I Detecting WIMPs with superconductors?

jcap
Messages
166
Reaction score
12
If a weakly-interacting massive particle interacted with an electron in a classical superconductor would it break up a "cooper pair" and thus lead to extra electrical resistance?

If so perhaps the loss of superconductivity in a 2-d array of superconducting wires could be used to detect the flux of dark-matter WIMPs across the array? As the 2-d array of wires rotates with the Earth through the WIMPS one might detect a daily fluctuation in the conductivity of the wires.

PS Maybe the wires have to be very close to their "transition" temperature for such a detector to work?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem is in the phrase
jcap said:
weakly-interacting massive particle interacted
Dark matter particles have not been observed to directly interact with anything and this is the whole problem with detecting it. If dark matter is there and is indeed very weakly interacting, your setup may need a superconducter the size of an ocean to detect a single particle.
 
  • Like
Likes stoomart
jcap said:
If a weakly-interacting massive particle interacted with an electron in a classical superconductor would it break up a "cooper pair" and thus lead to extra electrical resistance?

This is a huge, and unverified assumption.

If a WIMP can interact with an electron, then we would have seen it EASILY by now. We won't need a superconductor. Having a superconductor here adds nothing to the ability to detect such a thing.

Zz.
 
WIMPs interacting weakly with electrons are not impossible - but the interaction has to be very rare. We would expect large momentum transfer, and there we have better detection methods.
 
Toponium is a hadron which is the bound state of a valance top quark and a valance antitop quark. Oversimplified presentations often state that top quarks don't form hadrons, because they decay to bottom quarks extremely rapidly after they are created, leaving no time to form a hadron. And, the vast majority of the time, this is true. But, the lifetime of a top quark is only an average lifetime. Sometimes it decays faster and sometimes it decays slower. In the highly improbable case that...
I'm following this paper by Kitaev on SL(2,R) representations and I'm having a problem in the normalization of the continuous eigenfunctions (eqs. (67)-(70)), which satisfy \langle f_s | f_{s'} \rangle = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2}{(1-u)^2} f_s(u)^* f_{s'}(u) \, du. \tag{67} The singular contribution of the integral arises at the endpoint u=1 of the integral, and in the limit u \to 1, the function f_s(u) takes on the form f_s(u) \approx a_s (1-u)^{1/2 + i s} + a_s^* (1-u)^{1/2 - i s}. \tag{70}...
Back
Top