power.
Plasma is also described by black body radiation.
so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
This is wrong, as seen above because your premiss is wrong, but also, dark matter is necessary to fit the newtonian rotational curves of galaxies, and more observational evidence can be found in this link..
Dark matter is a completely classical observation of newtonian and general relativity. Baryon asymmetry comes from quantum mechanical knowledge of the content of the classical masses, and does not involve dark matter in any meaningful manner.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer: yes.
You should look in to the history behind the dark matter hypothesis. It started not from the examination of cosmology and the CMB, but from the motion of galaxies in clusters and stars orbiting around galaxies. See, the vast majority of ordinary matter in every galaxy is contained in the gas between the stars, not the stars themselves. Because of that, we can get a decent handle on how much ordinary matter is around by observing that. Tools for this purpose: the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen, when the gas is cold, as much of it is in spiral galaxies, and looking at the x-ray spectrum when it is exceptionally hot, as it is between galaxies in large clusters.
When we examine the way the parts of galaxies, and the galaxies in clusters, move, they're travelling way too fast. If the mass we can see direct evidence for is all there is, the clusters would not be able to hold on to their hot gas and galaxies, and the galaxies would not hold together, either.
"So what? Maybe the matter is there, it just isn't giving off light." Trouble is, if it were hot enough to be a plasma, and thus lack spectral lines, we could see it directly. If it were too cold to be a plasma, it would block light from galaxies and quasars in the background more in the matter's spectral lines. So whatever is producing this extra gravity has to neither emit nor absorb light in any way we've been able to detect.
It just so happens that adding dark matter (or something very like it) to the cosmology simulations is also essential to explain the CMB data.
Now, you may object that the extra gravity we've observed may have some other source. For instance, maybe Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong on the scale of galaxies and larger. The trouble that idea runs into is you're no longer able to explain the bullet cluster, where the gas between the galaxies has collided, but the dark matter and galaxies did not.
On the subject of black body spectra. The black body is the spectrum that a gas of photons assumes if it is in thermal equilibrium (constant uniform temperature everywhere). The CMB is very very nearly a black-body because at the time the differences in temperature between any two parts of the universe were very very small. The sun, however, is surrounded by a very cold vacuum, and that lack of equilibrium will inevitably cause the spectrum to deviate from the ideal Planck function.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Being meaningful and being hypothetical, do not always work in hand.
My personal opinion is, dark matter will be replaced for a better model in time. By the way, the sun is a black body, its just not a pure one. It's antithesis is the black hole, which is a near perfect black body.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
N Pranav Subhraveti is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472803%2fis-dark-matter-really-a-meaningful-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody
Wrong, the sun radiation is approximately fitted as a black body. The word "black body" does not describe the frequencies, but the assumption that it absorbs all radiation falling on it and re-emits it.
Here is the sun, and it fits the black body formula approximately.
Solar irradiance spectrum above atmosphere and at surface. Extreme UV and X-rays are produced (at left of wavelength range shown) but comprise very small amounts of the Sun's total output power.
Plasma is also described by black body radiation.
so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
This is wrong, as seen above because your premiss is wrong, but also, dark matter is necessary to fit the newtonian rotational curves of galaxies, and more observational evidence can be found in this link..
Dark matter is a completely classical observation of newtonian and general relativity. Baryon asymmetry comes from quantum mechanical knowledge of the content of the classical masses, and does not involve dark matter in any meaningful manner.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody
Wrong, the sun radiation is approximately fitted as a black body. The word "black body" does not describe the frequencies, but the assumption that it absorbs all radiation falling on it and re-emits it.
Here is the sun, and it fits the black body formula approximately.
Solar irradiance spectrum above atmosphere and at surface. Extreme UV and X-rays are produced (at left of wavelength range shown) but comprise very small amounts of the Sun's total output power.
Plasma is also described by black body radiation.
so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
This is wrong, as seen above because your premiss is wrong, but also, dark matter is necessary to fit the newtonian rotational curves of galaxies, and more observational evidence can be found in this link..
Dark matter is a completely classical observation of newtonian and general relativity. Baryon asymmetry comes from quantum mechanical knowledge of the content of the classical masses, and does not involve dark matter in any meaningful manner.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody
Wrong, the sun radiation is approximately fitted as a black body. The word "black body" does not describe the frequencies, but the assumption that it absorbs all radiation falling on it and re-emits it.
Here is the sun, and it fits the black body formula approximately.
Solar irradiance spectrum above atmosphere and at surface. Extreme UV and X-rays are produced (at left of wavelength range shown) but comprise very small amounts of the Sun's total output power.
Plasma is also described by black body radiation.
so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
This is wrong, as seen above because your premiss is wrong, but also, dark matter is necessary to fit the newtonian rotational curves of galaxies, and more observational evidence can be found in this link..
Dark matter is a completely classical observation of newtonian and general relativity. Baryon asymmetry comes from quantum mechanical knowledge of the content of the classical masses, and does not involve dark matter in any meaningful manner.
$endgroup$
But the Sun in our solar system also is in the state of plasma and yet doesn't act like a blackbody
Wrong, the sun radiation is approximately fitted as a black body. The word "black body" does not describe the frequencies, but the assumption that it absorbs all radiation falling on it and re-emits it.
Here is the sun, and it fits the black body formula approximately.
Solar irradiance spectrum above atmosphere and at surface. Extreme UV and X-rays are produced (at left of wavelength range shown) but comprise very small amounts of the Sun's total output power.
Plasma is also described by black body radiation.
so it is possible that the universe in its initial stage also behaved similarly. And this is the reason we find find less baryonic matter than we should. Thus making the concept of dark energy irrelevant.
This is wrong, as seen above because your premiss is wrong, but also, dark matter is necessary to fit the newtonian rotational curves of galaxies, and more observational evidence can be found in this link..
Dark matter is a completely classical observation of newtonian and general relativity. Baryon asymmetry comes from quantum mechanical knowledge of the content of the classical masses, and does not involve dark matter in any meaningful manner.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
anna vanna v
162k8153456
162k8153456
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer: yes.
You should look in to the history behind the dark matter hypothesis. It started not from the examination of cosmology and the CMB, but from the motion of galaxies in clusters and stars orbiting around galaxies. See, the vast majority of ordinary matter in every galaxy is contained in the gas between the stars, not the stars themselves. Because of that, we can get a decent handle on how much ordinary matter is around by observing that. Tools for this purpose: the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen, when the gas is cold, as much of it is in spiral galaxies, and looking at the x-ray spectrum when it is exceptionally hot, as it is between galaxies in large clusters.
When we examine the way the parts of galaxies, and the galaxies in clusters, move, they're travelling way too fast. If the mass we can see direct evidence for is all there is, the clusters would not be able to hold on to their hot gas and galaxies, and the galaxies would not hold together, either.
"So what? Maybe the matter is there, it just isn't giving off light." Trouble is, if it were hot enough to be a plasma, and thus lack spectral lines, we could see it directly. If it were too cold to be a plasma, it would block light from galaxies and quasars in the background more in the matter's spectral lines. So whatever is producing this extra gravity has to neither emit nor absorb light in any way we've been able to detect.
It just so happens that adding dark matter (or something very like it) to the cosmology simulations is also essential to explain the CMB data.
Now, you may object that the extra gravity we've observed may have some other source. For instance, maybe Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong on the scale of galaxies and larger. The trouble that idea runs into is you're no longer able to explain the bullet cluster, where the gas between the galaxies has collided, but the dark matter and galaxies did not.
On the subject of black body spectra. The black body is the spectrum that a gas of photons assumes if it is in thermal equilibrium (constant uniform temperature everywhere). The CMB is very very nearly a black-body because at the time the differences in temperature between any two parts of the universe were very very small. The sun, however, is surrounded by a very cold vacuum, and that lack of equilibrium will inevitably cause the spectrum to deviate from the ideal Planck function.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer: yes.
You should look in to the history behind the dark matter hypothesis. It started not from the examination of cosmology and the CMB, but from the motion of galaxies in clusters and stars orbiting around galaxies. See, the vast majority of ordinary matter in every galaxy is contained in the gas between the stars, not the stars themselves. Because of that, we can get a decent handle on how much ordinary matter is around by observing that. Tools for this purpose: the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen, when the gas is cold, as much of it is in spiral galaxies, and looking at the x-ray spectrum when it is exceptionally hot, as it is between galaxies in large clusters.
When we examine the way the parts of galaxies, and the galaxies in clusters, move, they're travelling way too fast. If the mass we can see direct evidence for is all there is, the clusters would not be able to hold on to their hot gas and galaxies, and the galaxies would not hold together, either.
"So what? Maybe the matter is there, it just isn't giving off light." Trouble is, if it were hot enough to be a plasma, and thus lack spectral lines, we could see it directly. If it were too cold to be a plasma, it would block light from galaxies and quasars in the background more in the matter's spectral lines. So whatever is producing this extra gravity has to neither emit nor absorb light in any way we've been able to detect.
It just so happens that adding dark matter (or something very like it) to the cosmology simulations is also essential to explain the CMB data.
Now, you may object that the extra gravity we've observed may have some other source. For instance, maybe Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong on the scale of galaxies and larger. The trouble that idea runs into is you're no longer able to explain the bullet cluster, where the gas between the galaxies has collided, but the dark matter and galaxies did not.
On the subject of black body spectra. The black body is the spectrum that a gas of photons assumes if it is in thermal equilibrium (constant uniform temperature everywhere). The CMB is very very nearly a black-body because at the time the differences in temperature between any two parts of the universe were very very small. The sun, however, is surrounded by a very cold vacuum, and that lack of equilibrium will inevitably cause the spectrum to deviate from the ideal Planck function.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Short answer: yes.
You should look in to the history behind the dark matter hypothesis. It started not from the examination of cosmology and the CMB, but from the motion of galaxies in clusters and stars orbiting around galaxies. See, the vast majority of ordinary matter in every galaxy is contained in the gas between the stars, not the stars themselves. Because of that, we can get a decent handle on how much ordinary matter is around by observing that. Tools for this purpose: the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen, when the gas is cold, as much of it is in spiral galaxies, and looking at the x-ray spectrum when it is exceptionally hot, as it is between galaxies in large clusters.
When we examine the way the parts of galaxies, and the galaxies in clusters, move, they're travelling way too fast. If the mass we can see direct evidence for is all there is, the clusters would not be able to hold on to their hot gas and galaxies, and the galaxies would not hold together, either.
"So what? Maybe the matter is there, it just isn't giving off light." Trouble is, if it were hot enough to be a plasma, and thus lack spectral lines, we could see it directly. If it were too cold to be a plasma, it would block light from galaxies and quasars in the background more in the matter's spectral lines. So whatever is producing this extra gravity has to neither emit nor absorb light in any way we've been able to detect.
It just so happens that adding dark matter (or something very like it) to the cosmology simulations is also essential to explain the CMB data.
Now, you may object that the extra gravity we've observed may have some other source. For instance, maybe Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong on the scale of galaxies and larger. The trouble that idea runs into is you're no longer able to explain the bullet cluster, where the gas between the galaxies has collided, but the dark matter and galaxies did not.
On the subject of black body spectra. The black body is the spectrum that a gas of photons assumes if it is in thermal equilibrium (constant uniform temperature everywhere). The CMB is very very nearly a black-body because at the time the differences in temperature between any two parts of the universe were very very small. The sun, however, is surrounded by a very cold vacuum, and that lack of equilibrium will inevitably cause the spectrum to deviate from the ideal Planck function.
$endgroup$
Short answer: yes.
You should look in to the history behind the dark matter hypothesis. It started not from the examination of cosmology and the CMB, but from the motion of galaxies in clusters and stars orbiting around galaxies. See, the vast majority of ordinary matter in every galaxy is contained in the gas between the stars, not the stars themselves. Because of that, we can get a decent handle on how much ordinary matter is around by observing that. Tools for this purpose: the 21 cm line of atomic hydrogen, when the gas is cold, as much of it is in spiral galaxies, and looking at the x-ray spectrum when it is exceptionally hot, as it is between galaxies in large clusters.
When we examine the way the parts of galaxies, and the galaxies in clusters, move, they're travelling way too fast. If the mass we can see direct evidence for is all there is, the clusters would not be able to hold on to their hot gas and galaxies, and the galaxies would not hold together, either.
