Before even following the link... #doubt
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2025
37 points (89.4% liked)
Space
2040 readers
50 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
They’re seeing gamma rays from suspected dark matter collisions—that’s actually more substantially accurate than I was expecting.
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
I have to agree :)
After reading the article I would call it interesting but very far from settled. Your doubt is properly placed 🤣
they shpuld have put the "indirectly" in the headline, but then they would be decent. can't have that
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.
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.
Huh, actually kinda amazing, and def a bit more than the "typically bs" title hinted.
Fifteen years of the Fermi Large Area Telescope (LAT) data in the halo region of the Milky Way (MW) are analyzed to search for gamma rays from dark matter annihilation. . . . A statistically significant halo-like excess is found with a spectral peak around 20 GeV, while its flux is consistent with zero below 2 GeV and above 200 GeV. Examination of the fit residual maps indicates that a spherically symmetric halo component fits the map data well. The radial profile agrees with annihilation by the smooth NFW density profile, and may be slightly shallower than this, especially in the central region. . . . The halo excess spectrum can be fitted by annihilation with a particle mass mχ ∼ 0.5–0.8 TeV and cross section 〈συ〉 ∼ (5–8) × 10-25 cm3 s-1 for the bb̅ channel. This cross section is larger than the upper limits from dwarf galaxies and the canonical thermal relic value, but considering various uncertainties, especially the density profile of the MW halo, the dark matter interpretation of the 20 GeV “Fermi halo” remains feasible. The prospects for verification through future observations are briefly discussed.
Extra high energy particles too. So next time we get hit by secondary particles from a cosmic ray we know what's to blame. On the other hand the planet might not all be here without the extra gravity from dark matter so it's still all good. Radiation induced Cancer is horrible but having a decent sized planet is a definite plus
We’ll see.
No! You CAN'T see it. That's the whole point!
Some ppl... seriously!
Seeriously
Frack off 😂
Scientists are SLAMMED by dark matter sightings.
They absolutely eviscerated the process of finding.