Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Science > Space

October 1st, 2009, 14:13 GMT · By

Cracks May Exist in Dark-Matter Theory

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


Theoretical distribution of dark matter in the Universe
Enlarge picture
According to a new scientific study, it may be that dark matter, the elusive stuff that binds galaxies together, but that cannot be directly observed, does not exist at all. It's either that, or it has a very unusual set of properties, astrophysicists at the University of St Andrews, in the United Kingdom, say. Scientific observations show that dark matter does not simply keep galaxies spinning, as the theory goes. Additionally, galaxies were supposed to only interact with the stuff through gravity alone, and this doesn't seem to be the case, NewScientist reports.

Established knowledge on dark matter has it that the stuff helped galaxies form at first, by keeping them together. It is widely believed among astronomers that each galaxy in the Universe is found at the core of a large, dark-matter concentration, a model that fits the substance's hypothetical properties. Gravity is supposed to be the only thing connecting galaxies and dark matter, but experts noticed that there was more to their interactions than this.

However, since the concept of dark matter emerged, there have been controversies about how it is distributed in the Universe and in galaxies. Its existence and action can only be inferred by the way galaxies and stars move, as the stuff does not emit any light, on any wavelength. Some astronomers believe that it must be distributed in the same concentrations throughout each galaxy, whereas others say that its concentrations should be larger in galactic cores, on account of gravity's effects.

In a recent study, the normal matter at the cores of 28 galaxies of various shapes and sizes was analyzed. The results threw astrophysicists off-guard – the investigation revealed that, in regions where dark-matter density had dropped to one-quarter of its central value, nearly 500 percent more of the stuff existed, in relation to normal matter. The results were unexpected, because the theory predicted that the ratio of dark matter to normal matter should depend on a galaxy's history, as in previous collisions and interactions with black holes and other such things.

“There is absolutely no rule in physics that explains these results,” University of St Andrews expert Hong Sheng Zhao, a co-author of the new study, says. Details of the finds appear in the latest issue of the renowned scientific journal Nature. “Although this clearly shows much more interplay between normal and dark matter than expected, it is too early to say exactly what this means,” University of Leicester expert Mark Wilkinson adds. He has not been part of the investigation, but has urged caution in interpreting the results.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

2,576 hits · 9 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Dark Matter Detection-Device Prototype Created

Galactic Bombardment 'Unlikely,' Study Finds

Tevatron Could Beat LHC to the Higgs Boson

The Origins of Mysterious Electrons and Positrons Revealed

Neutrino Conference to Determine the Faith of the Universe

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: mischa on 01 Oct 2009, 16:51 UTC reply to this comment

how can something be lower in density yet more abundant in a certain volume of space? i must be missing something:(


Comment #2 by: Tudor Vieru on 02 Oct 2009, 15:05 UTC reply to this comment

Astronomers are pondering this issue as well. This is precisely why holes in the dark matter model may exist


Comment #3 by: Thevortex on 07 Oct 2009, 11:47 UTC reply to this comment

Just Because something it's hard to compreend or to quantify it doesn´t mean that doesn't exist.
It's naive for the scientist to think that.
Not too many centuries ago, the Earth was flat, The Earth was the center of the Universe, and time before that, the Microcosmos, all the microbes and very tiny stuff didn't exist!
In the wavelenght of light, all that we can actually perceive as humans is only a very tiny piece of that light, of that spectrum.
Isn't it arrogance to say that something does not exist only because we can't measure it?
i think that at this time, scientists should knew better...

Comment #3.1 by: JoLp on 11 Dec 2010, 18:21 GMT

Going by what you say, then that means God exist. Quoting you "Just Because something it's hard to compreend or to quantify it doesn´t mean that doesn't exist.
It's naive for the scientist to think that." and also "Isn't it arrogance to say that something does not exist only because we can't measure it?".


Comment #4 by: paul on 08 Jun 2010, 22:11 UTC reply to this comment

"one-quarter of its central value"

What the heck does this mean? What "central value?"


Comment #5 by: ant11 on 07 Jun 2011, 16:39 UTC reply to this comment

Sometimes I really think modern scientists should put down the crack pipe. All this incomprehensible, unfalsifiable crap about strings, multiple dimensions, dark matter, multiverses ... do these guys even read the stuff they write?


Comment #6 by: smily on 08 Oct 2011, 04:35 UTC reply to this comment

why do you think dark matter exists?

Comment #6.1 by: Amonite on 26 Apr 2012, 07:05 GMT

They "have" to have it exist for a) the meet the proper matter calculations the current big bang hypothesis requires and b) a universe older than 500,000 years (due to rotational speed of galaxies). Nothing would happen to the universe 'now' if it didn't exist, its only if you try to take the universe too far back in time that you need a *lot* more matter to make things work. And, since matter conserves itself, but we don't "see" that matter now, they assume then that there is "dark" matter, or "dark energy " that we just can't detect.

It's a fallacy of circular reasoning. The universe must be old, therefore we must have missing matter to keep the galaxies from having flown apart by now, therefore the big bang could happen as planned, therefore the universe is old...etc.


Comment #7 by: Amonite on 26 Apr 2012, 06:59 UTC reply to this comment

"Established knowledge on dark matter has it that the stuff helped galaxies form at first, by keeping them together. "

I always find this hilarious. There is no actual scientific need for dark matter, unless one is -trying- to make the universe more than 500,000 years old. If you accept galaxies as they are, then galaxies are maximum 500,000 years in age, and our own galaxy is fairly young (as our star clusters are maxed out at about ~10,000 years).

While it is an interesting theory (and needed to get a "Big bang" or an "old universe"), there is no scientific reason to say it must exist. And, since much in the last decade has happened to chip at it as a viable theory, I would count it as a weak one.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM