Talk:Dark matter

Dark matter in fiction was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 December 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Dark matter. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dark matter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 90 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dark matter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dark matter at the Reference desk.

Dark matter was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 4, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
January 28, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 11, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Astronomy: Cosmology Top‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

‹See TfM›

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Gantz, John F.; et al. (March 2008). "The Diverse and Exploding Digital Universe". International Data Corporation, a subsidiary of IDG. {{cite news}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Dubious history

Kelvin's and Poincare's "dark matter" has no apparent connection to our present idea of dark matter as different from ordinary matter. Kelvin's idea is plainly about dark stars, which he thought of as ordinary matter. I don't see how it belongs here. The real origin of the dark matter problem is in the study of galactic rotation. I suggest Kelvin and Poincare be deleted as irrelevant. Is there any reason to think they have any connection to the dark matter needed to explain gravitational behavior? If so, it should be in the history. Zaslav (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the reliable sources clearly show the current version is fine.

Bertone, Gianfranco, and Dan Hooper. "History of dark matter." Reviews of Modern Physics 90.4 (2018): 045002.

This is a top journal and the article has over a thousand citations. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete the table "Some dark matter hypotheses"

The table labeled "Some dark matter hypotheses" is puzzling and it's content is not reliably sourced. Rather the categories appear to be invented for the table. The entries are a mix of mainstream candidates and fringe theories. No text helps readers sort out the content. In effect is it an overly long See Also section stuck in the middle of the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing footnote

Under "Some dark matter hypotheses" > Neutrinos > Standard Model there is a sourced footnote.

The three neutrino types already observed are indeed abundant, and dark, and matter, but their individual masses are almost certainly too tiny to account for more than a small fraction of dark matter, due to limits derived from large-scale structure and high-redshift galaxies. (ref omitted for Talk page).

As I read this footnote it is an editorial statement that the reference provides evidence against the hypothesis that Standard Model neutrinos account for dark matter (which is what the ref says).

The table gives the impression of (poorly sourced) evidence for a ton different options. If a reader scans the table they conclude "Standard Model neutrinos" are an option. If they read the fine print, they learn it's not an option. To me this is a confusing way to present this information.

@Banedon how about starting the Composition section with a paragraph with this content as well as a reminder of the many aspects of the Standard Model which fail to make the cut for simpler reasons. The latter may seem simplistic but I think it would set up the far ranging search implied by the table. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the table also has "MACHO" even though that's been ruled out too. Feel free to make your changes, I'm not likely to revert. Banedon (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]