November 05, 2008

Evidence for the decay of dark matter? The Tevatron particle accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, has produced particles that the team was unable to explain by the known laws of physics: far more muons were created than were predicted from the collision of protons and anti-protons. More crucially, some of these muons seem to have been created OUTSIDE of the horizon of the metal beam pipe: leaving no trace inside. As a possible explanation, Weiner and Nima Arkani-Hamed of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and colleagues have developed a theory of dark matter that posits dark matter particles that interact among themselves by exchanging "force-carrying" particles with a mass of about 1 gigaelectronvolts. Moreover, the new CDF muons appear to have come from the decay of a particle with a mass of about 1 GeV. So was this a particle of dark matter?

A galactic collision has previously confirmed the existence of dark matter in the universe, but this new development might now confirm its existence and effectiveness here on earth... I'm excited by these findings, and hope that others here more knowledgeable than I will explain their implications. At the very least, we may be on the verge of doing more such experiments in the new Super Hadron Collider. One wonders if dark matter or energy can be harnessed somehow. What would Hank say?

posted by Dan Folkus 16 years ago
  • *Taps Babel Fish* Is this thing on?
  • This is interesting stuff, and the sort of thing I thought would be coming out of the LHC, not an already existing collider. I was one of those who for a long time was more than half-convinced that dark matter and dark energy were really nothing more than our generation's phlogiston, and the implications of real dark matter and dark energy are way beyond my comprehension, or at least my imagination.
  • *head asplodes* Good and fascinating stuff, but a bit wordy for the FP this early in the morning! After one more coffe, I should be good to digest this a bit more. Thanks for the post! *chews bagel with dark stuff on it*
  • As fast as light and smaller than a tiny little angstrom. Tell me please, if someone can, "Where did those muons come from?" It's good with metals, light and germs but science has been slow to explain to us (in simple terms), "Where do those muons go to?"
  • I am not a scientist, but to me there's something fundamentally unscientific about the tendency to bend, twist and distort theories to fit the latest experimental results. Dark matter and dark energy were originally 'invented' for this purpose, and now we're making every anomolous observation fit into this manufactured structure. When we uncover the real models and theories that explain our universe, we will know them by their simplicity and elegance. We're a long way from that.
  • ))) to ThinksTwice!
  • rocket88, you might like this AskMe thread, if you missed it the first time.
  • In other news today, Republicans based at the Large Hadron Collider unsuccesfully attempted to fire a smile at light speed directly into John McCain's face. However, researchers claimed they had enough data from the experiment for another four years of analysis.
  • Dark matter wins US election Unbridled joy for millions of Americans today, as experiments at the tevatron particle accelerator conclusively provide that the "dark matter" holding the universe together is actually Barack Obama. The result ends years of speculation over who the vast, unexplained force that preserves the universe in its current shape actually would be. Some theorists had posulated that the missing mass was actually some old white guy, but the Fermilab results establish that the old white guy just wasn't massive enough. "The answer was staring us in the face all this time," said a trembling, lab-coated nerd. "But we refused to let ourselves believe it was possible. But now - holy shit. It's Obama. Holy motherfucking shit. This is awesome."
  • You're going to hell, sir.
  • Congratulations, middleclasstool :)
  • I am not a scientist, but to me there's something fundamentally unscientific about the tendency to bend, twist and distort theories to fit the latest experimental results. I think science is mostly about looking at data and tweaking your model until it consistently predicts things.
  • Of course, it can always turn out that your model is crap and someone else found a better one.
  • I'd better drag out the Ouija board and summon the ghost of my old chemistry teacher to explain some of this to me...