Robert L. Oldershaw
Amherst College
Amherst, MA 01002
USA
e-mail: rloldershaw@amherst.edu
ABSTRACT: After two decades of efforts to identify the
enigmatic dark matter that comprises the dominant form of matter in our galaxy,
the mass range for viable candidates appears to have been reduced by more than
50 orders of magnitude. Positive results have thus far been confined to the
range: 10-7 M¤ to 1.0 M¤,
with apparent clustering within the ranges 10-5 M¤
to 10-3 M¤ and 0.08 M¤
to 0.5 M¤. Positive and negative results
are compared with specific predictions of cosmological models.
Key Words: Cosmology: dark matter, theory, miscellaneous,
large-scale structure of Universe
The Dark Matter Problem and Candidate Solutions
The dark matter problem arose during the 1930s when astronomers
such as Zwicky, Oort and Kapteyn realized that the luminous and virial masses
of galaxies differed by factors of 10 or more. Review papers on the history,
theoretical aspects and empirical status of the dark matter problem have been
published by Trimble (1987) and Carr (1994). In this paper we are concerned
exclusively with observations of galactic dark matter, as opposed to
intergalactic dark matter. This more limited subject was reviewed not long ago
by Ashman (1992). The consensus that has emerged over the last two decades is
that a mysterious non-luminous form of matter comprises most of a galaxy's mass,
possibly as much as 90% to 99% of the total mass. The most likely location for
this vast amount of non-luminous matter is thought to be an extensive galactic
halo.
The mass range for familiar dark matter candidates covers an
incredible 78 orders of magnitude: from a putative 10-6 ev axion
to 106 M¤ black holes. In
between there is an array of literally scores of candidate dark matter populations
including 17 ev neutrinos, snowballs, quark nuggets, primordial black
holes and brown dwarfs (Trimble 1987). The empirical attack on the dark matter
problem began in earnest in the 1970s, and several plausible candidates are
thought to have been virtually ruled out, such as faint stars (Rieke 1989; Graff
and Freese 1996a); gas, dust, rocks and snowballs (Hills 1986; Hegyi & Olive
1986); and massive (> 1 M¤) black
holes (Bahcall et al. 1985).
Candidates that have survived the early rounds of falsification
tests and remain the most viable possibilities are as follows. There is a rather
large group of potential Cold Dark Matter (CDM) and Hot Dark Matter (HDM) candidates,
with the leading ones being neutralinos (10 - 500 Gev), axions (10-6
- 10-4 ev) and massive neutrinos (2 - 30 ev), as described by Dodelson
et al. (1996). Brown dwarfs are a perennial favorite, though observations of
truncated stellar mass functions may limit their potential contribution to the
total mass of the dark matter (Williams et al. 1996; Graff and Freese
1996b). Current observational data permit white dwarf stars to remain viable
candidates although this requires some assumptions that are difficult to defend
(Adams & Laughlin 1996; Kawaler 1996). Low mass (< 1 M¤)
neutron stars and primordial black holes are consistent with the available data,
but scenarios for their formation remain sketchy (Trimble 1987; Carr 1994).
Finally, there is the category of "other",which should certainly be
included here since this category has had an extremely good track record throughout
the history of science.
Because the field of galactic dark matter research is advancing rapidly, it is important to specify that the data and analyses presented here are those that have been published up to December 1996.
Specific Predictions
If a cosmological model is to have significant scientific value,
then it must be able to retrodict a very large quantity of dark matter, and
have something to say about its composition. Clearly a cosmological theory that
is mute on the makeup of 50% to 99% of the universe is of limited utility. In
this paper we concentrate on cosmological models that can retrodict the galactic
dark matter in a natural way, and that can make specific predictions
about the constituents of this universal and dominant form of matter.
The original Big Bang (BB) theory did not predict the existence
of vast amounts of dark matter. However, when the BB model is amended by the
Inflationary scenario (I), then large quantities of CDM and/or HDM are retrodicted,
and a broad set of potential subatomic particle candidates can be identified
(Dodelson et al. 1996). Technically this does not constitute a definitive prediction
because the BB+I paradigm does not uniquely specify which of the many particle
candidates are the major constituents. However, the BB+I models are currently
the leading cosmological models, and the identification of a cluster of potential
candidates is certainly a step in the right direction toward a definitive prediction.
Therefore these models are included in the present discussion. As mentioned
above, the axion, massive neutrino and neutralino are currently thought to be
the best bet candidates of the standard BB+I models, although variations on
the standard models lead to other "wimp" candidates or even to hydrogen
in the form of cold molecular clouds (De Paolis et al. 1996)
The only cosmological model known to the present author that
makes a definitive prediction about the galactic dark matter is a fractal model
called the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm (Oldershaw 1987, 1989a, 1989b).
Using its underlying principle of discrete cosmological self-similarity it was
possible to predict in 1987 that the galactic dark matter must be dominated
by two populations of ultracompact objects. The higher mass population was predicted
to cluster tightly around a mass of 0.15 M¤
(+/- 0.05 M¤), and would constitute
about 90% of the galactic dark matter mass. The lower mass population
would weigh in at 7x10-5 M¤
(+/- 2x10-5 M¤) and roughly
equal the larger mass population in terms of numbers. These quantitative
predictions are truly definitive in that the model would be falsified if these
predictions are not vindicated.
Apparently there are no further cosmological models that make
specific predictions about the composition of the galactic dark matter. The
Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (Hoyle et al. 1993) discusses different
potential candidates with masses ranging over > 16 orders of magnitude,
and therefore does not meet the criteria for discussion in this paper. Theories
that definitively predict that the galactic dark matter does not exist
are assumed to be extremely unlikely and are not considered here.
Observational Results
Figure 1 shows the record of reported galactic dark matter mass
estimates from the time that positive results first appeared in December 1991
until the present (December 1996). Table 1 contains references and quantitative
information for these data points. The x-axis of Figure 1 depicts the full range
of candidate galactic dark matter mass values as log M in units of M¤,
and the y-axis is the time period from November 1991 to December 1996. Predicted
mass values are shown as vertical structures: two discrete lines at -4.16 (=7x10-5
M¤) and -0.82 (= 0.15 M¤)
for the fractal model predictions, and broad columns for the most likely potential
ranges for the BB+I+HDM/CDM models: -72.05 (10-6 ev) to -70.05 (10-4
ev), -65.75 (2 ev) to -64.57 (30 ev) and -56.05 (10 Gev) to -54.35 (500 Gev).
The data are presented in a temporal format for two basic reasons.
Firstly, this type of presentation is effective in highlighting trends in the
data. Secondly, in a case such as the galactic dark matter problem where analysis
of the raw data is substantially model-dependent (Alcock et al. 1996; De Paolis
et al. 1996b), there is the possibility of systematic errors in any analysis.
By including several different analyses, involving different sets of data and
assumptions, one is less likely to be misled by systematic errors. At this stage
it is conceivable that an earlier estimate based on a small amount of data is
closer to the actual value than a more recent and comprehensive result; in the
long run the probability of this being the case should decrease.
When viewing Figure 1, two related features standout prominently:
the positive results are confined to a relatively narrow segment (10-7
M¤ to 1 M¤)
of the full mass range , and they appear to form two clusters. The lack of positive
results reported for the predicted BB+I+HDM/CDM ranges of 10-6 ev
to 500 Gev is somewhat surprising. In spite of literally scores of clever and
varied experimental designs, no reproducible candidate events have been reported.
At one point there appeared to be some evidence for a 17 ev neutrino, but subsequent
work has discredited this result (Schwarzschild 1993). There are numerous on-going
searches for particle candidates, and many more are planned (Dodelson et al.
1996).
The substantial number of data points on the right side of Fig.
1 are all the products of gravitational microlensing experiments. The fundamental
ideas of microlensing were discussed by Einstein (1936) and Refsdal (1964).
The technical feasibility of using gravitational microlensing to attack the
local dark matter problem was demonstrated in a key paper by Paczynski (1986).
Subsequently, several research groups have taken up the challenge and two different
observational approaches have been pursued. One approach focusses on the variability
of macrolensed quasars, searching for brightening events that are best explained
as microlensing events, as opposed to intrinsic variations. A second approach,
taken up by the American/Australian MACHO group (Alcock et al. 1993) , the European
EROS group (Aubourg et al. 1993), the Princeton/Poland OGLE group (Udalski et
al. 1993), and others, searches for local events wherein closer objects in our
galaxy act as lenses for more distant galactic stars, or stars in neighboring
galaxies.
Interestingly, each approach has yielded positive results that,
with a few exceptions (to be discussed below), cluster in separate mass ranges.
The quasar microlensing experiments have tended to yield evidence for dark matter
objects in the 10-5.5 M¤
to 10-3 M¤ range, i.e.,
the planetary-mass range. These mass estimates are model-dependent and two are
based on small sample sizes; therefore the margins of error are large, at least
+ a factor of 10.
