A new study claims to have found the strongest evidence yet for dark matter annihilation

[Daniel Sims]

What we know so far: Scientists believe that dark matter comprises most of the material in the observable universe, but the mysterious substance has not been identified or directly detected after nearly a century of investigation. But a recent study claims to provide direct evidence supporting one of the leading dark matter theories.

In a recently published study, Tomonori Totani of the University of Tokyo's astronomy department claims to have observed evidence of dark matter annihilation. If the findings survive scrutiny, they could provide the strongest evidence yet not only of the existence of dark matter, but also of the theory that it is composed of particles called WIMPs.

While searching through 15 years of data from the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Totani detected and isolated signs of noticeably strong gamma-ray emissions from a halo surrounding the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The emissions might originate from Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs), one of the primary suspects for dark matter.

Serious study of dark matter began in the 1930s when Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky noticed that the movements of some galaxies contradicted traditional understanding of physics. He theorized that gravity from a mysterious "dark" material must have been holding them together.

Subsequent observations of researchers such as Vera Rubin have led the scientific community to agree that dark matter exists, even though it does not interact with light or any other electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter accounts for 85 percent of all matter in the observable universe, but it has not been directly observed.

Researchers suspect several types of objects to be responsible for the gravity exerted by dark matter, including WIMPs. The hypothetical heavy, slow-moving particles interact with gravity but not light, and would annihilate each other upon making contact, emitting gamma rays.

However, scientists have not successfully detected such emissions until now. Some considered giving up on WIMPs to devise methods of observing other candidates, such as dark electromagnetism.

Tomonori told 404 Media that his discovery, which he initially met with skepticism, felt like winning the lottery. Although it could reinvigorate the WIMPs theory, other researchers worry that the findings might be premature.

Other suspects include neutrinos, subatomic particles that scientists detected last year. Some theories point toward axions, another hypothetical subatomic particle, and primordial black holes dating back to the universe's birth.

Permalink to story:

A new study claims to have found the strongest evidence yet for dark matter annihilation

 

[daffy duck]

And yet still no proof whatsoever that dark matter is real but every article talks like it's a proven fact.

 

[user556]

And yet still no proof whatsoever that dark matter is real but every article talks like it's a proven fact.

We know the matter exists, so there is something. Black holes are a candidate, AFAIK, and I'm quite happy with that. So, every time you see "dark matter" in a story, just treat it as extra black holes until proven otherwise.

Dark Energy, on the other hand, may prove to be nothing more than not enough data.

 

[seeprime]

And yet still no proof whatsoever that dark matter is real but every article talks like it's a proven fact.

It's not dark, it's invisible which could point to a four dimensional particle only detectable by gravity and its effects.

 

[user556]

It's not dark, it's invisible which could point to a four dimensional particle only detectable by gravity and its effects.

Dark means invisible. They are interchangeable terms.

Any speculation on extra dimensions is just that, speculation. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

 

[JSabin]

The AI bot imbedded in my browser claims dark matter only accounts for 28% of the visible universe, and dark energy 68%.

 

[user556]

The evidence for Dark Energy existing at all is still tenuous. It could well end up being 0%, an illusion.

 

[seeprime]

Dark means invisible. They are interchangeable terms.

Any speculation on extra dimensions is just that, speculation. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

The terms are not interchangeable. A dark object can be see when light is directly shown onto it, or it is seen when passing in front of an object like a star. The term dark matter is a cute misnomer since it cannot be seen directly by any means, only detectable by its gravitational influence, which makes it invisible to our senses.

 

[gamerk2]

And yet still no proof whatsoever that dark matter is real but every article talks like it's a proven fact.

Dark Matter is theorized to exist for the simple reason that without it, or understanding of basic physics kind of falls apart. So there's a search to try and identify if said matter exists, and if not, come up with an alternative theory that explains what we observe.

The only other theory I've read that "kind of" works out is the variable speed of light theory, but that opens up a MASSIVE pandoras box for physics that no one really wants to touch unless they have to.

 

[user556]

The terms are not interchangeable. A dark object can be see when light is directly shown onto it, or it is seen when passing in front of an object like a star. The term dark matter is a cute misnomer since it cannot be seen directly by any means, only detectable by its gravitational influence, which makes it invisible to our senses.

And all of those options are possible still. All we need do is find enough extra matter to fill the gap. That makes the terms entirely interchangeable ... or it makes invisible the wrong term and there is nothing about dark matter that requires it to be invisible. After all, a black hole can be located by both its accretion disc and warping of light.

 

[mbk34]

When our scientific formulas require us to invent dark matter to make them work, that tells me that the formulas are simply wrong. Same for dark energy. Same for string theory...

 

[user556]

When our scientific formulas require us to invent dark matter to make them work, that tells me that the formulas are simply wrong. Same for dark energy. Same for string theory...

It's less inventing and more just accounting. In the case of Dark Matter it's finding the mass that isn't directly/easily visible to a telescope. We can see gravity effects within every galaxy, near and far, requiring lots more matter. We just haven't found it all. Something as basic as finding more black holes would achieve that.

 

[mbk34]

It's less inventing and more just accounting. In the case of Dark Matter it's finding the mass that isn't directly/easily visible to a telescope. We can see gravity effects within every galaxy, near and far, requiring lots more matter. We just haven't found it all. Something as basic as finding more black holes would achieve that.

Black holes are well established and proven to exist. Dark matter is completely different to black holes. The reason why they think there's dark matter is because, when you apply the formulas for gravity against the mass of all the stars in a galaxy (including our own), there is no where near enough mass to hold the universe together. It should just fly apart. Black holes generate a strong focused gravity which pulls stars towards them. Instead, if current formulas are to be believed, there must be increased gravity everywhere. So what did they do? They invented dark matter as a sticking plaster to make the formulas match what they observe.

 

[user556]

Black holes certainly aren't all bunched together. They can be sparsely spread throughout each galaxy. Hell, they can be spread between galaxies even. We really don't know where they all are, so there's nothing stopping them accounting for all of the missing Dark Matter.

 

[mbk34]

Black holes certainly aren't all bunched together.

I never said they were.

You're obviously entitled to believe what you wish. If you want to believe the current formulas are all correct and that 98% of the universe simply can't be seen then that's your choice.

 

[user556]

I'm saying the Universe is 100% observable, on the proviso that black holes can be located.