Dark Matter Found? $2 Billion Orbital Experiment Detects Hints

astroengine writes "A $2 billion particle detector attached to the International Space Station has detected the potential signature of dark matter annihilation in the Cosmos, scientists have announced today. The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) was attached to the space station in May 2011 by space shuttle Endeavour — the second-to last shuttle mission to the orbital outpost. Since then, the AMS has been detecting electrons and positrons (the electron's anti-particle) originating from deep space and assessing their energies. By doing a tally of electrons and positrons, physicists hope the AMS will help to answer one of the most enduring mysteries in science: Does dark matter exist? And today, it looks like the answer is a cautious, yet exciting, affirmative."

Comments

But what is it?

[Hatta]

Of course dark matter exists. There's a discrepancy in our observations, and dark matter is defined as whatever is responsible for that discrepancy. The real question is, what is dark matter? How do we explain its existence?

Re:But what is it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the responsibility for the discrepancy falls upon incorrect theories / understanding of the observations. In which case dark matter turns out to be an iffy equation. Yes, it still technically exists, but the $2 billion dollar particle detector isn't going to find it.

We can say, with a very high degree of uncertainty, that the discrepancies are not due to bad theories.

If our only line of reasoning for Dark Matter was Newtonian physics (for example, if the only evidence for Dark Matter was from rotation curves of galaxies), your thought would be entirely reasonable. Maybe Newtonian mechanics were just wrong on the scale of galaxies. This is one reason why Modified Newtonian Dynamics theories (MoND) were somewhat popular a while ago.

But the problem is that multiple, *completely independent*, physical theories all show that not only does Dark Matter exist, but all the theories predict consistent amounts of Dark Matter. For example, you can use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to find out how much Dark Matter there is based on how much light is curved by gravitational effects. Or you can use various areas of Thermodynamics to look at temperatures in galaxy clusters.

These theories are based on completely different principles and laws. Yet they all predict the same thing.

So if you want to claim that we being confused by bad theories, you would have to be able to explain why multiple, completely independent theories are not only all wrong, but all wrong in a way such that they return the same wrong answer. That seems extremely implausible, so Dark Matter is, by far, the best explanation.

Re:But what is it?

[lgw]

Of course dark matter exists. There's a discrepancy in our observations, and dark matter is defined as whatever is responsible for that discrepancy

To clarify: the "dark matter" hypothesis of the discrepancy in our observations of galaxy (and cluster) rotation rates has already been confirmed by observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation. There were many hypotheses for that discrepancy, but dark matter predicted the correct ratio of baryonic/non-baryonic matter in the early universe - to multiple significant digits (rare in cosmology).

So while most properties of dark matter have yet to be understood, some are well defined. As far as "how do we explain its existence?", that same question applies equally to "normal" matter.

interesting first results...we'll see

[ganv]

That is a very interesting result. Their first measurements of the positron energy spectrum are consistent with super-symmetry ideas about dark matter collisions creating positron-electron pairs. If it turns out to be right, it will be the first non-gravitational detection of dark matter. But there is not much experimental support for the super-symmetry ideas being used to connect dark matter with positrons, and there are other possible sources of the positron spectrum at the current accuracy. So we'll see. It is great to see they have some results...this experiment has taken a long time and a lot of money. But when you introduce a much more precise way to measure, it usually turns out to be worth the cost and effort in the end.

Explanation

[Roger W Moore]

First the energy limit on interstellar travel is not getting out of the gravitational well of the sun it is getting up to a large fraction of the speed of light. If your intention was achieve that sort of velocity with a gravitational field then please try this is someone else's solar system because a gravitational field of that magnitude - think black hole - will do nasty things to planetary orbits.

Second Dark Matter is incredibly diffuse, far more so than normal matter because it only interacts via gravity and - possibly - the weak force. So there it no way to make small, dense concentrations of it like you can with normal matter.

Finally, the AMS results does not yet show any evidence for Dark Matter. They need to extend their energy by a few bins to see whether the spectrum starts to drop - the current spectrum could be explained by pulsars - the positron excess has been known to be there for some years already thanks to PAMELA and Fermi/Glast(for a slightly more technical announcement with plots see here). So it is a very interesting result but not yet evidence of Dark Matter. However, if it is Dark Matter, it should have a low enough mass to be created in the LHC so we may get a shot at finding whatever it is in 2015 when we turn back on with ~twice the energy. In fact my grad student and I worked on the ATLAS search for Dark Matter models associated with this type of positron-only signature but found no evidence. It's now being repeated with the 2012 data so stay tuned...

Excellent Question!

[Roger W Moore]

Why would Dark Matter be more diffuse? If it only interacts via gravity, shouldn't it be more compact than ordinary matter

That's a very intelligent question! That's exactly what you might expect but you need to go a little deeper. Think about a planet forming from a cloud of dust and rocks. Once a clump of a few rocks has formed it starts to pull in more dust and rocks from the surrounding cloud and a planet starts to form because rocks in the cloud are pulled in my the gravitational field of the clump until they smash into it and stop. This increases the mass of the clump so it pulls in more rocks and grows.

The critical part is that the only reason that the rocks stop when they hit the clump of material is because of the electromagnetic repulsion between the atoms in the rock and the atoms in the clump. This is the same reason that you do not fall to the centre of the Earth - the atoms on the soles of your feet are repelled by the atoms of whatever you are standing on.

Now lets think about Dark Matter. It has no electrical charge and so feels no electromagnetic force. So when a Dark Matter particle is attracted towards a clump of other Dark Matter particles it simply passes right through them without any interaction! It then starts to slow down under their gravitational field until it, eventually, turns around and flies back through the centre. Effectively all a "clump" of Dark Matter is is a group of particles oscillating back and forth in their shared gravitational well. This is why Dark Matter is so diffuse - it can form structures but only on a very large scale.

This is not quite the entire picture - there may be a very small chance of an interaction when Dark Matter particles pass by each other. This will help the particles to clump more but it will be a very, very slow process - and this is only the case if Dark Matter feels the weak force which is not certain. These interactions might also involve two Dark Matter particles annihilating which, if true, may give the positron signal which AMS sees. However to confirm this they need to look at a sightly higher energy which they claim they already have the data for.