5 ms·

Here's an image explaining the "bullet-cluster" observation. It's a compelling piece of evidence. Two galaxy clusters have collided. The hypothesis is that nor

by marvin 7y ago

Here's an image explaining the "bullet-cluster" observation. It's a compelling piece of evidence. Two galaxy clusters have collided. The hypothesis is that normal matter will be slowed down by the collision, while dark matter, not interacting (as strongly?) with itself or normal matter, passes through in the collision. We can determine the locations of the gas by X-ray telescope, and the supposed location of the dark matter (assuming it exists) with gravitational lensing. https://ircimg.net/slide_33.jpg https://ircimg.net/slide_33.jpg (I am not a physicist, just had this explained by a physicist friend of mine).

sandgiant 7y ago
Indeed, this is the observation most usually cited in support of the matter / particle interpretation of dark matter. It's very non trivial to come up with a decent theoretical extension to GR that explains it. Which is why, I think, that a lot of people feel more confident proposing a new dark matter particle, which does in fact explain it quite nicely. Perhaps we're wrong in assuming that all of these observations on very different scales (galaxy rotation curves over galaxy cluster collisions to large scale structure) are tied to the same unknown (dark matter), but if you want to explain them all in a simple way, a particle still seems like the way to go. Remember that elementary particles have been predicted and found many times over the past years, whereas modified theories of gravity haven't seen the same kind of success. Of course this is only anecdotal, and may not mean anything, but I think it's part of the reason for most people's preference for a particle explanation.
_carl_jung 7y ago
The final bullet point in that image contains the answer to the question of dark matter.
sarbaz 7y ago
The counterargument given by one of the proponents of MOND (a non-dark-matter counterargument) is that the bullet cluster can be explained by a combination of slight modification of GR, and additionally by the presence of a significant (but not crazy) amount of cold regular matter. Cold regular matter can't be easily detected because it isn't emitting any light, but it is just regular matter. I'm not actually familiar with the specifics so I don't know whether this is actually a good explanation, but it's at least worth discussing.

by marvin 7y ago

sandgiant 7y ago

Indeed, this is the observation most usually cited in support of the matter / particle interpretation of dark matter. It's very non trivial to come up with a decent theoretical extension to GR that explains it. Which is why, I think, that a lot of people feel more confident proposing a new dark matter particle, which does in fact explain it quite nicely. Perhaps we're wrong in assuming that all of these observations on very different scales (galaxy rotation curves over galaxy cluster collisions to large scale structure) are tied to the same unknown (dark matter), but if you want to explain them all in a simple way, a particle still seems like the way to go. Remember that elementary particles have been predicted and found many times over the past years, whereas modified theories of gravity haven't seen the same kind of success. Of course this is only anecdotal, and may not mean anything, but I think it's part of the reason for most people's preference for a particle explanation.

_carl_jung 7y ago

The final bullet point in that image contains the answer to the question of dark matter.

sarbaz 7y ago

The counterargument given by one of the proponents of MOND (a non-dark-matter counterargument) is that the bullet cluster can be explained by a combination of slight modification of GR, and additionally by the presence of a significant (but not crazy) amount of cold regular matter. Cold regular matter can't be easily detected because it isn't emitting any light, but it is just regular matter. I'm not actually familiar with the specifics so I don't know whether this is actually a good explanation, but it's at least worth discussing.