Local microlensing experiments, on the other hand, have found
evidence for a large dark matter population residing in the halo and typified
by masses on the order of 0.1 M¤. Two
exceptions to this dichotomy are a possible finding of three planetary-mass
events in EROS short-term variability data (Kerins 1995), and hints of stellar
mass objects in quasar variability studies (Refsdal and Stabell 1993; Cummings
and De Robertis 1995).
The possibility that halo dark matter observations might be best
explained in terms of a combination of planetary- and stellar-mass populations
was suggested by Refsdal and Stabell (1993).
It should be noted that different authors present their mass
results in different forms. Given a sample of estimated masses with a major
peak at 0.1 M¤ and a smattering of
larger masses, the average mass and the most probable mass can be
significantly different. Also, different methods for calculating mass values
yield different estimates. For example the MACHO group has recently reported
(Pratt et al 1996) an average mass of about 0.5 M¤
for galactic dark matter objects in the halo, while the most probable
mass would be significantly lower. Moreover, Jetzer (1996) analyzed essentially
the same raw data with a method of moments analysis and came up with an average
mass estimate that was lower by a factor of two, 0.27 M¤.
Discussion
This paper is intended as a brief overview of the dark matter
problem and a progress report on efforts to actually identify the galactic dark
matter objects. Figure 1 is a visual summary of the latter. For the time period
covered here, the major implications of the empirical results are as follows.
(1) There is a conspicuous absence of positive results reported
for masses below 10-7 M¤,
in sharp contrast to what is predicted by the BB+I paradigm. Persistent experimentation
continues in the particle-mass range.
(2) There is a conspicuous grouping of published positive results
within the mass range 10-7 M¤
to 1.0 M¤. Also, the estimated masses
of galactic dark matter objects appear to cluster tightly within the the mass
range of 0.05 M¤ to 0.50 M¤,
and more loosely within the mass range 10-7 M¤
to 10-3 M¤.
(3) The present results are consistent with the 1987 fractal
model predictions of galactic dark matter mass peaks at 0.15 M¤
and 7x10-5 M¤ (Oldershaw
1987, 1989a,b). Whether the MACHO, EROS, OGLE, etc. groups confirm a galactic
dark matter peak in the predicted planetary-mass range is the next important
test of the principle of discrete cosmological self-similarity. Events with
durations of 0.5 to 1.0 days durations should be as numerous as those with 20
to 80 days, but more difficult to detect (Alcock et al 1996b). Previous negative
results by the EROS and MACHO groups have been based on the assumption that
all of the galactic dark matter is in the form of planetary-mass objects
(Alcock et al. 1996b), whereas the fractal model predicts that the number of
planetary-mass objects is three orders of magnitude lower
than this assumption requires.
References
Adams F.C., Laughlin, G.,1996, astro-ph/9602006, ApJ (submitted)
Alcock, C., Akerlof, C.W., Allsman, R.A., et al, 1993, Nat 365, 621
Alcock, C., Allsman, R.A., Axelrod, T.S. et al, 1996a, ApJ 461, 84
Alcock, C., Allsman, R.A., Alves, D., et al, 1996b, ApJ 471, 774
Ashman K.M., 1992, PASP, 104, 1109
Aubourg, E., Bareyre, P., Brehin, S., et al, 1993, Nat 365, 623
Bahcall, J.N., Hut, P., Tremaine, S., 1985, ApJ 290, 15
Carr, B.J., 1994, ARA&A 32, 531
Cummings, C.M., De Robertis, M.M., 1995, PASP 107, 469
De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph., Roncadelli, M., 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 14
De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph., Roncadelli, M., 1996a, Internat. J. Mod. Phys. 5, 151
De Paolis, F., Ingrosso, G., Jetzer, Ph., 1996b, ApJ 470, 493
Dodelson, S., Gates, E.I., Turner, M.S., 1996, Sci 274, 69
Einstein, A., 1936, Sci 84, 506
Evans, N.W., Jijina, J., 1994, MNRAS 267, L21
Flynn, C., Gould, A., Bahcall, J.N., 1996, ApJ 466, 125
Graff, D.S., Freese, K., 1996a, ApJ 456, L49
Graff, D.S., Freese, K., 1996b, ApJ 467, L65
Hawkins, M.R.S., 1996, MNRAS 278, 787
Heygi, D.J., Olive, K.A., 1986, ApJ 303, 56
Hills, J.G., 1986, AJ 92, 595
Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G., Narlikar, J.V., 1993, ApJ 410, 437
Jetzer, Ph., 1994, ApJ 432, L43 (1994).
Jetzer, Ph., 1996, Helv. Phys. Acta 69, 179
Jetzer, Ph., Masso, E., 1994, Phys Lett B 323, 347
Kawaler, S., 1996, ApJ submitted
Kerins, E.J., 1995, MNRAS 276, 785
Oldershaw, R.L., 1987, ApJ 322, 34
Oldershaw, R.L., 1989a, Internat. J. Theor. Phys. 28, 669
Oldershaw, R.L., 1989b, Internat. J. Theor. Phys. 28, 1503
Paczynski, B., 1986, ApJ 304, 1
Pratt, M.R., Alcock, C., Allsman, R.A., et al, 1997, ApJ , in press
Refsdal, S., 1964, MNRAS 128, 295
Refsdal, S., Stabell, R, 1993, A&A 278, L5
Rieke, G.H., Ashok, N.M., Boyle, R.P., 1989, ApJ 339, L71
Schild, R.E., 1996, ApJ 464, 125
Schild, R.E., Thompson, D.J., 1996, preprint from Sept. 96 Sheffield Conference
Schneider, P., 1993, A&A 279, 1
Schwarzschild, B., 1993, Phys. Today 46, 17
Trimble, V., 1987, ARA&A 25, 425
Udalski, M., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., et al, 1993, Acta Astron. 43, 289
Webster, R.L., Ferguson, A.M.N., Corrigan, R.T., Irwin, M.J., 1991, AJ 102, 1939
Williams, D.M., Boyle, R.P., Morgan, W.T., et al, 1996, ApJ 464, 238
TABLE 1
GALACTIC DARK MATTER MASS ESTIMATES
Seq.# | <m> (M¤) | <m> Log M¤ | Mon/Yr | Mon > 11/91 | Comments | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 5.5x10-5 | -4.26 | Dec 91 | 1 | Lensing event, component A, QSO 2237+0305 | Webster et al, 1991 |
2 | 10-5 | -5.00 | Oct 93 | 23 | QSO variability. Raises possibility of a planetary-mass + stellar-mass bimodal mass function | Refsdal and Stabell, 1993 |
3 | 10-4 | -4.00 | Nov 93 | 24 | 10-4 M¤ seems to give the best fit, but large uncertainty. Also see Hawkins, 1996 for comments | Schneider, 1993 |
4 | 10-7 | -7.00 | Oct 95 | 47 | Reanalysis of EROS short-term data suggests possibility of several planetary-mass events | Kerins, 1995 |
5 | 10-3 | -3.00 | Feb 96 | 51 | QSO variability | Hawkins, 1996 |
6 | 10-5 | -5.00 | Jun 96 | 55 | QSO variability - strong peak in planetary-mass range | Schild, 1996 |
7 | 10-5.5 | -5.50 | Sep 96 | 58 | Second analysis of data in #5 | Schild and Thompson, 1996 |
8 | 0.12 | -0.92 | Oct 93 | 23 | 1st MACHO event (halo) | Alcock, et al, 1993 |
9 | 0.2 | -0.70 | Oct 93 | 23 | EROS #1 and #2 (halo) | Aubourg, et al, 1993 |
10 | 0.144 | -0.84 | Mar 94 | 28 | Methods of momments analysis of MACHO #1 and EROS #1 + #2 | Jetzer and Masso, 1994 |
11 | 0.08 | -1.10 | Apr 94 | 29 | MACHO #1 and EROS #1 + #2 | Evans, 1994 |
12 | 0.08 | -1.10 | Sep 94 | 34 | Method of moments analalysis of MACHO #1-#3 and EROS #1 + #2 | Jetzer, 1994 |
13 | 0.08 | -1.10 | Apr 96 | 53 | MACHO #1-#3 | Alcock, et al, 1996a |
14 | 0.27 | -0.57 | May 96 | 54 | MACHO #1-#8 and EROS #1 + #2 | Jetzer, 1996 |
15 | 0.50 | -0.30 | Jun 96 | 55 | MACHO #1-#8 | Pratt, et al, 1996 |
16 | 0.40 | -0.40 | Aug 96 | 57 | MACHO #1-#7 and EROS #1 + #2 | Flynn, et al, 1996 |
Last Edited: 12 Feb, 2003
Back to Home Page