Slashdot Mirror


Is Earth Weighed Down By Dark Matter?

Nerval's Lobster writes "There may be a giant ring of dark matter invisibly encircling the Earth, increasing its mass and pulling much harder on orbiting satellites than anything invisible should pull, according to preliminary research from a scientist specializing the physics of GPS signaling and satellite engineering. The dark-matter belt around the Earth could represent the beginning of a radically new understanding of how dark matter works and how it affects the human universe, or it could be something perfectly valid but less exciting despite having been written up by New Scientist and spreading to the rest of the geek universe on the basis of a single oral presentation of preliminary research at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December. The presentation came from telecom- and GPS satellite expert Ben Harris, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of Texas- Arlington, who based his conclusion on nine months' worth of data that could indicate Earth's gravity was pulling harder on its ring of geostationary GPS satellites than the accepted mass of the Earth would normally allow. Since planets can't gain weight over the holidays like the rest of us, Harris' conclusion was that something else was adding to the mass and gravitational power of Earth – something that would have to be pretty massive but almost completely undetectable, which would sound crazy if predominant theories about the composition of the universe didn't assume 80 percent of it was made up of invisible dark matter. Harris calculated that the increase in gravity could have come from dark matter, but would have had to be an unexpectedly thick collection of it – one ringing the earth in a band 120 miles thick and 45,000 miles wide. Making elaborate claims in oral presentations, without nailing down all the variables that could keep a set of results from being twisted into something more interesting than the truth is a red flag for any scientific presentation, let alone one making audacious claims about the way dark matter behaves or weight of the Earth, according to an exasperated counterargument from Matthew R. Francis, who earned a Ph.D. in physics and astronomy from Rutgers in 2005, held visiting and assistant professorships at several Northeastern universities and whose science writing has appeared in Ars Technica, The New Yorker, Nautilus, BBC Future and others including his own science blog at Galileo's Pendulum."

43 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Betteridge's law of headlines by thue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

    1. Re:Betteridge's law of headlines by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      You fell for the troll. "Can be answered by" "Must be answered by". . .

  2. Readability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Making elaborate claims in oral presentations, without nailing down all the variables that could keep a set of results from being twisted into something more interesting than the truth is a red flag for any scientific presentation,

    It's standard not to write all the technicalities down in a scientific presentation. They usually last 30 to 45 minutes. There is no way, even for a scientific mind, to follow all the technicalities in 45 minutes when it took several months for the speaker to grasp the subject. Nobody in the audience would understand anything aside from the coauthors. Imagine your 20 hours advanced graduate course on physics condensed in 45 minutes with no simplification at all.

    Disclosure: I'm a mathematician, not a physicist.

    Let's wait for the proceeding or the full paper even though it's true we should be skeptical at this point.

    1. Re:Readability by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention that this is a completely bullshit attitude to take to oral presentations. I often present preliminary data at conferences, part of the point of these things is to get feedback from colleagues about things like what variables might explain the results seen and to search for collaborators who have the expertise to help you pin down your result precisely. Most talks I go to are "I collected this data to test X, I saw Y, X either can or cannot explain Y but Z definitely can, comments?".
      The exception is some engineering conferences where you are presenting finished work and it is a peer reviewed paper which other can cite, then you should know your shit.

    2. Re:Readability by hubie · · Score: 2

      They usually last 30 to 45 minutes

      It has been many years since I have presented at an AGU meeting, but back then at least, you were given about 12 minutes. This just the kind of thing to present at one of these meetings. You have preliminary work and have a working hypothesis, and you put it out in a brief talk to your colleagues for comments and criticism. Some of these talks are summaries of work that has been, or will be sent in, as a formal refereed paper, a lot of it are graduate students presenting their work in progress, and some of it is preliminary stuff like this. This is exactly why these kind of meetings are so important to scientists and engineers; you get to flush out ideas, form collaborations, get called out for shoddy work, etc. It is far more productive and efficient than throwing something up on the web somewhere.

