Subscribe to New Scientist magazine
Cosmology
ARTICLE

Nearby galaxies are chock-full of dark matter

  • 04 June 2008
  • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
 

THE universe's darkest secret may be hiding not far from us. Three dwarf galaxies near the Milky Way appear to contain a higher proportion of invisible dark matter than any stellar system so far studied. If so, they are the ideal place to look to figure out what the stuff consists of.

Over the past three years, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has identified Ursa Major II, Willman I and Coma Berenices Dwarf as small satellite galaxies of the Milky Way. Louis Strigari of the University of California, Irvine, analysed the motion of their stars and found that they appear to be subject to a gravitational field equivalent to that of at least 1 million solar masses distributed around each galaxy. Yet each of these galaxies only shines as bright as 1000 suns, a discrepancy which leads Strigari to suggest that these galaxies are rich in unseen dark matter.

Strigari says observing these galaxies is an excellent way to identify what dark matter is. For example, from the energy of any gamma rays we could infer that certain types of particle are annihilating with their own antiparticles. The galaxies' closeness and the concentration of dark matter makes observing them easy (The Astrophysical Journal, vol 678, p 614).

Dan Hooper at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, thinks Strigari is right that these dwarf galaxies are dominated by dark matter. But he says that the centre of the Milky Way is the best place to look for gamma-ray signals, even though it is slightly further away, as it contains a greater volume of dark matter than these galaxies.

Cosmology - Keep up with the latest ideas in our special report.

 
From issue 2658 of New Scientist magazine, 04 June 2008, page 20
 
Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 40 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

Dark Matter Magic

By Tissa Perera

Sat May 31 01:40:58 BST 2008

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.

REPORT | REPLY

Thc Looks Better. .

By Boby Joe

Wed Jun 04 16:12:39 BST 2008

Google it..its COOL

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Wed Jun 04 16:45:26 BST 2008

We are at the absolute gravitational centre of the Universe. Vacuum is more organised in the vicinity of the centre, hence the anomalous gravity of the nearby galaxies. The matter is that the Universe is gravitationally imploding, and this implosion in nonuniform - it is faster at the centre.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Luigi V.

Wed Jun 04 18:35:47 BST 2008

And you have evidence of this? Refferences please?

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Wed Jun 04 20:20:47 BST 2008

Positive feedback. Like money attracts more money; gravity attracts more gravity, which exponentially accelerates the implosion (the distant galaxies seem to receed).

The main evidence is compliance with the first principles.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Luigi V.

Thu Jun 05 15:57:47 BST 2008

But that can happen anywhere. How do you infer that we're at the center of the Universe from it? ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Michael

Wed Jun 04 20:21:17 BST 2008

You managed to fly in the face of evidence on 6 counts.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Wed Jun 04 21:04:59 BST 2008

Archangel, to hell with your evidence.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Luigi V.

Thu Jun 05 15:59:39 BST 2008

Very scientific, rational response.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Steve

Wed Jun 04 21:29:00 BST 2008

Hmm...the only thing imploding appears to be your credibility. You need to provide references for your claim, as others have requested.

There is no reason to ascribe a special quality to the Earth (or even our galaxy), such as it being at the center of the Universe in some sense. Science diverged from that line of thinking 300 years ago.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Wed Jun 04 21:44:22 BST 2008

A more organised medium is more compact. Conscious beings are the summit of organisation. Hence, the vacuum in the galactic vicinity of the Earth must be the most compact and its gravity tug ("dark energy") will be strongest.

***

"Hmm...the only thing imploding appears to be your credibility."

And what is your credibility based on, Steve?

"There is no reason to ascribe ... Because ... Science diverged from that line of thinking 300 years ago." Do you realise that it sounds like the speech of an imbecile?

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Tim

Thu Jun 05 07:49:48 BST 2008

Ah yes, I understand. So the most compact vacuum in the universe must be in the vicinity of your head?

"There is no reason to ascribe ... Because ... Science diverged from that line of thinking 300 years ago." Do you realise that it sounds like the speech of an imbecile?

It is if you write it like that. But I don't see any 'Because' there. More likely a 'Therefore'. ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Charles

Fri Jun 06 06:24:02 BST 2008

"A more organised medium is more compact. Conscious beings are the summit of organisation. Hence, the vacuum in the galactic vicinity of the Earth must be the most compact and its gravity tug ("dark energy") will be strongest."

You appear to be assuming that there are no conscious beings anywhere else in the universe. How do you reach that conclusion? ...

1 more reply »

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Acoyauh

Thu Jun 05 16:07:25 BST 2008

Sorry, but I still don't see references, the math or even the logic in it. It seems it's just a coment you pulled out of your sleeve.

Snapping at any question or comment against your (logic?) does not constitute proof, only shows you lack any arguments whatsoever.

So why post such a deviant idea, if you can't prove, defend or are not even willing to discuss?

Waste of time...

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Thu Jun 05 16:41:03 BST 2008

By Michael

Wed Jun 04 20:21:17 BST 2008

You managed to fly in the face of evidence on 6 counts.

***

Where do you see a question here? What evidence does he mean? This is not an argument, just a petty insult..

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Thu Jun 05 17:40:56 BST 2008

"Sorry, but I still don't see references, the math or even the logic in it."

1. References? What references can I provide when I am the first who has ever had this idea?

2. The math? The world is a seamlessly interconnected and self-referential whole. Essentially, there is nothing to count. Do not delude yourself.

3. Logic? Logic is linear. How can you apply a linear tool to the nonlinear (self-referential) world? Studying the universe is, essentially, PATTERN RECOGNITION and is based on aesthetic intuition, not logic.

So, Acoyauh, all of your demands are ILLEGITIMATE and DEVIANT from the real situation. No wonder - your criterion of truth is the number of peer-reviewed references!

"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Anonymous

Thu Jun 05 19:31:43 BST 2008

"References? What references can I provide when I am the first who has ever had this idea?"

WHAT idea??? Well, to begin with, you might tap something called "data". You know, quantitative evidence from the natural world outside of your head?

Oh, BTW: Even if you go by a Nietzschean quip, no matter how tiresomely you repeat it, rarity doesn't preclude the existence of insanity in individuals. In fact, they can be quite populous in a throng of 7 billions plus and still be considered "rare". Several millions - a factor of ~1000 lower than the total - ...

3 more replies »

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Thu Jun 05 21:36:11 BST 2008

The primary virtue of a theory is its compliance with the first principles. If a theory complies with a thousand of external evidences but does not comply with a single first principle, the theory is wrong.

***

"There are no facts, only interpretations." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." (Albert Einstein)

***

The only genuine phenomenon (Uhr-Phaenomen) is gravity. All other phenomena are, in essence, transient epiphenomena and cannot serve as solid evidence.

The most important object of studying is the kinematics of the universe's gravitational implosion. Being the Uhr-Phaenomen, it can be studied only by means of intuitive "pattern recognition" and Gedankenexperiments.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Charles

Fri Jun 06 06:26:05 BST 2008

"There are no facts, only interpretations." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Is that a fact?

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Fri Jun 06 09:47:55 BST 2008

Yes, Charles, it is a subjective fact. All objective facts are relative. Subjective facts are absolute.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Polemos

Fri Jun 06 10:14:20 BST 2008

Everybody projects his own personality onto the outer world. It you believe is objective facts, you are an object (a mortified subject). Rest in piece.

REPORT | REPLY

The Centre

By Whipster

Mon Jun 09 11:18:04 BST 2008

I've come up with a really good way to reduce all of the junk that ends up on these comments pages...

I'm starting a movement to hereby ignore all comments made by Polemos - replying to his 'incredible' (and I mean that in a bad way) comments just further instigates him to reply with more useless information...

Who's with me? lol..

REPORT | REPLY

There are 40 comments on 2 pages
1  | 
2
 | Next
 | Most Recent
 | See all

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
PASSWORD LOGIN
username:
password:
 help
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine