Top Document: [sci.astro] Galaxies (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (8/9) Previous Document: H.02.2 How much dark matter is there? Next Document: H.02.4 Searches for Dark Matter See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge Since it's detected in a negative sense---not visible in gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, millimeter, or radio regimes, and it doesn't block light either---it's a theoretical happy hunting ground. First, let's list some things that can't make the dark matter. Most forms of gas are excluded, because atomic hydrogen would be seen in 21cm radiation, and hot gas would be seen in X-rays and/or distort the spectrum of the CMB. Cold molecular gas is a possibility, but it would tend to collapse into visible stars. "Snowballs" made of solid hydrogen would evaporate due to the CMB, and larger snowballs would leave too many craters on the Moon or be seen as high-speed comets. "Rocks" are unlikely because there haven't been enough stars to make the heavy elements. Faint red stars are excluded because they're not seen in deep images e.g., the Hubble Deep Field. This leaves two main classes of dark-matter candidate: large objects called MACHOs and subatomic particles, some of which are called WIMPs. MACHOs stands for Massive Compact Halo Objects; examples are "interstellar Jupiters" or "brown dwarfs," which are lumps of mostly hydrogen less than 0.08 Solar masses; objects this small don't get hot enough to fuse hydrogen into helium, and so would be extremely faint and hard to find. Other varieties of MACHOs are dead stars, such as old white dwarfs or neutron stars, and black holes. The second class is some form of sub-atomic particle; if so, there'd be millions of these passing through us every second, but they'd hardly ever interact with normal matter, hence the term "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs. Many varieties of these have been suggested; the only one of these that certainly exists is the neutrino, but neutrinos may not have any mass. The number of neutrinos made in the Big Bang is similar to the number of CMB photons (few hundred per cm^3), so if they have a small mass (around 30 eV = 6 x 10^-5 electron masses) they could contribute most of the dark matter. However, computer models indicate that galaxies form much too late in a neutrino-dominated universe. Another possibility is the "axion" which is a hypothetical particle invented to solve a strange "coincidence" in particle physics (called the strong CP problem). The most popular WIMP at the moment is the "neutralino" or "lightest supersymmetric particle"; supersymmetry is a popular way to unify the strong and electroweak forces (also known as a Grand Unified Theory), which has some (tentative) experimental support. Supersymmetry predicts an unobserved new particle or "superpartner" for every known particle; the lightest of these should be stable, and lots of them would be left over from the Big Bang. These probably weigh about 30-500 proton masses. An important piece of evidence here is "primordial nucleosynthesis," which explains the abundances of He-4, Deuterium, He-3 and Li-7 produced a few minutes after the Big Bang; in order to obtain the observed abundances of these elements, the density of baryons (i.e., "ordinary" matter) must be Omega_baryon ~ 0.02--0.1. Since Omega_stars ~ 0.01, there are probably some dark baryons, but if Omega_total = 1 (as inflation predicts) most of the dark matter is probably WIMPs. User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Galaxies (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (8/9) Previous Document: H.02.2 How much dark matter is there? Next Document: H.02.4 Searches for Dark Matter Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP