Dark matter vs dark energy
Hoosier (below) is a bit confused between Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and unconvinced by the whole shebang. This is very common, so let’s have a post on it..
Dark matter is thought to account for 20% of all the matter/energy of the universe. Although we can’t see it, we’re pretty sure it exists, because its gravitational effect on visible matter can be seen. Put differently, we don’t insist that all existing matter must be ‘visible’ (i.e. emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation). Instead , we include the possibility that some matter may be seen only by its gravitational effect on neighbouring matter. The idea was first postulated by Fritz Zwicky in the 1930s – today, the known motion of certain spiral galaxies suggests that dark matter makes up 22% of all matter/energy, while ordinary (visible) matter makes up only 4% .
Of course, like the MOND crowd suggest, there is always the possibility is that our laws of gravity (both Newtonian and Einsteinian) are simply wrong. But most physicists consider this unlikely, as the predictions of our theory of gravity match observation in so many other instances…
Dark energy is a lot more speculative, and a lot more recent. It’s simply the name we give to whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to speed up (since 1998, it has been known that the expansion rate is currently increasing). The physical cause for dark energy is thought to be some sort of vacuum energy, but nobody’s sure yet. (From the point of view of theory, the phenomenon suggests that Einstein’s equations need an extra term, known technically as the ‘positive cosmological constant’.)
Putting the two together, cosmologists postulate that ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy all add up to the critical density required for the geometry of the universe to be flat (which is what observation suggests). In other words, the current model of the universe can be summed up by
Density ord matter (4%) + Dens dark matter (22%) + Dens dark energy (74%) = 100%
More
The strongest evidence yet for dark matter was reported last summer. In the passage of one galaxy through another, one might expect the dark matter of one galaxy to interact differently than its ordinary matter, and researchers at the University of Arizona are pretty sure this is exactly they saw.

Galaxy collision seen by the CHANDRA space telescope
It is also reported here and here that another group, the DAMA-LIBRA collaboration, have observed seperate evidence of dark matter, but this claim is more controversial.
11 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent
- Einstein, de Valera and the Institutes for Advanced Study
- Science week in Ireland: was Einstein wrong?
- Exam stress
- Current status of the concordance model
- Frontiers conference 2009
- Institute of the Year 2009/10
- A day in the life
- back 2 school
- The Doolin sessions
- Waves and music in Doolin Co. Clare
- Festival Interceltique de Lorient
- Faraday Institute summer school
-
Links
- Not Even Wrong
- Cosmic Variance
- Real Climate
- Backreaction
- Physics World Blog
- Particle physics blogs
- Physics and physicists
- Anti-crackpot blog
- itp planet
- SiteMeter
- The Litmus Paper
- Abstruse Goose
- xkcd
- The discovery of global warming
- Antimatter
- University Diary
- The quantum diaries
- Bad science
- Sense about Science
- Denying Aids
- the n-category cafe
- Female science professor
- 9th level Ireland
- Physics World magazine
- Climate progress
- think or swim
-
Archives
- November 2009 (2)
- October 2009 (2)
- September 2009 (4)
- August 2009 (3)
- July 2009 (6)
- June 2009 (5)
- May 2009 (2)
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (12)
- February 2009 (6)
- January 2009 (7)
- December 2008 (6)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Thanks so much for taking time out of your day to help explain the mysteries of the universe Doctor C.
I really do appreciate it!
a couple more things..That’s a beeautiful picture..but what do the colors of red and blue mean? what does it represent? How does it show dark matter when it can’t be seen? Is that gasses of some sort? how does that prove dark matter?
Also..I read something somewhere about this guy that put forth the idea that dark energy doesn’t really exist.. the reason it appears to us the the universe is expanding faster and faster is because the speed of light over time is slowing down and makes the red shift skewed to us observers. Have you read that also? Maybe at the big bang light was twice as fast as today..Boy if that was true ole albert would be spinning in his grave! :)
but if true then e=mc squared would mean that the energy levels near the big bang would have been twice of what we would calculate and slowly everything would be degrading.
I’ll try to find that link for you to check out.
Again..thanks for answering my dumb questions..
I went to one web page and the guy bragged about how smart he was and how stupid i was..I don’t get that alot when speaking in person.. They don’t have the courage to insult you when they know I’d kick thier ass..But this is the beauty of the internet..people can call you stupid and get away with it. Some people are smart..some play sports well..Some know how to fix stuff..why the ego?
I dunno..thanks again Doc.
Re universe expansion – yes, there are alternate theories, including variable speed of light (VSL) theories. They’re v interesting, but they don’t have the support of most cosmologists. I like to concentrate on what 9 out of 10 cats think – on any given topic, there will always be an alternate theory way out there. If the evidence supports it, it will eventually enter the mainstream. Until then, I tend to concentrate on the mainstream (like most teachers!)
Re image, I haven’t a clue, I’m not astronomer! It’s something to do with the dark matter being less slowed down than ordinary matter, as it encounters another galaxy. (The red/blue stuff is probably an artists’s impression).There are dozens of articles on the discovery in science magazines, if you just search the web under ‘DM and galaxy collision’..Cormac
Hi Cormac,
Thanks for your recent comment. Looks like an interesting blog you have here!
With apologies for the self-advertisement, we have an introductionary post on Dark matter and one on the Cosmological Constant (meant to write something about Dark Energy more generally, but didn’t quite come around to doing so).
Best,
Sabine
btw, regarding the red and blue in the picture. If I recall that correctly, it’s an overlay of two data-sets (and both over the Hubble image with the stars). The red one shows the mass-distribution of visible matter (can’t recall which parts of the spectrum precisely), the blue one shows the mass-distribution as inferred from gravitational lensing data. What you see is that both are offset from each other. The interpretation is that the bulk of the matter which causes the gravitational lensing is not where the visible matter is. The reason why the visible matter is lagging behind is that it interacts more strongly than the dark matter (usually thought to consist of WIMPs – weakly interacting massive particles). Best,
B.
Thanks for that Bee!
Re picture, I suspected as much, but haven’t looked it up in a while.
Re posts on Backreaction that’s great: I’ll certainly look them up, and refer students to them in future (that said,I suspect your blog may be pitched a level slightly higher than here!)
Regards, Cormac
P.S. I see I have my %s wrong…sigh
Great job bee..
That’s a superb post on the Cosmological Constant, Bee…I’ll certainly refer to it in any post on the subject
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation :) Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Firepower!!
[...] from supernova measurements and the puzzle of dark energy (see post on dark matter vs dark energy below). He also explained the second source of evidence for dark energy, the flatness of the universe as [...]
Pingback by Cosmological distance at Trinity College « Antimatter | August 12, 2008 |
[...] Dark matter revealed I have to interrupt my surf week to draw attention to some important news .. there is news on the Symmetry Breaking blog that strong evidence for Dark Matter has just been announced by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory, see the official announcement here. The evidence comes from observation of galaxy collisions, exactly as in the previous case of the bullet cluster collision (see DM post below and below). [...]
Pingback by Dark matter revealed « Antimatter | August 28, 2008 |
From my childhood I have always found the concept of “time” confusing – not the number of vibrations of an atom in a crystal but in the larger sense, independent of the environment. For instance what does a picosecond afer the big bang means in an almost infinitely dense media. In terms of dark energy, is it possible that time is a poorly understood scalar that changes magnitude with expansion? For instance as a sphere expands, the volume increase for a shell near the outside boundry is considerably larger than that for an equal thickness near the sphere centre. Is it conceivable that time could be slowing down near the edge of the universe due to expansion (almost like a dilution), or could time be degenerating in the location we consider to be the oldest part of the universe. If matter was travelling at a constant speed (whatever that means) and time was slowing down it would appear that the expansion of the universe was increasing. Further, this concept of time would have an opposite effect at the other end of the spectrum – at the moment of the big bang (in terms of “time” the big bang may have been quite leisurely. This is likely an absurd concept so your insight and comments could help me clear up some fuzzy thinking.