<p>The fact that there is not enough luminous matter to explain the gravitational properties of galaxies and clusters of galaxies does <em>not</em> inexorably lead to the conclusion of weird dark matter that does not emit or absorb light.</p>
<p>For a long time in the 70s, 80s and 90s, there was very much a search for small, dark objects that could make up this missing mass. This included things like cold white dwarfs, low mass brown dwarfs and &quot;rogue planets&quot;. None of these searches - and specifically the microlensing surveys, which continue today - turned up anything like the numbers of objects required to solve the &quot;dark matter&quot; problem (e.g., <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607207" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tisserand et al. 2007</a>). In particular, dark matter in the form of discrete compact objects with masses between about a tenth of an Earth mass up to 30 times the mass of the Sun have been ruled out as being a significant component of the dark matter in the Milky Way.</p>
<p>Still, this might leave some wriggle-room to have a population of even smaller planets, but a more fundamental problem for the &quot;rogue planets&quot; idea is that we are now quite sure that whatever dark matter is, it is not in the form of everyday &quot;baryonic matter&quot; that emits and absorbs electromagnetic radiation (a k.a. light).</p>
<p>Measurements of the primordial abundances of helium and deuterium, created in the big bang, combined with measurements of the universal expansion rate, give a direct estimate of the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. Whilst the inferred amount is greater than can be counted up in the luminous matter of the universe, it is insufficient by a factor of 6 compared with what is required to explain the dynamics of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the universe as a whole (<a href="https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/425/4/2477/1075167?login=false" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Pettini &amp; Cooke 2012</a>).</p>
<p>Further indirect evidence of the non-baryonic nature of this matter comes from simulations of structure formation in the universe. The &quot;dissipationless&quot;, slow-moving nature of non-baryonic matter is what is required to explain (i) the relatively tiny fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, emitted when the universe was 380,000 years old; and (ii) how this then develops into the rich set of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we seen in the universe today.</p>
<p>In other words, most of the &quot;dark matter&quot; must be non-baryonic and so cannot be made up of rogue planets.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T00:47:17.123Z
beautiful answer, it has enough details to search for other topics related to dark matter :)
HopefullyHelpful
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-18T08:10:51.767Z
2022-06-19T07:20:38.747Z
2022-06-19T07:20:38.747Z
ProfRob
<p>Yes, it's definitely possible.  For our solar system, you'd need about 18,000 Saturns of &quot;rogue planets&quot;.  That seems pretty doable for that amount of matter to be between us and the closest star, and for us to not observe it.</p>
<p>Just to put it in perspective, if earth was the size of a dime, a Saturn rogue planet would be a bit smaller than a volleyball.  With that same scale, the nearest planet would be over 50,000 km away; that would make a 2D area (3D makes it even bigger) about the size of 60 Pacific Oceans.  Seems fairly easy to have 18,000 volleyballs floating unobserved in 60 Pacific Oceans.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-17T18:55:43.857Z
The question is asking about dark matter, not just "things we can't see". While it's certainly possible (likely, in fact) that there are many rogue planets we can't see, they probably don't make up the dark matter portion of the Universe, because planets are made of baryonic matter, and dark matter almost certainly isn't.
Jim421616
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-17T22:13:54.763Z
+1 I like your comparison. But like @Jim421616 said, dark matter is something that we can't see.
WarpPrime
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-17T18:19:13.697Z
2020-11-17T18:19:13.697Z
Andrew Van Fossen
<p>Not one answer has mentioned the intriguing possibility that dark matter consist of black holes. What better stuff for dark matter could you think of? And it's baryonic even! Hawking came up with the possibility already in his roaring seventies (not his age but of the previous century). There is a window for allowed black hole mass. Because they interact by gravity only (assuming they are not electrically charged), they would still have the typical halo shape surrounding the galaxy, and maybe they could explain the supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies. They are <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02153" rel="nofollow noreferrer">hunted</a> currently</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T14:11:34.733Z
That's because the question is whether rogue planets can be the dark matter. Primordial black holes are classed as non-baryonic dark matter. They are ruled out by the MACHO searches at planetary masses and above.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T14:46:53.197Z
Black holes non-baryonic? Aren't they made from quarks and leptons?
Felicia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T14:50:31.670Z
If the black holes formed prior to primordial nucleosynthesis they are classed as non-baryonic, since they do not contribute to estimates of $\Omega_b$. Either way, they certainly aren't rogue planets.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T15:05:55.097Z
@ProfRob Did I say they are rogue planets? They are a lot smaller and I just found it strange they are not mentioned because they seem to be the most logical solution.
Felicia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T16:56:31.273Z
Then how does this answer "Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets?"
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T19:24:15.553Z
@ProfRob Well, that if the rogue planets are actually black holes then the problem is solved. Black holes are a lot smaller.
Felicia
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-06-19T10:34:58.937Z
2022-06-19T10:34:58.937Z
Felicia
<p>… I am confused. “Dark Matter”, by definition, is “matter we cannot see”. You are assuming that we would be able to “see” a planet-sized chunk of baryonic matter at stellar distances. I am not referring to nebulas and such — those are relatively low mass, highly diffuse, clouds of light elements with very free electrons with which to produce high amounts of photons/em radiation. Not everything behaves as such. Photons are photons — ever take a picture of a face with the light behind the subject? The light behind will cause any foreground light to be washed out; it is also why we can’t see into our own galactic center all that well.</p>
<p>That “volleyballs in an ocean” comment above really puts that into context. Thank you, kind individual. That would be, what, one volleyball per over 200,000 square miles? I have lost soccer balls in public parks before, let alone losing one within a city, but those are state sizes/scales.</p>
<p>Come on astronomy community, you are not that arrogant, are you?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-30T16:45:56.940Z
Please add further details to expand on your answer, such as working code or documentation citations.
Community
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-01T07:04:41.173Z
It is incorrect to say that the reason that "rogue planets" are ruled out as a source of dark matter is simply because they cannot be seen.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-30T14:53:21.803Z
2021-08-30T14:53:21.803Z
Keith
<p>First of all I'll start with a few ideas:</p>

<ol>
<li><em>Baryonic Matter</em>: Baryons are elementary particles made up of 3 quarks. This includes protons and neutrons, and the term <em>baryonic matter</em> refers to matter made of baryons, such as atoms. Examples of non-baryonic matter includes neutrinos, free electrons and other exotic matter.</li>
<li>Things like planets, stars, dust, etc. are all made of atoms, and so are classified as baryonic matter.</li>
</ol>

<p>Now, <em>how do we know that dark matter is present in the universe?</em> </p>

<p>Astronomers measure the gravitational pull of galaxies and galaxy groups/clusters based on how objects behave when interacting with these objects. Some examples of this include tidal gas/dust stripping, the orbit of stars in a galaxy and gravitational lensing of distant light from a large cluster. Using this they determine the mass of the galaxy (or galaxy group).
We can also determine the mass of a galaxy or group by looking at it and adding up the mass of all the objects (like stars, dust, gas, black holes, and other baryonic matter). While these methods both give us approximations, it is clear that the gravitational mass of galaxies and groups exceeds the baryonic mass by a factor of 10-100.</p>

<p>When astrophysicists first found this phenomenon they had to come up with a plausible explanation, so they suggested that there is some new, invisible matter called dark matter. (Aside: some astrophysicists also came up with other explanations like modified gravity, but so far dark matter does the best job at explaining observations).</p>

<p>Okay, so now <em>how do we know dark matter is not any sort of baryonic matter?</em></p>

<p>There are a few reasons astrophysicists know that it is extremely unlikely that dark matter is baryonic. First of all if all the stars in a galaxy shine on an object it heats up, this heat causes the release of radiation, called <em>thermal radiation</em>, and every (baryonic) object above zero kelvin (or -273.14 deg celcius) emits this radiation. However, dark matter does not emit any radiation at all (hence the name dark!) </p>

<p>If dark matter were baryonic it would also mean that it could become light emitting. If we got a clump of baryonic matter* and put it in space it would gravitationally contract, and would eventually form a star or black hole** - both of which we would be able to see.</p>

<p>So, because of these reasons the dark matter in galaxies and in galaxy groups/clusters <em>cannot</em> be baryonic, and so cannot be planets, dead stars, asteroids, etc. It would definetely not be planets as there is <strong>no way</strong> 10-100 times the mass of the stars in a galaxy would be planets, as the mechanism for making planets relies on supernovae, and the number of supernovae needed for the that many planets would be far too high to match our observations. I hope that this answered your question!</p>

<p>*provided the clump of baryonic matter was large, and the amount there is in galaxies definitely is!</p>

<p>** we don't observe black holes directly, but can see radiation from their accretion disks.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-04T21:41:36.047Z
Thanks for taking the time to write a clear explanation. I have a question on one bit I am trying to follow. Am I right to understand that in the thought experiment on a "clump of dark matter" that equally if it is not baryonic it should also gravitationally contract too? This follows from its existance from your first paragraph, unless it is so exotic that it can affect the orbits of stars around galaxies but does not interact with its own kind. Does this make sense?
Puffin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-05T01:11:04.927Z
@Puffin I'm not sure I completely understand what you are asking, but dark matter does interact with other dark matter - however this interaction is purely gravitational. Baryonic and dark matter also only interact through gravity, but baryonic matter interacts with other baryonic matter through gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. Since baryonic matter interacts in this way it can "lose energy" through radiation and other means to contract, but as dark matter has no way to "lose energy" it can't contract as efficiently. Does this answer your question?
Robbie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-05T12:20:32.507Z
Thank you. Your answer covers it well, I think. My knowledge is rather flaky here and am having to take a large leap. Are you saying that, for example, gravitational waves would provide a means for matter to lose orbital energy and thus between the two types of matter, baryonic and dark, and would thus allow conventional matter to form stars and galaxies whilst dark matter remained more distributed?
Puffin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-06T10:57:47.670Z
Yes, gravitational waves are one way for matter to lose energy (although it is very minor). As a gas cloud contracts it heats up, and this heat radiates away, cooling the gas and allowing it to contract more and more. This is why matter can form stars and planets and cool stuff like that but dark matter can't.
Robbie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-02-06T11:01:36.240Z
OK, thank you, its much clearer with the heat example.
Puffin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-18T15:23:14.633Z
But the suggestion that dark matter was baryonic was taken seriously for decades. The idea that baryonic dark matter must be visible is incorrect. Very low mass stars, cold white dwarfs, rogue planets etc. were all considered as dark matter candidates (and they do contribute a little to the unseen matter content of the universe), but they were not ruled out because they could not be "seen".
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-30T22:48:48.460Z
1) What about sub-stellar clumps of hydrogen left over from the big bang? Just a bunch of cold clumps of hydrogen floating around deep space. 

2) Why are we sure that all the heavier-than-hydrogen matter in the universe must have come from supernovae? Could the big bang have produced matter other than hydrogen?
Scuba Steve
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T07:35:31.770Z
2014-03-29T02:14:17.510Z
2014-03-29T02:14:17.510Z
Robbie
<p>Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets (free-floating planet)? (and other stuff like asteroids or meteoroids)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T20:57:38.013Z
it has been envisaged in the 90s that some of the dark matter in halos was made of brown dwarfs; this was later ruled out through lack of indirect detection via light deflection (known as micro lensing).
chris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-31T04:08:03.737Z
To expand on @chris' comment about dense, cold planet like object in interstellar space of our Galaxy add up to not more than 3% of the excess mass density needed to explain the galactic rotation curves of similar galaxies. These things are out there, but they aren't the answer to the puzzle.
dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
<dark-matter><rogue-planet>
Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets (free-floating planet)?
Clausia
# Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets (free-floating planet)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-27)

Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets (free-floating planet)? (and other stuff like asteroids or meteoroids)

**Tags:** dark-matter, rogue-planet

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: it has been envisaged in the 90s that some of the dark matter in halos was made of brown dwarfs; this was later ruled out through lack of indirect detection via light deflection (known as micro lensing).  
> **username_2**: To expand on @username_1' comment about dense, cold planet like object in interstellar space of our Galaxy add up to not more than 3% of the excess mass density needed to explain the galactic rotation curves of similar galaxies. These things are out there, but they aren't the answer to the puzzle.  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_11 on 2014-03-28. Score: 21 | Accepted answer

First of all I'll start with a few ideas:

1. *Baryonic Matter*: Baryons are elementary particles made up of 3 quarks. This includes protons and neutrons, and the term *baryonic matter* refers to matter made of baryons, such as atoms. Examples of non-baryonic matter includes neutrinos, free electrons and other exotic matter.
2. Things like planets, stars, dust, etc. are all made of atoms, and so are classified as baryonic matter.

Now, *how do we know that dark matter is present in the universe?*

Astronomers measure the gravitational pull of galaxies and galaxy groups/clusters based on how objects behave when interacting with these objects. Some examples of this include tidal gas/dust stripping, the orbit of stars in a galaxy and gravitational lensing of distant light from a large cluster. Using this they determine the mass of the galaxy (or galaxy group).
We can also determine the mass of a galaxy or group by looking at it and adding up the mass of all the objects (like stars, dust, gas, black holes, and other baryonic matter). While these methods both give us approximations, it is clear that the gravitational mass of galaxies and groups exceeds the baryonic mass by a factor of 10-100.

When astrophysicists first found this phenomenon they had to come up with a plausible explanation, so they suggested that there is some new, invisible matter called dark matter. (Aside: some astrophysicists also came up with other explanations like modified gravity, but so far dark matter does the best job at explaining observations).

Okay, so now *how do we know dark matter is not any sort of baryonic matter?*

There are a few reasons astrophysicists know that it is extremely unlikely that dark matter is baryonic. First of all if all the stars in a galaxy shine on an object it heats up, this heat causes the release of radiation, called *thermal radiation*, and every (baryonic) object above zero kelvin (or -273.14 deg celcius) emits this radiation. However, dark matter does not emit any radiation at all (hence the name dark!)

If dark matter were baryonic it would also mean that it could become light emitting. If we got a clump of baryonic matter\* and put it in space it would gravitationally contract, and would eventually form a star or black hole\*\* - both of which we would be able to see.

So, because of these reasons the dark matter in galaxies and in galaxy groups/clusters *cannot* be baryonic, and so cannot be planets, dead stars, asteroids, etc. It would definetely not be planets as there is **no way** 10-100 times the mass of the stars in a galaxy would be planets, as the mechanism for making planets relies on supernovae, and the number of supernovae needed for the that many planets would be far too high to match our observations. I hope that this answered your question!

\*provided the clump of baryonic matter was large, and the amount there is in galaxies definitely is!

\*\* we don't observe black holes directly, but can see radiation from their accretion disks.

> **Comments:**
> **username_12**: Thanks for taking the time to write a clear explanation. I have a question on one bit I am trying to follow. Am I right to understand that in the thought experiment on a "clump of dark matter" that equally if it is not baryonic it should also gravitationally contract too? This follows from its existance from your first paragraph, unless it is so exotic that it can affect the orbits of stars around galaxies but does not interact with its own kind. Does this make sense?  
> **username_11**: @username_12 I'm not sure I completely understand what you are asking, but dark matter does interact with other dark matter - however this interaction is purely gravitational. Baryonic and dark matter also only interact through gravity, but baryonic matter interacts with other baryonic matter through gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc. Since baryonic matter interacts in this way it can "lose energy" through radiation and other means to contract, but as dark matter has no way to "lose energy" it can't contract as efficiently. Does this answer your question?  
> **username_12**: Thank you. Your answer covers it well, I think. My knowledge is rather flaky here and am having to take a large leap. Are you saying that, for example, gravitational waves would provide a means for matter to lose orbital energy and thus between the two types of matter, baryonic and dark, and would thus allow conventional matter to form stars and galaxies whilst dark matter remained more distributed?  
> **username_11**: Yes, gravitational waves are one way for matter to lose energy (although it is very minor). As a gas cloud contracts it heats up, and this heat radiates away, cooling the gas and allowing it to contract more and more. This is why matter can form stars and planets and cool stuff like that but dark matter can't.  
> **username_12**: OK, thank you, its much clearer with the heat example.  
> **username_3**: But the suggestion that dark matter was baryonic was taken seriously for decades. The idea that baryonic dark matter must be visible is incorrect. Very low mass stars, cold white dwarfs, rogue planets etc. were all considered as dark matter candidates (and they do contribute a little to the unseen matter content of the universe), but they were not ruled out because they could not be "seen".  
> **username_13**: 1) What about sub-stellar clumps of hydrogen left over from the big bang? Just a bunch of cold clumps of hydrogen floating around deep space.   2) Why are we sure that all the heavier-than-hydrogen matter in the universe must have come from supernovae? Could the big bang have produced matter other than hydrogen?  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-11-18. Score: 7

The fact that there is not enough luminous matter to explain the gravitational properties of galaxies and clusters of galaxies does *not* inexorably lead to the conclusion of weird dark matter that does not emit or absorb light.

For a long time in the 70s, 80s and 90s, there was very much a search for small, dark objects that could make up this missing mass. This included things like cold white dwarfs, low mass brown dwarfs and "rogue planets". None of these searches - and specifically the microlensing surveys, which continue today - turned up anything like the numbers of objects required to solve the "dark matter" problem (e.g., [Tisserand et al. 2007](https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607207)). In particular, dark matter in the form of discrete compact objects with masses between about a tenth of an Earth mass up to 30 times the mass of the Sun have been ruled out as being a significant component of the dark matter in the Milky Way.

Still, this might leave some wriggle-room to have a population of even smaller planets, but a more fundamental problem for the "rogue planets" idea is that we are now quite sure that whatever dark matter is, it is not in the form of everyday "baryonic matter" that emits and absorbs electromagnetic radiation (a k.a. light).

Measurements of the primordial abundances of helium and deuterium, created in the big bang, combined with measurements of the universal expansion rate, give a direct estimate of the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. Whilst the inferred amount is greater than can be counted up in the luminous matter of the universe, it is insufficient by a factor of 6 compared with what is required to explain the dynamics of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the universe as a whole ([Pettini & Cooke 2012](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/425/4/2477/1075167?login=false)).

Further indirect evidence of the non-baryonic nature of this matter comes from simulations of structure formation in the universe. The "dissipationless", slow-moving nature of non-baryonic matter is what is required to explain (i) the relatively tiny fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, emitted when the universe was 380,000 years old; and (ii) how this then develops into the rich set of galaxies and galaxy clusters that we seen in the universe today.

In other words, most of the "dark matter" must be non-baryonic and so cannot be made up of rogue planets.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: beautiful answer, it has enough details to search for other topics related to dark matter :)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-11-17. Score: 1

Yes, it's definitely possible. For our solar system, you'd need about 18,000 Saturns of "rogue planets". That seems pretty doable for that amount of matter to be between us and the closest star, and for us to not observe it.

Just to put it in perspective, if earth was the size of a dime, a Saturn rogue planet would be a bit smaller than a volleyball. With that same scale, the nearest planet would be over 50,000 km away; that would make a 2D area (3D makes it even bigger) about the size of 60 Pacific Oceans. Seems fairly easy to have 18,000 volleyballs floating unobserved in 60 Pacific Oceans.

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: The question is asking about dark matter, not just "things we can't see". While it's certainly possible (likely, in fact) that there are many rogue planets we can't see, they probably don't make up the dark matter portion of the Universe, because planets are made of baryonic matter, and dark matter almost certainly isn't.  
> **username_7**: +1 I like your comparison. But like @username_6 said, dark matter is something that we can't see.  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2022-06-19. Score: 0

Not one answer has mentioned the intriguing possibility that dark matter consist of black holes. What better stuff for dark matter could you think of? And it's baryonic even! Hawking came up with the possibility already in his roaring seventies (not his age but of the previous century). There is a window for allowed black hole mass. Because they interact by gravity only (assuming they are not electrically charged), they would still have the typical halo shape surrounding the galaxy, and maybe they could explain the supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies. They are [hunted](https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02153) currently

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: That's because the question is whether rogue planets can be the dark matter. Primordial black holes are classed as non-baryonic dark matter. They are ruled out by the MACHO searches at planetary masses and above.  
> **username_8**: Black holes non-baryonic? Aren't they made from quarks and leptons?  
> **username_3**: If the black holes formed prior to primordial nucleosynthesis they are classed as non-baryonic, since they do not contribute to estimates of $\Omega_b$. Either way, they certainly aren't rogue planets.  
> **username_8**: @username_3 Did I say they are rogue planets? They are a lot smaller and I just found it strange they are not mentioned because they seem to be the most logical solution.  
> **username_3**: Then how does this answer "Is it possible that all dark matter is made of rogue planets?"  
> **username_8**: @username_3 Well, that if the rogue planets are actually black holes then the problem is solved. Black holes are a lot smaller.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2021-08-30. Score: -3

… I am confused. “Dark Matter”, by definition, is “matter we cannot see”. You are assuming that we would be able to “see” a planet-sized chunk of baryonic matter at stellar distances. I am not referring to nebulas and such — those are relatively low mass, highly diffuse, clouds of light elements with very free electrons with which to produce high amounts of photons/em radiation. Not everything behaves as such. Photons are photons — ever take a picture of a face with the light behind the subject? The light behind will cause any foreground light to be washed out; it is also why we can’t see into our own galactic center all that well.

That “volleyballs in an ocean” comment above really puts that into context. Thank you, kind individual. That would be, what, one volleyball per over 200,000 square miles? I have lost soccer balls in public parks before, let alone losing one within a city, but those are state sizes/scales.

Come on astronomy community, you are not that arrogant, are you?

> **Comments:**
> **username_10**: Please add further details to expand on your answer, such as working code or documentation citations.  
> **username_3**: It is incorrect to say that the reason that "rogue planets" are ruled out as a source of dark matter is simply because they cannot be seen.  

---

