Dark Matter

the-axion-may-help-clean-up-the-messy-business-of-dark-matter

The axion may help clean up the messy business of dark matter


We haven’t found evidence of the theoretical particle, but it’s still worth investigating.

In recent years, a curious hypothetical particle called the axion, invented to address challenging problems with the strong nuclear force, has emerged as a leading candidate to explain dark matter. Although the potential for axions to explain dark matter has been around for decades, cosmologists have only recently begun to seriously search for them. Not only might they be able to resolve some issues with older hypotheses about dark matter, but they also offer a dizzying array of promising avenues for finding them.

But before digging into what the axion could be and why it’s so useful, we have to explore why the vast majority of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists accept the evidence that dark matter exists and that it’s some new kind of particle. While it’s easy to dismiss the dark matter hypothesis as some sort of modern-day epicycle, the reality is much more complex (to be fair to epicycles, it was an excellent idea that fit the data extremely well for many centuries).

The short version is that nothing in the Universe adds up.

We have many methods available to measure the mass of large objects like galaxies and clusters. We also have various methods to assess the effects of matter in the Universe, like the details of the cosmic microwave background or the evolution of the cosmic web. There are two broad categories: methods that rely solely on estimating the amount of light-emitting matter and methods that estimate the total amount of matter, whether it’s visible or not.

For example, if you take a picture of a generic galaxy, you’ll see that most of the light-emitting matter is concentrated in the core. But when you measure the rotation rate of the galaxy and use that to estimate the total amount of matter, you get a much larger number, plus some hints that it doesn’t perfectly overlap with the light-emitting stuff. The same thing happens for clusters of galaxies—the dynamics of galaxies within a cluster suggest the presence of much more matter than what we can see, and the two types of matter don’t always align. When we use gravitational lensing to measure a cluster’s contents, we again see evidence for much more matter than is plainly visible.

The tiny variations in the cosmic microwave background tell us about the influence of both matter that interacts with light and matter that doesn’t. It clearly shows that some invisible component dominated the early Universe. When we look at the large-scale structure, invisible matter rules the day. Matter that doesn’t interact with light can form structures much more quickly than matter that gets tangled up by interacting with itself. Without invisible matter, galaxies like the Milky Way can’t form quickly enough to match observations of the early Universe.

The calculations of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which correctly predict the abundances of hydrogen and helium in the Universe, put strict constraints on how much light-emitting matter there can be, and that number simply isn’t large enough to accommodate all these disparate results.

Across cosmic scales in time and space, the evidence just piles up: There’s more stuff out there than meets the eye, and it can’t simply be dim-but-otherwise-regular matter.

Weakness of WIMPs

Since pioneering astronomer Vera Rubin first revealed dark matter in a big way in the 1970s, the astronomical community has tried every idea it could think of to explain these observations. One tantalizing possibility is that the dark matter is the entirely wrong approach; instead, we’re misunderstanding gravity itself. But so far, half a century later, all attempts to modify gravity ultimately fail one observational test or another. In fact, the most popular modified gravity theory, known as MOND, still requires the existence of dark matter, just less of it.

As the evidence piled up for dark matter in the 1980s and ’90s, astronomers began to favor a particular explanation known as WIMPs, for weakly interacting massive particles. WIMPs weren’t just made up on the spot. They were motivated by particle physics and our attempts to create theories beyond the Standard Model. Many extensions to the Standard Model predicted the existence of WIMP-like particles that could be made in abundance in the early Universe, generating a population of heavy-ish particles that remained largely in the cosmic background.

WIMPs seemed like a good idea, as they could both explain the dark matter problem and bring us to a new understanding of fundamental physics. The idea is that we are swimming in an invisible sea of dark matter particles that almost always simply pass through us undetected. But every once in a while, a WIMP should interact via the weak nuclear force (hence the origin of its name) and give off a shower of byproducts. One problem: We needed to detect one of these rare interactions. So experiments sprang up around the world to catch an elusive dark matter candidate.

With amazing names like CRESST, SNOLAB, and XENON, these experiments have spent years searching for a WIMP to no avail. They’re not an outright failure, though; instead, with every passing year, we know more and more about what the WIMP can’t be—what mass ranges and interaction strengths are now excluded.

By now, that list of what the WIMP can’t be is rather long, and large regions within the space of possibilities are now hard-and-fast ruled out.

OK, that’s fine. I mean, it’s a huge bummer that our first best guess didn’t pan out, but nature is under no obligation to make this easy for us. Maybe the dark matter isn’t a WIMP at all.

More entities are sitting around the particle physics attic that we might be able to use to explain this deep cosmic mystery. And one of those hypothetical particles is called the axion.

Cleaning up with axions

It was the late 1970s, and physicist Frank Wilczek was shopping for laundry detergent. He found one brand standing out among the bottles: Axion. He thought that would make an excellent name for a particle.

He was right.

For decades, physicists had been troubled by a little detail of the theory used to explain the strong nuclear force, known as quantum chromodynamics. By all measurements, that force obeys charge-parity symmetry, which means if you take an interaction, flip all the charges around, and run it in a mirror, you’ll get the same result. But quantum chromodynamics doesn’t enforce that symmetry on its own.

It seemed to be a rather fine-tuned state of affairs, with the strong force unnaturally maintaining a symmetry when there was nothing in the theory to explain why.

In 1977, Roberto Peccei and Helen Quinn discovered an elegant solution. By introducing a new field into the Universe, it could naturally introduce charge-parity symmetry into the equations of quantum chromodynamics. The next year, Wilczek and Gerard ‘t Hooft independently realized that this new field would imply the existence of a particle.

The axion.

Dark matter was just coming on the cosmic scene. Axions weren’t invented to solve that problem, but physicists very quickly realized that the complex physics of the early Universe could absolutely flood the cosmos with axions. What’s more, they would largely ignore regular matter and sit quietly in the background. In other words, the axion was an excellent dark matter candidate.

But axions were pushed aside as the WIMPs hypothesis gained more steam. Back-of-the-envelope calculations showed that the natural mass range of the WIMP would precisely match the abundances needed to explain the amount of dark matter in the Universe, with no other fine-tuning or adjustments required.

Never ones to let the cosmologists get in the way of a good time, the particle physics community kept up interest in the axion, finding different variations on the particle and devising clever experiments to see if the axion existed. One experiment requires nothing more than a gigantic magnet since, in an extremely strong magnetic field, axions can spontaneously convert into photons.

To date, no hard evidence for the axion has shown up. But WIMPs have proven to be elusive, so cosmologists are showing more love to the axion and identifying surprising ways that it might be found.

A sloshy Universe

Axions are tiny, even for subatomic particles. The lightest known particle is the neutrino, which weighs no more than 0.086 electron-volts (or eV). Compare that to, say, the electron, which weighs over half a million eV. The exact mass of the axion isn’t known, and there are many models and versions of the particle, but it can have a mass all the way down to a trillionth of an eV… and even lower.

In fact, axions belong to a much broader class of “ultra-light” dark matter particle candidates, which can have masses down to 10^-24 eV. This is multiple billions of times lighter than the WIMPs—and indeed most of the particles of the Standard Model.

That means axions and their friends act nothing like most of the particles of the Standard Model.

First off, it may not even be appropriate to refer to them as particles. They have such little mass that their de Broglie wavelength—the size of the quantum wave associated with every particle—can stretch into macroscopic proportions. In some cases, this wavelength can be a few meters across. In others, it’s comparable to a star or a solar system. In still others, a single axion “particle” can stretch across an entire galaxy.

In this view, the individual axion particles would be subsumed into a larger quantum wave, like an ocean of dark matter so large and vast that it doesn’t make sense to talk about its individual components.

And because axions are bosons, they can synchronize their quantum wave nature, becoming a distinct state of matter: a Bose-Einstein condensate. In a Bose-Einstein condensate, most of the particles share the same low-energy state. When this happens, the de Broglie wavelength is larger than the average separation between the particles, and the waves of the individual particles all add up together, creating, in essence, a super-particle.

This way, we may get axion “stars”—clumps of axions acting as a single particle. Some of these axion stars may be a few thousand kilometers across, wandering across interstellar space. Still others may be the size of galactic cores, which might explain an issue with the traditional WIMP picture.

The best description of dark matter in general is that it is “cold,” meaning that the individual particles do not move fast compared to the speed of light. This allows them to gravitationally interact and form the seeds of structures like galaxies and clusters. But this process is a bit too efficient. According to simulations, cold dark matter tends to form more small, sub-galactic clumps than we observe, and it tends to make the cores of galaxies much, much denser than we see.

Axions, and ultra-light dark matter in general, can provide a solution here because they would operate in two modes. At large scales, they can act like regular cold dark matter. But inside galaxies, they can condense, forming tight clumps. Critically, these clumps have uniform densities within them. This smooths out the distribution of axions within galaxies, preventing the formation of smaller clumps and ultra-dense cores.

A messy affair

Over the decades, astronomers and physicists have found an astounding variety of ways that axions might reveal their presence in the Universe. Because of their curious ability to transmute into photons in the presence of strong magnetic fields, any place that features strong fields—think neutron stars or even the solar corona—could produce extra radiation due to axions. That makes them excellent hunting grounds for the particles.

Axion stars—also sometimes known provocatively as dark stars—would be all but invisible under most circumstances. That is, until they destabilize in a cascading chain reaction of axion-to-photon conversion and blow themselves up.

Even the light from distant galaxies could betray the existence of axions. If they exist in a dense swarm surrounding a galaxy, their conversion to photons will contribute to the galaxy’s light, creating a signal that the James Webb Space Telescope can pick up.

To date, despite all these ideas, there hasn’t been a single shred of solid evidence for the existence of axions, which naturally drops them down a peg or two on the credibility scale. But that doesn’t mean that axions aren’t worth investigating further. The experiments conducted so far only place limits on what properties they might have; there’s still plenty of room for viable axion and axion-like candidates, unlike their WIMPy cousins.

There’s definitely something funny going on with the Universe. The dark matter hypothesis—that there is a large, invisible component to matter in the Universe—isn’t that great of an idea, but it’s the best one we have that fits the widest amount of available evidence. For a while, we thought we knew what the identity of that matter might be, and we spent decades (and small fortunes) in that search.

But while WIMPs were the mainstay hypothesis, that didn’t snuff out alternative paths. Dozens of researchers have investigated modified forms of gravity to equal levels of unsuccessfulness. And a small cadre has kept the axion flame alive. It’s a good thing, too, since their obscure explorations of the corners of particle physics laid the groundwork to flesh out axions into a viable competitor to WIMPs.

No, we haven’t found any axions. And we still don’t know what the dark matter is. But it’s only by pushing forward—advancing new ideas, testing them against the reality of observations, and when they fail, trying again—will we come to a new understanding. Axions may or may not be dark matter; the best we can say is that they are promising. But who wouldn’t want to live in a Universe filled with dark stars, invisible Bose-Einstein condensates, and strange new particles?

Photo of Paul Sutter

The axion may help clean up the messy business of dark matter Read More »

simulations-find-ghostly-whirls-of-dark-matter-trailing-galaxy-arms

Simulations find ghostly whirls of dark matter trailing galaxy arms

“Basically what you do is you set up a bunch of particles that represent things like stars, gas, and dark matter, and you let them evolve for millions of years,” Bernet says. “Human lives are much too short to witness this happening in real time. We need simulations to help us see more than the present, which is like a single snapshot of the Universe.”

Several other groups already had galaxy simulations they were using to do other science, so the team asked one to see their data. When they found the dark matter imprint they were looking for, they checked for it in another group’s simulation. They found it again, and then in a third simulation as well.

The dark matter spirals are much less pronounced than their stellar counterparts, but the team noted a distinct imprint on the motions of dark matter particles in the simulations. The dark spiral arms lag behind the stellar arms, forming a sort of unseen shadow.

These findings add a new layer of complexity to our understanding of how galaxies evolve, suggesting that dark matter is more than a passive, invisible scaffolding holding galaxies together. Instead, it appears to react to the gravity from stars in galaxies’ spiral arms in a way that may even influence star formation or galactic rotation over cosmic timescales. It could also explain the relatively newfound excess mass along a nearby spiral arm in the Milky Way.

The fact that they saw the same effect in differently structured simulations suggests that these dark matter spirals may be common in galaxies like the Milky Way. But tracking them down in the real Universe may be tricky.

Bernet says scientists could measure dark matter in the Milky Way’s disk. “We can currently measure the density of dark matter close to us with a huge precision,” he says. “If we can extend these measurements to the entire disk with enough precision, spiral patterns should emerge if they exist.”

“I think these results are very important because it changes our expectations for where to search for dark matter signals in galaxies,” Brooks says. “I could imagine that this result might influence our expectation for how dense dark matter is near the solar neighborhood and could influence expectations for lab experiments that are trying to directly detect dark matter.” That’s a goal scientists have been chasing for nearly 100 years.

