Live data from Hacker News

The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

medium.com

291–300 of 315 posts

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#291
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summarizing on the fly, so necessarily wrong in details: Regular matter interacts via the four forces: strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism and gravity. Strong interaction: binds fundamental particles together to make atoms. In every day terms, it’s what makes mass, mass. Weak interaction and electromagnetism: causes radioactive decay and EM radiation (photons). In every day terms, it’s how we get l…

How is it even possible to detect dark matter, if it doesn't have EM interaction, weak interaction and strong interaction? Probably some ultra-sensitive gravity detector which could detect a single particle? Sounds like impossible for current technology. So we could have those dark matter particles orbiting with crazy speeds around our planet, sun and everything else without any chance to reliably detect them. But st…

If it interacts only gravitationally, the answer is that probably we will never detect a dark matter particle.

However, good news: several possible dark matter particles have been proposed, all of which interact very very slightly non-gravitationally as well. Practically all such proposals start with a particle physicist trying to repair some problems in the standard model of particle physics. When such proposed particles are decent candidates for cold dark matter, astrophysicists and physical cosmologists take note.

One family of candidates are the WIMPs, which feel the weak force, and so can produce a recoil reaction in atomic nuclei, and we can spot such recoils produced by neutrinos sourced by the sun or nuclear reactors. Galactic dark matter doesn't have a "bright spot" like the sun or the Super Kamiokande reactor, so distinguishing recoils from Brownian motion is tricky, since a WIMP may enter a recoil-detector from any direction. The density of WIMPs (if they exist) is much lower than the neutrinos streaming out of SK reactor or the sun, so there will be fewer recoils in the first place. WIMPs are generally found in various attempts to explain chirality in the standard model.

Another family of particle-physics-problem-solving dark matter candidates are the axions which feel both the strong and weak forces, and axions can be smashed up into photons (or formed from photons) in a very strong magnetic field.

There are several much less popular hypothesized particles that can be detected in principle because they feel one of the non-gravitational fundamental forces. This does not mean it is easy to detect them, though: whatever the microscopic makeup of dark matter, it is very sparse inside the solar system, and galactic dark matter reaches Earth with relatively low momentum, so even when it does interact with ordinary matter on Earth, it won't produce a large reaction.

> orbiting with crazy speeds around our planet

Galactic dark matter particles must move with the rotation of the galaxy, and for the most part so does our whole solar system, so the speeds will be slow, and in particular not at all relativistic. Also, because dark matter forms a dust where the individual bits of dust have extremely low mass, they will not be drawn into orbit around the Earth. The dark matter particles' orbits around the centre of the galaxy will be very slightly perturbed by the Earth, though.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#293
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our understanding of gravity might be completely wrong. If 85% of the gravity is unexplainable that seems like a pretty safe bet. Maybe it just behaves very differently at galactic scale. Much like the aether, it seemed most likely that light traveled through a medium until it turned out that it probably doesn't.

> Our understanding of gravity might be completely wrong. Why do you think this hypothesis is simpler than the existence of matter we haven’t detected yet? > If 85% of the gravity is unexplainable that seems like a pretty safe bet. It’s not unexplainable . There are plenty of candidates for dark matter, such as WIMPs, MACHOs, and axions. See here for a discussion: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/05/09/d…

> Why do you think this hypothesis is simpler than the existence of matter we haven’t detected yet?

Scientifically speaking, if you can't detect 85% of something that you think is there, then you have to admit to the possibility that it does not exist.

For example, the original article has this poorly-phrased sentence - "Not finding dark matter in an experiment is not evidence that dark matter doesn’t exist". Clearly the writer does not literally mean what they wrote, because not finding something in an experiment _is_ evidence it does not exist.

It is pretty obvious something is going on, we have lots of highly suggestive data. As you point out there are lots of extremely plausible explanations. But until we have some direct evidence, then we are in a situation where there is no direct evidence that it exists. Therefore, it might not. That remains a very simple explanation.

As I was alluding to when comparing this situation to the aether, and as other commenters have pointed out, working on the question of what light was turned out to break time. Same thing might happen with gravity.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#294
post #290
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we get it. You believe in the ether. Perhaps you would prefer to call it "the firmament." The only people who believe this are certain fringe (read that pseudoscience) speculators who will never be taken seriously because they ignore the actual data, and have only a rudimentary understanding of the rigorously verified physics involved.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum > "the empty vacuum of space … is filled with 'stuff' ... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether." Laughlin’s ‘stuff’ is the smoothly distributed, strongly interacting, supersolid dark…

And… you make my point for me. Thanks. Tell me, does your “supersolid dark mater” also rotate once every 24 hours?

