this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
37 points (89.4% liked)

Space

2040 readers
59 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  2. Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.


Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Before even following the link... #doubt

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

They’re seeing gamma rays from suspected dark matter collisions—that’s actually more substantially accurate than I was expecting.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 21 points 1 month ago

To clarify, that's the collision of 2 dark matter particles.
Not the collision of a dark matter particle and something else.

researchers report that they have detected the invisible scaffolding based on gamma rays that result from the collision and resulting annihilation of two dark matter particles.

So, that's 2 particles of this unobservable (or, difficult to observe) matter interacting with eachother in an observable way.
Very cool

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

I have to agree :)

[–] BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

After reading the article I would call it interesting but very far from settled. Your doubt is properly placed 🤣

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

they shpuld have put the "indirectly" in the headline, but then they would be decent. can't have that

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

but then they would be decent

Lmao, what? No, if they put "indirectly" in the headline, then they'd be just as decent but actively wrong about it being the first time. We've detected dark matter in plenty of indirect ways, from the Bullet Cluster to the angular velocity of galaxies. I don't think you understand how often particle physicists observe things based on predicted properties (such as "this decays into that") rather than something we see "directly".

Dark matter is dark matter because it only interacts gravitationally with "normal" matter and energy, and we've already observed that gravitational interaction. So what's your standard for not qualifying a dark matter observation as "indirect"? Did you want two dark matter black holes colliding? Did you want the scientists to magically change how electromagnetism works?

It's fine if you don't think this is an observation of dark matter at all, but "indirect" is needlessly splitting hairs in this field. You can read the journal article – at least the abstract – and see what the evidence is.

[–] magiccupcake@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

In the field this is actually refered to as direct observation. It's confusing for someone not familiar with the jargon as it is very similar to direct detection.