Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Physicists Build Donut-Shaped Magnet To Find 'Ghost-Like' Dark Matter Particle (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: One of the central puzzles in particle physics is discovering what particle (or particles!) makes up dark matter — the form of matter that is responsible for 85 percent of the mass in the known universe. Some physicists believe searching for a hypothetical particle known as an "axion" could lead to a better understanding of dark matter and to hunt for it, a team of U.S. physicists have recently designed and tested a basketball-sized, donut-shaped apparatus that can seek it out.

It has been believed that axions may be detectable by looking at an unusual type of neutron star known as a "magnetar". These small, erupting stars create some of the most powerful magnetic fields in the universe. Because of their giant magnetic power, axions would be converted to radio waves in the presence of the magnetar -- and thus, detectable by telescopes on Earth. That strange cosmic phenomenon inspired theoretical physicists to create the impressively-named ABRACADABRA experiment (the full name is "A Broadband/Resonant Approach to Cosmic Axion Detection with an Amplifying B-field Ring Apparatus" so the theorists deserve a round of applause for that backcronym). The experiment consists of a donut (or "toroid") shaped device, dangled in a freezer just above absolute zero and fine-tuned to create its own magnetic field. If axions exist, the magnetic field in the middle of the donut could reveal them. The study has been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.

154 comments

  1. Could it be? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

    The FARGate? Completely legally different than StarGate?

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    1. Re:Could it be? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      There's no way it came from that movie, or that syndicated series based on the movie.

    2. Re:Could it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wormhole X-Treme!

    3. Re: Could it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like the thing that will get every kook and crazy walking the planet all hot and bothered.

      Bonus for throwing in 'scary' terms like "ghost particles", this will ensure that the nutjobs will be flaking out over this.

      I'm wondering if scientists ever stop and think about the social reprecussions before excitedly shouting about these kinds of projects from the rooftops.

  2. Mmmm... Doghnuts! by Just+A+Gigolo · · Score: 0

    Preferably with prezels.

    1. Re:Mmmm... Doghnuts! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grlrlrhrlrllhlrhlll

  3. "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's responsible for 85% of the mass of the known Universe, but we can't seem to find any. Yes, you in the back? No, there's no way we're mistaken, next question?

    1. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Nobel Prize is up for grabs to anyone who can come up with a testable idea that does a quantitatively better job of reconciling theory and measurement. That's why some of the smartest people in the world are working on it. Why don't you step in and best them all?

    2. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't need to know the answer to recognize hand waving and wishful thinking when I see it. I can produce an incorrect proof that P = NP, does that mean you can't criticize it if you don't have a valid proof to the contrary?

    3. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      If your proof that P = NP is incorrect but not yet independently identified, or had found a fault. But your proof is more of a Postulate or a Theorem.

      One can still criticize a proof even if they cannot produce a counter proof. Because your proof isn't the final outcome but the steps to get to that point.
      I don't have you discredit your Poof of P = NP by proving that P != NP but by going threw the steps in your poof, finding the error in your logic, often making an assumption or muddying the proof with other methods such as "Proof by intimation" by often stating something like "It is now obvious to anyone with a half a brain that from point A we now lead to point C."

       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by ThePyro · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't be so quick to dismiss dark matter! We have good reasons to speculate about the existence of a particle which doesn't normally interact with electromagnetic fields. In the example above, huge clusters of galaxies collided with each other and the ordinary matter slowed down as a result of the collision, but gravitational lensing suggests that the center of mass (i.e. dark matter) got separated during the collision. It's not a slam dunk, but it's an interesting result that suggests there's more going on than just an incomplete model of gravity.

    5. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, you keep saying the evidence is wrong, yet you also keep not explaining all the evidence, which is why everyone will keep ignoring you.

      If you are going to keep making claims like 4 = 7 and that the night sky isn't dark and the CMB doesn't exist, you simply need to explain how all of those can be true when literally every single last test of those show them to be false.

      Why is it you claim every point in the night sky is as bright as the sun, when anyone can simply look up to see that isn't true?
      Because that is a consequence of ignoring the laws of physics you just claimed are wrong, that is in fact what you are saying.

      Why is it every electromagnetic sensor detects the CMB when you claim it doesn't exist?
      Because that is a consequence of ignoring the existence of gravity as you just claimed.

      You keep pretending "dark matter" is some proposed solution to a problem.
      "Dark matter" is the observation. You can't just make up shit like what we see isn't what we see.

      In fact, what is in your head that you think we are "mistaken" about? There are ZERO claims made stating "what we observe is ___" to be correct or incorrect, no claims even exist!

      Try understanding something for once in your life.

    6. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since this is Slashdot, I'll throw in a car analogy, in the time-honored tradition.

      You can see my car, a good distance away on level ground. It seems to be moving away from you. With more observations, you can tell it's not just moving, but actually picking up speed.

      Since the ground certainly seems level, and you don't see anything else around, it's a safe assumption that my car does indeed have an engine, and someone's driving it away from you.

      Now, the problem is that engine doesn't actually create any power. It just transfers the energy from its fuel, so it's also a safe assumption that my car has a fuel tank (or batteries, if electric), and that's providing the energy for the acceleration.

      Now back to dark matter...

      Galaxies don't have engines or fuel tanks, but we've recently confirmed that they are actually accelerating... and far more than makes sense for the amount of mass and energy we've seen. To use another car analogy, it's like having a horse-drawn cart keeping up with a race car... It's enough to suggest something really fishy is going on.

      When something fishy happens in astrophysics, it means either our formulas or our models are wrong. Since our formulas seem to be correct everywhere else, we've started looking for this "dark matter" stuff, under the suspicion that it might hold the energy we're looking for... like finding rockets hidden under the bottom of the horse-drawn cart.

      It is still possible that our formulas are wrong... but to match other experiments' results, they'd have to be off by an extremely small amount in some cases, and extremely large amounts in other cases. That means not just a tweak to a scalar value somewhere, but restructuring equations entirely...and we'd still need some kind of reason for the discrepancy. Draft horses don't run at race car speeds, and if they did, they wouldn't look like draft horses.

      Looking for dark matter and the dark energy it caries is actually the simpler solution. The theory fits well with our existing observations, and doesn't require completely overhauling our understanding of how the universe works. If we keep running experiments like the one in TFA and finding nothing, we'll start the huge undertaking to figure out what else might be happening, but for now this is the sensible approach.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    7. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can the claim that 85% of the universe is made of stuff we haven't yet isolated not be a valid criticism of the logic behind the dark matter hypothesis? Certainly if I claimed there were unicorns in my sock drawer turning them inside out, you would criticize the mental leap required to create the unicorns even if I could point to some socks that were inside out? "But the unicorn theory neatly explains the socks being turned inside out. Until you have a better theory you cannot criticize this." Sure.

    8. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not disputing that the observations are what they are, just that trying to explain these observations with the modern equivalent of phlogiston is making the same mistake yet again. We should be looking for the truth rather than doggedly insisting that the truth must conform to some crude metaphor (e.g., "dark matter").

    9. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but, if there were also unicorn poop in the drawer I might have to take your theory seriously.

    10. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We've discovered a bunch of particles in the past 50 years, why is it wishful thinking to assume that there might be more?

    11. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dark Matter hasn't been proven yet. However its hypothesized nature does fit into the mathematical models of the trended data of the observed universe.
      Right now with our understanding of gravity and the universe expansion it would seem that we need more mass then what is observable. Could it be something different, yes. But the point of this article, is try to find ways to detect this "Dark Matter" where we then can either show that it does exist and now it is observable (no longer being dark matter) we can study it further and see if its properties does indeed help fill out all the number to match our models.

      If we see that n^2 = 9 n will be equal to 3 or -3, both fit the model. However chances are it will be 3 not -3 as positive values are more common then negative ones.
      This isn't good enough to pass a math test, however if we are going to make a model of the universe, we should pick the more common and simplest answer then trying to explain the more complex model.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How on Earth is this idiotic response marked Insightful????

    13. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by greythax · · Score: 2

      There are billions of WHOLE PLANETS we can not directly "see" yet, and you have a problem with the idea that there might be some widely diffuse clouds of exotic matter that we can't identify? Wow, you have a lot of faith in telescopes without much in the people who made those telescopes.....

    14. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its easy.
      Velocity is kW per oscillation.
      W is smaller near tight bound matter.
      As matter becomes less dense. W is longer.
      So as matter spreads out W increases and velocity appears to increase.

      Pity Im on holiday I have a full model of this now. Dark matter is not needed for it.

    15. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Dark Matter hasn't been proven yet. However its hypothesized nature does fit into the mathematical models of the trended data of the observed universe.

      But this is no surprise because the nature of Dark Matter are made to fit into the mathematical models. Dark Matter is "invented" to fill the gaps.

    16. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the absence of unicorn poop, we can safely assume that unicorns don't poop. See what I did there?

    17. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppose that we find bite marks in the Amazon rainforest that cannot be explained by a known species. Researchers think that this is evidence of a cat-sized unknown species, and are launching an expedition to find it. You're basically saying "I don't doubt the measurements, but it's crazy to hope for an unknown species given that unicorns and centaurs turned out not to exist. People should look for another explanation I-don't-know-what but something else!"

    18. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not disputing that the observations are what they are,

      Yes, you did, you did exactly that.

      Dark matter is the name given to the effects being observed. You explicitly stated those effects being observed don't exist and the observations are all mistaken.

      just that trying to explain these observations with the modern equivalent of phlogiston is making the same mistake yet again.

      Except that isn't what you said. Nor is anyone doing that.
      Ask any scientist trying to figure out what the cause of this is from. Each and every one will tell you they don't know. They have NO explanation.

      There are plenty of guesses, and those scientists making the guesses are busy coming up with ways to test those guesses and even having such tests done.

      But the only explanations you will hear are "that wasn't it" and "We don't know until we try testing this"

      We should be looking for the truth rather than doggedly insisting that the truth must conform to some crude metaphor (e.g., "dark matter").

      We must look for an explanation of the observations without insisting we see the observations in the first place? WTF?

      It's as if everyone that looked in the end of this pipe said "ow, that's bright!", then you come along and try and claim "the word bright doesn't explain what's in there, you are clearly mistaken that it is bright!"

      Why is it so hard to understand how names given to things works?

    19. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I don’t know the finer details of dark matter, but what I do know is that one of the very first questions posed about the existence of dark matter was whether it was just unaccounted ordinary matter. And further research said no it was not. And it wasn’t one team/person that verified this. Multiple teams in at least two ways have verified the numbers.

      Also using visible light isn’t the only technique cosmologists use. The EM spectrum consists of way more than human visible light.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and doesn't require completely overhauling our understanding of how the universe works.

      If I were to bet on precisely where we are getting this question wrong, this would be where I threw my money.

    21. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that planets are observed locally and made of ordinary baryonic matter which is easily detectable.
      Dark matter particles, if they exist, as far as we can tell only interact gravitationally.
      Understanding them is considerably more difficult as gravity is the weakest fundamental force.

    22. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no problem looking for the stuff, but at some point I expect an explanation for why none can be found anywhere.

    23. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I do love the idea our theories hold for all things - except for all things.

    24. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because it is 85% of the dimensions of a gravity wave approximately.

    25. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is that it's a bad name and bad names are bad because they confuse and distract. If the phenomenon were called something else - like discrepancy in observed gravitational forces on objects detected" (DOGFOOD) there is no issue at all. But calling it "dark matter" suggests it's a substance and implicitly constrains the ways of thinking about this. You can justify the ideas of luminiferous ether and the four humors using your same apology for dark matter: they are just names, they represent the facts that light propagates and people get sick, what do you mean light doesn't propagate and people don't get sick?!?! Those names were not merely harmless labels but represented fundamental errors in mental models that took a long time to correct. We need good metaphors to understand things. Dark matter is a bad metaphor. And it is a metaphor - hence why scientists use language like "85% of the universe is made of dark matter". Now, this might just be bad journalism - that wouldn't be the first time - but tomorrow's educated scientists are today's uneducated children, and when we prime them to subconsciously have misconceptions about things, it is more difficult to overcome those misconceptions.

      You might counter that, OK, we could call it DOGFOOD instead of dark matter, but the current consensus is that DOGFOOD is some kind of particle. Alright, great. Then where is the evidence that it's a particle? Normal particles are great because you can smear a bunch of them in a petri dish and look at them under a microscope. Quantum physics aside, particles are definite things that definitely exist in definite places. Is dark matter comprised of particles in the same sense? If so, show me the petri dish. If not, why call whatever DOGFOOD is made of particles?

    26. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone considered the mass of the turtles holding everything up? No? Where's my Nobel...

    27. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You might counter that, OK, we could call it DOGFOOD instead of dark matter, but the current consensus is that DOGFOOD is some kind of particle. Alright, great. Then where is the evidence that it's a particle? Normal particles are great because you can smear a bunch of them in a petri dish and look at them under a microscope. Quantum physics aside, particles are definite things that definitely exist in definite places. Is dark matter comprised of particles in the same sense? If so, show me the petri dish. If not, why call whatever DOGFOOD is made of particles?

      OK, if you feel it's a bad name then fine. I have no particular dog in that race.
      In fact you have at least one if not two generations of people behind you on that one, not wanting to use the word "dark" to reference something unknown.

      As for it being matter, this comes out of the Friedmann equations.
      "Matter" is something with an energy density that scales to the inverse cube (^ -3) of the universes scale factor.
      "Radiation" is the other option, which has an energy density that scales to the inverse forth power(^ -4) of the scale factor.

      The observations wouldn't exist if dark matter was only to the inverse power of -4, and we do observe it obeying scaling to the inverse cube.
      It also can't have the same density everywhere in space, since then it wouldn't interact with itself, and all observations show that it does. We also see this in the CMB, and we see it from gravitational lensing effects around galaxies.

      Short version, radiation wouldn't cause the observations, matter would. There aren't any other options to pick from.
      It also started out uniform and later clumped together, a property shared by 100% of all matter we see, from planets to stars to galaxies to filaments.

      As for if it is a *particle*, that only stems from the fact all of the matter we know is in the form of a particle, and we don't know if any matter that isn't a particle.
      Short version again, if it isn't a particle, what would it be? There are no other options we know of to pick from.

      I mean, we aren't even very sure about what gravity actually is at this point.
      Most think it should be a particle (graviton) but some think it is an attribute of the universe being manifested and not within it at all.
      If it turns out gravity isn't a particle, not to put words in anyones mouth, but I'd guess you would see nearly everyone more than willing to 'jump ship' and change the default assumption of what dark matter could be to that.

      But so far the universe has consistently behaved quantized when dealing with matter, and so would anything causing the dark matter effects we see. Like I said it's a default assumption and is for a very good number of reasons.

      It is far more logical to start going down the list of things we know are possible and rule them out before we start day dreaming about what has so far shown consistently to not be possible.

      Why start trying to rule out non-existent items on a non-existent list? When we have a perfectly good list of things that do exist to rule out from.

    28. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by swillden · · Score: 2

      and doesn't require completely overhauling our understanding of how the universe works.

      If I were to bet on precisely where we are getting this question wrong, this would be where I threw my money.

      The problem with this view is that it's completely unproductive. Okay, so you start by throwing out everything from Newton onwards? What do you replace it with? Something different, sure, but where do you even start to figure out what the shape of that replacement is? And in the meantime how do you calculate rocket trajectories, etc.? Well, obviously you have to continue using what you threw out, so you didn't actually throw it out, did you?

      No, the best bet is to continue using what we have that appears to work in all of the other cases and trying to fill in the holes. Maybe the effort to find dark matter and dark energy to explain the discrepancies won't work, but even if it doesn't, maybe the search will show us something else that begins to give us a clue about how to fix the models.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wants to replace it with the sense of himself being superior to anyone who actually studies this stuff. In other words, he wants to handwave away the entire idea of scientific research in favor of anti-intellectual dogma.

    30. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the answer.

    31. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But the idea that there is 85% of the universe that we can't detect comes from measurements that strongly hint that this may be true. We can't detect the unicorn but we can see the unicorn poop in your sock drawer. Alternate theories may be true if they can also explain the missing mass or the appearance of rainbow poop.

    32. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The theories point to there being something missing out there, and some form of matter that we can't yet detect is one idea that people are trying to test. Other idea may be true instead. However just rejecting the whole concept and claiming that what we currently know is the entirety of what there is means we have to rewind many decades of physics.

    33. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      125 years ago we couldn't detect electrons and they were only a theory. 51 years ago we hadn't detected any quarks and only theorized about their existence. So why today does it make sense for a lay person to put down their foot and say "it's nonsense!" when they hear about some other form of matter that we can't detect?

      Slightly apropos, the word "quark" in German is slang for "rubbish" or nonsense.

    34. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is still possible that our formulas are wrong... but to match other experiments' results, they'd have to be off by an extremely small amount in some cases, and extremely large amounts in other cases.

      Like Newton's second law.
      It's off by an extremely small amount in the cases when the speed is fairly slow but is off by an extremely large amount when we move close to light speed.

      - Peder

    35. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by thereddaikon · · Score: 2

      Dark Matter is merely the name given to the observation. It's not a theory stating that the universe is full of black stuff that's hard to see. There are many competing ideas on what exactly dark matter is. The possibility that we just have got gravity wrong again is one of them. Once we can account for the observations then it will no longer be called dark matter. It will be called something more appropriate.

      This is something that layman reporting on physics often does a poor job of explaining. It's often presented as Dark Matter is a specific thing and scientists have been spending years trying to find data to prove it. That's bad science and not at all how it works. The reality is, dark matter and dark energy are just placeholder terms for observed behavior of the universe and there are many possible causes for those observations. They've been spending the last 30 years going down the list and crossing the possibilities off with clever new experiments and ever better observations.

    36. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we were always right in the past and never had to rewind, it os the same this time, too.

    37. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some variants of MOND describe the observations quite nicely.

    38. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I can't find Unicorn glisters either!

    39. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Theories pointing to something missing is much less interesting than observations objectively showing that something is missing, which is what the Dark Matter phenomena is.

    40. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Bengie · · Score: 1

      It's not missing mass. We think it's missing matter because it's the only thing not moving at the speed of light that could explain the observed mass which has no corresponding matter.

    41. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they dont, they describe some observations but fail at others.

      Much the same way Flat Earth theory can describe some observations, but not others.

    42. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Slightly apropos, the word "quark" in German is slang for "rubbish" or nonsense.

      Any connection to "quark cheese" scraps? (Like maybe those bits of cheese were considered "rubbish", discardable?)

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    43. Re:"Dark" "Matter" by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      It sounds like you are talking about dark energy rather than dark matter. Dark energy is whatever it is that is accelerating the expansion of the galaxies away from each other. Dark matter is whatever is keeping galaxies gravitationally bound into themselves given the rates that we observe them spinning (at which rates the mass accounted for by visible matter would not be enough to keep all the stars in them from flying apart into intergalactic space).

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    44. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOND is not a theory. It is merely a law (i.e. an empirical fit to observations, with little predictive and no explanatory power). Pro tip: despite the popular misconception, theories do not grow up to become laws.

    45. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I do have a better theory: "you turned the socks inside out". I also have competing theories of equal validity "it was gnomes", "it was ghosts", "socks are motile but shy creatures who turn themselves inside out but only when not watched", and can ask why I should prefer yours over any of them. I can also question why you didn't just dump out the draw when questioned since the unicorns should fall out with the socks.

      With Dark Matter, by contrast we started with a well verified model of howe gravity works over short distances and a wild-ass-guess about how much matter there is in a galaxy and found that the model didn't work to predict the motion of starts and galaxies with those inputs. So given a well verified model and a wild guess of an input we figured the wild guess might be wrong and calulated what value would be needed to make the model work. It turned out that (1) such a value did in fact exist (if gravity didn't work the way we think over long distances that's unlikly) and (2) that value was really big.

      Since then we have in fact found that our estimates of basically all kinds of non-luminous matter were low-balled and there's a lot more planets, gas clouds, black holes, brown dwarves, etc out there than expected. Just nowhere near enough to explain the entire figure.

      Meanwhile, while looking for various things that might account for all the "missing matter" we observed a lot of evidence that there is in fact something producing gravity without behaving much like normal matter. The most famous observation being the bullet-cluster which we can't explain with "normal" matter. When extrapolating what kind of matter could explain those observations we get varios theoretically possible particles that share the property of not interacting much with electromagnetism, which makes them really hard to detect (because literally all out senses and sensing technology works on electromagnetism).

      So back to the sock drawer:
      If you could demonstrate filling the drawer with only right-side-out socks, closing it, and reopening it to reveal some portion of the socks are now "inside out". You would have evidence of something turning your socks inside out and as the discoverer you'd probably get to name it "unicorns" if you wanted. And THEN you would have a scenario that is somewhat analogous to Dark Matter, as you have an observable phenomenon so even if the actual nature of it is unclear.

    46. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Equations are pointing to something missing. No one just made this shit up.

    47. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black Holes. Lots of them.

    48. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we havenâ(TM)t detected a dark matter particle, we can see standard matter moving under the influence of its gravity. The Bullet Cluster is perhaps the most compelling direct evidence. We have particles that have more or less interactions with all the quantum fields, dark particles are just particles theorized to have very little interaction with the electric and magnetic fields. Similar to how photons donâ(TM)t interact with the Higgs field and therefore is massless. So we have examples of particles not interacting with all the fields, so since theoretical particle that doesnâ(TM)t interact with electric and magnetic fields would explain our observations dark matter is a pretty safe bet. It is just unfortunately, by definition, very difficult to catch one.

      https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

    49. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is light a particle or wave?

      It's not as simple as you are making it. And we don't have a better name than "dark matter" at this time. It's not a single point of measurement anomaly; it shows up in a few areas where we are basically missing something. That something appears to have some mass like properties but we haven't been able to measure the other aspects that should also clearly be there for it to be a mass. BTW, "dark" here means unmeasurable, unseen, invisible....

    50. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True true. Pass me a bottle of gravity and space-time please.

      We can see those effects and take them into account but we don't really know what the mechanism is beyond "it warps space-time". Demonstrably true but we can't seem to see it.

      Just it's effects... We think. Or our understanding of both is flawed and a new idea will come about.

    51. Re: "Dark" "Matter" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOND in the context of Dark Matter has been fundamentally proven false. There is no version of MOND that will work.

  4. LOL ... wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That strange cosmic phenomenon inspired theoretical physicists to create the impressively-named ABRACADABRA experiment (the full name is "A Broadband/Resonant Approach to Cosmic Axion Detection with an Amplifying B-field Ring Apparatus" so the theorists deserve a round of applause for that backcronym).

    I would say that is a truly epic backronym -- someone spent some time on this one, probably because they knew their grant proposal would be in trouble is someone had to read that mouthful.

    Though, it's not a nested acronym, I always like those much more.

    I saw one about 25 years ago which was nested in a few places, moreso once we pointed out that things like laser were themselves acronyms ... a couple of us geekier people drew out the parse tree for it, and it ended up being about 4 levels deep and about 50 words in total.

    We left it on the whiteboard for a while, and occasionally someone would try to recite the whole thing without looking like some big giant physics tongue twister. :-P

    1. Re:LOL ... wow ... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      The really odd thing is that it wasn't a backcronym. The researchers just happened to get lucky with the name.

  5. The Axion Axiom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't go chasing axions, because they don't exist.

  6. Donut shaped? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We were freshman in IIT, having passed JEE, head high in the clouds, top 1000 All India Rank, all the orientation speakers calling us creme-de-la-creme of India. First Chemistry 101 class. Reading ahead for the class, our study group found there are some electron orbital stuff, n orbital, p orbital etc. One of them was described to be doughnut shaped. All of us were stumped. We did not know what a doughnut was or what it would look like.

    Then one from our study group found an American chemistry text book with pictures. It spelled doughnut as donut, but had a picture. We exclaimed, "It is a damned torus! Why wouldn't they call it a torus? Why use this weird thing donut/doughnut". In the class Prof PJ Narayanan said, "... it says doughnut in the text book. Doughnut is like a vada but it is sweet not savoury, they make in the West..."

    If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Donut shaped? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Is it really that important in which foreign language the thing is described? At least the English language isn't dead, no matter how much it gets tortured by each new generation ;).

    2. Re:Donut shaped? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Torus is an English word. It has origins in Latin. But it is a very legitimate English word.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well this discussion just went pear shaped

    4. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, sniff, whine.

      Slashdot is an American site. Not an Indian one. Don't you have the equivalent kind of geek news over there that uses your own idioms?

    5. Re:Donut shaped? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is street food. Very popular. Lentil batter deep fried in oil. You will find it in almost all Indian restaurants. Garnishing would differ. Traditional South Indians serve vada with a couple of sauces (sambhar and chutney) on the side. North Indians serve it as the patty in a sandwich, called vada-pav.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to have to look for this. Sounds delicious.

    7. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1


      If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

      Most people know what a donut is, and don't know what a torus is. Super-nerds seem to often suffer from this disease where they think everyone else is a super-nerd. They can't imagine that not everyone knows what a torus is, or that even other nerds might not know what a torus is. Most people here are computer related, and the torus shape just doesn't come up that often.

      Language should be descriptive and open to everyone, not overly technical. It's nice that you're a super-nerd from India, but most of the rest of the english speaking world knows what a donut is.

    8. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is how you get to be in the tippy top percentile and not already have exposure to SPDF orbitals, etc..

      Did anyone notice that the OP said n-orbitals, which aren't a thing? n is the principle quantum number, but it isn't a type of orbital.

      This screams troll.

    9. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But most doughnuts are filled, and so are not toroidal. The the only doughnuts that are tori are ring doughnuts so called because of their ring (or torus) shape. At which point you're just saying this ring shaped thing is the same shape as a ring doughnut - which seems kind of redundant.

      On a side note I knew a girl named Tori, but I wasn't lucky enough to find out what she tasted of.

    10. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      you torus a new one

    11. Re:Donut shaped? by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 1

      If you're going to write Donut's, why didn't you also write Mind's?

    12. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most donuts are filled?

      Buddy, you ever BEEN to a donut shop?

      Statistically, most are missing that middle part. We use special terms to deisgnate the non-toroidal ones.

    13. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fella, describe that n orbital to me again.

      Strange textbooks you had. Especially seeing as you ought to know better, having the benefit of, you know, being Future You who has presumably learned all this stuff already.

    14. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a donut you filthy idiot

    15. Re:Donut shaped? by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      If you say "torus", too many Americans will think you are hitting on the them or talking about an old Ford sedan (Taurus). Besides, I can't imagine that a torus tastes as good as a doughnut.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
    16. Re:Donut shaped? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And Dark Matter is like a ghost.

      Every so often /. editors post shit to elicit outrage comments rather than topical one. Eyeballs are eyeballs; advertisers don't care.

      The readers fall for it hook, line, and sinker every time.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been here long enough. We know it, and they know it, and we all support it.

      And it pays the bills. Shhh, don't tell the advertisers.

    18. Re: Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Traditionally, most donuts were not ringed but were in fact filled, usually with cream or fruit. The reason for the filling was that there was usually some uncooked dough at the center. Then someone came up with the idea of taking out the center to start with.

    19. Re:Donut shaped? by timere969 · · Score: 1

      We were freshman in IIT, having passed JEE, head high in the clouds, top 1000 All India Rank, all the orientation speakers calling us creme-de-la-creme of India. First Chemistry 101 class. Reading ahead for the class, our study group found there are some electron orbital stuff, n orbital, p orbital etc. One of them was described to be doughnut shaped. All of us were stumped. We did not know what a doughnut was or what it would look like.

      Then one from our study group found an American chemistry text book with pictures. It spelled doughnut as donut, but had a picture. We exclaimed, "It is a damned torus! Why wouldn't they call it a torus? Why use this weird thing donut/doughnut". In the class Prof PJ Narayanan said, "... it says doughnut in the text book. Doughnut is like a vada but it is sweet not savoury, they make in the West..."

      If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

      It is the ghost-like that got me. What are the actual properties of a ghost? Sheet like with holes for eyes?

    20. Re:Donut shaped? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      A torus?

      A torus is the folk who walk aroun an take photos of stuff an eat at yer local restraunt and thing... Usully show up on big ol bus and wear funny shorts an hats.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:Donut shaped? by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I think they use that term to make sure that everybody knows about donuts. It's a public service.

      You have learned something new, enjoy!

    22. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If slashdot is going to call itself "news for the nerds" the least it can do is to call that shape by its proper name, a torus.

      Fuck you and your cultural sensitivity. It's a donut, it's always a donut, and anyone who doesn't like it can go to naraka.

    23. Re: Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You go to all these lengths to explain your genius, top 1000 all rank india, yet you're too dumb to use a dictionary. Typical indians. It really does explain why indian coworkers are the worst.

    24. Re: Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donuts are shaped like methu veda

    25. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I'm hearing is "India's best minds fail to comprehend pastry".

    26. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My usual comment regarding CHILD MOLESTING IMPERSONATOR COWARDS applies here. Please shut the fuck up if you aren't willing to speak under your real name. Oh, that's right, your name is Chester the Molester!

      — the pathetic living punchline that is impersonating gerald butler

    27. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzt! Thank you for playing! You assume much! But, that just makes and ASS out of U, but, not ME! Dumbass! Go back to your mother's basement you cowardly pedophile and stop diddling children. If I catch you fucking around with children again, I'll cave your fucking skull in with a hammer you worthless prick. Yes, I am Gerald Edward Butler (real name). I am not a coward squealing in the corner like your faggoty, SJW, MAGA, child molesting, fuck-tard piece of shit that you are.

      — the pathetic living punchline that calls itself gerald butler

    28. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sure have a preoccupation with anus and pedophiles. what's up with that?

    29. Re:Donut shaped? by sheramil · · Score: 1

      A torus comes after Aries and before Gemini.

    30. Re:Donut shaped? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Is that light coming torus or movin away?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    31. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah...you have discovered our Western secret. We cannot allow everyone to understand our science and technology, so we use secret words that only we (and the creme-de-la-creme of other countries) can understand.

    32. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I can't post as my name (limited to 2 posts due to shit-bags like you not liking what I have to say):

      I am:

      Gerald E. Butler
      2807 Summit Road
      Copley, Ohio 44321

      You are garbage. I oppose you. You are the enemy. I will work towards passing laws to make you illegal and subject to execution. You are garbage. WE are coming for you coward. Now, post your name and address if you aren't a coward, but, you won't because you are a cowardly pedophile and you know it.

      Piece of worthless garbage. Just fucking kill yourself!

      — the pathetic living punchline that is impersonating gerald butler

    33. Re:Donut shaped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weak

  7. Not Theorists! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Theorists develop the underlying theory of physics by suggesting extensions to existing laws to solve problems or by calculating what existing laws predict for given situations. These physicists have built, and are running, an experiment. They are collecting and analysing the data to test a theoretical prediction of a new model of physics which makes them experimentalists, not theorists.

  8. Not dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not Dead yet...

  9. Arxiv version of paper by As_I_Please · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the pre-print on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.106...

    The primary result in this paper is the validation of the experimental design using a scaled-down version. From the paper:

    ABRACADABRA-10 cm represents the first step in an experimental search program, which aims to ultimately be sensitive to ADM in the coupling range preferred by QCD axions. Future phases of ABRACADABRA will require larger magnets with higher fields, improved shielding, and strong mitigation of mechanical vibration. Augmenting the techniques described here with a resonant amplification readout and scan strategy will also greatly improve the sensitivity of a future full scale ABRACADABRA detector. We have already begun engineering studies towards designing and building such a detector and ABRACADABRA-10 cm creates a strong foundation for this ongoing work.

  10. Right. That's the point. The name is bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was arguing like you.
    It took me a loong time to get through the nonsense. Nobody could give me an acceptable answer. Only smug clueless dicks. (See above.)

    The answer: The *name* is shit!
    In reality, the whole point is, that we measure something we did not predict, and that hence we are wrong! That amount that we are wrong by, had to get a name. And *stupidly* they chose "dark matter" /"dark energy"!
    "Dunno" would have probably even be a better name.

    So you are exactly right. We are wrong. *Very* wrong.
    And what we are trying to find, is what that stuff is, that we measured.

    And yes, we check time and time again if our measurements are simply wrong.
    Because basically, scientists are like you: They loove pointing out our errors! :) Especially systemic/methological ones. Those are the best! :)

    1. Re: Right. That's the point. The name is bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a shitty variable name nor are scientists "wrong".

      It's like looking at Venus and saying, in order to maintain its orbit and velocity, it must have mass X. However per the observation of its volume, we conclude that it would be more dense than a neutron star. But other observations don't show that to be possible. So now we have a problem, other than the gravitational behavior on the rest of the sol system, we can't tell where this additional gravity comes from. And the other planets' orbits and density calculations measure up fine. And further physical testing on Earth, Moon, and Mars back that up.

      What the frig would you call this "?" in the equation that is apparently 0 for all but the one plant? What part of this is "wrong"?

  11. Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    don't know what a torus is

    Torus is made by Ford.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Oblig. Bad Car Analogy by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      What?! Why would anyone magnetize a Ford Torus? For the crusher? /ducks

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  12. Tell us the acronym!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're *killing* us here!

    1. Re:Tell us the acronym!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's HOCUS-POCUS! RTFA.

  13. Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is one of those physicists named Homer, by any chance?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Mmmmmmm . . . donuts *drools*

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, Flanders.

    3. Re:Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Is one of those physicists named Homer, by any chance?

      You jest, eh? The physicist is named T. Horton, you hoser.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    4. Re:Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      That would be the same joke, kind of.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Physicists build donut-shaped magnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Donuts...is there anything they can't do?"

          __&__
         /     \
        |       |
        |  (o)(o)
        C   .---_)
         | |.___|
         |  \__/
         /_____\
        /_____/ \
        /         \

  14. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer doesn't have room for a filing cabinet in his 450 square foot closet
    all his videos look like they're filmed in bin laden's cave
    minus the women

  15. Why not both? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could be the former for their "day job", and do this as a fun practical project.

  16. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny. Creimer has a filiing cabinet in 2009.

  17. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "has" in 2009? there you go again with your time-travelling tenses chris
    have you ever figured out if the childhood abuse or a genetic problem is the cause for your inability to understand time
    and what is a "filiing" cabinet
    and how many web presences do you need you jiggling puffed-up narcissist
    even donald trump doesn't have as many websites as you
    you triple-chinned menace to intelligence

  18. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am well and truly baffled.

    Memes aside, you really must love this cdreimer guy. I mean, do you remember what your girlfriend's apartment looked like a decade ago?

  19. Because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid is as stupid does...

  20. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He never had a girlfriend - unless you count an inflatable doll and a jar of petroleum jelly as as "Girlfriend".

  21. ABRACADABRA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coolest acronym I've seen in a while. Clever!

  22. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    chris

    I'm not creimer. I'm the Random AC who keeps trolling you for the random ass comments you post about creimer.

    there you go again with your time-travelling tenses

    and what is a "filiing" cabinet

    I wrote in "creimerism" to get you trigger.

    even donald trump doesn't have as many websites as you

    Donald Trump has 500+ corporations to hide his money laundering operations for the Russians.

    you triple-chinned menace to intelligence

    Your random ass comments are not? ROFL!

  23. Hang on... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    How does having a frozen magnetic field here let you detect the conversion of a thing that may or may not exist into radio waves god only knows how many light years away?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Hang on... by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      The axion was a particle postulated to answer the question of why strong interactions, those between quarks, conserve charge-parity. If it exists it would have detectable properties. The range of its mass, and the fact it could be changed into a photon by a strong enough magnetic field.

      Even without considering it a candidate for dark matter, it would be a huge experimental breakthrough for QCD (quantum chromodynamics, our most useful model of quarks and their interactions) theory to find the particle or to confirm it doesn't exist.

  24. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creimertards often pine away about having gay sex with creimer. They are still mad at him for leaving Slashdot for YouTube.

  25. Great object by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP for the acronym - brilliant! But you won't find it because it isn't a particle - unless you have to, then you will, of course. It is a bit of denser space but not dense enough to be a particle. The only thing that came out of the beginning is space in different densities.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Great object by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the acronym was just meant as a warning to axions that the apparatus wants to reach out and grab ya.

  26. Re:scientists baffled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    creimer will soon see another donut-shaped magnet
    in the mri machine after his obesity-induced multiple-organ-failure

  27. "donut-shaped" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gosh, I wished there would be a word for "donut-shaped", like toric or toroidal or something...

  28. Virtual particles use a different metric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why must virtual particles use the same metric as non-virtual particles? Why must they scale the same way?

    To give a car analogy - the topology (road) you see the car on looks flat to you. However, the topology that the virtual particles see is different. Even more significantly the metrics aren't even the same between the two.

    1. Re:Virtual particles use a different metric by PPH · · Score: 1

      the topology (road) you see the car on looks flat to you

      So it's dark matter making it pull to the right?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  29. that's amazing by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I didn't know magnets can detect math errors causes by not knowing how gravity and space really work? Need I remind everyone that no dark matter has ever ACTUALLY been detected in any way, shape, or form (pun intended)

    1. Re:that's amazing by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      The bullet cluster would like a word with you.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  30. Torus vs. Do(ugh)nut... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

    The issue is that the term "torus" has only entered the mainstream public vernacular in fairly recent days. The branch of math that refers to them primarily is Topology. They are referenced, defined and used in general Geometry, but aren't particularly important shapes because there are few examples of Torii in the physical universe. Do(ugh)nuts, Tires,and other things like life preserver/rescue rings make up most of the examples of that shape in the real world. There just are't that many. So, unless you were a Geometry or Topology math wonk you probably didn't know about Torii. Branches of math that use them most have only been around since the early 20th century, so they are not very "main stream", even now at present unless you're a math student or professor you probably have not heard of or ever use the term "Torii" or "Torus".

    Now, Do(ugh)nuts have been around since 1847 according to the experts, so they have had nearly a 100 year head start on the public awareness of those delicious rings of fried dough. Hence, more people have heard of Do(ugh)nuts for quite a longer time than torii. Also they are called different things in different locales, sometimes they referred to their specialist examples, such as Crullers, Beneyets (sp?), Bear Claws, Sweet Rolls, Eclairs, Long Johns, Danish, Jelly Rolls, Bismarks, etc. Not all Do(ugh)nuts are Torii, and not all Torii are Do(ugh)nuts.

    Anyway, TL;DR is the "Torus" is a niche technical math term, whereas "Do(ugh)nuts" is a common bakery food term, so as such it's much more in the awareness of the mainstream public.

    --
    -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  31. find black cat in a dark room. by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    even a dougnut shaped magent won't help with finding a black cat in a dark room - when it's not there. Researchers tend to forget that a dark matter is nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination.

  32. You keep describing Aether. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just Aether. Go ahead, say it. Einstein is wrong, Tesla is right.

  33. April fools by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Today it gets hard to distinguish fundamental physics and April fools' jokes.

  34. Mmm by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    How about a magnet shaped donut instead. That ought to have some uses. Before I eat it.

  35. Nutjobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great, I wonder how many pseudoscientific conspiracy nutjob kooks will hear about this and flake out, or at least cry and fawn about how this will endanger lives, or it's going to be used for evil? Of course they will throw in the Anti-Christ, the CIA, vampires, and aliens for good measure

    I apologize, but I just had to deal with somebody very recently who was into all of the aformentioned bullshit. Two days ago, that person ended up going full on kook, and pulled a knife on somebody and threatened to kill him.