  3. it's obviously an alien invasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The excess mass is an invasion force of cloaked ships.

    1. Re:it's obviously an alien invasion by mhajicek · · Score: 2

      So they would only increase the gravitational field if they're Catholic?

  4. geostationary GPS satellites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > geostationary GPS satellites

    A what now?

    1. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > geostationary GPS satellites

      A what now?

      Yeah, I had the same thought, if the summary cannot tell the difference between geostationary and lower earth orbits, what hope it there that it gets anything else right?

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    2. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      No GPS Satellites are geostationary, sure they all orbit in very predictable paths but they are not geostationary.

    3. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by Woek · · Score: 2

      GPS satellites are not in LEO, but not quite GEO either...

    4. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      he forgot a word.

      Which word? "Not"?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by sjbe · · Score: 5, Informative

      GPS means Global Positioning System, and they're geostationary (or at least some of them are) and they're satellites

      No they are not geostationary. They have orbits that make at least 6 satellites visible from nearly every point on earth at all times. Each satellite completes two orbits each sidereal day.

    6. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by rnturn · · Score: 2

      Sorry. GPS satellites have 12 hour orbits, geostationary satellites have 24hr orbits. I.e., GPS satellites are not geostationary. If they were, they'd be all but useless in many (most?) locations on earth (where PDOP would be outrageously high). Imagine you were near the equator using a GPS comprised of geostationary satellites. You'd know your longitude very well but you wouldn't have any pseudorange data to let you determine latitude worth a damn.

      --
      CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    7. Re:geostationary GPS satellites by Strider- · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, some of them are [wikipedia.org] geostationary.

      You're referring to the WAAS and/or EGNOS payloads on geostationary satellites. While they transmit to GPS receivers using the same data format and signals (and in fact show up as GPS satellites so as to not break older GPS receivers) they are not actually GPS satellites. They do not broadcast the timing data used by the GPS system to actually position itself, instead they broadcast correction factors that the GPS receivers use to correct for atmospheric effects on the signal.

      The atmosphere can have all sorts of subtle effects on the speed of light at RF, and while not a big deal for most things, GPS requires such precise timing that it is significant. Military receivers, which use both the L1 and L2 frequencies, can gauge the atmospheric effects from the differences between the two signals. Standard commercial receivers rely on WAAS earth stations to estimate the atmospheric effects, and then uplink them via the WAAS payloads in geosynchronous orbit.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  5. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How was the accepted mass of earth measured? It should at least be consistent with large-scale behavior of our solar system. Now satellites see a harder pull from earth. The same pull should be seen from the sun. It would make sense to me if satellites saw a lower pull than sun, implying that some mass is at earth, but further out than the satellites. This way, not so much.

    Is it drag induced by the outer parts (not perfectly vacuum) of the atmosphere?

    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      For geostationary satellites, drag is unlikely. The upper altitude limit for atmospheric drag is considered to be 2000km, geostationary are at 36 thousands km high.

      The earth mass is computed from the semi axis and the (sideral) period of any satellite (including the moon) orbiting earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravitational_parameter which gives you the standard gravitational parameter. To get the mass, you need to measure the gravitational constant which is harder but can be done with Cavendish experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment.

  6. Re: Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are two types of waves in water. Gravity Waves are the ones large enough to be held together by gravity, and capillary waves are held together by surface tension.

  7. Re:WTF by E++99 · · Score: 2

    If the ring was perpendicular to the orbit of the satellite, it would have an additive effect to the earth's gravity in proportion to how far out of the plane of the ring the satellite is. If the satellite is in the plane of the ring, it would have no effect, as it would pull equally in all directions.

  8. It's... by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2

    Yo mama!

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  9. You fools! by east+coast · · Score: 5, Funny

    You laugh at the power of Lord Cthulhu, the Great and Glorious One. You try to come up with "scientific" theories and fancy math but the truth will become apparent to you very soon.

