SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 24 2019, @08:00AM (12 children)
So what do you think is correct, if not General Relativity? The QI you rattle on about does not seem to disagree with GR, but rather the mass parameter people put in it. In addition, how do you explain the observed time dilation effects?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday August 24 2019, @11:40AM (11 children)
" In addition, how do you explain the observed time dilation effects?"
I. don't. know.
But then, how does Einstein explain why glasses don't unbreak as often as they break? Why CAN'T we travel backwards through time as easily as we travel as we do?
Something is wrong and my mind wants to explore other theories to maybe find EXACTLY WHAT is wrong: I don't want to just blindly say "Ah! Dark matter hand waving magic!" whenever I see a problem.
Something IS wrong....but...what? That is what I'd love to see solved before I die and I don't think it will come from saying"Einstein is INFALLIBLE...let's believe in magical unicorn things in order to make sure he IS infallible."
Something IS wrong.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by rylyeh on Saturday August 24 2019, @05:27PM (1 child)
You might like this one then.
Kepler’s forgotten ideas about symmetry help explain spiral galaxies without the need for dark matter – new research [getpocket.com]
"a vast crenulate shell wherein rode the grey and awful form of primal Nodens, Lord of the Great Abyss."
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday August 24 2019, @06:45PM
Interesting.
Will have to take a closer look!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 25 2019, @08:12AM (8 children)
The glasses shattering is explained by thermodynamics and entropy, among other things, and I'm pretty sure that is what Einstein would say if he were still alive. There are also theories as to why only goes forwards, such as entropy, weak conservation violations, and quantum uncertainty.
But you were the one that said that space and time did not "warp." This is despite the curvature of space time being observed through gravitational lensing of light and gravity "waves." In addition, time dilation is a measured phenomenon that affect deep-space probes and satellites in orbit. That is why most theories that deal with this stuff, like QI, dark matter, and MOND keep curved space-time and GR around with relatively minor tweaks. The former has been directly observed and the latter best explains most observations and reference frames we are aware of. Just like how SR and GR made relatively minor tweaks to Newton's Theory of Gravity.
No one is saying Einstein is some holy Saint that can never be wrong. In fact, the rotation of galaxies aren't the only phenomenon that modern GR can't explain. When there is evidence to do so, they will change it, just like they did to Newton. There just isn't any big paradigm-shifting evidence yet for any theory. If there were, then alternatives wouldn't be taken seriously, and, trust me, there are a lot of alternatives some of which you'd probably recognize by name if you looked them up. But real science uses evidence, not feelings.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday August 25 2019, @10:15AM (7 children)
"But real science uses evidence, not feelings."
THAT is my problem with dark matter, though: dark matter came about because"Einstein can't be wrong, so...DM" and is wholly unscientific. Dark matter is magic to make the problem disappear.
GR does, yes, have problems. That IS the problem: I just don't like seeing problems being solved with unicorns.
I am not a physicist: just a curious guy who doesn't believe in magical things like DM.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 26 2019, @03:32AM (6 children)
For as much confidence as you have, you really need to do some reading before dismissing something as "magical" or as some sort of unassailable canon. There is more evidence for dark matter than just Einstein can't be wrong. The Bullet Cluster X-ray anomalies can only be fully explained by the existence of dark matter, rather than non-local forms of gravity. Then there is the observed energy density of the universe. And there are redshift distortions, and the cosmic microwave background together with the structure of the universe, and lensing, and more. Before preaching that the physicists who do this daily and actually know about the above and more are the ones who are somehow wrong in their beliefs and the analysis, maybe you should learn about it yourself.
Hell, your own claim is wrong. GR has been modified since Einstein made it, not the least of which is removing the cosmological constant, the Reissner–Nordstroem solution, black holes, and the Kerr-Newman solution, to name the major ones.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday August 26 2019, @09:12PM (2 children)
Then by ALL means, waste your time looking for DM. See f I care! I'm betting you DON'T find it.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 27 2019, @05:37AM (1 child)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/508162 [iop.org] at the 8 sigma level too.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday August 29 2019, @09:14PM
From 2006 even!
Hey! PROOF it exists!
So why does there still remain doubt of its existence?
WAIT! They say why themselves!
" A final possibility is that some alternative gravity models may be able to suppress the lensing potential of the central peak in a multiple-peak system"
So, there is proof DM exists, unless it ... doesn't? It does not exist if there is some other reason it doesn't (such as QI!)!
Huh!
I'll maintain my bet, thank you very much.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday August 29 2019, @09:29PM (2 children)
"The Bullet Cluster X-ray anomalies can only be fully explained by the existence of dark matter."
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/382/1/29/3057374/mnras0382-0029.pdf [oup.com]
shows it CAN e explained by other reasons.
"Before preaching that the physicists who do this daily and actually know about the above and more are the ones who are somehow wrong in their beliefs and the analysis, maybe you should learn about it yourself."
RIGHT back at you, Mr Physicist who does this daily.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 30 2019, @06:32PM (1 child)
That model doesn't properly account for the gravitational lensing: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/591246/meta [iop.org]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday August 31 2019, @03:17AM
Well, at least you're in 2008!
So, why is there STILL doubt about DM if its been PROVEN to exist?
Because there is no proof and it will never be found.
Bet is still on.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---