GPS has a new job. It does a great job of telling us our location, but the network of hyper-accurate clocks in space could get a fix on something far more elusive: dark matter.
Dark matter makes up 80 per cent of the universe's matter but scarcely interacts with ordinary matter. A novel particle is the most popular candidate, but Andrei Derevianko ( http://www.dereviankogroup.com/dark-matter-atomic-clocks-idea-call-experimental-efforts/ ) at the University of Nevada, Reno, and Maxim Pospelov ( http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/people/maxim-pospelov ) at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada propose that kinks or cracks in the quantum fields that permeate the universe could be the culprit.
If they are right, fundamental properties such as the mass of an electron or the strength of electromagnetic fields would change at the kinks. "The effect is essentially locally modifying fundamental constants," Derevianko says. Clocks would be affected too, measuring time slightly differently as a result.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26575-dark-matter-could-be-seen-in-gps-time-glitches.html
[Abstract/Paper]:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.1244
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nphys3137.html
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @05:02AM
beep beep
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:58AM
So... are they measuring relativistic effects at non-relativistic speeds (~ 300km/s)? Or do they propose constants are not that constant at all? I don't believe the latter, that would be as esoteric as tachyons or pyramidology.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:21PM
First, strictly speaking the only non-relativistic speed is zero, because it is the only speed where the results of Newtonian Mechanics and Special Relativity don't differ (ignoring E=mc^2 which of course is a difference even at zero speed). A "nonrelativistic" speed is simply a speed where the relativistic effects are beyond the measurement limit.
Second, if you replace "constants that are not constant" with "quantities that we generally believe to be constant might turn out to vary slightly", is suddenly sounds a lot less silly.
And the nice things about science is: You don't have to believe it. They make predictions, and these predictions can be tested. Experiments will tell you whether they are right or wrong.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:24PM
Err .. .just after hitting "submit" I noticed that in the initial paragraph I omitted a crucial point: Namely that the measurement limit of course depends on how well you can measure. And so does therefore what can be considered "relativistic speed". Atomic clocks (such as those used in GPS) are very accurate measurement devices.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by Geezer on Tuesday November 18 2014, @10:38AM
Dark matter my arse. Where religion has "faith" to explain away a flawed ontology, QM has "dark matter" to magically explain its shortcomings.
I predict that someone/something (a physicist or advanced AI) will eventually solve the "missing matter" problem to everyone's satisfaction without resorting to a crutch like "special invisible juju matter".
(Score: 1) by PiMuNu on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:16AM
There are two reasonable models for the anomalous gravitational effects that have been observed in astrophysics.
1. There is some form of stable matter that has not yet been observed in collider experiments, because it interacts only via a very weak interaction such as gravity.
2. The laws of gravity are not understood properly by physicists.
You have a model bias in that you demand models to be reductionist in nature; you demand that new models must fit into the existing model without introducing new fundamental constants (in this case, presumably a new mass and other eigennumbers for the dark matter). This bias is fine, but in the end physics rules over your aesthetic preference for this model or that model. You should let the physics speak, and the experimentalists can attempt to observe (1).
Historical note: "special invisible juju matter" was discovered by Pauli in 1930. He made a quote like "I have done a terrible thing, I have postulated a particle that cannot be detected". The neutrino was observed 26 years later.
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:31AM
Pauli's yet-to-be-observed neutrino was postulated rather precisely, much like any other theoretical discovery awaiting experimental/observational confirmation. Basic good science, that.
My contention is that we have a system of understanding (QM) that remains incomplete and still leaves much to be fully understood (including gravity). At some point the math no longer avails, so we invent a whole new class of ill-defined, nondescript matter to explain it away like the tooth fairy? I politely assert that your Case 2 is likely closer to the actual state of things. :)
(Score: 1) by PiMuNu on Tuesday November 18 2014, @11:44AM
Let me paraphrase myself:
Case 1: some ill-defined, nondescript matter to explain it away like the tooth fairy.
Case 2: some ill-defined, nondescript physical law to explain it away like santa claus.
Take your pick. But don't rule out the tooth fairy because you think santa claus might exist...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @01:15AM
Dark matter was postulated in 1932, and we've got way better observation equipment available to us, and understanding of everything that we can observe, than we did in the 50s. Your quoted argument does not achieve what you intended it to.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by In hydraulis on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:20AM
So your issue is simply a matter of how long it takes to verify or alternatively disprove a hypothesis?
If so, what timeline would you find acceptable? Clearly 26 years is fine, as per the above example of the neutrino. How about 126?
Also, whatever number you set as the threshold, be sure to explain how your choice is not an arbitrary one.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @09:02AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by Open4D on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:16PM
Maybe, but it's not like physicists haven't considered the alternatives to dark matter. You can even read about that right here on SN: #50801 [soylentnews.org], #90458 [soylentnews.org].
Physicists aren't just trying to pretend that their theories are complete and sweep any inconsistencies under the carpet; they are actively trying to improve their understanding of the Universe, with dark matter the area that many (most?) of them think is likely to prove fruitful.
Further reading: the nine separate sub-sections under "Observational evidence" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday November 18 2014, @06:27PM
I put in bold the part giving away that you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 19 2014, @09:07AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday November 19 2014, @08:40PM
Nice try. But let me first quote the OP again, this time highlighting another word, showing why your claim, even if nothing else were questionable about it, would still be besides the point:
Dark matter was not introduced to fix a shortcoming of QM. It was introduced to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, which don't agree with the ones calculated using the gravitation of the observed matter. Those rotation curves have exactly nothing to do with QM (indeed, gravitation is the one force which up to now has no generally accepted quantum mechanical explanation).
But you're not only completely besides the point, you're also factually wrong. DM is not a proposal to extend the SM. DM is the proposal of additional matter in the universe which we cannot see. There are two main proposals for DM: MACHOs (which don't need an extension of the standard model) and WIMPs (that's the additional particles).
But even if we take only WIMPs, it is still wrong that SM extensions are proposed specifically for dark matter. That's not necessary, since people have been trying to extend the SM for completely different reasons, and when going past the standard model, there always appear extra particles, some of which happen to be perfect candidates for dark matter.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @09:50PM
No.
Quantum Theory does not have Dark Matter or Dark Energy. You are confusing Quantum Theory with Cosmology. It is at the large scales of galaxies and larger structures where the notions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy were introduced. These guys just propose methods for measuring these things locally.
Furthermore, there is nothing that fundamentally requires our "constants" to remain so in the cosmological scale. Perhaps these constants are less constant than we believe.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:15AM
I vote for gravitational bubbles which last I checked would solve the math AND not require any funky matter. Basically what it is is that a multiverse would naturally have your big planets, your small planets, and your supermassive planets, just like what we have, right? Well if there IS a multiverse then the gravity from massive objects would most likely "bleed over" in ways that would affect our universe...what we now list as dark matter.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 18 2014, @01:39PM
Nobody talks about the side effects of the experiment? Too bad. Basically you're building a massive passive radar system. Cool. You're going to have to "correct" for stuff like meteor scatter and the effect of solar flares and ionospheric "stuff" and maybe drones and spy satellites. Anything that isn't the impedance of vacuum is going to distort the signals and need to be corrected, with the theoretical result you'll have something uncorrectable, aka dark matter.
However the correction data is highly likely to be more fascinating than the probable null result. In this way its a worthy project even if the goal is likely going to fail.
Its like "angels dancing on the head of a pin" is not really a complete waste of time if it results in electron microscopes as a tool to study the theoretical angels on pins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @07:30AM
... But if we laugh with derision, we will never understand. Human
intellectual capacity has not altered for thousands of years so far as
we can tell. If intelligent people invested intense energy in issues
that now seem foolish to us, then the failure lies in our understanding
of their world, not in their distorted perceptions. Even the standard
example of ancient nonsense -- the debate about angels on pinheads --
makes sense once you realize that theologians were not discussing
whether five or eighteen would fit, but whether a pin could house a
finite or an infinite number.
-- S. J. Gould, "Wide Hats and Narrow Minds"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:00PM
When they say these cracks or quantum kinks permeate the universe, are they saying they exist possibly in the very space I'm sitting in or are they like celestial ribbons in the sky?
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday November 18 2014, @04:38PM
Depends. Are you feeling kinky? I definitely inexplicably feel heavier at times.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum