Slashdot Mirror


X Particle Might Explain Dark Matter & Antimatter

cold fjord writes "Wired Science has a story on a new theory that tries to explain dark matter, and the balance of regular matter with antimatter. This theory may even be testable. From the article: 'A new hypothetical particle could solve two cosmic mysteries at once: what dark matter is made of, and why there's enough matter for us to exist at all."

6 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. ArXiv link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The paper is also available at the arXiv if you don't have a subscription to Phys. Rev. Lett.

  2. Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a difference between "testable in theory" and "testable in practice". Science proceeds from both ends towards the middle, where theoreticians and experimenters meet.

    Theoreticians work on things that may not be testable in practice, now. They may be testable one day, and that actually happens: particle physicists build bigger colliders, astronomers get to see the views they couldn't before, paleontologists dig up the fossil they expected but didn't have.

    It leaves the realm of science utterly when it's not testable even in theory. Between the two there's a gray area, where something may not be practical in the forseeable future, or may require so much time and space and energy that it's absurd to think it would ever become practical. Theoreticians run a minefield here, but it would be invalid to forbid them from going there. They might well find a way to take something absurd and make it realistic; it happens.

    I'm glossing over a lot of epistemic niceties here, but the point is that a theory does not have to be testable at the moment to be science. If this one happens to be testable now or in the near future, yay; that lets us exclude a lot of territory that's currently in the mine field. But it likely would not have happened without other theoreticians having explored that space.

  3. just put a crowbar by the testing lab by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    just put a crowbar by the testing lab

  4. Re:Kindof Summary by markov_chain · · Score: 5, Funny

    +1 Proper use of "begging the question"

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  5. Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable.

    P = NP.

    Your move.

  6. Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl by stuckinarut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well said sir! As an example, Frame-dragging was proposed as a theory in 1918 based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity but wasn't able to be tested until 1996 with a couple of special satellites and even then not accurately enough to be provable until 2006. Since we had barely left the ground let alone orbit the earth at that point I'm sure it must have seemed un-testable at the time.