Slashdot Mirror


Galaxy Sans Dark Matter

ChromaticDragon writes "Astronomers have crunched some numbers on a galaxy to discover that its rotation can be fully explained by the gravity of the observable matter — in effect, this galaxy seems to lack dark matter. This shouldn't come as a total surprise given that one of the stronger observations of Dark Matter was the Bullet Cluster where supposedly a good deal of Dark Matter and good old fashion regular matter had separated."

92 comments

  1. Awesome by ShawnCplus · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yeah.. guess what guys! We just discovered this awesome stuff called Dark Matter! Really? Yeah... Can we see it? um.... it doesn't exist in this galaxy.

    --
    Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
    1. Re:Awesome by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The trend in physics for the past 30 years has been to invent a new particle to explain any discrepancies with current theory anyway. This is no surprise.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Awesome by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only that dark matter isn't necessarily a new particle or has to be a product of fantasy. That's among the debated things. All it seems to be is some sort of particle with a mass that doesn't reflect light or emitting much else that can be detected, making it dark. So some theories have said it could be neutrinos, or maybe neutralinos, that are actually predicted to exist by modern theories.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Awesome by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

      Dark matter being that which is mostly having the definition that it is undefined, with the expectation that it is something new or something known with an unproven ( debated ) property of gravity, such as neutrinos.
      Its not necessarily wholly comprised of something unseen, and could be in fact made up of many different particle types having gravity/mass/weight. That is, assuming its not a gross mistake.

      --
      I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
    4. Re:Awesome by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is simply the mass of the error margin

      "Our theories predict that there is some quantity of matter in that galaxy, but we only measured a fraction of it. Either we're wrong in the estimate of mass, or in the theory that predicts the behaviour of galaxies."

      This is called Common Sense. Discrepancy == incomplete theory or wrong calculations.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    5. Re:Awesome by armareum · · Score: 1

      I know you were making a joke, but the the "this galaxy" that is being referred to isn't the Milky Way, it's NGC 4736.

      --
      Is this a rhetorical question?
    6. Re:Awesome by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Dark matter is simply the mass of the error margin

      Umm, no, it's not, and if you believe that, you haven't been keeping up with the latest discoveries. The Bullet Cluster results demonstrably show that *something* is there, different from regular matter, but exerting a gravitational force. What it is, we don't know, but it's presence is undeniable.

    7. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ether/Electrical/Plasma universe idea might be on to something:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. A good link by The+Empiricist · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not sure if it is the story the submitter was trying to link to, but this article seems to cover the subject.

    1. Re:A good link by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's truly indicative of how well the firehose and editorial system really does work here on /. when we can get something as glaringly obvious as a screwed link through to the front page...

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
  4. Re:Broken link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It works only if you have a UID less than 100,000 or if you are an Anonymous Coward Emeritus. It is actually pretty awesome.

    Oh, stop looking at me like that. Here is your bloody link

  5. Re:Broken link? by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought that was supposed to be a joke... would have been much more effective if it immediately shutdown your computer when you clicked it though...

    Black Matter [Click Here]

    Black Screen...

  6. Back of the Galaxy by chill · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the Dark Matter is there, it just was told to move to the back of the galaxy.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Back of the Galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that the matter being "dark" makes it a "nigger"? You racist fuck!

    2. Re:Back of the Galaxy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course not, he thought the "dark" matter was a rap superstar and the Galaxy was a limo.

    3. Re:Back of the Galaxy by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      That actually made me laugh out loud, and I'm only awake reading this because I am in too much pain to sleep tonight. So thanks, I really needed that laugh.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    4. Re:Back of the Galaxy by Albinoman · · Score: 1

      Your words, not his. And if you gonna go all irrationally stupid on us, at least post with your name so we can filter you.

  7. Another argument for variability of "constants" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No (or negligible) dark matter in our galaxy, eh?

    When we're looking farther away, we're looking back in time, too. So perhaps the observations could be explained by "constants" of physics (notably the gravitational constant) varying with the age of the universe, rather than by the gravitational pull of some otherwise-unobservable dark matter.

    Let's see if "dark matter" is "more dense" the farther away we look... B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by arotenbe · · Score: 4, Informative

      No (or negligible) dark matter in our galaxy, eh? That's what I thought when I first read this story, too. The summary is confusing:

      Astronomers have crunched some numbers on a galaxy to discover that its rotation can be fully explained by the gravity of the observable matter -- in effect, this galaxy seems to lack dark matter. Here, "this galaxy" refers not to the Milky Way but to the other galaxy mentioned in the first part of the sentence.
      --
      Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
    2. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by mrxak · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Definitely an interesting idea. Dark matter always sort of bugged me. But if it doesn't really exist, that means we can't use gravitic weapons (a la Schlock Mercenary) to talk to dark matter aliens!

    3. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      But dark matter seem to be unevenly distributed around various objects and not as if it was a general "constant" factor acting. It's not just theories, but observations on gravitaional lensing too.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Remusti · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your galaxy? Are you posting from NGC 4736, or just visiting Earth for a while?

      Either way, I'm sure you can see that Earth isn't worth invading, right? Right?

    5. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Pikoro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was always curious. If looking farther away is looking back in time, the conceivably, we should be able to find the milky way just by looking for it. It's not stationary, but not moving nearly the speed of light. Could there be a light "echo" somewhere out there and we're really looking at ourselves through a temporal colored lens?

      This post brought to you by beer.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    6. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAAP, but I believe that in order to see our own galaxy as a "light echo", we'd have to be travelling faster than the speed of light.

    7. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Your galaxy? Are you posting from NGC 4736, or just visiting Earth for a while? Sometimes I feel like I'm from there. Most of the people I meet are really odd. B-)

      Either way, I'm sure you can see that Earth isn't worth invading, right? Right? Been there, done that. All I got was a damned teeshirt. But the artichokes were very tasty - especially in a Mongolian firepot with squirrel broth and seasoned with a bit of thulium and phenol - and the little thorns on the ends of the leaves make great antenna scratchers.
      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      IANAAP, but I believe that in order to see our own galaxy as a "light echo", we'd have to be travelling faster than the speed of light. I'm not a jet pilot but I have heard a "sound echo" without traveling faster than the speed of sound. For a "light echo" you only need to look in a mirror or at a sufficiently strong gravitational lens.

      I think what you're thinking of is a "future echo".
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Now that I am sober I can explain the train of thought a bit more completely...

      Basically, the milky way is not in the same position in space as it was say... 10 billion years ago.

      So, if we look in the direction from which the milky way traveled, could we not see the light of our own galaxy in the place it was billions of years ago?

      Silly I know, but the thought made sense at the time...

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    10. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by 0p7imu5_P2im3 · · Score: 1

      I've actually thought about this, too.

      We've never sent a probe outside the solar system (yet), so what is to say that the interstellar space, or even the Heliopause itself, is not distorting the flow of energy/matter/time/space? What's to say that once Vayager I passes outside the Heliopause, we don't suddenly start receiving extremely redshifted transmissions from Andromeda that just happen to be exactly what Voyager I was sending? We don't know that our experimental laws of physics hold constant outside a solar system. The fact is, we have no experimental data, yet, with regard to celestial bodies outside our solar system, or the space between, so literally any explanation that provides for the light we see from other stars is a possibility.

      --
      Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
    11. Re:Another argument for variability of "constants" by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Light moves faster than our galaxy; a double image is only possible if we were moving faster than light, or there was some kind of diffraction effect on an object far away.

      However, the movement does cause a red or blue shift, which is what describes the phenomenon you're looking for.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  8. Fascinating! by ilikepi314 · · Score: 1

    This is really interesting after reading a recent /. story about dark matter, and getting some more information from another poster. If dark matter was needed to explain why galaxies look a certain way, but this one can exist without it, what does that say about dark matter? Even if dark matter is real, there's obviously something missing if we can't explain this.

    Nature, you have once again awed me with your incredible weirdness.

    1. Re:Fascinating! by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm certainly no expert on the subject, but as far as I am aware Dark matter is matter that fills the equasion when the visible matter doesn't compute...

      If a galaxy without dark matter computes, and a galaxy with visible matter with the addition of dark matter computes...

      Whats the difference? wouldnt a galaxy made up of entirely dark matter be equal to a galaxy of entirely visible matter?

      If you have 3 fish, and two of them are transparent zebrafish, and one is a normal opaque one... they are still 3 fish... as far as im concerened, this doesnt really prove anything other than matter effects other matter wether its visible or not which we already know... however it may disprove that dark matter is neccisary to create a galaxy? (if anyone was actually pondering that?)

    2. Re:Fascinating! by tirerim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sure. But most of the galaxies we have observed seem to be made up of a mixture of dark matter and visible matter, given their gravitational characteristics. Finding a galaxy with no matter isn't any sort of physical impossibility, but it's surprising because it's not the norm. If most galaxies contain dark matter, then something unusual must have happened to this one for it not to contain dark matter, and that's interesting; beyond that, the fact that such a thing even could happen may give us insights into the nature of dark matter.

    3. Re:Fascinating! by EvanED · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nature, you have once again awed me with your incredible weirdness.

      Every time I read a story like this, I can't help but think of the following quote from Hitchhiker's:

      There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable.

      There is another theory which states that this has already happened.


      I sometimes wonder if perhaps there is a God, and he is changing the rules on us. Like maybe until the time of Newton, it was the case that mass didn't vary with velocity, and that you could continually apply a force and accelerate to infinite speeds. And then Newton came around, discovered those rules, and God supplanted them with relativity. And then Einstein came along, and God said "hmm, let's add dark matter and make things more interesting."

