Theory Posits Early Stars Powered By Dark Matter

ethericalzen writes "A BBC article highlights a theory that the first stars may have been powered by dark matter. A group of US scientists published a paper in Physical Review Letters speculating that, unlike the stars of today, which are powered by nuclear fusion, early stars might have been powered by the abundant dark matter crowding the universe after the Big Bang. The theory suggests that these stars would have collided and destroyed one another before nuclear fusion had a chance take hold." The BBC perhaps overstates the certainty with which the dark-matter theory is held, and doesn't mention that the postulated properties of such particles are completely speculative.

Comments

Overstates?

[moderatorrater]

How do you overstate the certainty of dark matter? Last I read, the only serious alternatives were that there's more interstellar dust than we thought (improbable considering the observations of the bending of light), modifications to the theory of gravity (few supporters, unlikely, especially with said observations), and string theory.

Re:Overstates?

[shma]

Other alternatives being explored generally rely on alternatives to General Relativity (for instance, TeVeS) to describe results that are attributed to dark matter. I was actually at a day of seminars at the Perimeter Institute last fall where Katherine Freese gave a talk on this subject. The next speaker was actually talking about alternatives to GR and offered an interesting analogy. Early on, when astronomers were still mapping out the solar system, they noticed that Uranus' orbit did not conform to what was predicted by Newtonian gravity. As a result, they predicted a 'dark' body farther out who's orbit was influencing Uranus. This turned out to be Neptune. On the other hand, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which was also believed initially to have been caused by an unseen planet (which they called Vulcan), was found to be the result of the failure of Newtonian gravity, and is now seen as confirmation of General Relativity. He concluded that both avenues of enquiry are valid and should both be followed.

Thanks, kdawson

[NereusRen]

The BBC perhaps overstates the certainty with which the dark-matter theory is held, and doesn't mention that the postulated properties of such particles are completely speculative. Aside from the actual topic, I want to say that I was pleasantly surprised to see the summary correcting for the improper journalism of the article. Overzealous interpretation of scientific results by journalists is a common complaint around here, and our editors who know that (and can easily recognize it when they review the submission) are the perfect ones to catch the inaccuracy and notify us in advance, so we aren't mislead about the actual claims of the scientific paper. Thanks, kdawson, for the excellent editorial addition to this story.

Re:Your tax dollars funded this, but no article

[red_pete]

Here's the LANL preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1724v2

Dark matter is an optimization?

[BLAG-blast]

If this was a simulation, would you simulate very atom? Or would you bulk compute matter that was less important, until it became important then simulate every atom?

Could dark matter, or matter we have trouble seeing, be the equivalent of hiding polygons which don't need to be rendered in a 3D scene?

Geez, I hope not. Quick, prove me wrong.

Re:Light from nothing?

[SlashWombat]

Dark matter stars make BLACK LIGHT?

Re:Maybe a better word

[dgatwood]

PC Guy: Hi, I'm a hypothesis.

Mac Guy: And I'm a theory.

PC Guy: Wait a second, how did you become a theory all of a sudden? What, you think you're special now?

Mac Guy: No, it's not that, P.C. I just got promoted because so many new people like me.

PC Guy: So because a lot of people like you...

Mac Guy: Well, and it also helps that I've been subject to a lot of scrutiny and they've concluded I'm not full of holes...

PC Guy: I resemble that remark....

Mac Guy: I know you do, P.C. And, of course, a preponderance of evidence confirms my correctness and robustness. That's one more reason that they made me a theory.

PC Guy: Preponderance of evidence... kind of like the O.J. Civil Trial, then?

Mac Guy: ...

PC Guy: ...

Mac Guy: Okay, I'm just going to have to go with "yes" and we'll call that your best hypothesis....

[Apple logo]

Re: Very Very Dark Matter

[lgw]

There is zero evidence of Dark Matter. Circumstantial but it's just like string theory: a lot of take, no proof. There's as much evidence for dark matter as there is for black holes or neutron stars or anything else in cosmology that we can't actually visit.

Dark Matter was just one hypothesis among many for why galaxy rotation wasn't as expected until we started getting the very precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation a couple of years ago. That made it clear that the matter mass of the early universe was about 80% non-baryonic, reacting to gravity but not light pressure. The percentage and distribution was predicted well by a dark matter theory, and it has explained some later observations as well.