Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 22 2019, @11:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the mondo-nono dept.

From New Atlas

Although it outnumbers regular matter by a ratio of five to one, dark matter is frustratingly elusive. Many experiments have been and are being run to try to hunt down different types of candidate particles, but so far no direct trace has been found of any of them. Now, researchers from Max Planck have proposed a new hypothetical particle that might be behind dark matter – the superheavy gravitino – and outlined just how we might find them.

As far back as the 1930s, astronomers began to notice that galaxies are moving much faster than they should be, based on the mass we could see. Calculations led to the conclusion that there must be far more mass out there that we couldn't see, and this hypothetical invisible stuff became known as dark matter.

[...] But what's particularly interesting is that if superheavy gravitinos are real, we could find traces of them using the Earth itself as a giant detector. After all, we're bound to have had plenty of them pass through the planet in the last 4.5 billion years. And if they did, they should have left fingerprints behind.

Because superheavy gravitinos would interact with regular matter through the electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces, they could leave ionization tracks in rocks. The problem is, they might be difficult to distinguish from the paths of other particles.

See article abstracts in Physical Review letters and in Physical Review D.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:25PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @01:25PM (#884082)

    It isn't even close. Both MOND and QI are much better. Dark matter is really the most pathetic explanation at this point. The only evidence for it after tens of billions of dollars spent assuming it exists is that GR predicts the wrong thing. And dark matter has never been (and never will be) used to predict anything or do anything useful, all you can do is add it in post-hoc.

  • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday August 23 2019, @03:03PM (2 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday August 23 2019, @03:03PM (#884141)

    > Both MOND and QI are much better

    I never saw the reference that demonstrated this.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @03:30PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 23 2019, @03:30PM (#884157)

      Well, that is your own fault. Go read some of Stacy McGaugh's papers. And to be clear, being superior to "dark matter" is not difficult. That "theory" is on the level of "god did it". But MOND and QI are much more impressive, one with a single tunable parameter (that has been constant since the model was introduced), the latter with no free parameters. "Dark Matter" has effectively infinite free parameters, it amounts to putting spheroids of invisible mass wherever it is needed.

    • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday August 23 2019, @07:34PM

      by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday August 23 2019, @07:34PM (#884315)

      Here's a good link for QI [youtube.com]. I'm unfamiliar with the other one.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.