Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

Dark matter mystery deepens

Dark matter should be densely packed in the centers of galaxies. Instead, new measurements of two dwarf galaxies show that they contain a smooth distribution of dark matter.
By Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts Published: October 18, 2011
Dwarf galaxy
This artist's conception shows a dwarf galaxy seen from the surface of a hypothetical exoplanet. A new study finds that the dark matter in dwarf galaxies is distributed smoothly rather than being clumped at their centers. This contradicts simulations using the standard cosmological model known as lambda-CDM. Credit: David A. Aguilar (CfA)
Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter holding them together, our galaxy’s speedy stars would fly off in all directions.
The nature of dark matter is a mystery — a mystery that a new study has only deepened.

“After completing this study, we know less about dark matter than we did before,” said Matt Walker from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The standard cosmological model describes a universe dominated by dark energy and dark matter. Most astronomers assume that dark matter consists of “cold” (i.e. slow-moving) exotic particles that clump together gravitationally. Over time, these dark matter clumps grow and attract normal matter, forming the galaxies we see today.

Cosmologists use powerful computers to simulate this process. Their simulations show that dark matter should be densely packed in the centers of galaxies. Instead, new measurements of two dwarf galaxies show that they contain a smooth distribution of dark matter. This suggests that the standard cosmological model may be wrong.

“Our measurements contradict a basic prediction about the structure of cold dark matter in dwarf galaxies. Unless or until theorists can modify that prediction, cold dark matter is inconsistent with our observational data,” Walker said.

Dwarf galaxies are composed of up to 99 percent dark matter and only 1 percent normal matter like stars. This disparity makes dwarf galaxies ideal targets for astronomers seeking to understand dark matter.

Walker and Jorge Penarrubia from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, analyzed the dark matter distribution in two Milky Way neighbors — the Fornax and Sculptor dwarf galaxies. These galaxies hold one million to 10 million stars, compared to about 400 billion in our galaxy. The team measured the locations, speeds, and basic chemical compositions of 1,500 to 2,500 stars.

“Stars in a dwarf galaxy swarm like bees in a beehive instead of moving in nice, circular orbits like a spiral galaxy,” said Penarrubia. “That makes it much more challenging to determine the distribution of dark matter.”

Their data showed that in both cases, the dark matter is distributed uniformly over a relatively large region, several hundred light-years across. This contradicts the prediction that the density of dark matter should increase sharply toward the centers of these galaxies.

“If a dwarf galaxy were a peach, the standard cosmological model says we should find a dark matter “pit” at the center. Instead, the first two dwarf galaxies we studied are like pitless peaches,” said Penarrubia.

Some have suggested that interactions between normal and dark matter could spread out the dark matter, but current simulations don’t indicate that this happens in dwarf galaxies. The new measurements imply that either normal matter affects dark matter more than expected, or dark matter isn’t “cold.” The team hopes to determine which is true by studying more dwarf galaxies, particularly galaxies with an even higher percentage of dark matter.

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
5 stars
LARS LINDSTROM from PENNSYLVANIA said:
This article is very humbling: The more we know, the more we know how little we know! But it´s also very intriguing. We assume that time and gravity are dependent of each other: A strong gravity field makes time run slower. The event horizon of a black hole is stuck in the moment it was created, for example, and, consequently, the time on the surface of a star runs a little slower than in its planetary system. So, for example, it isn´t 2011 on the surface of the Sun, but a little earlier. This could mean that the "flat" spacetime of the infinite universe has a slight "roughness" in time, that, maybe, could affect the total power of gravity in a galaxy. Now, assuming the infinite universe isn´t exactly "flat" but has a roughness in the temporal dimension, how do we know that spacetime doesn´t have other structural anomalies, like a slight "wawiness", the "wawes" slowly moving at right angles to the arrow of time. Which, by the way, could explain why the expansion of the visible part of the universe is accelerating just now, and would lead to it decelerating again in a few billions of years.// Articles like this one is very enjoyable and stimulating; they trigger my imagination and make me feel more and more humble regarding the creation of our wonderful Universe! More of this, please, and to all my fellow amateurs: Clear and black skies, in spite of dark matter and energy!
JOHN MOES from MICHIGAN said:
If it takes that much dark mass to keep galaxies from flying apart, why doesn't it keep the whole universe from speeding up? Is there a bridge of dark mass between Andromeda and the Milky Way? If not, why not? If the stars in the dwarf galaxies move in all directions, why doesn't the dark stuff stop them?
4 stars
CRISTINE MINCHEFF from CALIFORNIA said:
If these dwarf galazies have interacted with the Milky Way is it possible their dark matter has been redistributed? Could the interactions of dark matter be more prominent in another dimension assuming our universe fits the newer models having more than 3 dimensions? Very intriguing conundrum.
3 stars
THOMAS EELLS from OHIO said:
This article would be better if:

