Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Dark matter mystery revealed?

  1. Mar 26, 2013 #1
    Remember this article gang?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57569883/possible-discovery-of-dark-matter-to-be-announced-soon/

    This came out Feb 17th, and we were promised an "unveiling" in about two weeks...

    They said this because it seemed as though they pretty much "had it" since they revised the paper 30 times...

    Well, of course it must be important. I mean 30 revisions? That's how we measure significance, right?

    Has anyone heard anything more of this? It has now been a month and a half and I've heard nothing. I feel like I'm hanging off a cliff wanting to know what this is about. What's going on, I thought the paper was in press. Did they miss something and now they're on revision 31? Or 37? Please update us and don't leave us hanging any longer. In fact, I got a better idea, how about "Don't announce that you're going to announce something until you're ready to announce it?"

    Especially for scientific discoveries. I don't even like to hear that a movie is in production 2 or more years before it's scheduled to come out. Once it's available for rental at Red Box, that's when I want to hear of its existence. Am I alone here?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 26, 2013 #2
    well, just be patient. that's a big discovery.
     
  4. Mar 27, 2013 #3

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thirty revisions means that there was probably a lot of controversy in what was in the paper. So unfortunately, I'd say this is a stronger reason to doubt the evidence. It probably also means it's sensational, which is yet another reason to be skeptical.

    Now, I think it would be amazing if it were both sensational and turned out to be true, but most of the time that doesn't happen. When it gets really exciting, for me, is when a discovery is later confirmed.
     
  5. Mar 28, 2013 #4
    I've got all the patience in the world, I just don't understand the utility in pre-announcing that you're going to announce something HUGE in two weeks, and then you don't announce it. Why do that and set yourself up for someone like me (and probably alot of other people) to bellyache about it?

    Wouldn't it seem at lot smarter not to pre-announce it and just wait the two weeks, and then announce it? That way, when things go screwy, which it seems like they have, you don't end up with egg all over your face. I don't care if they announce a verified dark matter discovery tomorrow, IMO they screwed up by pre-announcing a big discovery in two weeks and not delivering.
     
  6. Apr 2, 2013 #5

    cristo

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  7. Apr 2, 2013 #6
    hopefully lol thanks for the link Its definteley someting to watch
     
  8. Apr 3, 2013 #7
    Well , they said that they have discovered positron excess which is most probably due to dark matter but the possibility that positron excess is due to pulsars has to be ruled out
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2013
  9. Apr 3, 2013 #8

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  10. Apr 4, 2013 #9
    Unfortunately missed the conference. Had to work grrr.
    From various pop media articles I gathered that there were numerous positron reactions that fell within prediction. These reactions could be from pulsars however they are evenly distributed regardless of direction so points more in favor of dark matter source. However this is not conclusive enough to state dark matter as proven. Would be nice to see the actual report. Hopefully it makes it to Arxiv.com for viewing. Anyone gather any further info on it?
     
  11. Apr 4, 2013 #10

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think that the material from both the links in my previous post is free.
     
  12. Apr 4, 2013 #11

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013
  13. Apr 4, 2013 #12
    Yeah I found the same on the 10 page abstract. I looked last night on arxiv hopefully you have better luck than I did
     
  14. Apr 4, 2013 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Try this:
    http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

    Nothing too remarkable---no speculation about origin.

    ==quote==
    In conclusion, the first 6.8 x106 primary positron and electron events collected with AMS on the ISS show the following:
    i. At energies <10 GeV, a decrease in the positron fraction with increasing energy.
    ii. A steady increase in the positron fraction from 10 to ~250 GeV.
    iii. The determination of the behavior of the positron fraction from 250 to 350 GeV and beyond requires more statistics.
    iv. The slope of the positron fraction versus energy decreases by an order of magnitude from 20 to 250 GeV, and no fine structure is observed. The agreement between the data and the model shows that the positron fraction spectrum is consistent with e± fluxes, each of
    which is the sum of its diffuse spectrum and a single common power law source.
    v. The positron to electron ratio is consistent with isotropy; δ ≤ 0:036 at the 95% confidence level. These observations show the existence of new physical phenomena, whether from a particle physics or an astrophysical origin.
    ==endquote==

    We still have to wait for more extensive interpretation, I think.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2013
  15. Apr 4, 2013 #14
    Thanks Marcus yeah I came to the same conclusion. Its a vital step but too early to draw any definitive conclusions. Regardless any data is always useful in one form or another
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Dark matter mystery revealed?
  1. Dark Matter (Replies: 21)

  2. Dark Matter (Replies: 4)

  3. Dark matter (Replies: 6)

  4. Dark Matter (Replies: 3)

  5. No dark matter (Replies: 59)

Loading...