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
- Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
- 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
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
🚀 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
view the rest of the comments
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.