Ashley writes about space for a contractor for NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center by day and freelances in her free time. She holds master’s degrees in space studies from the University of North Dakota and science writing from Johns Hopkins University. She writes most of her articles with a baby on her lap.

Simulations find ghostly whirls of dark matter trailing galaxy arms Read More »

our-universe-is-not-fine-tuned-for-life,-but-it’s-still-kind-of-ok

Our Universe is not fine-tuned for life, but it’s still kind of OK


Inspired by the Drake equation, researchers optimize a model universe for life.

Physicists including Robert H. Dickle and Fred Hoyle have argued that we are living in a universe that is perfectly fine-tuned for life. Following the anthropic principle, they claimed that the only reason fundamental physical constants have the values we measure is because we wouldn’t exist if those values were any different. There would simply have been no one to measure them.

But now a team of British and Swiss astrophysicists have put that idea to test. “The short answer is no, we are not in the most likely of the universes,” said Daniele Sorini, an astrophysicist at Durham University. “And we are not in the most life-friendly universe, either.” Sorini led a study aimed at establishing how different amounts of the dark energy present in a universe would affect its ability to produce stars. Stars, he assumed, are a necessary condition for intelligent life to appear.

But worry not. While our Universe may not be the best for life, the team says it’s still pretty OK-ish.

Expanding the Drake equation

Back in the 1960s, Frank Drake, an American astrophysicist and astrobiologist, proposed an equation aimed at estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in our Universe. The equation started with stars as a precondition for life and worked its way down in scale from there. How many new stars appear in the Universe per year? How many of the stars are orbited by planets? How many of those planets are habitable? How many of those habitable planets can develop life? Eventually, you’re left with the fraction of planets that host intelligent civilizations.

The problem with the Drake equation was that it wasn’t really supposed to yield a definite number. We couldn’t—and still can’t—know the values for most of its variables, like the fraction of the planets that developed life. So far, we know of only one such planet, and you can’t infer any statistical probabilities when you only have one sample. The equation was meant more as a guide for future researchers, giving them ideas of what to look for in their search for extraterrestrial life.

But even without knowing the actual values of all those variables present in the Drake equation, one thing was certain: The more stars you had at the beginning, the better the odds for life were. So Sorini’s team focused on stars.

“Our work is connected to the Drake equation in that it relies on the same logic,” Sorini said. “The difference is we are not adding to the life side of the equation. We’re adding to the stars’ side of the equation.” His team attempted to identify the basic constituents of a universe that’s good at producing stars.

“By ‘constituents,’ I mean ordinary matter, the stuff we are made of—the dark matter, which is a weirder, invisible type of matter, and the dark energy, which is what is making the expansion of a universe proceed faster and faster,” Sorinin explained. Of all those constituents, his team found that dark energy has a key influence on the star formation rate.

Into the multiverse

Dark energy accelerates the expansion of the Universe, counteracting gravity and pushing matter further apart. If there’s enough dark energy, it would be difficult to form the dark matter web that structures galaxies. “The idea is ‘more dark energy, fewer galaxies—so fewer stars,’” Sorini said.

The effect of dark energy in a universe can be modeled by a number called the cosmological constant. “You could reinterpret it as a form of energy that can make your universe expand faster,” Sorinin said.

(The cosmological constant was originally a number Albert Einstein came up with to fix the fact that his theory of general relativity caused the expansion of what was thought to be a static universe. Einstein later learned that the Universe actually was expanding and declared the cosmological constant his greatest blunder. But the idea eventually managed to make a comeback after it was discovered that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating.)

The cosmological constant was one of the variables Sorini’s team manipulated to determine if we are living in a universe that is maximally efficient at producing stars. Sorini based this work on an idea put forward by Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, back in 1989. “Weinberg proposed that there could be a multiverse of all possible universes, each with a different value of dark energy,” Sorini explained.  Sorini’s team modeled that multiverse composed of thousands upon thousands of possible universes, each complete with a past and future.

Cosmological fluke

To simulate the history of all those universes, Sorini used a slightly modified version of a star formation model he developed back in 2021 with John A. Peacock, a British astronomer at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and co-author of the study. It wasn’t the most precise model, but the approximations it suggested produced a universe that was reasonably close to our own. The team validated the results by predicting the stellar mass fraction in the total mass of the Milky Way Galaxy, which we know stands somewhere between 2.2 and 6.6 percent. The model came up with 6.7 percent, which was deemed good enough for the job.

