Slashdot Mirror
Dark Matter Particles May Have Been Detected
During two seminars at Stanford and Fermilab on Thursday, researchers described signals for two events detected deep in an old iron mine in Minnesota that might mark the first detection of dark matter — or not. The presenters said the chances that the signals they detected were caused by something other than "neutralino" dark matter particles was 23 percent. "One source indicates that we'd need less than 10 total detections within the CDMS' range in order to have a high degree of confidence in the results." The NY Times describes the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search methodology: "The cryogenic experiment is nearly half a mile underground in an old iron mine in Soudan, Minn., to shield it from cosmic rays. It consists of a stack of germanium and silicon detectors, cooled to one-hundredth of a degree Kelvin. When a particle hits one of the detectors, it produces an electrical charge and deposits a small bit of energy in the form of heat, each of which are independently measured. By comparing the amounts of charge and heat left behind, the collaboration’s physicists can tell so-called wimps from more mundane particles like neutrons, which are expected to flood the underground chamber from radioactivity in the rocks around it." Here are the research team's summary notes of the latest results (PDF).
No, 1:4 is enough for a good argument. They need 1:1000 or lower to end the argument.
Rethinking email
The country that falls behind in basic research is the country that falls behind in history.
It appears from a quick Google search that the University of Minnesota is funding it. I guess you're against NASA, too, but in favor of pouring trillions down the Iraqui quagmire?
WTF are you doing on slashdot? Trolling?
Free Martian Whores!
The only comment I have to make in the other direction is that I am uncomfortable with the probabilities that scientists have suddenly started to give - "there's a 77% chance we are completely correct".
Except it's not even that.
There saying there's a 77% probability that the result was not due to random noise, and that they actually did detect particles that are within the range predicted for neutralinos by Supersymetric Theory. Does that means it's a neutralino? Not necessarily, but it is a pretty strong argument of the "hypothesis -> experimentation -> verification" variety. Does it mean that everything they predict for neutralinos is true, or that Supersymetric Theory is "completely correct"? No.
I wish for some good old scientific conservatism, and the need to put percentages on the proportion of 100% correct you are feels a bit dubious.
Again, they're only putting a percentage on this not being a null result. Your characterization is wrong.
They're being conservative. But they're excited. And when you take a theory as ridiculously successful at making predictions as the Standard Model, make a logic extension to it and then that theory quite possibly has had its first verified prediction, that's not unreasonable.
I remember when scientific skepticism on slashdot involved people taking issue with specific aspects of the experimental procedure. Not people complaining that they don't like the result or how snooty the scientists are using statistics to measure their success.
The enemies of Democracy are