Can someone knowledgeable weigh in: is the "dark object" here believed to be a localized blob of dark matter? A dark star or black hole? Or is "dark" being used generally to mean "not bright enough to see at this distance"?
The research team detected it only through its gravitational lensing effect — the way it slightly distorted the light from a more distant galaxy. There’s no emission at any wavelength (optical, infrared, or radio), and its gravitational signature matches a million-solar-mass clump of invisible mass rather than a compact point source like a black hole.
They specifically interpret it as a dark matter subhalo — one of the small, dense lumps that simulations of “cold dark matter” predict should pepper the universe’s larger halos. It’s too massive to be a single star, far too diffuse to be a stellar remnant, and not luminous enough to be a faint galaxy.
So “dark” here isn’t just shorthand for “too dim to see at this distance” — it’s used in the literal physical sense: matter that doesn’t emit or absorb light at all, detectable only via gravity.
Eventually, all the dark matter clumps into rings around galaxies, but since this one is so distant, ~10B light years, so we are seeing that clump as it was that long ago before it difused into it's ring shape we can see in the galaxies around us.
I probably don't know that much more than you about the subject, but from what I understand, the prevailing model suggests that these Halos formed early in the formation of the universe when spacetime had varying "pockets" of density that naturally led to these halos - the formation of the galactic disk therein was actually supported by the halo existing first, because baryonic matter (aka non-dark matter, the stuff that makes up planets, stars, etc) was still too energetic from the formation of the universe to become gravitationally bound to itself.
I believe dark matter comprises something like 80-85% of all matter in the universe.
Normal matter also makes halos or rings around the center of the galaxy. That's how gravity works. And since dark matter interacts less, it stays more spread.
>since dark matter interacts less
With electromagnetism or gravity?
While I can fully believe The Simpsons will run for that time, they are still not there.
"Halos in religious art began transitioning from spherical or radiant forms to flat, ring-like discs during the early Renaissance, around the 14th to 15th centuries."
If you're sufficiently close to the mass, and/or its radius (relative to your own and your distance from it) is large, as with, say, a stone tossed from ground level on Earth, that orbit will intersect the surface rather quickly.
At astronomical distances, ranging from some significant fraction of the distance between the Earth and Moon to interstellar and intergallactic distances, it's far more likely that an attraction will result in some other form, generally an ellipse (typical of a captured orbit), circle (a perfectly non-eccentric ellipse), a parabola (object moving at escape velocity), or hyperbola (object moving faster than escape velocity).
Ring systems form as multiple masses interact around a larger mass, be that a moon, planet, star / quasi-stellar object, galaxy, or other mass. Until the tangential velocity is lost, the particles within the ring will continue their orbit. Occasional interactions and collisions, as well as radiated energy (including gravitational radiation) may cause a given particle to spiral inwards, or be ejected from, the ring system.
None of this tells us what this "matter" actually is.
They're explicitly looking for "Dark Matter", which doesn't "interact" with normal ("baryonic") matter or electromagnetic radiation (e.g. light). So it's not a black hole for sure, as those are composed of regular ol' matter.
RE:"dark star", that's really up in the air, I'd say! AFAICT the only academic reference to that term is for normal stars influenced by dark matter[1], but kinda the whole problem here is that we don't know much about what dark matter is composed of or into. Certainly it's not going to be a star in the traditional sense as it can't emit light, but I'm not aware of any reason this object can't end up being a giant sphere.
FWIW, Wikipedia says "One of the most massive stars known is Eta Carinae, with 100–200 [solar masses]", whereas this object "has a mass that is a million times greater than that of our Sun". If we're going to use metaphors, I think "dark dwarf galaxy" might be more appropriate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars#Lis...
“ More globally, statistics on stellar populations seem to indicate that the upper mass limit is in the 120-solar-mass range,[1] so any mass estimate above this range is suspect. “
There are good theoretical reasons why a star shouldn’t normally get as big as the ones on the top of the list. Long story short: they’d very quickly shed mass due to their intense luminosity. Some of them might even be boiling with bubbles of pure radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity
Beyond that, there’s also the possibility of pair-instability supernova, which might cause the most massive stars to literally disintegrate.
Dust clouds have those mass ranges. It’s not a galaxy-scale mass by any measure.
This thread has a lot of CS people being confident about physics.
But it's really so---according to GR, black holes don't have global charges. So even if you see a star made out of baryons collapse into a black hole, once the BH settles down into a steady state you can't say it's "really" got baryons inside: the baryon number gets destroyed.
(Of course, a different model of gravity that preserves unitarity might upset this understanding.)
1. "The presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with OTHER MATTER and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
2. "A dwarf galaxy is a small galaxy composed of ABOUT 1000 up to several billion stars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy
Darn astrophysics majors being confident about astronomy! ;)
2. I missed the dwarf part, but think about what you’re arguing: the mass range of a loosely defined category (the lower bound of a few thousands is not one I’ve ever heard, btw) that has nothing to do with the paper in question. Collections of stars of any kind produce light. This doesn’t. What are you saying?
What do you think physicists do all day?
I think you mean it doesn't interact electromagnetically with either matter or radiation. It does interact with normal matter via gravity -- that's pretty much the strongest (only?) argument for its existence.
I'm not aware of any reason this object can't end up being a giant sphere
AIUI, most theories posit that solid spheres of dark matter are very unlikely because matter accretion is governed by electromagnetism in addition to gravity, and dark matter is not supposed to obey the former. Most models assume that dark matter is organized in gaseous clouds (halos); strictly speaking that's still a giant sphere, just not in the same way that Jupiter or the Sun or even the Oort Cloud is.
The paper is more about the technical achievement of detecting it, IIUC. It’s not the first dark matter inference we’ve had, and doesn’t really tell us anything new about the stuff.
I know the current models favor cold DM, I thought the hot DM model was abandoned already when it became clear that clusters of any size exist?
But yes, CDM is what most researchers expect, by a large margin.