What’s the matter with dark matter?

Comparison of MOND and Newtonian rotation
(Wikimedia)

Nine years ago, I published here a post entitled Dark Matter or New Theory, where I pointed out that the motion of stars in galaxies does not match theoretical predictions. The problem can be solved in two ways:

1.      Assuming that galaxies have much more mass than we can see. The mass we cannot see was called dark matter, where the word dark means that we don't know what it is.

2.      Assuming that Newton's laws should be corrected in the outer part of galaxies, where the acceleration of stars is very small. Various corrections to Newton's equations have been proposed that would satisfactorily solve the problem, which are called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) theories.

Mysterious Particles

Some physicists sometimes act as if the hypotheses they propose to explain the mysteries of the universe are always true. But a hypothesis is nothing more than a proposal to explain a natural phenomenon, and it cannot be considered a confirmed theory until it has provided one or more surprisingly accurate predictions. This last detail, which is essential, is usually omitted.

In 2020, I read two popular books on cosmology and particle physics (the two branches of physics are closely related):

Phantoms in the Universe?

The Standard Cosmological Model has introduced in physics two new concepts that didn't exist before:

• Dark matter: It seems to be five times more abundant than ordinary matter, but we don't know what it is, what it's made of. We only know that it appears to be affected by gravity, and so far, its existence has been concluded in two different ways: a) By analyzing the rotational motion of galaxies, which seems to require that there is more mass in them than what we can see. b) By studying the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has served as the basis for adjusting the standard cosmological model.
• Dark energy: We have no idea what it is. Some speak of a fifth fundamental interaction (or force), the quintessence, which would join the four we know: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong, and weak. Others offer different explanations, none of which have received experimental confirmation. The hypothesis of its existence is supported by two observations: a) Analyzing the expansion rate of the universe, after the 1998 discovery that this rate is accelerating. b) By studying the cosmic microwave background radiation, which has served as the basis for adjusting the standard cosmological model.

Matter and antimatter. Why are we here?

The matter making the solar system, the Earth, all living beings and ourselves, is made up almost entirely of atoms which, in turn, are based on three elementary particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. For each of these particles, as well as for many others, not usually part of atoms, there is an antiparticle. Therefore, there could be antimatter antiatoms, made of antiprotons, antineutrons, and antielectrons (positrons).

An interesting property of matter and antimatter is that they cannot be together. As soon as they come into contact, they completely disintegrate, transforming into energy. Everything suggests that our galaxy (the Milky Way) is made up almost exclusively of matter. There is also some antimatter, in the form of antiparticle clouds, outside the galaxy, close to it and attracted by its gravity, but in such a small quantity, compared to the mass of the galaxy, that for practical purposes it can be ignored. It has also been said that there could be some (but very few) anti-stars.

The top ten scientific discoveries of the century

The magazine Science News has reached in 2021 one hundred years (a century) of existence. To celebrate this anniversary, the magazine has published a list of what, according to its author, are the ten greatest scientific advances made between 1921 and 2021. This is the list, ordered according to the opinion of the article’s author about the importance of the discovery (from highest to lowest):

What’s a scientific theory

Karl Popper

Although it is fashionable to assert that Karl Popper’s theories about the evolution of science are outdated, his definition of what is a scientific theory is unassailable:

A theory is scientific if and only if it is possible to design an experiment that proves that this theory is false.

A paradigmatic case is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen designed an experiment that could prove this theory false. A few months later, Niels Bohr published another article in the same magazine, in answer to the previous article. Almost 30 years later, as I explained in another post in this blog, the EPR experiment, which up to that point had been mental, could be carried out and confirmed Bohr’s predictions, rather than Einstein’s. As this theory was able to resist an attempt to prove it false, it must be considered a scientific theory.

Of course, this success of the theory does not imply that it should automatically be considered correct or true. Scientific theories (always according to Popper) never become so. This theory has successfully withstood an attempt to prove it false, but the next attempt could do it.

The standard cosmological model

Map of the Cosmic Background Radiation

In 1927, the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître discovered Hubble’s law.

Yeah that’s right. Hubble did not discover the law until 1929. What happened was that Lemaître published it in French in a low-impact journal (Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles), while Hubble published it two years later in English in the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, received much more publicity and his name got associated with the discovery.

Combined with Einstein’s cosmological equation, Lemaître-Hubble’s law implies that the universe is expanding. In an article published in 1931 in Nature, Lemaître drew the consequence by proposing the Big Bang theory, so called in derision by its opponent Fred Hoyle in 1950. The name caught on.

In 1948, Ralph Alpher, George Gamow and Robert Herman made two surprising predictions, based on the Big Bang theory: the average composition of the mass of the cosmos (three quarters hydrogen and one quarter helium), and the existence of the cosmic background radiation. Both were confirmed during the sixties. From that point, the Big Bang theory became the standard cosmological theory.

Dark energy again

Albert Einstein

In a previous article I mentioned that Einstein introduced a third term in the right side of his cosmological equation, to force this equation to have as solution a stationary cosmos, that would not expand or contract. The attempt was unsuccessful, for such a cosmos would have been in unstable equilibrium, and the smallest variation would have pushed it to either expanding or contracting. The term in question depends on a constant (L, the cosmological constant), which we don’t really know what it is.

Einstein's cosmological equation

For most of the twentieth century, it was assumed that the value of the cosmological constant must be zero. In other words, the third term of the Einstein equation would not exist, wouldn’t be necessary. However, in 1998 it was discovered that the universe seems to be expanding rapidly. At least, this seems to be indicated by the study of supernovas in very distant galaxies, about one billion light-years away from us. To explain this discovery, the cosmological constant term was resurrected, but giving it a sign opposite to that proposed by Einstein, so that rather than the expansion being counteracted, it would be accelerated. This proposal has become the standard cosmological model, in which the first term of the equation, which represents the effect of the mass, currently counts as 31%, while the third, that of the cosmological constant, counts as 69%. In this model, the second is assumed to be zero. I leave apart the question that the mass term does not match, so it has been necessary to assume that there is also a dark matter, that we don’t know what it is.

Pending problems in the standard cosmological model

The standard cosmological model, prevailing since 1998, is called LCDM and is based on the following statements:

• The universe began with a Big Bang, after which there was a phase of accelerated expansion (inflation), which then declined to levels close to the current ones. Ordinary matter appeared later, formed essentially by hydrogen and helium.
• The average curvature of the cosmos is close to zero (flat universe): three-dimensional space is approximately Euclidean.
• The average density of matter in the cosmos is equivalent to about 30% of the critical density (which separates an open, unlimited expanding cosmos from a closed cosmos that would contract again). Since the ordinary density of matter detected so far represents less than 5% of critical density, the remainder (over 25%) must be an unknown form (dark matter). In fact, it would be what is called cold dark matter, which explains the initials CDM in the name of the model. I talked about dark matter in an earlier post.

Dark matter or a new theory

Urbain Le Verrier

Science studies facts and tries to explain why they occur. Scientific theories are the more credible, the more facts they explain or predict. A single fact in opposition to a theory, or a single unconfirmed prediction, is enough to make us consider revising the theory. With the scientific method, theories are never final and facts must always take precedence.

We have a classic historical example in the theory of universal gravitation, which allowed Newton to explain events like the fall of bodies and the movement of planets and satellites. Its first achievement, by Newton himself, was the mathematical deduction of Kepler’s three experimental laws, obtained empirically from the observation of the orbits of the planets. But the greatest success of the theory was a correct prediction when discrepancies were detected between the orbit of Uranus deduced from the theory and the observed orbit. When something like this happens, the problem can be solved in two ways: