Dark matter, as we know does not emit light, so confirmation of its presence is indirect. Are there any recent indirect confirmations of dark matter. A place one would look for in detecting dark matter would be to detect gravitational effects of this matter on other. In the astronomical scale there could be X-ray emissions from the dark matter carriers'(the sterile neutrino decay, eg) particles destruction- which could be detected, thereby indicating the existence of dark matter. Are there any updates regarding the presence of dark matter?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
-
4$\begingroup$ There are sporadic claims for detection of x-ray and gamma signals like the one this week. Having been involved in high energy physics experiments I wouldn't bet too much money on any of these, at the moment. It will take several independent detections of very high quality to confirm the existence of microscopic dark matter. Based on what I have seen, so far, we are nowhere close to that. As far as gravitational detection is concerned, "dark matter" has been seen for over half a century with very strong signals in galactic rotation curves. That, however, is not the same as detecting particles. $\endgroup$– CuriousOneCommented Dec 13, 2014 at 1:47
-
$\begingroup$ Just what particles would one be looking for if the particle path was taken to detect dark matter. $\endgroup$– user3483902Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 1:49
-
1$\begingroup$ Well, some observations of the sun in the X-ray regime showed possible axion signature. It's been suggested that that particular study is flawed, however. $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Dec 13, 2014 at 1:55
-
2$\begingroup$ LUX has also ruled out some WIMP theories, but hasn't confirmed anything yet. $\endgroup$– Kyle KanosCommented Dec 13, 2014 at 1:56
-
1$\begingroup$ What do you mean by recent? What do you mean by indirect? $\endgroup$– Qmechanic ♦Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 6:39
|
Show 4 more comments
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Dark matter, as we know does not emit light, so confirmation of its presence is indirect.
Its existence is established within the astrophysics models used, without further doubts, from the study of the behavior of galaxies and clusters of galaxies, for almost a century now.
Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter because of discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust.
You ask:
Are there any recent indirect confirmations of dark matter. A place one would look for in detecting dark matter would be to detect gravitational effects of this matter on other. In the astronomical scale there could be X-ray emissions from the dark matter carriers'(the sterile neutrino decay, eg) particles destruction- which could be detected, thereby indicating the existence of dark matter. Are there any updates regarding the presence of dark matter?
There are a number of experiments trying to detect secondary effects from the existence of dark matter "particles", and theories hypothesizing various elementary particles not yet detected. A recent one
We study a Dirac dark matter particle interacting with ordinary matter via the exchange of a light pseudoscalar, and analyze its impact on both direct and indirect detection experiments. We show that this candidate can accommodate the long-standing DAMA modulated signal and yet be compatible with all exclusion limits at 99S% C.L. This result holds for natural choices of the pseudoscalar-quark couplings (e.g., flavor universal), which give rise to a significant enhancement of the dark matter-proton coupling with respect to the coupling to neutrons. We also find that this candidate can accommodate the observed 1–3 GeV gamma-ray excess at the Galactic center and at the same time have the correct relic density today. The model could be tested with measurements of rare meson decays, flavor changing processes, and searches for axionlike particles with mass in the MeV range.
The LHC experiments are looking for particles that could fit the role of dark matter and set limits within the experimental errors, for a given hypothesis. Maybe the new run this year will have some surprises for us.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
To date there is nothing published (and serious) that makes a confirmed detection of dark matter particles. Thus, the only evidence in favor of its existence remains from indirect methods: calculate the mass that should be there based on visible sources (stars, galactic powder, etc), and use this mass to calculate the speed of stars about the galaxy as the radius of the galaxy goes out. The calculations do not agree and the consensus is that there is more mass than it could add up from every conventional source. Conclusion 1: there is dark matter Alternative conclusion (Conclusion 2): Newtonian gravity is not valid at galactic scales. This is a rather fringe topic among researchers but you can learn more about it here.
-
3$\begingroup$ Please rephrase "there is nothing published (and serious) about direct detection of dark matter particles." There is a lot of published (and serious) work in this area. What you mean is that there is no conclusive detection. Not the same thing. $\endgroup$– ProfRobCommented Dec 13, 2014 at 23:22
-
$\begingroup$ @RobJeffries Thanks! you are correct in that was my intended meaning. I am not a native speaker, so please feel free to edit my answer to look as it should :) $\endgroup$– user65081Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 23:24
-
1$\begingroup$ Well can you stop making trivial edits (e.g. 1 character change) to huge numbers of other peoples questions/posts and take a look at your own. $\endgroup$– ProfRobCommented Dec 13, 2014 at 23:29
-
$\begingroup$ @RobJeffries. Please chill. I was testing what kind of reviews count towards the reviewr badge. My suspicion is that trivial ones count, that is why we have all over people desperate making edits everywehere which are usually unhelpful. My edits were harmless, but serve a puprope that I want to discuss in META, if my hypothesis is correct. $\endgroup$– user65081Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 23:31
-
$\begingroup$ @RobJeffries I wasnt aware it went to the queue, thaks! $\endgroup$– user65081Commented Dec 13, 2014 at 23:37