Slashdot Mirror
Space Observatory May Have Found Dark Matter
KentuckyFC writes to mention that new data from the orbiting observatory PAMELA may shed some additional light on the question of dark matter. Still only a preliminary announcement, the new findings apparently support the "Minimal Dark Matter" model, in which a particle called a "Wino" is responsible.
The answer is none. None more darker.
Thats right, when you can't find the real reason blame those too drunk to respond.
Winos are not responsible for every single badass event in the universe you know.
It could just as easily have been this Pamela woman.
liqbase
So it gets drunk on dark energy , trips over a neutrino and falls down a black hole where no one can see it?
I very often see articles saying the Dark Matter is found. This has been going on for years already. Articles titled "Dark Matter Found". But later another article pops up again saying "Dark Matter Found" and it'll have a totally different explanation, be it some new particle type, some mathematical construct, something that says that in fact it doesn't exist and it's another effect, or again another particle type. So basically, they just don't know?
I was always of the impression that even if you shed light on dark matter you still wouldn't see it, and if you did , we already would. But I commend the initiative, and wish the best of luck to any and all who attempt to shedding some light on the matter of dark, shed some dark on the matter of light mass, shed some mass in order to become become light, or even just light some dark sheds.
sudo ergo sum
Can someone astrophysically informed explain how the charged wino can be a dark matter candidate? Photons would interact with it through its charge, now? Or are they talking about the zino (same link)?
Back when I was in particle physics, we would pronounce "wino" to rhyme with neutrino, but we would still snicker about it.
Inventor of the LOLbalrog meme.
WINO
What?
Win-o? This clearly can't be a coincidence...
SeqBox
Wino is a recursive acronym for "Wino Is Not Observable"
So, scientists say they may have found Dark Matter, eh?
I bet it was in the last place they looked...
I'll get me coat...
I assume they used Hobonic detectors.
It's GNU/Wino, damnit!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Winos leave dark matter outside my apartment all the time!
I miss those.Also Levity Waves.
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
The linked article is a summary of a paper that has an analysis of data not written by the original PAMELA team who collected the data. The PAMELA team have not yet published their data or findings, although apparently have presented them at a conference in Stockholm.
The summary quotes the paper thusly: "The preliminary data points for positron and antiproton fluxes plotted in our figures have been extracted from a photo of the slides taken during the talk, and can thereby slightly differ from the data that the PAMELA collaboration will officially publish."
I am not familiar with the conference in Stockholm that the PAMELA data were originally presented at, but at every large conference I have attended, it is official policy that no photographs are allowed. Taking unpublished data without permission of the authors is theft, pure and simple. Submitting a paper on that data before the original authors do is unethical.
Certainly, such proclamations are made with scant and incomplete information (it could be that Cirelli and Strumia, the non-PAMELA authors, did indeed get permission from the PAMELA team, and everything is kosher), and I hope that either members of the PAMELA team or authors of the new paper might read Slashdot to explain what's going on.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
What, did they point the thing at Dick Cheney's chest with a little x-ray back light and catch a view of his heart?
Wino.
Well the very fact that we're talking about Wino means it is observable, even if only by the absence of something else.
Wine.
From winehq, "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating systems."
From dictionary.com:
emulator. 1. to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass
3. Computers. a. to imitate (a particular computer system) by using a software system, often including a microprogram or another computer that enables it to do the same work, run the same programs, etc., as the first.
In conclusion, Wino is observable, and Wine is an emulator.
I think there's already proof of these "winos" leaveing "dark matter" all over New York City isn't there?
Dark matter, as writed above, maybe is simple normal matter without radiation emissions, (ligth, thermic, nuclear radiation, etc). Not a "exotic unclear particle", just ordinary mass we can't see because don't generate detectable radiation
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Why did they call it wino, when it would have been much more appropriate to call it emo?
The very first thing that astronomers reached for to explain these phenomena was as yet unseen, or "dark" matter. Personally... I think Dark Matter raises more questions than it answers.
The reason they reached for Dark Matter is that it is the simplest explanation. It is very easy to imagine that there is more mass there than you can see. It is a lot harder to start adding new forces or modifying existing ones. It certainly raises new questions but that does not exclude it from being the simplest solution.
dark matter, a substance which is invisible, intangible, and undetectable expect through its gravitational effects is too far of a step for physics to take without more evidence.
Er...what do you think we are doing? We are looking for that evidence. You are contradicting yourself here: we think DM is the best explanation to date so we are now looking for evidence to confirm it. If we had "taken the step" and truly accepted Dark Matter as the truth why would we bother searching for evidence of it? Also there are very good reasons to think that it interacts through the weak force as well as gravity - although it is not a requirement.
The particle physics community has had a history of success using assumptions and models that are counterintuitive and often bizarre.
We have? What part of particle physics is counter-intuitive? I think you are getting confused between Quantum Mechanics (which is very counter-intuitive) and particle physics. The Standard Model of particle physics is generally very simple, straight forward and easy to understand at a basic conceptual level - it is even sometimes taught at secondary school level.
When a theory like MOND fails in a particular case, this has the effect of strengthening confidence in the Dark Matter model, even though it should do nothing of the sort.
Why is this wrong? If, as is the current case, all alternative theories to DM have series flaws, then you end up with only one candidate theory to test so naturally there will be more work being done on it. I think you are confusing belief with knowledge. A lot of us believe that DM is likely to be correct but none of us know it to be correct. As the best theory to date there is a lot of interest in proving it correct so we look for data to do that.
we have no way of measuring dark matter, even indirectly.
Wrong - there are ways to measure it directly but they depend on the type of dark matter. We can produce it directly in the LHC, we can search for its interactions with nuclei in low background locations deep underground like SNOlab. These experiments have already put limits on what the Dark Matter could be. So far they have not seen anything but that does not preclude them from seeing it.
Exotic matter, while it may work in subatomic circles, will not I think stand up to scrutiny in the macroscopic domain.
I ask this - why would there be dark matter at the core of the galaxy? Doesn't dark matter repel normal matter?
No - Dark Matter is, gravitationally, exactly the same as normal matter. You are thinking of Dark Energy which is not matter. It has a positive energy but behaves as something which is gravitationally repulsive...as far as I am aware there is not even a good theory as to what this stuff is let alone experimental evidence of its nature.
Every since I wear black t-shirts I've been finding Dark Matter right here in my bellybutton. And quite often actually.
*Ta-DUM* *CRASH* *ThUD*
Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the fish.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Need i say more?
Yes. (btw fixed it for ya)
New slashdot layout sucks.
It is not new that gamma-ray satellites have observed positron-electron annihilation 512keV line toward the Galactic centre. Because the 512keV intensity increases toward the centre, astro-particle physicists not very familiar with the wealth of astrophysical phenomena jump toward trendy explanations they know of, such as those involving dark matter (DM) with the main argument that DM is expected also to be denser toward the Galactic centre.
However recent observations of the INTEGRAL satellite have shown that the 512keV line emission is *asymmetric* with respect to the Galactic centre, but the emission does follow the known asymmetric distribution of stars in the Milky Way due to a *bar* (elongated structure made of stars, seen asymmetric due to perspective). Thus the present evidence favours to look for gamma-ray emitters related to stars, not DM. Cataclysmic binary stars, binary stars made of a normal star pouring matter on a dense companion like a white dwarf or a neutron star, can provide plenty of energetic particles producing positrons.
Winos are often overlooked and ignored by society. The fact that they are considered DARK matter is nothing short of racism and social injustice.
QUIT STEPPING OVER THE WINOS AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY MATTER!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-