"So what? Maybe the matter is there, it just isn't giving off light." Trouble is, if it were hot enough to be a plasma, and thus lack spectral lines, we could see it directly. If it were too cold to be a plasma, it would block light from galaxies and quasars in the background more in the matter's spectral lines. So whatever is producing this extra gravity has to neither emit nor absorb light in any way we've been able to detect.
It just so happens that adding dark matter (or something very like it) to the cosmology simulations is also essential to explain the CMB data.
Now, you may object that the extra gravity we've observed may have some other source. For instance, maybe Newton's law of gravitation is simply wrong on the scale of galaxies and larger. The trouble that idea runs into is you're no longer able to explain the bullet cluster, where the gas between the galaxies has collided, but the dark matter and galaxies did not.
On the subject of black body spectra. The black body is the spectrum that a gas of photons assumes if it is in thermal equilibrium (constant uniform temperature everywhere). The CMB is very very nearly a black-body because at the time the differences in temperature between any two parts of the universe were very very small. The sun, however, is surrounded by a very cold vacuum, and that lack of equilibrium will inevitably cause the spectrum to deviate from the ideal Planck function.
answered 1 hour ago
Sean E. LakeSean E. Lake
14.8k12351
14.8k12351
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
Could it be we don’t measure the mass correctly at all?
$endgroup$
– 0x90
52 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@0x90 Not likely. The way we measure mass is based on the physics of how light interacts with matter, something we have measured extremely well here on the ground. See, if a gas is thin enough that it is unlikely to reabsorb anything it emits ("optically thin" - see the 21 cm line), then we can deduce the gas temperature from the way the shape of the line is distorted, and the amount of gas along the line of sight ("column density") from brightness. Total mass is just adding up the lines of sight. The process is similar for absorption, just inverted.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
That said, one of the dark matter candidates is known as "MACHOs" for "Massive Compact Halo Objects". Basically, the thinking is if you have enough really high concentrations of mass that don't emit light (think black holes), that could do the trick. Trouble is, you'd expect them to pass between you and a star from another galaxy from time to time, lensing the light of the background star, making it appear brighter. Searches for this phenomenon have come up short, meaning it is unlikely that MACHOs can explain all of dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Sean E. Lake
44 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
$begingroup$
what if the matter is transparent to light (the wavelength of the light is too long). Like radio wave and our body.
$endgroup$
– 0x90
43 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Being meaningful and being hypothetical, do not always work in hand.
My personal opinion is, dark matter will be replaced for a better model in time. By the way, the sun is a black body, its just not a pure one. It's antithesis is the black hole, which is a near perfect black body.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Being meaningful and being hypothetical, do not always work in hand.
My personal opinion is, dark matter will be replaced for a better model in time. By the way, the sun is a black body, its just not a pure one. It's antithesis is the black hole, which is a near perfect black body.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Being meaningful and being hypothetical, do not always work in hand.
My personal opinion is, dark matter will be replaced for a better model in time. By the way, the sun is a black body, its just not a pure one. It's antithesis is the black hole, which is a near perfect black body.
$endgroup$
Being meaningful and being hypothetical, do not always work in hand.
My personal opinion is, dark matter will be replaced for a better model in time. By the way, the sun is a black body, its just not a pure one. It's antithesis is the black hole, which is a near perfect black body.
answered 4 hours ago
Gareth MeredithGareth Meredith
374112
374112
add a comment |
add a comment |
N Pranav Subhraveti is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
N Pranav Subhraveti is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
N Pranav Subhraveti is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
N Pranav Subhraveti is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472803%2fis-dark-matter-really-a-meaningful-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I heard dark matter was invented because modern physics theories didnt create accurate simulations in a computer. youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA
$endgroup$
– eromod
4 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
Black bodies DO radiate; dark matter is not black, because it does not radiate. Thermodynamic principles require surfaces which absorb (are black) be good radiators of light, which is a feature absent in dark matter.
$endgroup$
– Whit3rd
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Dark matter and dark energy are not the same thing
$endgroup$
– lcv
2 hours ago