      Sort of like when I was a kid playing battleship, I would track my opponent's guesses on my lower board. And if they guessed where one of my ships was, I would discretely move the ship to somewhere they didn't guess yet and announce a miss. Except with physical laws.

      I don't think this is a reasonable thing to actually believe, but it would be amusing. If I were God I would totally do that.
    4. Re:Fascinating! by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Funny


      The cool thing is, if I were God, I could create an alternate universe in which I invented the finglonger.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    5. Re:Fascinating! by 2names · · Score: 1
      If dark matter was needed to explain why galaxies look a certain way, but this one can exist without it, what does that say about dark matter?

      Perhaps the researchers were lacking in gray matter?

      --
      "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
    6. Re:Fascinating! by rprins · · Score: 1
      If you actually read the article...

      "The current picture is that galaxies form inside of dark matter halos," Diemand told New Scientist. The dark matter's gravity attracts ordinary gas, which can then coagulate into stars.
      "It is unclear how one would form a galaxy without a dark halo, or how one could remove the halo without destroying the galaxy," says Diemand. "A galaxy without dark matter really does not fit into our current understanding of cosmology and galaxy formation." There, apparantly dark matter makes a difference.
  9. Impact on gravity theories by Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is another nail in the "dark matter can be solved with a modified theory of gravity" coffin. If we can find a galaxy composed of stars whose observed motion is entirely explained by the mass of those stars and known theories of gravity (Newton, Einstein) that's a serious blow to theories like MOND.

    1. Re:Impact on gravity theories by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You seem to have some clue as to what you are talking about so maybe you could help me out with something that has me puzzled for a while now.

      How do astronomers measure the rotation of a galaxy as a whole?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Impact on gravity theories by syousef · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not the GP but can answer your question.

      You measure the dopler shift of the stars on each side of the galaxy. Waves from stars travelling towards you compress, waves travelling away from you so it helps if galaxy is seen more edge on than top or bottom towards us.

      (Of course it won't be perfectly edge on so you have to calculate the component that is edge on to work out actual speeds around the galactic center. The less edge on the more accurate you can be because the component that's edge on is larger). ...which leads to how do you measure doppler shifts.

      One way is to look at the spectral lines of light in a star (ie split the light through a prism or diffraction grating). Chemicals that make up the star's surface absorb at precisely known wavelengths. It's actually really easy to do some calculation once you know what wavelength these lines have shifted to. (I did it when I did my astronomy masters. It's basic algebra andsimple equations). The difficult part is building equipment that can measure spectra so accurately. In the early days they'd be literally measuring the difference between wavelengths on glass plates.

      http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/galrotcurve.html
      "To make a rotation curve one calculates the rotational velocity of stars along the length of a galaxy by measuring their Doppler shifts, and then plots this quantity versus their respective distance away from the galactic center."

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Impact on gravity theories by NeoSkink · · Score: 2, Informative

      When we say "Galaxy Rotation Speed" we mean a measure of velocity as a function of distance from the center. To get this, you just measure the speed of stars and measure how far they are from the center. As to how you get a stars velocity, well you look at the red shift relative to the galaxy, that if the whole galaxy is moving away it will have a redshift, but stars rotating away from us in the galaxy will have a higher redshift on average, and stars rotating towards us have a lower redshift.

      At least that's how I imagine they do it... IANAABIAAC (I am not an astronomer but I am a cosmologist), so I'm a little rusty on all this nearby stuff.

    4. Re:Impact on gravity theories by 0123456789 · · Score: 1

      They measure the rotation curves; which is the variation in velocity (measured via redshift, using spectroscopy) with radius of the galaxy. The wikipedia entry for rotation curve is a good summary (you may also be interested in the entries for redshift and spectroscopy).

    5. Re:Impact on gravity theories by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      I thought MOND is pretty much dead after the Bullet Cluster X-ray/lensing observation.

    6. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Dice · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall some posts in the aftermath of that announcement that put forth models which explained the observed phenomena within the structures of some of the modified gravity theories. I don't know if this was MOND specifically or some of the other competing theories.

      I think that this particular observation is a stronger point against the modified gravity theories than the previous lensing observation, though, since it is precisely the absence of the original dark matter problem which is being observed.

    7. Re:Impact on gravity theories by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Red shift! Of course.

      Many thanks to you and the others for the informative replies

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOND plus sterile neutrinos could explain both flat rotation curves and the Bullet Cluster at a first approximation. (How good the approximation was was disputed.) Since some particle physics experiments have suggested sterile neutrinos do exist but are insufficiently numerous/massive to consist the majority of dark matter in the conventional dark matter theories, this was seen as keeping MOND, if not healthy, on life support.

      If this galaxy really does have a non-flat rotation curve, though, MOND is hit fatally, while the dark matter theories can write this off as one anomalous galaxy without much dark matter.

    9. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm kinda bothered by the comments that seem to think this means the opposite -- that this observation weakens the evidence for our current theories.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      MOND is KAKA. General Relativity is already the best theory. Using Newton's equations to describe anything other than a high-school physics experiment is a waste of time. If you use GR to model the rotation of a galaxy you get the observed rotation; dark matter is epicycles, created because Newton's equations don't work. The original calculations of galactic rotation used Newton's equations, and attempted to fix the problem by postulating dark matter. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

    11. Re:Impact on gravity theories by CorSci81 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to respond to this because even though I completely disagree with you, I also disagree with your post being marked flamebait (although adding some evidence to support your point would've been useful). I'm going to presume you're referencing the claims of Cooperstock & Tieu. Unfortunately, their model ultimately requires an unphysical mass distribution (Vogt or Korzynski). It is a good point that for a long time people didn't do full GR simulations, but the end result is just that you need about 30% less dark matter than Newtonian dynamics predicts to explain the observations.

      The other major problem of Cooperstock & Tieu's work is while it does address galactic rotation curves, it still fails to address the other observations supporting the existence of dark matter (namely certain galaxy clusters).

      Given that your UID/email imply you work in medical research rather than astronomy I'll forgive you for not keeping current on the research, especially given how much press Copperstock & Tieu received. However, you should have learned by now that a single paper is rarely the definitive word in a field of research.

    12. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also disagree with your post being marked flamebait It's total flamebait. "Using Newton's equations to describe anything other than a high-school physics experiment is a waste of time"? How absurd. Newton's equations are used routinely in both science and engineering applications, not just in "high school physics experiments". And using GR is overkill whenever Newton is just as good. (True, in this case GR has non-negligible corrections, but that doesn't counter the absurdity of his basic claim.) And what about "Dark matter is epicycles"? Dark matter is "WRONG. WRONG. WRONG."? Even if he were correct (and he's not), it's still flamebait.

    13. Re:Impact on gravity theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absurd? Yes. But looking at his posting history I think it's less flaming and more just being an idiot. His other (slightly calmer) post was marked troll. Until /. adds a (-1 Ignorant) mod option, troll and flamebait are not appropriate substitutions.

  10. Re:Broken link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, Mario, but your story is in another link.

  11. Best Quote Ever by Eddi3 · · Score: 0

    From TFA:

    "So for now, it seems that some of our missing mass is missing."

    If by this, they mean "holy shit, our physics no longer work," then they would probably be correct.

    1. Re:Best Quote Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by this, they mean "holy shit, our physics no longer work," then they would probably be correct.

      Apparently, they mean "holy shit our phyisics works!" since they don't need mysterious unknown stuff :P

    2. Re:Best Quote Ever by Eddi3 · · Score: 0

      Except they still need the mysterious unknown stuff to explain things in many other cases. Maybe I should have said something more like "Our physics are inconsistent."

  12. Simplest explanation here by mdenham · · Score: 1

    Killing two birds with one stone - dark matter decays to dark energy, with a half-life of (multiple millions of years here).

  13. String Theory by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    Im with the string theory people and what we are seeing is an "effect" of multidimensional space.

    1. Re:String Theory by nagora · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Im with the string theory people and what we are seeing is an "effect" of multidimensional space.

      The only thing String Theory people see are grant cheques. ST must surely be the least successful scientific theory of all time in terms of the effort put in versus the results got out.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  14. Re:Broken link? by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Broken link? I don't think so..

    It says 404.. Not Found.. Pretty much in line with TFS...

  15. Blond matter by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Funny

    'Let's see if "dark matter" is "more dense"' I dunno, usually blond matter is more dense...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  16. Blow? by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    That’d be more like “serious suck,” wouldn’t it?

    Er... & isn’t MOND just like MONO only it O-D’ed?

    I suspect that all of the dark matter is still there, it’s just much better adapted to the background than the Caucasian matter. Happens often with some Zambian flatmates & myself.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  17. simplest thing ever by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everyone gets all idiotic about dark matter. It's not some magical, physics breaking, mysterious subject. It's matter with no light shining on it. It's there and it's normal, we just can't see it. It's really as simple as that. It could be that this galaxy without any isn't old enough to have black holes without acresion disks (invisible matter aka dark matter) or nuetron or brown stars or whatever and thus we can see everything. The simplest solution is the correct one without further evidence. The rest is BS made up for TV ratings and term papers and grant money.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:simplest thing ever by logicnazi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Umm, no.

      There are some good reasons to believe it isn't normal matter that isn't making light. For starters one would still expect it to absorb light and thus be observable. Additionally our models of galaxy formation would suggest it should have a certain distribution which doesn't conform with what is necessery to explain the rotation behavior. In fact it may even need to be relatively free from interactions to be as spread out as needed. Most relevantly the observations that suggest that dark matter doesn't collide with itself or normal gas when galaxies collide suggests it isn't normal matter.

