New Theory Suggests Dark Matter Is Frozen Relics of Light-Speed Particles
In an ongoing quest to guess the secret behind the Universe's excess in gravity, two researchers from Dartmouth College in the US have proposed a chilling union between massless particles soon after the Big Bang.
For the better part of a century it's been frustratingly clear that estimates of the Universe's visible mass have failed to account for the way galaxies rotate, pointing to slow-moving clumps of matter we can't see. This stuff has been dubbed ' dark matter'.
Even as researchers whittle away at the list of properties describing this cold and silent corner of physics, its identity and origins remain elusive.
Physicists Guanming Liang and Robert Caldwell picture a newborn cosmos sizzling with massless particles zooming about at high speed – a form of matter that has more in common with light than with cold chunks of darkness.
Over time, particles within this fog of high-energy material collided and cooled, leaving them with the required mass to explain the Universe's unseen source of gravity.
"That's totally antithetical to what dark matter is thought to be – it is cold lumps that give galaxies their mass," Caldwell says.
"Our theory tries to explain how it went from being light to being lumps."
Roughly 13.7 billion years ago, when the whole Universe was crammed into a space that would easily fit in a gap in your teeth, a quantum party was underway. Particles of all varieties were zooming about, bumping and grinding for want of room to move.
According to the Nambu and Jona-Lasinio model of nucleon synthesis, one particular class of these particles known as Dirac fermions could buddy up in a very similar manner to the way electrons combine to form Cooper pairs in superconductors.
Though the physics behind the activity is complex (even for quantum mechanics), there are implications for cosmological growth, from cosmic inflation to later expansion. Yet all have been based on assumptions that the temperature of this space remained fairly balanced.
Liang and Caldwell wondered what might happen if other thermal properties of this process were taken into account. What if an imbalance in the partnerships between some hypothetical high-energy Dirac fermions resulted in them converting their insane energy to mass, effectively freezing them?
The product would be like turning a thundercloud into a hailstorm.
"The most unexpected part of our mathematical model was the energy plummet that bridges the high-density energy and the lumpy low energy," says Liang.
The very fact Cooper pairs exist among electrons means no exotic activity is required to explain the emergence of these slow, dark matter particles. What's more, the hypothesis could explain where so much of the energy in the early Universe went.
"Structures get their mass due to the density of cold dark matter, but there also has to be a mechanism wherein energy density drops to close to what we see today," Liang says.
"The mathematical model of our theory is really beautiful because it's rather simplistic – you don't need to build a lot of things into the system for it to work."
Being simple is one thing. Proving it is another. Unlike so many proposals on the identity of the mysterious material known as dark matter, this theory could actually be tested using data we already have at hand.
Transformations from hot, high-pressure loners to cold and slow marriages would leave a signature in the cosmic microwave background – the distorted background glow of radiation that's been bouncing around the Universe since its earliest moments.
Certain signs found in the cosmic microwave background would be points scored in favor of these fermions being at least one source of dark matter.
"It's exciting," says Caldwell. "We're presenting a new approach to thinking about and possibly identifying dark matter."
This research was published in Physical Review Letters.
The End of The Universe Could Come 'Much Sooner' Than We Thought
We Finally Know Why Ancient Roman Concrete Lasts Thousands of Years
Scientists Witness Lead Literally Turn Into Gold in The Large Hadron Collider
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Where does the universe's gold come from? Giant flares from extreme magnetic stars offer a clue
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Scientists have finally gathered direct proof of how the universe forges its heaviest elements, a process that has remained a mystery for over half a century. A team from the Flatiron Institute in New York City calculated that giant flares emitted by magnetars — highly magnetic types of collapsed stars known as neutron stars — could be the long-sought cosmic forge that creates the universe's heavy elements. Just one of these giant flares could produce a planet's worth of gold, platinum, and uranium. "It's pretty incredible to think that some of the heavy elements all around us, like the precious metals in our phones and computers, are produced in these crazy extreme environments," Anirudh Patel, a doctoral candidate at Columbia University and lead author on a study of these elements, said in a statement. "Magnetar giant flares could be the solution to a problem we've had where there are more heavy elements seen in young galaxies than could be created from neutron star collisions alone." Lighter elements such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium were forged in the Big Bang, while heavier ones were formed through nuclear fusion in stellar cores during stars' lives — or in the aftermath of their explosive deaths. But just how neutron-rich elements that are heavier than iron are made has remained an open question. These elements are thought to form through a series of nuclear reactions known as the rapid neutron capture process, or r-process, which was long theorized to occur only under extreme conditions such as those in supernovas or neutron star mergers. In 2017, astronomers confirmed the r-process for the first time during the observed merger of two neutron stars. However, such collisions are so rare that they cannot fully account for the abundance of heavy elements in the universe and neutron star mergers happen too late in the universe's history to explain the earliest gold and other heavy elements. But the extreme neutron star flares that can forge these elements are much older. "The interesting thing about these giant flares is that they can occur really early in galactic history," Patel added. To study these processes, the NYC scientists turned to magnetars, whose magnetic fields are trillions of times stronger than Earth's. These stars occasionally produce "flares" — bursts of energy caused by the sudden release of magnetic energy, typically triggered by the rearrangement or decay of their magnetic fields. The team calculated that a magnetar's giant flare could create the right conditions for r-process elements to form, producing highly unstable radioactive nuclei that decay into stable heavy elements such as gold. Excitingly, the NYC team was able to link their calculations to a mysterious observation made in 2004 of a bright flash of light from the magnetar SGR 1806–20. Initially, the event didn't seem unusual — until researchers realized the flare's total energy was roughly a thousand times greater than that of typical bursts. "The event had kind of been forgotten over the years," said Brian Metzger, a senior research scientist at the CCA and a professor at Columbia University. "But we very quickly realized that our model was a perfect fit for it." "I wasn't thinking about anything else for the next week or two," Patel said in a NASA statement. "It was the only thing on my mind." By combining observations of SGR 1806–20's 2004 flare with their model, Metzger, Patel, and their colleagues estimated that the event likely produced around 2 million billion billion (you read that right) kilograms of heavy elements — roughly the mass of Mars or 27 moons! While such flares could account for about 10% of all heavy elements in our galaxy, the researchers note that the origins of the remaining 90% remain uncertain. "We can't exclude that there could be third or fourth sites out there that we just haven't seen yet," Metzger said. RELATED STORIES: — What happens inside neutron stars, the universe's densest known objects? — James Webb Space Telescope finds neutron star mergers forge gold in the cosmos: 'It was thrilling' — The most powerful explosions in the universe could reveal where gold comes from Eager to push their discovery further, the team plans to hunt for more magnetar flares using NASA's Compton Spectrometer and Imager mission, slated for launch in 2027 — a mission that could reveal even more secrets about the cosmic origins of gold and other heavy elements. "It's a pretty fundamental question in terms of the origin of complex matter in the universe," Patel said. "It's a fun puzzle that hasn't actually been solved." The team's research was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
What if the Big Bang wasn't the beginning? New research suggests it may have taken place inside a black hole
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe — a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. But what if this was not the beginning at all? What if our universe emerged from something else — something more familiar and radical at the same time? In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole — followed by a bounce inside it. This idea, which we call the black hole universe, offers a radically different view of cosmic origins, yet it is grounded entirely in known physics and observations. Today's standard cosmological model, based on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation (the idea that the early universe rapidly blew up in size), has been remarkably successful in explaining the structure and evolution of the universe. But it comes at a price: it leaves some of the most fundamental questions unanswered. For one, the Big Bang model begins with a singularity — a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is not just a technical glitch; it's a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don't really understand the beginning at all. To explain the universe's large-scale structure, physicists introduced a brief phase of rapid expansion into the early universe called cosmic inflation, powered by an unknown field with strange properties. Later, to explain the accelerating expansion observed today, they added another "mysterious" component: dark energy. Related: 5 fascinating facts about the Big Bang, the theory that defines the history of the universe In short, the standard model of cosmology works well — but only by introducing new ingredients we have never observed directly. Meanwhile, the most basic questions remain open: where did everything come from? Why did it begin this way? And why is the universe so flat, smooth, and large? Our new model tackles these questions from a different angle — by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding universe and trying to trace back how it began, we consider what happens when an overly dense collection of matter collapses under gravity. This is a familiar process: stars collapse into black holes, which are among the most well-understood objects in physics. But what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon from which nothing can escape, remains a mystery. In 1965, the British physicist Roger Penrose proved that under very general conditions, gravitational collapse must lead to a singularity. This result, extended by the late British physicist Stephen Hawking and others, underpins the idea that singularities — like the one at the Big Bang — are unavoidable. The idea helped win Penrose a share of the 2020 Nobel prize in physics and inspired Hawking's global bestseller A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. But there's a caveat. These "singularity theorems" rely on "classical physics" which describes ordinary macroscopic objects. If we include the effects of quantum mechanics, which rules the tiny microcosmos of atoms and particles, as we must at extreme densities, the story may change. In our new paper, we show that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity. We find an exact analytical solution — a mathematical result with no approximations. Our maths show that as we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time. This simple mathematical solution describes how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. But how come Penrose's theorems forbid out such outcomes? It's all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or "spin"). And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible — it's inevitable under the right conditions. Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which applies on large scales such as stars and galaxies, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics — no exotic fields, extra dimensions or speculative physics required. What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces the two separate phases of accelerated expansion — inflation and dark energy — driven not by a hypothetical fields but by the physics of the bounce itself. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes testable predictions. It predicts a small but non-zero amount of positive spatial curvature — meaning the universe is not exactly flat, but slightly curved, like the surface of the Earth. This is simply a relic of the initial small over-density that triggered the collapse. If future observations, such as the ongoing Euclid mission, confirm a small positive curvature, it would be a strong hint that our universe did indeed emerge from such a bounce. It also makes predictions about the current universe's rate of expansion, something that has already been verified. This model does more than fix technical problems with standard cosmology. It could also shed new light on other deep mysteries in our understanding of the early universe — such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the hierarchical formation and evolution of galaxies. These questions will be explored by future space missions such as Arrakihs, which will study diffuse features such as stellar halos (a spherical structure of stars and globular clusters surrounding galaxies) and satellite galaxies (smaller galaxies that orbit larger ones) that are difficult to detect with traditional telescopes from Earth and will help us understand dark matter and galaxy evolution. These phenomena might also be linked to relic compact objects — such as black holes — that formed during the collapsing phase and survived the bounce. RELATED STORIES —When will the universe die? —Universe may revolve once every 500 billion years — and that could solve a problem that threatened to break cosmology —Scientists may have finally found where the 'missing half' of the universe's matter is hiding The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger "parent" universe. We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle — one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them. This edited article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Yahoo
New research challenges everything we know about the Big Bang
The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. But what if this was not the beginning at all? What if our universe emerged from something else – something more familiar and radical at the same time? In a new paper, published in Physical Review D, my colleagues and I propose a striking alternative. Our calculations suggest the Big Bang was not the start of everything, but rather the outcome of a gravitational crunch or collapse that formed a very massive black hole – followed by a bounce inside it. This idea, which we call the black hole universe, offers a radically different view of cosmic origins, yet it is grounded entirely in known physics and observations. Today's standard cosmological model, based on the Big Bang and cosmic inflation (the idea that the early universe rapidly blew up in size), has been remarkably successful in explaining the structure and evolution of the universe. But it comes at a price: it leaves some of the most fundamental questions unanswered. For one, the Big Bang model begins with a singularity – a point of infinite density where the laws of physics break down. This is not just a technical glitch; it's a deep theoretical problem that suggests we don't really understand the beginning at all. To explain the universe's large-scale structure, physicists introduced a brief phase of rapid expansion into the early universe called cosmic inflation, powered by an unknown field with strange properties. Later, to explain the accelerating expansion observed today, they added another 'mysterious' component: dark energy. In short, the standard model of cosmology works well – but only by introducing new ingredients we have never observed directly. Meanwhile, the most basic questions remain open: where did everything come from? Why did it begin this way? And why is the universe so flat, smooth, and large? Our new model tackles these questions from a different angle – by looking inward instead of outward. Instead of starting with an expanding universe and trying to trace back how it began, we consider what happens when an overly dense collection of matter collapses under gravity. This is a familiar process: stars collapse into black holes, which are among the most well-understood objects in physics. But what happens inside a black hole, beyond the event horizon from which nothing can escape, remains a mystery. In 1965, the British physicist Roger Penrose proved that under very general conditions, gravitational collapse must lead to a singularity. This result, extended by the late British physicist Stephen Hawking and others, underpins the idea that singularities – like the one at the Big Bang – are unavoidable. The idea helped win Penrose a share of the 2020 Nobel prize in physics and inspired Hawking's global bestseller A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. But there's a caveat. These 'singularity theorems' rely on 'classical physics' which describes ordinary macroscopic objects. If we include the effects of quantum mechanics, which rules the tiny microcosmos of atoms and particles, as we must at extreme densities, the story may change. In our new paper, we show that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity. We find an exact analytical solution – a mathematical result with no approximations. Our maths show that as we approach the potential singularity, the size of the universe changes as a (hyperbolic) function of cosmic time. This simple mathematical solution describes how a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. But how come Penrose's theorems forbid out such outcomes? It's all down to a rule called the quantum exclusion principle, which states that no two identical particles known as fermions can occupy the same quantum state (such as angular momentum, or 'spin'). And we show that this rule prevents the particles in the collapsing matter from being squeezed indefinitely. As a result, the collapse halts and reverses. The bounce is not only possible – it's inevitable under the right conditions. Crucially, this bounce occurs entirely within the framework of general relativity, which applies on large scales such as stars and galaxies, combined with the basic principles of quantum mechanics – no exotic fields, extra dimensions or speculative physics required. What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces the two separate phases of accelerated expansion – inflation and dark energy – driven not by a hypothetical fields but by the physics of the bounce itself. One of the strengths of this model is that it makes testable predictions. It predicts a small but non-zero amount of positive spatial curvature – meaning the universe is not exactly flat, but slightly curved, like the surface of the Earth. This is simply a relic of the initial small over-density that triggered the collapse. If future observations, such as the ongoing Euclid mission, confirm a small positive curvature, it would be a strong hint that our universe did indeed emerge from such a bounce. It also makes predictions about the current universe's rate of expansion, something that has already been verified. This model does more than fix technical problems with standard cosmology. It could also shed new light on other deep mysteries in our understanding of the early universe – such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the hierarchical formation and evolution of galaxies. These questions will be explored by future space missions such as Arrakhis, which will study diffuse features such as stellar halos (a spherical structure of stars and globular clusters surrounding galaxies) and satellite galaxies (smaller galaxies that orbit larger ones) that are difficult to detect with traditional telescopes from Earth and will help us understand dark matter and galaxy evolution. These phenomena might also be linked to relic compact objects – such as black holes – that formed during the collapsing phase and survived the bounce. The black hole universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger 'parent' universe. We are not special, no more than Earth was in the geocentric worldview that led Galileo (the astronomer who suggested the Earth revolves around the Sun in the 16th and 17th centuries) to be placed under house arrest. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle – one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them. Enrique Gaztanaga is a Professor in the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation (University of Portsmouth) at the University of Portsmouth. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