In the next step, Sorini and his colleagues defined a large set of possible universes in which the value of the cosmological constant ranged from a very tiny fraction of the one we observe in our Universe all the way to the value 100,000 times higher than our own.

It turned out our Universe was not the best at producing stars. But it was decent.

“The value of the cosmological constant in the most life-friendly universe would be measured at roughly one-tenth of the value we observe in our own,” Sorini said.

In a universe like that, the fraction of the matter that gets turned into stars would stand at 27 percent. “But we don’t seem to be that far from the optimal value. In our Universe, stars are formed with around 23 percent of the matter,” Sorini said.

The last question the team addressed was how lucky we are to even be here. According to Sorini’s calculations, if all universes in the multiverse are equally likely, the chances of having a cosmological constant at or lower than the value present in our Universe is just 0.5 percent. In other words, we rolled the dice and got a pretty good score, although it could have been a bit better. The odds of getting a cosmological constant at one-tenth of our own or lower were just 0.2 percent.

Things also could have been much worse. The flip side of these odds is that the number of possible universes that are worse than our own vastly exceeds the number of universes that are better.

“That is of course all subject to the assumptions of our model, and the only assumption about life we made was that more stars lead to higher chances for life to appear,” Sorini said. In the future, his team plans to go beyond that idea and make the model more sophisticated by considering more parameters. “For example, we could ask ourselves what the chances are of producing carbons in order to have life as we know it or something like that,” Sorini said.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2024.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2236

Photo of Jacek Krywko

Jacek Krywko is a freelance science and technology writer who covers space exploration, artificial intelligence research, computer science, and all sorts of engineering wizardry.

Our Universe is not fine-tuned for life, but it’s still kind of OK Read More »

is-dark-matter’s-main-rival-theory-dead?

Is dark matter’s main rival theory dead?

Galaxy rotation has long perplexed scientists.

Enlarge / Galaxy rotation has long perplexed scientists.

One of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics today is that the forces in galaxies do not seem to add up. Galaxies rotate much faster than predicted by applying Newton’s law of gravity to their visible matter, despite those laws working well everywhere in the Solar System.

To prevent galaxies from flying apart, some additional gravity is needed. This is why the idea of an invisible substance called dark matter was first proposed. But nobody has ever seen the stuff. And there are no particles in the hugely successful Standard Model of particle physics that could be the dark matter—it must be something quite exotic.

This has led to the rival idea that the galactic discrepancies are caused instead by a breakdown of Newton’s laws. The most successful such idea is known as Milgromian dynamics or Mond, proposed by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1982. But our recent research shows this theory is in trouble.

The main postulate of Mond is that gravity starts behaving differently from what Newton expected when it becomes very weak, as at the edges of galaxies. Mond is quite successful at predicting galaxy rotation without any dark matter, and it has a few other successes. But many of these can also be explained with dark matter, preserving Newton’s laws.

So how do we put Mond to a definitive test? We have been pursuing this for many years. The key is that Mond only changes the behavior of gravity at low accelerations, not at a specific distance from an object. You’ll feel lower acceleration on the outskirts of any celestial object—a planet, star, or galaxy—than when you are close to it. But it is the amount of acceleration, rather than the distance, that predicts where gravity should be stronger.

This means that, although Mond effects would typically kick in several thousand light years away from a galaxy, if we look at an individual star, the effects would become highly significant at a tenth of a light year. That is only a few thousand times larger than an astronomical unit (AU)—the distance between the Earth and the Sun. But weaker Mond effects should also be detectable at even smaller scales, such as in the outer Solar System.

This brings us to the Cassini mission, which orbited Saturn between 2004 and its final fiery crash into the planet in 2017. Saturn orbits the Sun at 10 AU. Due to a quirk of Mond, the gravity from the rest of our galaxy should cause Saturn’s orbit to deviate from the Newtonian expectation in a subtle way.

Cassini orbited Saturn from 2004 to 2017.

Enlarge / Cassini orbited Saturn from 2004 to 2017.

This can be tested by timing radio pulses between Earth and Cassini. Since Cassini was orbiting Saturn, this helped to measure the Earth-Saturn distance and allowed us to precisely track Saturn’s orbit. But Cassini did not find any anomaly of the kind expected in Mond. Newton still works well for Saturn.

Is dark matter’s main rival theory dead? Read More »