Welcome to Gaia! ::

And the scientists don’t really know of what this is made? Or did they already discover it confused ? I think I have read that in a newspaper, but I don't remember.

Ok quick background for nonphysicist.

1. Darkmatter refers to nonluminous matter (basically not stars). Early theories on galaxies supposed that most matter was in Stars and thus observable. Eventually some calculations were done and it was discovered that there was no where near enough mass to accound for the galaxy being gravitationally bound.

2. Black holes, burnt out stars, and nonreactive subatomic particles (like neutrinos) are all considered canidates for darkmatter. We have a rough idea of the distribution of darkmatter based on the movement of the milky way which we can observe directly. A large amount of it is in the outer portion of the milky way (like the ring being refered to here). Some of it like the ring is detected by the effect it has on light that passes near by (the gravitiational field visibly bends it allowing us to assess its strength). A ring like the one described in the article sounds like a collection of subatomic particles to me but this is speculative.

3. Darkmatter obviously would have had to play a role in the formation of galaxies, existing models need more than one type of darkmatter to account for the successful formation of a galaxy. (obviously there is a whole lot we really don't understand here).

4. Dark energy is more speculative than Dark Matter. It is theorized to explain the motion of very distant galaxies. The methods we use to observe and analyze these type of things of much less refined than those used to look at objects within our own galaxy. Last I checked (about three years ago) it was based off of only one data set (which due to its nature and the difficulty in replicating it, could be mistaken). It is basically a reinvention of Einstien's Cosmological Constant which was a force in opposition to Gravity that he theorized as system to keep the universe from collapsing due to gravitation. After it was observed that distant galaxies were actually getting farther away and not holding in stasis or orbit as Einstien envisioned the theory fell into disuse until very recently..

instead of canceling each other out it could be the balance between total destruction.

you know one stops it from expanding to quickly and the other makes it expand quicker this meaning a balance between to forces.

One problem I have with that other dimension leakage is how is it leaking consistent enough for us to calculate the gravity and orbital velocity of objects by using their mass?

Dark matter just seems to be regular matter with so much mass it distorts light. You can't see planets that far out in space, but we know they are there when they pass between us and the suns they orbit and they cast a black speck. Certainly they are not dark matter, but they are matter. Just like I believe black holes are just the remains of a collapsed star that stays the same size, rather than becoming a singularity. Of course I'm no expert I just like to think I'm creative.

I don't know. It's not really dark matter itself that has me skeptical. It's the name dark matter. It's cheesy, and it makes me giggle. I realize they need to call it something, but I really don't want science sounding like a tabletop rpg.

Which reminds me-- I read an article about dark energy over the weekend in the local paper (if dark matter makes me giggle, dark energy makes me rofl ). And the astrophysicist who wrote the article said something like, "'Dark' is pretty much a code word that means 'we have no idea.'"

Dark matter-- as much as I cringe at the name-- I get it. Someone can explain that to me and I will understand. Dark energy-- no. You can tell me that it throws the properties of gravity out the window. But you can't tell me what it is.

They're working on that, though, and I'm anxious for the results.

It is amusing to me that such a simple and plausible idea has become something so wild and speculative. To paraphrase another post:



It is perfectly accepatable and perhaps logical to think that some if not most of the matter in the universe is in a form unabservable to us. Hydrogen is the most common substance in the universe, and there are I imagine enormous amounts of it either in nebulous clouds or dispersed throughout the universe. Dark matter does not have to be anything exotic. It is just matter - that is dark - because it is not producing or reflecting light.

DM does have to be something exotic. If it were simply hydrogen, we could readily observe it due to 21cm radio emissions. Additionally, it would create a distinct absorption spectra when looking at distant quasars that's simply not present.

As such, DM cannot be hydrogen or any normal matter. This and other observations do constrain the possible candidates for DM to exotic matter.