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).
As a 49 yo feminist grandmother, I reject these results, since they are done by an old boys network of grey haired caucasian scientists.
Something with no energy means it has no movement. No movement means it must radiate all of its energy as gravitation.
So, what you're saying is that something with no energy must lose all of its energy as gravitation. Anybody else see a problem with this explanation?
Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
No, 1:4 is enough for a good argument. They need 1:1000 or lower to end the argument.
Rethinking email
Because scientist's interpretation of what they see is never wrong! When did science start to feel more like religion to me...
So tell me where they went fairy tale on us here?
Here is just a gross simplification, so I may not be completely accurate, but I fail to see where this is fairy-tale science.
Characterization: Isn't that where we are finding that galaxies aren't behaving as we expect them to, and that behavior is in the form of gravitational interactions which shouldn't happen given the amount of mass which we can see.
Hypothesis:
There is something there which for some reason has a lot of mass, but we can't see it. Literally: Dark Matter
Deduction: If Dark Matter is weakly interacting as is suggested by the fact that we can't currently see it. If we are able to detect an interaction which cannot be accounted for among known particles, you have either discovered dark matter, or some other particle altogether if that detected particle is not massive enough when combined with the rate of interaction and the mass of the detected particle.
Experimentation:
Stick a detector way down in a mine shaft which will help filter out a lot of things which could cause a false positive. Look for interactions which do not match any known possible interactions.
Again, that is grossly simplified, but I don't see the jump in logic you are looking for.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
So by reducing the temperature of the sensor to half a degree Kelvin, they have reduced the energy level of the sensor to almost nothing. Yes, it interacts with incoming particles, but it also radiates gravitational waves that could be misinterpreted as external particles. In essence, the detector is detecting itself.
Of course, there is a 23% chance I am completely wrong.
There's a 100% chance you're wrong. Gravitational waves can't be absorbed by these detectors in any meaningful way. To notice the effects of even massive gravitational waves you need a huge detector (like LIGO). Also, gravitational waves happen when a gravitational field changes. They propagate this change through the universe. Objects at rest aren't emitting gravitational waves.
If you isolated these sensors from the universe and let them sit for a long time, they wouldn't lose their mass to gravitational radiation - they'd probably sit around until death by baryon decay in 10^33 years.
And no, they're not detecting baryon decay either.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
The paper pre-print will appear on the arxiv as 0912.3592, but is already available as on the CDMS homepage. Two events or 23% seems a bit low for all the hysteria... Pentaquarks went away after 50 events were discovered at more than 10 different labs...
Flirt & Squirt 3?
Dark matter != anti-matter. Turn in your geek credentials.
> I watched maybe too many star trek episodes...
You did.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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
Exactly! I keep telling people; Einstein was wrong! An absolute speed limit makes no sense because there's no way I can understand how that would work!
Do you have the email of the president of physics?
That's because your logic is fundamentally flawed. If you were really questioning, and not just accepting everything at face value, you would say this:
Characterization: Isn't that where we are finding that galaxies aren't behaving as we expect them to, and that behavior is in the form of gravitational interactions which shouldn't happen given the amount of mass which we can see.
Hypothe- err, fuck that, I mean PROOF:
It's God. Literally God!! He's got his hand in that galaxy like it was a Jeff Dunham puppet.
Deduction: If God is weakly interacting with the galaxies, all you heathen sciency evolution types are fucked! Richard Dawkins won't be able to save you from getting cornholed by fire demons for the rest of eternity.
Experimentation:
Invoke the spirit of Charles Darwin. Ask him how hot Hell is. Fall on your knees, and hear the Angels sing. Never question God or me again. Now I will call you saved, please deposit $200 into the jar.
That's how you really fight the dogma of science.