    Your screams of terror will be like the song of angels to me.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:You fools! by mykelalvis · · Score: 2

      You laugh at the power of Lord Cthulhu, the Great and Glorious One. You try to come up with "scientific" theories and fancy math but the truth will become apparent to you very soon. Your screams of terror will be like the song of angels to me.

      I'm not laughing. I, for one, welcome our new tentacle-faced overlords. Wait...that sounded weird.

  10. Dark Matter = Entropic Pressure by Suiggy · · Score: 2

    More information complexity creates more entropic potential energy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_force
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

  11. No, this isn't even published. by imjustmatthew · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, this research wasn't even published, it's a conference talk and a PR release. Go read the actual link, at the bottom of the long post, where Matthew Francis dishes it out. Here it is again in case you missed it:

    http://galileospendulum.org/2014/01/02/no-dark-matter-is-not-messing-up-gps-measurements/

  12. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The later link from Dr Francis points out that the calculation has yet to be adjusted for the gravitational contributions of the Moon or Sun, and that it also doesn't make any relativistic corrections.

    Those omissions puts the dark matter claim on par with "hey guys I haven't looked at it from far away but from right here it looks the Earth is pretty flat, yeah?"

  13. Hypothesis vs. conclusion by ghack · · Score: 2

    The dark matter ring is merely a hypothesis. In my field (or science, engineering, or mathematics generally) we should follow the scientific method when reporting results at a meeting.

    This guy was unfortunately presenting a hypothesis. He should have waited and tried to find more compelling evidence before presenting. New Scientist should be familiar enough with the scientific method to avoid publicizing a radical and unproven hypothesis.

    1. Re:Hypothesis vs. conclusion by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's wrong with presenting ideas to collegues who may be able to help you come up with ways to test that idea? That's what conferences are for. Papers in a peer reviewed journal are where you publish actual results.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Hypothesis vs. conclusion by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just a hypothesis. It's a hypothesis that fits some data, from GPS satellites and the Juno probe. It's solid enough to present as an idea to other scientists.

      It's not solid enough to present as an idea to the general public, but unfortunately that's what popular science publications do for a living. They want "news"; their readers want to be the first ones to hear about exciting new developments. So they publish highly speculative material without the kinds of caveats, qualifications, and context that other scientists in the field bring automatically.

      I have a love-hate relationship with them. They're helpful in drumming up public interest in science, playing up the romantic parts that help young proto-scientists engage with the field before the years of drudge work that go into actually becoming a scientist. And they help keep people feeling good about science and voting to fund it. But they mis-inform as much as they inform, and real scientists are continually having to provide the context that the magazines frequently refuse to.

      (New Scientist is better than most daily newspapers, but worse than Science News. Frequency of publication seems to make a big difference: the longer your readership is willing to wait for accurate information, and the less they demand to have it ten seconds before the next guy, the more informative they are. Web-only sources are generally the worst.)

  14. Re:It's God by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    Do NOT burn the goats - they're much better medium rare.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  15. Re: Impressive by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    Unless they have peer reviewed papers - however can you trust them?

  16. Inaccuracy in article on what 80% of universe is by RoosterRuley · · Score: 2

    This statement is inaccurate: "...predominant theories about the composition of the universe didn't assume 80 percent of it was made up of invisible dark matter" 80% of the universe is made up of with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The theories suggests the universe is made up of about 27% dark matter (not 80%) which is the subject of the article. Dark energy is a sort of negative gravity and is the force pushing galaxies apart faster and not relevant to this article's topic. Dark energy makes up most of the energy mass of the universe at 68%. Taken together they make up 80%, but affect the universe in completely different ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

  17. Weight Gain by trongey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    planets can't gain weight over the holidays like the rest of us

    Actually they do. It's estimated that the Earth gains at least 164,000 kg per day from meteoric accretion. (Barker, J.L. and Anders, E. "Accretion rate of cosmic matter from iridium and osmium contents of deep-sea sediments." Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 32, 627-645 (1968))

    --
    You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  18. Re:Dark matter/energy = Fudge factor? by Hafnia · · Score: 2

    No one has ever come up with a theory of Modified Gravity that can explain the data we have , but Dark Matter does. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/18/why-the-universe-needs-dark-matter-and-not-mond-in-one-graph/

  19. Bullshit Flag by jasnw · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work with GPS a lot, and there are many MANY people around the world who spend their entire lives making sure that there are very precise measurements of where those satellites are and how good predictions of where they'll be going are. These orbit calculations take into account the pressure of light from the sun on the satellites along with several other very small effects, so if there was some large extra mass in a ring around the earth it would have been noticed many years ago. I think this guy needs to recheck his calculations.

    1. Re:Bullshit Flag by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 2

      Radiation Pressure is momentum transfer purely with EM radiation, not the plasma ions from the solar wind. It is a very noticeable effect and must be accounted for anything in orbit more than a few hours.

      The GRACE experiment utilizes satellites in polar LEO (310km above the Earth's surface) to created detailed maps of the distribution of matter below it. Depending on the configuration of the dark matter, it may not be visible to GRACE. If the dark matter was a spherical shell around the earth, we wouldn't be able to detect if from a position inside the shell.

  20. Re:Why doesn't dark matter collapse on itself by Hafnia · · Score: 2

    Probably because dark matter doesn't interact with itself. When normal matter hits other normal matter it will be slowed down and eventually the stuff gets bigger and bigger. But dark matter doesnt hit anything, so even though it's gravitationally attracted to other dark matter particles they will fly right through each other. Therefore, i think, it won't be concentrated enough to form black holes.

  21. Re: Oil by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    ...and he says to the farmer, I have found a solution to your problem: Imagine spherical cows in a vacuum, uniformly radiating milk in all directions...

  22. Re:It's God by captjc · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't trust this whole "theory of gravity." Obviously, this "theory" is just an unknowable guess and therefore doesn't have the full consensus of "science". I say we need to teach the controversy that the reason we stay on the earth is because some supreme being wants us there. Birds and planes only work because when their wings are outstretched they make a holy cross.

    Teach the controversy. Don't believe "theories".

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  23. Re:WTF by lgw · · Score: 2

    A ring doesn't make any sense at all given existing ideas about dark matter. Rings and disks form as a result of friction gradually eliminating all rotation except along a single, common axis. Friction is exactly the sort of thing that makes matter non-dark. Where would a ring come from?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  24. Re:It's God by lgw · · Score: 2

    C'mon, don't reinvent the wheel here. The theory of Intelligent Falling is the go-to parody, and is well-known enough to have a Wikipedia page. You might also find last-Thursdayism amusing.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Re:Impressive by dido · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not direct detection of gravitational radiation, but observations of PSR B1913+16 have been considered convincing enough proof of the existence of gravitational waves as predicted by general relativity. It's a binary pulsar: a neutron star and another object that might be another neutron star or possibly a black hole, orbiting each other. They're spiraling in together, which could only happen if their orbits were losing energy due to gravitational radiation, and calculations based on their observations conform exactly with the predictions of general relativity for gravity waves. This was convincing enough to have won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics for the scientists involved in the discovery and analysis of the pulsar, Russell Alan Hulse and Joseph Hooton Taylor Jr.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
  26. except ... by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 2

    The Moon and Sun would act to counter earths gravity, making it appear lighter not heavier.

  27. Re:WTF by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    If it were a more uniform cloud around the Earth, not a "ring" like Saturns, then it would be hard to find. The effects wouldn't be fully visible until one was beyond it. And I don't know whether any of the probes sent out looked back at Earth for any gravitational changes.