Posted on 04/02/2011 6:24:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
(PhysOrg.com) -- In a resent paper posted at arXiv.org and submitted to Astrophysical Journal, Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, physicists at Fermilab in Illinois, present the theory that cold and dark planets, not heated by a star, could be heated by dark matter. In theory, this dark matter could produce habitable planets outside of what is known as a habitable zone.
While no one knows exactly what dark matter is, it is believed to make up about 83 percent of the universe. The most accepted theory is this dark matter is made up of what are called WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles.
These WIMPs interact with regular matter by a weak nuclear force and gravity, but they are also antiparticles. When two WIMPs come together, they work to annihilate each other and cause a burst of energy.
Hooper and Steffen suggest that should this dark matter be trapped within a planet’s gravity, the bursts of energy could produce enough to warm the planet. When it comes to Earth, the energy that could be produced is low, but in areas of space where there are high densities of black matter; Hooper and Steffen believe there is the possibility of finding planets that could be warmed in this way.
Within the innermost regions of the Milky Way, density of dark matter is estimated to be hundreds or thousands of times that in our solar system, and it is in these areas that Hooper and Steffen believe finding a planet heated by dark matter would be most plausible.
Traditional planets, heated by stars like our sun, are dependent on the life of that star. This theory would make these dark matter planets have a large advantage over those tied to a star, as the dark matter could provide heat for trillions of years.
Hooper and Steffen admit that they currently do not see a way of detecting any of these possible dark matter planets in the near future, but that in theory, it is possible.
I know there are many on here that know way, way more than I do about dark matter, but has dark matter really been proven or is it just a theory?
I was under the impression that it was purely theoretical at this point.
Dark matter could feed the monkeys flying out of Hillary Clinton’s ample derriere, too.
This is kind of like the theory that there are parallel universes with matter made up of slightly different quarks than the ones we have.
That could well be, but how would we know?
I missed my calling.
I spend my time making sh!+ up and posting it on FR.
To think I could have been paid for it.
I think it's been proven by gravitational lensing; so it either IS matter that doesn't reflect light, or it's some unknown weird twist of gravity that behaves exactly as if it were matter that doesn't reflect light. Either way, there's definitely something there.
That's what I understand; but I'm no astrophysicist, so don't quote me on that.
My limited understanding of the matter is that dark matter is postulated to explain why so much matter appears to be “missing” if the generally accepted theories of physics are accurate. This is somewhat similar to the ether theories of the pre-Einstein period.
An equally logical explanation is that the theories requiring dark matter are inaccurate or at least incomplete.
No it has not been proven because "we can't see it or interact with it." Un-huh.
1: What is the total mass of the universe.
2: What would the escape velosity be from such a mass?
3: Where is the center of that mass?
4: If light can be bent by passing near a mass how big a mass would put light into an orbit around it?
5: how far from the center of mass of the universe would light have to be to be free of orbiting?
I have no answers, just questions.
So, these planets could get heat from dark matter, just where would they get light, which is as essential as heat for live to exist, maybe more so.
I don’t think light is necessary. There are critters on the deep ocean floor that never get any light, and in caves, etc.
“As I understand it, scientists don’t even really know what it is at this point.” Seems there is a lot of this practice in cosmology. Dark mater, dark energy, different manifestations of gravity, all added to try and come up with a theory that can explain the origin of the universe.
Except for one thing: there is no such ****ing thing as “dark matter(TM)” in real life. Kind of like Santa Claus and the Easter rabbit...
The answer is no. The thing which actually does constitute something like 99% of the mass of the universe is plasma, and the forces which actually do govern the cosmos are electrical and electromagnetic. Dark matter is an attempt to make the cosmos work with just gravity, i.e. a gravity-only conception of astrophysics handed down to us from two or three centuries ago, and which needs to be jettisoned at this point.
They say that dark matter accounts for 83% of the Universe.
That means it is abundant, and everywhere.
Why then have we found gravitational lensing only in a very very few selected areas?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.