Does dark matter exist?

After 80 years of agreement about the dark stuff, opinions may be changing.

The peasants are revolting. Last night the Flamsteed Astronomical Society met at the National Maritime Museum to hear a debate on the existence (or not) of dark matter. In a vote at the end, the audience decided it probably doesn’t exist.

The idea of dark matter has been around since 1933, when a Swiss astronomer called Fritz Zwicky found that centrifugal forces should have been tearing spinning galaxy clusters apart – but weren’t. The answer, he suggested, was that there was extra stuff in there, whose gravitational pull was holding everything together.
 
Astronomers now believe this stuff makes up around a quarter of the universe, if you take into account all the mass and energy in the cosmos. Ignore the pure energy, and dark matter accounts for 80 per cent of the universe’s mass. Which makes it a little embarrassing that we have never seen any.

Neither do we know what it looks like. We’ve been groping around for dark matter since about 1970. Various predictions have been made: in 1980, astronomer Vera Rubin said it would be found within 10 years. In 1990, astronomer royal Martin Rees said the dark matter mystery would be solved by the turn of the century. In 1999 Rees was aware he had been too hasty, and said we would know what dark matter is by 2004. Last January, CERN theoretical physicist and Gandalf lookalike John Ellis gave the physicists another decade.
 
But patience is starting to wear thin. At last night’s debate, Oxford physicist and co-presenter of The Sky at Night Chris Lintott made the case for dark matter; astronomy writer Stuart Clark argued that a modification to the laws of gravity, which are dictated by Einstein’s general relativity theory, held more promise for explaining the (apparently) missing mass. At the end of the evening, the audience sided with Clark and modifying gravity.
 
That’s not going to have dark matter astronomers quaking in their boots. But it is nonetheless indicative of a change of mood. Take what went on at the Cosmic Variance blog last week. Sean Carroll, the blog’s host, has always been bullishly pro dark matter. But it seems he has started to hedge a bit.
 
In a fascinating post, he published the trialogue he had been conducting with astronomer Stacey McGaugh, the original proponent of the modified gravity idea (it’s called MOND: modified Newtonian Dynamics) and German astrophysicist Rainer Plaga. Right at the top, Carroll concedes that “it may very well turn out that the behavior of gravity on large scales does not precisely match the prediction of ordinary general relativity”. In other words, he is saying, we might well have to modify gravity.
 
It’s worth pointing out a couple more reasons it’s OK to harbour doubts about the dark stuff. Last September, Durham astronomer Carlos Frenk admitted he was “losing sleep” over the results of his own computer simulations. His work had showed that the way simulated dwarf galaxies – mainly composed of dark matter – form in a halo around our own galaxy doesn’t tally with what we observe. His conclusion was that the standard theory of dark matter is almost certainly wrong, adding that searches for the stuff at the LHC in Geneva would therefore prove fruitless.
 
Then last month two groups of astronomers announced that dark matter wasn’t where it should be. The sun is meant to be surrounded by a halo of dark matter, and it isn’t.
 
If there really is no dark matter, that won’t be a mainstream view for decades to come. Once it’s got some momentum, it takes a lot of effort to change direction in science. But it does seem that, after 80 years, someone’s found the handbrake on the dark matter juggernaut.
 

Images of giant galaxy clusters, said to be mainly made up of dark matter. Photograph: Nasa/Getty Images

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

Adriana Calvo at pexels
Show Hide image

Three’s adblocking trial is terrible news for journalism

Against a backdrop of editorial redundancies, it's hard to feel celebratory about the rise of adblocking. 

In a decision which will delight phone users but strike fear into media companies' hearts, the mobile provider Three is running an adblocking trial across its network from mid-June.

The company says it's considering adblocking as a way to improve its customers' privacy and reduce data costs, which makes sense, up to a point. Ads, especially video ads, can eat up mobile users' data and battery life, and can render already-clunky mobile websites practically unusable.

However, the move comes in a week where both new and old news organisations, the Telegraph and Vice, have laid off staff in a bid to make cost savings. These organisations rely (to differing extents) on ad revenue. If readers aren't seeing ads, then whoever published and paid for that writing isn't making money, and probably won't be able to pay for that writing for much longer. 

The trial mirrors Apple's launch in September 2015 of an operating system which supported adblocker apps (which unsurprisingly shot up the Apple Store charts). At the time, I wrote about what this could mean for journalism:

Apple's move is just another which puts journalism at the mercy of giant tech companies. The consumption of media is already dictated by the whims of Google's algorithm, with publications forced to redesign sites and tweak content to ensure they rank highly and are indexed by the search engine.

Apple, notorious in the industry for its fanged response to attacks in the press, will now select its own news for readers via its news app. And media producers may now be forced to turn to social media sites like Facebook, where adblockers have less power, to market or even publish their content. 

Without ads, media companies will need to find other revenue streams, which could include subscription or paywall models - great if they work - or more sponsored posts by companies. 

Ads certainly need to become more user-friendly, and Three makes a good point when it argues that advertisers should pay for the data costs of their ads. But if you were saddened by the editorial redundancies across the media this week, take pause before you celebrate the rise of adblocking. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.