      Of course your general sentiment is right. There are reasons to believe dark matter isn't made up of neutrinos but it isn't any more mysterious than they are. It is probably just some weakly interacting particle much like those we have already discovered.

      --

      If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    2. Re:simplest thing ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone gets all idiotic about dark matter. It's not some magical, physics breaking, mysterious subject. It's matter with no light shining on it. It's there and it's normal, we just can't see it. It's really as simple as that. It could be that this galaxy without any isn't old enough to have black holes without acresion disks (invisible matter aka dark matter) or nuetron or brown stars or whatever and thus we can see everything. Those are indeed examples of dark matter. But we can estimate their prevalence by looking for massive compact halo objects (aka MACHOs). They are insufficient to explain the galactic rotation curve.

      Furthermore, general relativity gives us a relation between the age of the universe, the density of cosmic background radiation, and the density of ordinary everyday matter. There is not enough matter -- not by a long shot -- to explain the amount of weak gravitational lensing that we observe at large distances.

      Finally, the observable universe is quite flat. The amount of visible matter is much too small to explain this, so either general relativity is wrong, or there is some combination of dark matter and dark energy. If we ignore the weak lensing evidence and explain the flatness solely by dark matter, then the proportion needed is considerably larger than is deduced from the rotation curve in our own galaxy. But under your hypothesis, there should be much less dark matter observed at great distances, since stellar evolution there is seen at a much earlier stage. So your idea is also not sufficient to explain the geometry of the universe.
    3. Re:simplest thing ever by coyote-san · · Score: 1

      I thought WIMPs (weakly-interacting massive particles) and MACHOs (whatever) had been essentially ruled out by exclusion in various experiments. That leaves a new form of non-baronic matter that doesn't interact with itself, baronic matter or light except through gravity.

      --
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    4. Re:simplest thing ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought WIMPs (weakly-interacting massive particles) and MACHOs (whatever) had been essentially ruled out by exclusion in various experiments. (MACHOs = Massive Compact Halo Objects.)

      No, neither one has been ruled out. In fact, we have observed MACHOs through gravitational lensing observations. But it has been ruled out that MACHOs can be responsible for all of the dark matter. That leaves WIMPs to make up the majority of the dark matter. The leading WIMP candidates, IIRC, are supersymmetric neutralinos and QCD axions (although some axion and other WIMP candidates have been excluded).

      That leaves a new form of non-baronic matter that doesn't interact with itself, baronic matter or light except through gravity. That has been proposed as well (e.g., massive sterile neutrinos), but it's not as popular an alternative. (I don't know if experiments disfavor them or not, but unlike some WIMP candidates, they're not as well motivated theoretically.)
    5. Re:simplest thing ever by hortonheardawho · · Score: 1

      Perhaps dark matter is "simply" right handed neutrinos -- which by virtue of their relationship to the light, left handed neutrinos would be massive -- and hence currently "cold"?

      A puzzle:

      Since matter with no electric charge can not form "atoms" -- and matter with no quark charge can not form "nucleons" , there is nothing to stop a concentration of dark matter, say, the mass of a star, from gravitationally collapsing very quickly to a rotating, uncharged black hole.
      And once dark matter is safely quarantined in a black hole it can interact with matter -- including dark matter quite readily.
      So, why isn't the galaxy riddled with black hole "trails" through interstellar gas like electron trails through a cloud chamber?

      A 2 for 1 Solution:

      Perhaps in the very early universe most of the dark matter quickly formed micro black holes -- most of which evaporated via Hawking radiation -- and perhaps that radiation pressure is what is driving the more rapid expansion of the early universe attributed to "dark" energy?

      SO, perhaps the "missing mass" dark matter in most galaxies is "just" micro-black holes that haven't yet evaporated and free right handed neutrinos ?
      Perhaps NGC 4736 is simply in a region of space-time where most of the early right hand neutrinos formed primordial black holes that have mostly evaporated?

      The universe. Damn queer place.

  18. That is nothing by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Not only can you not see the dark matter (and it appears to be devoid), but now, you can not find the link to it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. Deeply unsatisfactory by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

    OK, it's now more than twenty years since my astrophysics degree, but the fundamental principle of cosmology was that, at a large scale, the universe looks the same everywhere. Now we are being told it does not and, in fact, we live in a special corner?

    1. Re:Deeply unsatisfactory by seanellis · · Score: 1

      You missed out a word. "Statistically", it's the same everywhere. If it was literally the same everywhere, the whole universe would be a thin gas with a uniform density of a few particles per cubic meter. There are going to be deviations from the norm, and this galaxy is one of them. It may have experienced some unusual event that stripped it of its dark matter after formation.

      What I find odd is that the galaxy is otherwise so unremarkable. If it is rotating differently from other galaxies, wouldn't we see a tighter or looser pattern of spiral arms than usual?

