SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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