Slashdot Mirror


Possible Dark Matter Signal Spotted

TaleSlinger sends this news from Space.com: Astronomers may finally have detected a signal of dark matter, the mysterious and elusive stuff thought to make up most of the material universe. While poring over data collected by the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton spacecraft, a team of researchers spotted an odd spike in X-ray emissions coming from two different celestial objects — the Andromeda galaxy and the Perseus galaxy cluster.

"The signal's distribution within the galaxy corresponds exactly to what we were expecting with dark matter — that is, concentrated and intense in the center of objects and weaker and diffuse on the edges," [assuming that dark matter consists of sterile neutrinos] study co-author Oleg Ruchayskiy, of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, said in a statement. "With the goal of verifying our findings, we then looked at data from our own galaxy, the Milky Way, and made the same observations," added lead author Alexey Boyarsky, of EPFL and Leiden University in the Netherlands. The decay of sterile neutrinos is thought to produce X-rays, so the research team suspects these may be the dark matter particles responsible for the mysterious signal coming from Andromeda and the Perseus cluster."

66 comments

  1. Whence Occam's Razor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Does this basic principle of scientific inquiry not apply to cosmology????

    1. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Does this basic principle of scientific inquiry not apply to cosmology????

      Go on then, what's the simpler explanation?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by TopherC · · Score: 1

      I think sterile neutrinos are among the least-exotic explanations that hasn't been ruled out yet. Still, I'd love more information here: Why hasn't this been seen before? What theories predict x-rays at these energies? What kinds of confirmation are feasable?

    3. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by TopherC · · Score: 2

      Oops wish I could self-edit. The paper is short and easy to read. It answers pretty much all these questions.

    4. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by jythie · · Score: 1

      A wizard did it! No, wait, this is slashdot... ahm.. electric universe!

    5. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that what information comes out of journalists is typically 10 times more outrageous than any of the scientists' claims.

    6. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by Goaway · · Score: 4, Informative

      It does. That is why dark matter is the leading theory at the moment. It is the simplest one, with the least additional elements, that can actually explain all available observations.

      There are plenty of simpler theories that can't, though, if you prefer things that are known to be wrong.

    7. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      I always liked the idea of invisible virtual springs, it makes the universe seem steampunk.

    8. Re:Whence Occam's Razor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A handful of dudes explore the universe with a pimped-out Apple II, a hair dryer, and a couple of flashlights? It's so bad it's good.

  2. I'll believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See what I did there? Ehh...? EEHHHH?!

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BAH! I flush dark matter down the toilet every day...

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      Nibbler?

  3. The best part: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Much more important than the obsession with proving that it is dark matter and not a limit of the relativity models, we'd actually have a real name for the stuff.

    "Dark matter" was a lame filler term from day one. If it turns out to be abundant masses of sterile neutrinos, then we can all go look up what "sterile" means in regards to a particle type that is already infamous for ignoring everything else until it rams into a proton or neutron in a head-on crash.

    1. Re:The best part: by mmell · · Score: 1
      Yeah. We can call it "Higgs matter" instead. Or maybe "God matter".

      Parallel observation: letting programmers name the programs they're writing is about as smart as letting the marketing department actually write the code.

    2. Re: The best part: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, Gods matter. And that, alot

  4. Omicron Persei 8 by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Perseus?

    It's Omicron Persei 8 complaining about the cancellation of Single Female Lawyer.

    1. Re:Omicron Persei 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Rabbit, Omicron Persei 8 is exactly 1000 ly from us. Perseus is another galaxy. That means it is around 6000ly away according to creationists.

    2. Re:Omicron Persei 8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perseus cluster is about 237 million light years away.

    3. Re:Omicron Persei 8 by TheCarp · · Score: 0

      Common mistake I know. However, once you consider its distance and the 6000 year age of the universe, the distance of 237 million light years is well within the range you would expect to find if God wanted light to move faster so that we could see it as part of His plan.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. Old news ? by sega_sai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The paper on which the space.com article is based is almost year old. It appeared in February 2014. Why is this piece of old news here ?

    1. Re:Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because it took 1PY (US Postal Year) for the news to get here.

  6. Why does it take for ever? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny

    The decay of sterile neutrinos is thought to produce X-rays, so the research team suspects these may be the dark matter particles responsible for the mysterious signal coming from Andromeda and the Perseus cluster."

    Back in my days, every mysterious signal from every star system follows a well rehearsed routine. People get beamed down, they see even more mysterious things happen and finally they get everything resolved and are back in the Enterprise in 46 minutes, all set up and ready to boldly go where no man had gone before. Come on, resolve it already scientists. Whats the matter with you lazy bums?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Why does it take for ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they get everything resolved and are back in the Enterprise in 46 minutes

      Unless it was a two-parter.

  7. Old news, probably not dark matter by disputationist · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is really old news (at least in the particle physics cycle) and over a 100 papers have been written about this already. This is one of many papers that points out serious problems with a dark matter interpretation for this signal http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1699 and here's a less technical blog post discussing the issues http://resonaances.blogspot.co... . I'm sick of pop-sci websites peddling stuff that particle physicists have already moved on from as the "latest exciting discovery"

    1. Re:Old news, probably not dark matter by jythie · · Score: 1

      Crap, I am out of mod points. Good links.

    2. Re:Old news, probably not dark matter by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

      I guess this is supposed to be newsworthy because of this part of TFA, missing from the summary:

      If the results — which will be published next week in the journal Physical Review Letters — hold up, they could usher in a new era in astronomy, study team members said.

  8. What, what? Something's wrong here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can only wonder how the researchers arrived at their conclusion when there are so very many other sources of X-rays in the universe. In fact if you were looking far dark matter you would ignore any signal coming from a galaxy and only look for signals coming from *outside* the galaxy, which is where dark matter is believed to exist.

    1. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can only wonder how the researchers arrived at their conclusion when there are so very many other sources of X-rays in the universe.

      It's probably because they're better qualified in physics than you are.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      By now you must know the denizens of /. are leading lights in fields as diverse as biology, geology, climatology, economics and physics. It's a goddamned wonder that half the posters here don't have Nobel prizes in their back pockets.

      And yet, generous souls that they are, they still have time to complain about Ruby on Rails. We truly live in an age of giants!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by dissy · · Score: 1

      It's a goddamned wonder that half the posters here don't have Nobel prizes in their back pockets.

      Well I did just happen to come by one of those at a recent auction.

      While my original thought was to have a bronze statue of myself constructed to display it I suppose I can keep it in a back pocket instead, though it might present an obstacle being in such close proximity to where I usually pull my slashdot posts from...

    4. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, assuming dark matter is effected by gravity like baryonic matter (and the evidence so far seems to indicate that it is) then it's everywhere in the Galaxy. The room your in now should have more dark matter in it than air. It's just even more invisible and non reactive than the air. We believe The dark matter extends well beyond the confines of our galaxy (and every galaxy) in a dark matter halo, but the concentration of dark matter would be greatest in the center of the galaxy.

      The problem is the density of normal matter is also greatest there and the super massive blackhole in the center of our galaxy (and Andromeda) puts out a lot of radiation making it hard to separate the various sources. The only thing in a dark matter halo is dark matter so it's there that we spend most of our time looking. At this moment there is a huge cavern deep underground whose sole purpose is to detect a collision with a dark matter particle, they haven't found one yet.

    5. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by Gliscameria · · Score: 2

      It's not a bad thing to be extra cautious around buzz words. Dark Matter feels like a fudge factor for our ability to observe the universe or our models of it. Hey, these numbers don't add up- just stick in another variable. Is it more likely that there is a magic unobservable substance that makes our models correct or that our models need tuning?

      --
      X
    6. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because every source would have a unique "signature"; how long it lasts, how long it takes to build up, the peak amplitude, how long it takes to decay, the shape of the decay curve, whether it repeats, occurs only once or is random.

    7. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by khallow · · Score: 2

      Is it more likely that there is a magic unobservable substance that makes our models correct or that our models need tuning?

      Yes.

    8. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a bad thing to be extra cautious around buzz words.

      Dark matter isn't a buzz word, at least not to the people who are actually trying to discover if it exists, and what it is. It's a hypothesis, or a class of hypotheses.

      Dark Matter feels like a fudge factor for our ability to observe the universe or our models of it.

      You could say that about anything that was hypothesised before it was confirmed - the atomic nucleus, photons, quantum mechanics.

      Hey, these numbers don't add up- just stick in another variable.

      And then see if the new model is a better match for observations, work out if there are any other consequences of the new variable, search for experimental evidence of those consequences... AKA science.

      Is it more likely that there is a magic unobservable substance that makes our models correct or that our models need tuning?

      That the model needs tuning is already given, because we've got observations that the model can't explain, so there's no "or" about it. The "magic unobservable substance" seems to be the best explanation anyone's been able to come up with so far.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coming from *outside* the galaxy, which is where dark matter is believed to exist.

      No, dark matter is expected to permeate the galaxy and there are some specific radial distributions that are determined by how much the dark matter interacts with itself and the matter in the galaxy. While there would be a lot of dark matter outside of the visible matter in a galaxy based on things like gravitational lensing, that doesn't mean it is exclusively there, especially since things like the rotation curve problem actually require dark matter within a star's orbit in many cases.

    10. Re:What, what? Something's wrong here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably because they're better qualified in physics than you are.

      Perhaps they are qualified in physics but clearly not so in astronomy or astrophysics. Anyone qualified in either of those fields would know better that to jump to such an absurd conclusion. Reality check: Dark matter lies *outside* concentrations of regular matter, such as galaxies.

  9. Re:Anatomically Correct! by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

    You sound like the kind of guy who goes around the neighborhood putting penises on all the snowmen.

    That's a lot better than the guy who goes around putting a penis in all the snowmen...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  10. Re:Anatomically Correct! by shaitand · · Score: 0

    *sings softly* Do you want to build a snowman? Come on let's build a snowman.

  11. It's the Archaens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the leftover Singularity formation zones from the Archaen/Kelvin war and their use of Omega Particles.
    It's all Explained in Star Trek Oddesy!

  12. These were not the x-rays you were looking for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah fuck it anything will do.

  13. All of it? by PPH · · Score: 1

    The decay of sterile neutrinos is thought to produce X-rays, so the research team suspects these may be the dark matter particles responsible for the mysterious signal coming from Andromeda and the Perseus cluster.

    Would these sterile neutrinos be all the dark matter that models hypothesize? Or only one subset of it?

    Unless the decay rate is very low, the x-ray flux from something that makes up the majority of the matter in our universe could cook everything nearby.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Well, get used to it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real science is not only hard and expensive...to most people it is largely incomprehensible. Pop-Sci websites capitalize on this fact. Since there is money in it, you can count on there being plenty more of it.

  15. Not a dark matter signal by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's black sheep, in an interstellar coal mine, with dark matter flashlights.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: Not a dark matter signal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an app for darklight-flashlight?

  16. Re:enoughof this bullshit aready by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Says AC so inept that he cannot begin a sentence with a capitalized word, actually spell "dark matter" or end his sentence with a period.

    Not to mention it's a bloody AC who has indicated no level of expertise in physics or cosmology.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  17. Asstronomy by Tablizer · · Score: 0

    Astronomer A: "Do you see anything in the telescope eyepiece?"

    Astronomer B: "Nope. Nothing."

    Astronomer A: "Yaaay! That means WE discovered Dark Matter!"

    Astronomer B: "So, do we get a Nobel?"

    Astronomer A: "It already came. Didn't you see it?"

    Astronomer B: "Nope."

    Astronomer A: "That's because it arrived in a Dark Box."

    1. Re:Asstronomy by colinb8 · · Score: 1

      That post, especially the first three lines:
      Astronomer A: "Do you see anything in the telescope eyepiece?"
      Astronomer B: "Nope. Nothing."
      Astronomer A: "Yaaay! That means WE discovered Dark Matter!"
      could almost have come from a 1950s British radio comedy series "The Goon Show", which might - or might not - mean anything on the western side of the Atlantic: Wikipedia says NBC broadcasted it from the mid-1950s, and that it exercised a considerable influence on the subsequent development of British and American comedy and popular culture, for example the Beatles, Monty Python, and the American comedy team The Firesign Theatre. An example of the writing is the piece of paper" sketch.

  18. They didn't find dark matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it doesn't exist.

  19. Re:enoughof this bullshit aready by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    You keep saying that and the next 10' x 10' room will have 50,000 orcs with uzis in it (and a chest with 3 copper pieces).

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  20. Re:enoughof this bullshit aready by Mr.CRC · · Score: 1

    For all we know, it could have been Stephen Hawking behind that AC.

  21. Answer a question, mmell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's it like getting your ass kicked by apk + downmodding to hide it 20x http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?