What's the latest update on the possible discovery of dark matter?

[DiracPool]

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...

Big news in the search for dark matter may be coming in about two weeks, the leader of a space-based particle physics experiment said today (Feb. 17) here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

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

"It will not be a minor paper," Ting said, hinting that the findings were important enough that the scientists rewrote the paper 30 times before they were satisfied with it.

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?

 

[H.H.CHI_hep]

well, just be patient. that's a big discovery.

 

[Chalnoth]

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.

 

[DiracPool]

well, just be patient. that's a big discovery.

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 a lot 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.

 

[cristo]

Results will likely be announced tomorrow: https://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=244334

 

[Mordred]

hopefully lol thanks for the link Its definteley something to watch

 

[zahero_2007]

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

 

[George Jones]

Link to a nice explanatory article on the Physical Review Letters website (I don't think it is behind a paywall):
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/40

Link to the actual Physical Review Letters article (I think it is behind a paywall):
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i14/e141102

 

[Mordred]

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?

 

[George Jones]

Would be nice to see the actual report. Hopefully it makes it to Arxiv.com for viewing. Anyone gather any further info on it?

I think that the material from both the links in my previous post is free.

 

[marcus]

I think that the material from both the links in my previous post is free.

I agree, although the second link is to an abstract summary.

Here is a link to the main article. It worked, was free, just now.
http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141102

 

[Mordred]

Yeah I found the same on the 10 page abstract. I looked last night on arxiv hopefully you have better luck than I did

 

[marcus]

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.

 

[Mordred]

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