Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Sensitive Detector Yet Fails To Find Any Signs of Dark Matter

Posted by timothy on from the turn-on-the-light-and-the-dark-escapes dept.

ananyo writes "A U.S. team that claims to have built the world's most sensitive dark matter detector has completed its first data run without seeing any sign of the stuff. In a webcast presentation today at the Sanford Underground Laboratory in Lead, South Dakota, physicists working on the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment said they had seen nothing statistically compelling in 110 days of data-taking. 'We find absolutely no events consistent with any kind of dark matter,' says LUX co-spokesman Rick Gaitskell, a physicist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Physicists know from astronomical observations that 85% of the Universe's matter is dark, making itself known only through its gravitational pull on conventional matter. Some think it may also engage in weak but detectable collisions with ordinary matter, and several direct detection experiments have reported tantalizing hints of these candidate dark matter particles, known as WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). Gaitskell says that it is now overwhelmingly likely that earlier sightings were statistical fluctuations. Despite the no-shows at XENON-100 and LUX, Laura Baudis, a physicist on XENON-100 at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, says physicists are not ready to give up on the idea of detecting WIMPs. They may simply have a lower mass, or may be more weakly interacting than originally hoped. 'We have some way to go,' she says."

10 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. First dark matter post by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pulling in other posts below it :D

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  2. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe it's just not there.
    Dark matter always reminds of the 18th century hypothesis of the aether.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

    Same principle. Same made up matter that no one can see or detect but somehow fills the entire universe.

    1. Re:Maybe by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, even failed theories advance science in some way or other.
      However at some point you have to let them go.

      The summary where it clearly states:

      Physicists know from astronomical observations that 85% of the Universe's matter is dark,

      I suggest they KNOW no such thing, and merely postulate dark matter to get their equations to balance. But how many such equation balancing inventions are laying in the dustbin of Physicists' revised theories over the years?

      Unless or until the Physicists can find fault with the detectors, all of which have failed to find a trace of something allegedly composing 85% of the universe , it would seem that the whole "dark matter is known to exist" statement needs to taken down a notch. Detectors designed to their own specs fail to produce a single trace. It doesn't matter that there are very precise measurements of exactly how much the equations are out of balance.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Protip... that still doesn't explain the rotation curve problem observed in spiral galaxies.

    3. Re:Maybe by boristhespider · · Score: 5, Informative

      "What we have is a phenomenon that is not explained by the calculated mass of the universe."

      Vague statement. What we have are two phenomena, one which is not explained by the observed mass in galaxies or in clusters, and one not explained by the present (and currently only serious) model of the universe. Feel free to propose alternative models for the universe... but make sure that they fit the current observations *at least* as well as that model and fails to break the Solar System. That is hard to do.

      "As a filler we have titled it "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and given it a mathematical correction to the calculations."

      True, with the correction above.

      "The mass issue is fixed if we realize that the size of the universe is larger than the visible horizon."

      No it isn't. That will do precisely nothing for the rotation curves of galaxies and will also basically do nothing for the cosmological problem either. Vague hand-waving and appeals to Mach's principle don't hold without a concrete model. Provide that model and people may be convinced, but at the minute what you're suggesting is startlingly acausal and, as a result, unacceptable.

      "Meaning it is bigger than we can see."

      Very true. No-one thinks that the entire universe is the observed universe.

      "With that we can assume that we can only see 13% of the whole universe and that the reset of it is too far away to see. Now, run those numbers through the formula to calculate the expansion rate of the universe and you get some great results!"

      Nope, you get precisely the same results that we currently get, because while it may startle you, that's what we currently do -- effectively. Thanks to causality, matter outside of our horizon cannot have an effect on us. Basically, something which is far enough away from us that light cannot have made the distance cannot possibly have influenced us. That, or you have to propose a new theory of gravity -- good luck with that one. It's a common game in cosmology, and one which precious few people since Einstein have had any luck at.

      "The energy issue disappears when you realize that the closer an object is to a gravity well the slower time moves."

      No it doesn't. Do you think that we're using non-relativistic models of cosmology? Relativity is at the heart of your statement that gravity wells dilate time, and relativity is at the heart of cosmological models.

      "Thus there is a large time differential between the edge of a given galaxy and intergalactic space. This time differential accounts for the perceived added gravity."

      Now this is a much more interesting statement. Dig out Wiltshire's attempts to use time dilations between galactic clusters and voids to explain the dark energy problem, firmly in the context of general relativity. The fundamentals are not well-studied, but it is promising. However, it goes the opposite direction from your surmise -- it tends towards providing a dark energy rather than a dark matter. It does drive home the point though that it is vital to actually try and calculate something based on an idea, properly rooted in a concrete theory. The answers might be rather different from what you expected...

    4. Re:Maybe by boristhespider · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm a professional cosmologist, and I have to take issue with your first statement. The instruments did not, and categorically have not, detected the presence of something that is matter. If they had, that would be a direct detection of dark matter, and a Nobel prize would already be sitting on their desk. What they have detected are indirect signals of dark matter. It is very hard to reproduce the observations - particularly the cosmological observations - without adding at least one component of dark matter. So the observations are typically interpreted in terms of dark matter.

      But this is very much not, strictly speaking, necessary. What we have is something that has an effect which, when viewed through a Robertson-Walker model, looks for all the world like a species of massive, weakly-interacting particle (or two or three such species - no-one ever said there has to be only one). On smaller scales, we have what for all the world appears to be a large amount of mass that can't be seen.

      Any of this could be down to a modification of gravity. We know the nature of gravity roughly up to the position of the Voyager craft -- call it 300AU to be generous. We are extrapolating that a thousand times to get to galactic scales, a million times to get to cluster scales, and a thousand million times to get to cosmological scales, all without evidence. Of course, without a better theory to replace relativity, it's the best we can do, so we do it - but don't try and claim that instruments have detected that it is matter (they haven't), nor that we are wedded to particulate dark matter (with caveats, we aren't; the caveats are firstly that neutrinos have a mass and are therefore a rather warm dark matter, and secondly that it seems rather unlikely that there isn't at least one species of weakly interacting matter which would act as CDM, but maybe not in sufficient abundance to answer our woes).

  3. Re:Have they considiered... by invid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's there. We've detected it from its gravity. They were just hoping that it wasn't completely dark. It's starting to look like it is. The trouble with it being completely dark is that would make it difficult to prove any theories about it. What they're doing is searching for their keys under the streetlight when they've probably fallen down the sewer.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  4. Direct dark matter detection is confusing by amaurea · · Score: 5, Informative

    Several different experiments have tried to measure dark matter directly in the lab, and the experimental situation is pretty confusing. This plot shows the confidence intervals and exclusion limits for various experiments (but it does not include LUX yet). The shaded regions are confidence intervals, that basically say "we've seen dark matter, and its properties lie somewhere in this region. But the dotted lines say "we haven't seen it, and if it exists, it can't lie above these lines".

    What is strange, then, is that all of the detections are in regions that have been excluded by other experiements. LUX just makes the situation even more strained by pulling those upper bounds even lower. Still, those bounds and intervals depend on assumptions about the properties of dark matter, and it may be possible to reconcile the results.

    It will be interesting to see what happens to those tentative detections when they get more data. My bet is that in the end some systematic effect will be found to be responsible for the apparent signal. Or (much less likely) that they were just flukes. But who knows?

  5. Re:Have they considiered... by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Informative

    Guess they should have given up on the Higgs boson search 10 years ago, too? A negative results is not a "failure", it just constrains things a little more.

    The most compelling evidence for dark matter is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

    Obviously we should always be open to alternate hypotheses, but at the moment dark matter is still the most straightforward explanation.

  6. Re:Dark matter fighting dark energy by Zalbik · · Score: 5, Informative

    It looks like bad science when they keep fiddling with the numbers to patch up their deficient theories.

    Or to put it another way:
    1. Scientists come up with theories to explain a phenomenon
    2. Test to confirm
    3. New observation breaks the theory
    4. Theory refined to account for new measurements
    5. Goto 2

    That doesn't look like bad science at all.

    The dark matter thing is stuck at step 2 as it may be either (a) the theory is wrong or (b) dark matter is really really hard to test for.

    Science is a process, not a big book of answers. If you want a big book of answers there are any number of religions willing to accommodate you. Just be aware that the answers you get may be (1) vague, (2) contradictory and (3) of limited predictive use.