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, let's try to reformulate. What is the average density of dark matter in places we know there is dark matter? Then, assuming here were dark matter with that density in earth, how much that would be? I am just trying trying to get my head around how sparse the dark matter actually is, wherever it actually exists. Would we have one kilogram of dark matter to observe? Damn. Should have googled in the first place. H…

But even then, there's no reason to assume that there is any in that space. For example, imagine that all the dark matter was in a disk around the solar system, way out farther than the asteroid belt. If you could see through it, you would never know. Or maybe it rings galaxies. Or maybe it hangs out in clumps between galaxies. Or... It literally could be anything because we can only measure it on the scale of mind b…

I mean, If there were appreciable amounts of it (i.e. not on the scale of kilograms in or around the earth), so that it could have a measurable impact on planet orbits, we could gain information on its distribution within (or interaction with) the solar system. That's why this density estimate is interesting - it sort of determines what the smallest scale is at which we'd have a chance of observing interactions/structure with dark matter.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#296
post #72
post #54

The simplest “proof” of dark matter - Kepler’s Laws dictate that objects with smaller orbits (closer to center) move faster (in terms o fangular velocity). Our solar system works like that. Our galaxy doesn’t - its spiral shape indicates that the angular velocity varies minimally with radius.

This carries the implicit assumption that all forces fall off monotonically with distance. Maybe gravity doesn't? Maybe it has a curve similar to a meteor impact crater: raised in the middle, a deep valley, and raised at the outer edge? Of course, with more evidence, such as the observations of the Bullet cluster, these simple explanations fall apart. But at any rate, it's not enough to take one observation and assum…

Since nobody has linked it yet - there is an xkcd about literally this argument: https://xkcd.com/1758/

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#297
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. Indeed, this is one of the best articles I've come across which covers several of the reasons we believe dark matter exists, as opposed to us just needing to modify the theory of gravity. For whatever reason, dark matter seems to repeatedly rub people the wrong way today, more so than any other scientific concept I can think of. I actually wonder if it's something psychological -- if the universe is only…

For me its the similarity to another pre-relativistic concept- the invisible ether between the worlds- that rubs me the wrong way. And its tough to imagine the consequences of something you are absolutely not able to detect, you could be flying towards with 250 km/s. Its kind of scary- imagine you hit something like that and it causes earth quakes or a shake up of the solar system. Just think if that missing gas gian…

> And its tough to imagine the consequences of something you are absolutely not able to detect, you could be flying towards with 250 km/s. Its kind of scary- imagine you hit something like that and it causes earth quakes or a shake up of the solar system.

If it was capable of doing this, we would observe it doing the same to light on its way toward us - gravitational lensing in other words. If your scenario was possible, we would've definitely made observations to that extent, but we haven't.

For what it's worth - neutrinos fit your description right here. There are a trillion of them passing through your hand every second, essentially without interacting at all (from https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/).

> but instead of stepping back, a thousand angles are tried to solve the problem in the narrow scope.

What makes you think nobody has stepped back? Tons of people have stepped back and proposed lots and lots of alternatives. Dark matter is the only one that can explain all the phenomena mentioned in the article. It is the result of a lot of stepping back and failing even more in the other directions.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#298
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our understanding of gravity might be completely wrong. Why do you think this hypothesis is simpler than the existence of matter we haven’t detected yet? > If 85% of the gravity is unexplainable that seems like a pretty safe bet. It’s not unexplainable . There are plenty of candidates for dark matter, such as WIMPs, MACHOs, and axions. See here for a discussion: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/05/09/d…

> Why do you think this hypothesis is simpler than the existence of matter we haven’t detected yet? Scientifically speaking, if you can't detect 85% of something that you think is there, then you have to admit to the possibility that it does not exist. For example, the original article has this poorly-phrased sentence - "Not finding dark matter in an experiment is not evidence that dark matter doesn’t exist". Clearly…

> you have to admit to the possibility that it does not exist

> we are in a situation where there is no direct evidence that it exists. Therefore, it might not.

You are moving the goalposts. No one denies it is possible that none of these dark matter candidates exist.

> not finding something in an experiment _is_ evidence it does not exist

Which "experiment" are you referring to? This is only true if you would expect the experiment to detect such a thing.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#299
post #294
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum > "the empty vacuum of space … is filled with 'stuff' ... The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether." Laughlin’s ‘stuff’ is the smoothly distributed, strongly interacting, supersolid dark…

And… you make my point for me. Thanks. Tell me, does your “supersolid dark mater” also rotate once every 24 hours?

Nobel laureates are "fringe (read that pseudoscience) speculators"?

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#300
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you do not need to measure it particle by particle. Just because those have mass, there should be a bunch of dark matter particles hanging around with earth. And given that we have quite good idea what earth consists of, there should be a discrepancy in some of the measurements that use earth's mass against the mass we have from our understanding of earth's composition. Unless, of course, the extra mass of earth…

Fascinatingly, it is known that the interaction of the dark matter with the Earth is so weak that there would be no "clumping" of it around the Earth at all! No "clumping" even around e.g. Sun can be observed. The "hanging around" is on the level of the whole galaxies, and sometimes the dark matter even remains outside of the whole galaxies, being too slow to follow their gravitational interaction(!) That's the famou…

> Fascinatingly, it is known that the interaction of the dark matter with the Earth is so weak that there would be no "clumping" of it around the Earth at all!

If it interacts so weakly I don't understand why clumps around anything. In fact if it only interacted via gravity I would expect it to start slowly accelerating toward normal matter, spend a short time near it, then speed away as it slowed down again. If the path is an eclipse this would mean it spends most of its time away from the matter rather than near. It would be almost as if gravity caused normal mater to repel dark matter.

Post reply on HN