Q & A: Dark Matter

		Dark Matter (def.): Term used to describe the mass in galaxies and clusters whose existence we infer from rotation curves and other techniques, but which has not been confirmed by observations on any electromagnetic wavelength. More Information: Dark Matter Mystery Field Guide

Q: I am fascinated by the paradox of dark matter. The last few years has witnessed a rapidly expanding amount of black hole and super-massive black hole "verification". My question is, could this acceleration eventually solve the "missing matter" equation? How far would we have to go?

Q: Does it "matter" that dark matter rotates?

Q: What happens when clouds of dark matter collide?

Q: How does one determine the masses from the temperature maps?

Q: Is it possible for the existence of an 'anti-dark matter?'

Q: Could dark energy simply be the effect of gravity from other universes which surround this universe and big bangs occur when the material from adjacent universes collide, condense then explode again?

Q: According to Einstein's theory of relativity the slower objects move relative to other objects, the larger their relative mass. Would it be possible for some form of matter to be in the universe and not accelerated by gravity, therefore moving much slower than planets and stars, so in comparison this matter would seem to be more massive than if it was moving at the same speed as the other bodies? Then this matter could account for the extra "Dark matter" in the Universe.

Q: According to the information I've read on quantum/quark theory, matter is being created and destroyed all the time, nearly everywhere, at the quantum level. At any given moment, there must be an immense amount of matter exising that will be gone in the next moment, but new matter will be there to take its place. Statistically, at any given moment, shouldn't an immense amount of matter be in existance at the quantum level? Could this be the dark matter you're looking for?

Q: I found a web site that explained Dark matter as the matter outside of a galaxy that we can't see. It said that it is believed to be there, because of the gravitational rotation of the galaxy. That doesn't make sense to me. The galaxy spins like a wheel, fast toward the center, and slower at the edge. But isn't it all spinning at the same speed? The outer part has a lot more "ground" to cover before it can make a full rotation, whereas the inner part of the galaxy has a shorter amount of ground to cover. Even with all of this, I don't understand how Dark Matter ties into it.

Q: Is it true that 95% of the universe is empty and consists of nothing?

Q: Surely, all the photons emitted since the beginning of time, and not absorbed by the one aton per cubic meter, can easily account for the 95% of undescribed manifest gravity; and are gravitationally equivalent to 19 atoms per cubic meter. What do you think?

Q: Is it possible that dark matter is not dark at all?

Q: Could parallel universes be the answer to the dark matter mystery?

Q: Could the supermassive black holes discovered at the center of nearly all visible galaxies possibly make up for the lack of mass observed in the universe? And since so little is know about the interior regions of a black hole, where the majority of physics and mathematics may not even be applicable, could the computations of the mass of these large bodies be miscalculated?

Q: Why does the production of neutron stars and stellar black holes imply the release of a lot of energy and heavy elements, and why does this make them unlikely dark matter candidates?

Q: Can WIMPs solve the dark matter problem?

Q: Regarding the Dark Matter Mystery. Did the equation for the mass of the galaxy include planetary zones for the stars?

Q: I was wondering if it would be possible for some of the missing mass to be in the form of extra-solar planets?

Q: George Gamow, in his book "The Creation of the universe," explained why the galaxies rotate as a solid body as actually being a "dipping elliptical trajectory" of the stars. So why are we looking for the missing matter when the "falling" of stars through galactic gas is more reasonable?