If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science News Magazine)   There could be clumps of dark matter lurking in hard to detect places in our galaxy (insert Uranus joke here)   ( sciencenews.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Dark matter, Milky Way, Galaxy, dark matter clumps, dark matter particles, normal matter, Physics, Massive compact halo object  
•       •       •

590 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Feb 2018 at 10:50 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



19 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-02-02 09:36:03 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-02 10:44:53 AM  
It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".
 
2018-02-02 10:56:24 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".


Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.
 
2018-02-02 11:01:37 AM  
There's probably trillions of dark matter particles passing through you right now.
 
2018-02-02 11:09:37 AM  

PirateKing: There's probably trillions of dark matter particles passing through your mom right now.


FTFY
 
2018-02-02 11:13:11 AM  
Damn scourge is everywhere...Ryder feels your pain.


\Game wasn't that bad
 
2018-02-02 11:20:09 AM  
Unclump!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-02 11:24:04 AM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".

Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.


They're also detectable by the radiation emitted by their accretion disks.
 
2018-02-02 11:44:37 AM  

Smoking GNU: Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".

Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.

They're also detectable by the radiation emitted by their accretion disks.


Yep, something I should have specified when I wrote about the matter falling into them.  The gas/dust/stellar material doesn't fall straight in.  It spirals in, heats up, and emits ridiculous amounts of radiation.
 
2018-02-02 11:51:30 AM  
Dark light? Huh. Ok.
 
2018-02-02 12:10:06 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-02-02 12:41:34 PM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".

Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.


And if there are no companion stars?

I suspect the search for dark matter will end the same way the search for "the ether" ended.
 
2018-02-02 12:43:54 PM  
I checked my couch cushions. Got nothin.
 
2018-02-02 02:26:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".

Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.

And if there are no companion stars?

I suspect the search for dark matter will end the same way the search for "the ether" ended.


Is it possible that black holes without companions make up the missing mass?  I suppose, but it's unlikely.  It's estimated that there are 5 parts dark matter for every 1 part regular matter.  With all of the matter we can account for in the universe, we'd need a helluva lot of non-accreting black holes floating around out there to make up that discrepancy, likely supermassive black holes that are floating around without a galactic core to call home.

Sound requires a medium through which it can propagate.  Light doesn't, and that was the only reason the ether was proposed.  There's a lot of evidence for dark matter's existence, but there was never any evidence for the ether.

Post-Einstein, physics has done a pretty damn good job of not being blatantly wrong about things.  Our knowledge is certainly incomplete, but to chalk dark matter up as being comparable to the ether is a bit of a stretch.  It took us half a century, from its postulated existence to its discovery, to find the Higgs boson.  It took us even longer to confirm the existence of black holes (the aforementioned Cygnus X-1 was the first confirmed), which Karl Schwarzschild Boobiesulated based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.  You may not, but I'm willing to give the big brains who spend their days working on this stuff, instead of posting on Fark, the benefit of the doubt at this point.
 
2018-02-02 02:56:43 PM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Karl Schwarzschild Boobiesulated


great filter pown.
 
2018-02-02 05:44:27 PM  

sxacho: Dark light? Huh. Ok.


Just as real as dark matter. Some invisible stuff that we think must be there because at this time we can't come up with a better explanation for certain observations.

Will a dark photon bounce off a dark mirror?
 
2018-02-02 05:52:00 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Wave Of Anal Fury: Karl Schwarzschild Boobiesulated

great filter pown.


Third postulate, second postulate, Boobiesulate...
 
2018-02-02 07:12:48 PM  
We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space. Those insignificant lumps came together to form the first union-our Sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gasbag rotated the Earth, a cat's-eye among aggies, blinking in astonishment across the Face of Time...
 
2018-02-02 07:23:26 PM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: Wave Of Anal Fury: Marcus Aurelius: It's too bad there aren't some sort of undetectable massive gravitational wells that even light can't escape from to explain the phenomenon of the "hidden gravity".

Undetectable and invisible aren't the same thing.  Black holes (especially supermassive black holes at the centers of gravity) are detectable by their influence on the stars that circle them and the gas that falls into them.  Cygnus X-1, a stellar mass black hole, is detectable due to the infalling matter from its companion star.

And if there are no companion stars?

I suspect the search for dark matter will end the same way the search for "the ether" ended.

Is it possible that black holes without companions make up the missing mass?  I suppose, but it's unlikely.  It's estimated that there are 5 parts dark matter for every 1 part regular matter.  With all of the matter we can account for in the universe, we'd need a helluva lot of non-accreting black holes floating around out there to make up that discrepancy, likely supermassive black holes that are floating around without a galactic core to call home.

Sound requires a medium through which it can propagate.  Light doesn't, and that was the only reason the ether was proposed.  There's a lot of evidence for dark matter's existence, but there was never any evidence for the ether.

Post-Einstein, physics has done a pretty damn good job of not being blatantly wrong about things.  Our knowledge is certainly incomplete, but to chalk dark matter up as being comparable to the ether is a bit of a stretch.  It took us half a century, from its postulated existence to its discovery, to find the Higgs boson.  It took us even longer to confirm the existence of black holes (the aforementioned Cygnus X-1 was the first confirmed), which Karl Schwarzschild Boobiesulated based on Einstein's theory of general relativity.  You may not, but I'm willing to give the big brains who spend their days working on this stuff, ...


That's the MACHO (Massive Compact Halo Objects) hypothesis. Various non-radiating large bodies make up the missing mass, such as black holes. It's pretty well discredited these days.

WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) are slightly more likely, but are also not leading to much supporting evidence.

We know the dark matter is there. We can see the effects it has. We can calculate what we should see with and without the extra mass, and everything looks like there's a whole crapload of stuff that we can't see, that only seems to interact gravitationally, and which doesn't otherwise interact with ordinary matter or electromagnetism.

My personal favorite (although totally unsupported science fiction) idea is that of gravity 'leaking' through from other dimensions. Each universe is a 'slice' of a larger brane. You can think of them as happening all in the same place at the same time, but 'offset' along those extra dimensions from string theory. As each universe evolves, the initially identical states will decohere from each other. Macroscopically, this leads to universes that have concentrations of matter in similar, but not identical locations. the 'closer' a universe is to another in state, the 'closer' they are in distributions of mass. This means that 'nearby' universes will have galaxies in about the same place, but they will evolve differently. Like one of those digitally 'averaged' faces. Eyes, nose, mouth, all about in the same place, but you get halos and 'ghosts' as there are deviations from the norm.

So the dark matter we see is the gravity of ordinary matter leaking through the dimensions. It explains why you see dark matter around concentrations of mass. It explains why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces (because a lot of it 'leaks' away).

I have zero clue as to whether this is a real possibility. I've read quite a lot of physics, and I know that 'extra' dimensions and multiverse hypotheses are not actually part of empirically proven or supported science.

But it's fun to think about.
 
Displayed 19 of 19 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report