      To be fair, though, the measurements themselves are still under scrutiny, so this may all be a storm in a galaxy-sized teacup.

    2. Re:Deeply unsatisfactory by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

      Err, no. I was right. I didn't say it was "the same everywhere", I said "looks the same everywhere" - meaning it looks like clumps of matter in galaxies.

      What I hadn't done, because the link was broken, was RTFA and so therefore I thought this was about the Milky Way. Having read the New Scientist piece I now realise we are not being set up as privileged observers, but at the cosmological level this still wrankles because, as you say, the galaxy looks otherwise normal.

    3. Re:Deeply unsatisfactory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I find odd is that the galaxy is otherwise so unremarkable. If it is rotating differently from other galaxies, wouldn't we see a tighter or looser pattern of spiral arms than usual?

      Well, there's nothing really to make it look remarkable for apparently lacking dark matter. Just having a different rotation curve doesn't seem to me like the sort of thing that would make it stand out until you could measure that curve and compare it to others. It just means, for a given number of stars, they rotate slower than for a galaxy with lots of DM.

      Assuming the measurements hold up, it will be interesting to see as more and more galaxies have their curves measured how this one compares to the majority of others. It's odd that it should be so dramatically different than other galaxies, but we may end up finding a continuous spectrum of dark matter content from almost none up to perhaps dozens of times as much as normal matter. Note that it had been previously postulated that there was 6 times as much dark matter as normal matter. This finding has the potential to shake that up pretty significantly.

  20. Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's turtles, all the way down...

  21. Good. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 1

    No Reapers in the Milky Way, then.

  22. Firehose was NEVER a good idea by dreamchaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's just a way for the editors to abrogate their responsibilities while blaming the users when crappy submissions get posted.

  23. History of Dark Matter by foxpaws · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought I could contribute a bit to the discussion by giving some background on why the theory of dark matter came about.

    Vera Rubin's work on galaxy rotation rates is still pretty compelling evidence for dark matter... OR, at least, it shows us that all galaxies do not behave they way we think they should, to be more accurate. People much smarter than my own self have decided that "dark matter" or some sort of mass/force/something that does not emit light or radio waves, etc. (which is why we never noticed it before) must be responsible.

    When we look at a solar system like ours, we see that the farther a planet is from the sun, the slower it travels. Not only does it have a much longer way to go, but it doesn't - and according to what we understand, shouldn't - travel as fast.

    Vera Rubins decided to check a whole galaxy. What she found did not hold with our understanding. The solar systems, stars and other observable matter near the outside were traveling faster than expected.

    Vera Rubin's work, combined with the discovery that the univers appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate, rather than slowing down, kind of kicked off the whole dark matter/dark energy thing.

    --
    Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. -Firefly
    1. Re:History of Dark Matter by Dr.+Tom · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dark matter is the same as epicycles. It's total garbage. The original calculations of galactic rotation used _Newton's_ equations! That is why they came up with answers at odds with observation. They completely ignored General Relativity, the accepted law of gravitation. This has been pointed out many times. Dark matter doesn't exist.

    2. Re:History of Dark Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dark matter is the same as epicycles. It's total garbage. Dark matter is not the same as epicycles; it makes specific testable predictions concerning a number of independent phenomena. The key point is that it simultaneously accounts for all kinds of diverse observations including galactic rotation curves, galactic cluster behavior, large scale structure formation, anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation, etc. Lesser theories such as modified gravity can explain maybe ONE of those at one time; to explain any of the others you have to introduce extra ad-hoc theories. It's not dark matter which is epicyclic in nature.

      Note, by the way, that you could apply your same argument to the people who claimed that an unseen planet was perturbing the orbit of Uranus. "You're just adding new garbage to explain away the failures of Newtonian gravity!" But there really was "dark matter" detectable through its gravitational effects: Neptune. On the other hand, Mercury's perihelion precession was not explained by new unseen matter ("Vulcan"), but by a new theory of gravity (general relativity). The lesson: you can explain gravitational anomalies by either dark matter or modified gravity, and both can be right: it's up to Nature to decide.

      The original calculations of galactic rotation used _Newton's_ equations! That is why they came up with answers at odds with observation. They completely ignored General Relativity, the accepted law of gravitation. This has been pointed out many times. It's been pointed out many times by people who obviously have never calculated anything using general relativity.

      Someone who has calculated orbits in general relativity would tell you that GR is utterly incapable of producing observed galactic rotation curves — GR is only a second order correction to Newton, i.e., it's too similar to Newtonian gravity on those scales to produce such a large discrepancy as what is observed. Explaining galactic rotation curves using modified gravity requires a first order correction, i.e., not just a small addition to the Newtonian acceleration GM/r^2, but rather a replacement of it. That's why the main competitor to dark matter has been MOND, which is Modified NEWTONIAN Dynamics. (They use a gravitational acceleration of sqrt(GMa0)/r, where a0 is a new physical constant.) Unfortunately MOND fails observational tests such as the Bullet Cluster dynamics. (Well, it's still possible that MOND is true if there is also dark matter to account for things like the Bullet Cluster, but that kind of defeats the purpose: MOND alone is no replacement for dark matter.)

      It turns out that GR can produce some measurable deviations from Newtonian dynamics at the galactic scale, with the right matter distribution, but it doesn't come close to getting rid of the need for dark matter, and using it to fit galactic rotation curves screws up galactic cluster observations, so you can't win. As I said, dark matter is unique in that it's compatible with observed phenomena on many different scales.

      Now, GR is relevant to other gravitational phenomena, such as cosmology, but the point is that you can't use GR as a replacement for dark matter. Believe it or not, astrophysicists do know about GR. The reason why they don't use it instead of dark matter is not because they are mind-bogglingly stupid and somehow managed to forget that GR exists. It's because it doesn't explain our observations.

      Incidentally, if you're thinking of the preprint by Cooperstock and Tieu which was reported on Slashdot 3 years ago, which claimed that galactic rotation curves are explained by GR, that was disproved a couple weeks after the preprint was posted. Sadly, they keep posting the same arguments in the form of unpublished Internet preprints every year ...
    3. Re:History of Dark Matter by foxpaws · · Score: 1

      One of the best arguments FOR dark matter is gravitational lensing, and without General Relativity, the lensing could not so convincingly show us gravitational fields caused by something that is "dark" to us.

      I also agree that the difference between Newtononian and General Realtivity calculations don't explain away the hundred or so galaxies we see rotating too fast by an factor of 10. (Ref: Michio Kaku)

      To agree with AC above, I concur that "they" (meaning physicists and cosmologists, I assume) aren't ignorant of Einsteins work. It's just blowing off steam, I think.

      So, take a deep breath.
      Think of what you are grateful for.
      Exhale....

      Better?

      -FoxPaws (who is glad she doesn't live in Cardiff!)

      --
      Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. -Firefly
  24. in my opinion by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    at the going rate, we probably have this all wrong, and its either ridiculously simple, or so insanely much more complicated that we're going to have a collective infarction when we finally get a grasp on how it really works.

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
  25. What if all the dark matter is smart? by LarsBB · · Score: 2

    If the universe was full of life what would it look like? Just roll the idea around for a while. Look at what current SF writers are thinking about, that we may soon be starting on our own primitive Dyson Sphereshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere. That we may eventually use all the energy from our sun and give of no visible radiation. It might seems impossible now but imagine we are going to work on the problem for a million years. If the universe was full of intelligence, I think it would look just like what we see now.

    1. Re:What if all the dark matter is smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This has been suggested before, and it's a fun consideration to ponder, but in reality, a Dyson sphere would radiate strongly in infrared. All the energy coming out of the sun has to go somewhere or you're just continually heating things up, so the Dyson sphere would have to be visible to the Spitzer space telescope, shining as brightly as a star but at longer wavelengths.

      Also, for Dyson spheres to explain the magnitude of the dark matter effect, there would have to be about 6 times as many of them as there are visible stars in our galaxy. I think they would also have to be arranged in a spherical shell around the galaxy, if I understand the physics right. It's highly implausible that 85% of the stars in the galaxy are surrounded by beings capable of building Dyson spheres, yet we have seen no other evidence of this (infrared blobs, stray communications signals, interstellar visitors).

    2. Re:What if all the dark matter is smart? by LarsBB · · Score: 0

      "Dyson sphere would radiate strongly in infrared", Maybe. You make a statement of fact about a technology we do not understand and civilizations (or AI) that would be on average millions of years old and billions of times smarter than us. The question would be what do they DECIDE to do with the energy. The things that can be accomplished after a million years of using 100% of a suns energy would seem like magic. IF there are Dyson spheres around suns, they really are old they REALLY have unimaginable resources and intelligence, billions of times greater than the human race. They have solved every problem we have ever even imagined.

      Dark matter is something. Maybe it is the undetectable mystery matter that we are currently looking for, and maybe not. But we know for fact there is life in at least one place in this universe, and that it is within our imagination how to build a Dyson sphere. The possibility that the universe is full of life seems less like arrogance to me than the possibility that life does not reach as far as we seem to be about to.

    3. Re:What if all the dark matter is smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question would be what do they DECIDE to do with the energy. Oh give me a break. Building Dyson spheres is one thing. Magic is another. Advanced civilizations are still constrained by the laws of physics, no matter how advanced they are. They can't just "decide" to violate the laws of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter what they use the star's energy for, it's still going to end up as radiated heat in the end.
    4. Re:What if all the dark matter is smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the other AC said, in a slightly less friendly tone, they are still bound by the laws of thermodynamics. Conservation of energy dictates that the temperature inside the Dyson sphere has to rise, or that heat has to escape. Since it would eventually reach the point where any material the sphere is contructed from would melt, it is obvious that heat has to escape. If you got even near that temperature, they would radiate not only in infrared, but in visible light too (like a hot stovetop). It's also necessary that heat escape in order to perform useful work. You can only exploit energy from a difference in potential, ie, hot to cold.

      And don't forget, according to the galactic rotation curves, dark matter is more prevalent than ordinary matter in a 6:1 ratio, so there would have to be Dyson spheres around 85% of the stars...or about 1.2 trillion super-advanced civilizations in the Milky Way alone. And those stars would have to be, for inexplicable reasons, arranged in a spherical shell around our galaxy. For some reason, almost all the stars without Dyson spheres would be arranged in the visible spiral disc we're familiar with.

      Like I said, Dyson sphere's are a fun idea. The height of potential progress of a civillization. But there's an awful lot standing in the way of a reasonable expectation that they actually exist in such quantities. This isn't saying that other life isn't out there, perhaps even a limited number of Dyson spheres, but rather that there are cursory constraints on what such life could look like from our perspective.

    5. Re:What if all the dark matter is smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservation of energy dictates that the temperature inside the Dyson sphere has to rise, or that heat has to escape

      Sure, but there are many ways of cooling things. For example, if they somehow manage to use neutrinos for cooling, the spheres could be as cold as the background.

      perhaps even a limited number of Dyson spheres,

      A "limited number" sounds like an implausible hypothesis. If they can be built at all, what would be stopping a galactic civilizations from building a lot? Seems to me that a 6:1 ratio would be quite plausible in that case, leaving, say, 15% of the galaxy as a kind of nature preserve.

  26. An Excellent Opportunity by YetAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    There have been a couple of observations that suggested that in galactic colisions or near colisions, that the dark matter can go on, and the visible matter can change course. Visible matter reacts with the gas streams, the dark matter doesn't seem to. I saw a report a couple of weeks ago of a dark matter galactic halo without a galaxy. (Found by the Einstein lensing effect.) We now have a galaxy without a dark matter halo. Looks like we have all the pieces of the puzzle, now someone just needs to put them together. That'll make a nice Doctoral Thesis.

    Mond will be a casulty though. Well, that's how science progresses. the only thing certain is that the theories we have today will change.

    --
    Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
    1. Re:An Excellent Opportunity by n0tWorthy · · Score: 1

      I think it doesn't want to react with any other matter and it is possibly repelled by other similar matter.

      Think of all the matter being sucked into black holes. It is approaching the speed of light as it approaches the event horizon. So it is like it is in the hugest particle accelerator possible, smashing into other particles and being ripped apart by space distortion. As matter gets ripped into the most fundamental particles at those speeds doesn't the uncertainty principal mean that it could suddenly be anywhere or any-when? I think these elementary particles are being evenly peanut buttered over space, possibly even being attracted to where there there is the least matter, the voids between the galaxies. If this matter all has the same charge then it will repel other like matter inflating the voids like warming soap bubbles. Presto, an expanding and "accelerating" universe.

      --
      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
  27. Dark Razor by albert.wavering · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget Occam's Razor. Complicated theories are usually a precursor to more elegant ones.

  28. Dark Matter is not made of atoms by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    It's not some magical, physics breaking, mysterious subject. It's matter with no light shining on it.

    Apart from the fact that dark matter in galaxies is distributed as a spherical halo whereas the normal matter is distrubuted as a disk the after glow of the Big Bang shows that dark matter is not normal, atomic matter.

    The WMAP probe measured the temperature variations of the huge cloud of plasma that was the entire universe for the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The problem is that for temperature variations the plasma must have had different densities this means that something must have been causing the plasma to clump (plasma is like water: if you try to compress it at a point and then remove the compression force the particles bounce off each other and form waves so no more clumping).

    Ok so far? Well to make the clumps we need gravity so the problem now is what compressed the plasma? If cannot have had an electric charge because then it would get bound up with the charges in the plasma and act as part of the plasma (EM forces are a lot stronger than gravity). Hence it much be neutral. If we look at all the stable particles we know of only one type of particle fits the bill: the neutrino.

    Unfortunately the neutrinos are very light and rarely interact with anything (you would need light years thickness of material to stop them!). The result of this is that they are produced early on in the Big Bang when the density was very high but when the energies were also very high. This means that they are very fast moving particles. So if we had a "clump" of neutrinos they would quickly move apart and spread the clump out. The problem is that the size of the clumps in the WMAP picture are far too small to be explained by neutrinos.

    So, the result of this is that we need a massive, neutral particle that is slow moving....and we don't have any. Hence the need for something new. The question is whether this new particle will interact just through gravity or through both gravity and the weak force. The latter will mean we can produce and detect it in particle accelerators if we have enough energy but the former will mean that it will likely remain out of reach for the foreseeable future.