1. A description were included of the method used to determine the composition of galaxies w/ respect to dark vs. 'ordinary' matter

2. The means of determining the distribution of dark matter were explained in some detail

One can only presume that both endeavors rely on examination of observable 'consequences' of the hypothetical dark matter-- primarily gravitational effects. Naturally any simulations then rest on an assumption that we have a totally correct theory of gravity in hand.

It's interesting that in the fourth paragraph the author dares suggest there may be an indication that the standard cosmological model could be wrong, but by the closing paragraph the surprising results of the study are being ascribed to a much more prosaic misunderstanding concerning just 'dark matter' itself.
BRUCE MAIER from NEW YORK said:
Calling the problem "Dark Matter" gives the impression that if we could just figure out what this substance is, we would understand it. As this article, and others indicate, that isn't the case. While it might be "matter" that is causing this problem with gravity - it is misleading to call it that. --- So Why is it called Dark Matter? In part because when cosmological models of the universe are constructed, they imply that there is a large amount of missing 'mass' in the universe. So, Dark Matter MUST be part of the solution to this other problem, right? And to make the who situation even more interesting, they toss in Dark Energy to balance the missing mass problem. Heck, Dark Energy isn't even thought to be matter. It is at this point that you should be saying, so the missing matter problem is another big problem that has been combined with the gravity problem to make it SEEM like there are fewer problems with theoretical cosmology. One final point - if the universe is expanding at an expanding rate (it seems to be), then Hubble's constant ISN'T constant, and the universe isn't 13.7 Billion Years old. So how old is it and why isn't this being pointed out? Just another sign that the framework of cosmology is getting shakier and shakier.
4 stars
CLIFFORD J DAVIS from KENTUCKY said:
This stuff seems unlikely to have any practical value until you think about the people who experimented with electricity and magnetism two centuries ago. Now our entire civilization relies on our ability to control electricity. What would be possible if we could learn enough to control gravity or harness the strong force? Some people believe the stars are not for us. I think we just have to reach for them.
NORRIS HILL from KENTUCKY said:
Now we know a lot more...about how little we know.
5 stars
SAM NAUMAN from TEXAS said:
I think the dark matter is inside our heads instead of the gray matter. We know so little about our universe and ourselves for that matter. Just when we think we understand then we find out we really did not. Could the dark matter be matter in another universe that is affecting ours? We have gone from static universe to shrinking universe to expanding universe with dark matter to banes, strings and what next? This article is right on target, the more we know, the less we know.
WESTON W NIELSEN from WASHINGTON said:
Is there any reason why the Dark Matter and Dark Energy cannot be the energy given off by the stars which is then converted back to matter? Thus eventually gathering back into nebula to form the new stars? Isn't that what E=M C squared is all about?






d
4 stars
ROYAL GONZALES from COLORADO said:
Yesterday, I read of the two gamma ray bubbles at our galaxy's center and knew that dark matter is holding the Milky Way stars from flying away. Could the dark matter be so constricting that instead of the expected gamma rays shooting from our galaxy's center, we have the two gamma ray bubbles forming spheres just as gravity forces in the rest of the cosmos?
12
SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me