Slashdot Mirror


Cosmic Antimatter Excess Confirmed

sciencehabit writes "In 2008, the Italian satellite PAMELA picked up an unusual signal: a spike in antimatter particles whizzing through space. The discovery, controversial at the time, hinted that physicists might be coming close to detecting dark matter, an enigmatic substance thought to account for 85% of the matter in the universe. Now, new data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope confirm the spike (abstract)."

17 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Dark matter or antimatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm confused, is this about antimatter or dark matter?

    1. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The answer is in the second paragraph of the article.

      Well, don't keep us hanging in suspense here! What does the second paragraph of the article say?!?

    2. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by mattie_p · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm really confused. Dark matter is made out of spikes? Do they stab at thee from hell's heart or something?

    3. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Theorists generally believe that when two dark matter particles collide, they should annihilate each other to produce ordinary particles, such as an electron and its antimatter twin, a positron. Thanks to Einstein's iconic equivalence between energy and mass, E=mc2, each of those particles should emerge with an energy essentially equal to the mass of the original dark matter particle."

      I suspect that the author doesn't know that "dark matter" isn't a synonym for "antimatter". The above paragraph, if true, would make the universe a very explode-y place.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by mattie_p · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Theorists generally believe that when two dark matter particles collide, they should annihilate each other to produce ordinary particles, such as an electron and its antimatter twin, a positron. I suspect that the author doesn't know that "dark matter" isn't a synonym for "antimatter". The above paragraph, if true, would make the universe a very explode-y place.

      Some dark matter candidates are, according to theory, their own anti-particle. The only reason it is not a more explode-y space is that dark matter interacts very weakly with other matter, including itself, and therefore has not been identified yet.

    5. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by sheepe2004 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why is this modded +4 informative? The quoted text doesn't confuse dark matter and antimatter. The universe isn't explode-y because (if the theorists are right) dark matter interacts very weakly and so collisions are very rare.

      --
      http://compsoc.man.ac.uk/~shep/
    6. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by miketee · · Score: 4, Informative

      Clearly, the author DOES differentiate between Dark matter, and antimatter (and matter). They use the terms to refer to different things: 2 Dark Matter particles BEFORE a collision, and a matter + antimatter particle AFTER it. If you meant that the particle/antiparticle pair would instantly annihilate (and the large amount of DM would cause many such annihilations), remember that the DM particles *collided*. IANA Physcist, but wouldn't momentum be conserved, and the 2 new particles move apart with the conserved momentum, preventing annihilation? Also there is the weak interactivity that others have mentioned.

    7. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Some dark matter candidates are, according to theory, their own anti-particle"

      In related news, Herman Cain is his own worst enemy.

    8. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anything which can produce photons also can produce electron-positron pairs, just with lower probability. However dark matter particles should not produce photons directly because they don't interact electromagnetically (the defining property of dark matter!), and annihilating (directly) into photons would be an electromagnetic interaction (photons are not "pure energy", no matter how often you read that). Rather as weakly interacting particles, I'd expect them to produce virtual Z0s which then could decay into (real) electron-positron pairs, assuming sufficient energy (I'd expect the dominant decay channel to be into neutrinos, though).

    9. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why is this modded +4 informative?

      Because it saved millions of slashdotters from having to read TFA.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (not that that will stop me from commenting..)

      and that is what's wrong with the world.

      I don't know jack abut the subject, but I'll be damned if that stopped me from commenting like I'm an expert.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Dark matter or antimatter? by Pope · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eight light minutes, actually.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  2. Why are we discussing this? by gringer · · Score: 5, Funny

    It doesn't matter

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Why are we discussing this? by migla · · Score: 5, Funny

      >It doesn't matter

      What's the matter with you? As a matter of fact, it does. One semantically related question is which of the two mats is more mat than the other - which one is matter? Probably the person who lays mats for a living, the matter, could answer that.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    2. Re:Why are we discussing this? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      woooosh

      Well, dark matter *is* hard to detect.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  3. Re:Anti-matter vs. dark matter by sheepe2004 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm guessing you didn't RTFA? They are not saying that antimatter is dark matter.

    They have detected a large and unexpected amount of antimatter.
    Dark matter collisions (theoretically) can create large amounts of antimatter.
    So one possible explanation for the antimatter is that two dark matter particles collided.

    --
    http://compsoc.man.ac.uk/~shep/
  4. Neutralino Annihilation by Stirling+Newberry · · Score: 4, Informative
    The most promising wimp is a particle known as the neutralino. This is a hypothesized particle which would exist in either super-symmetrical theories. Super-symmetry says that in an unbroken general theory, every boson - a particle like a photon with an integer spin - has a fermion - 1/2 spin - partner, with the difference being that the fermion has a spin of 1/2. Since we don't seen bosons and fermions of the same energy, if, and it is still if, there was super-symmetry, it is a broken symmetry.

    The neutralino would be a composite particle, composed of the super-partners of the guage bosons and the higgs - that is wino (w partner), higgsino (higgs parnter), bino (partner of the weak hypercharge). Since the symmetry is broken, we don't see the original super-partners, only their super-imposed forms with the same mass eigenstate.

    When particles annihilate, they produce a set of particles that have a quantum number of 0. Any particles with the same mass-energy as the original colliding pair of particle and anti-particle can be produced. If mass energies are low, this means that the result will be mostly photons, because photons have no mass, and are only energy. That is, they have a low total mass energy. But any particles can be produced, so long as the result totals to 0, and has the same mass energy.

    Neutralinos, as you would guess, from the term WIMP, are weakly interacting, and massive. That means that when a neutralino annihilates another, particles with greater mass energy can be produced.

    In a 1994 paper Drees et al calculated neutralino decay into gluons. One of the co-authors here Kamionkowski went on to publish more on dark matter and neutralinos. There have been other papers on other possible decay products from neutralino annihilation, because, of course, if annihilation produces unstable particles, or anti-particle pairs, it can keep going until it reaches an end state of stable products. However, not all anti-particle pairs produce annihilate, and if the products are stable, they go bouncing on their merry way.

    This means that anti-protons and positrons above the background, and at certain energy levels could be the signature of neutralino dark matter.

    Or to roll things back: one of the few ways, other than gravity, we can detect WIMPS is from their annihilations. To determine if, and if so, what, WIMPs are composed of, we have to look at the decay products of those events. The Pamela data shows that there is an excess of positrons, however, it does not show that this excess is from WIMP annihilation. The search for this spectrum is important for both large and small reasons: large because cosmology evolves based on mass, and small because neutralinos, if detected, tell us about the final broken super-symmetrical extensions to the Standard Model, and in turn tell us about the super-partners, and, in turn, about the partners. For example, we have not seen a higgs boson, but a neutralino is an eigenstate of a higgsino fermion, which implies a higgs boson to be partnered with. Back in the 1990's Drees et al published