Print 106 comment(s) - last by UNHchabo.. on Feb 8 at 1:21 PM

A visualization of particles jets in the CMS. Yellow is the path of the particles, while blue and red represent energy detected from the particles.  (Source: CERN/Imperial College of London)
Discovery of dark matter's behavior would solve many outstanding mysteries in physics

Dark matter makes up five times more of the universe's mass than visible matter (~25% vs ~5%), yet scientists have yet to directly observe this ultra-abundant substance.  Scientists also have yet to observe dark energy, which may well beat out normal energy in universal abundance.  This lack of direct observations means that scientists know precious little about two of the most important physical components of our universe.

That could soon change.  CERN's Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile long circular underground track that is chilled to almost zero degrees Kelvin, is recording incredibly violent collisions, the likes of which haven't been seen since billions of years ago.  Those collisions will likely produce exotic substances like dark matter, which will be analyzed by the LHC's instruments, unlocking long debated mysteries of physics.

Scientists think they are making progress in the hunt for the SUSY – also known as supersymmetric particle, or 'sparticle'.  Scientists believe the sparticle may be the mysterious dark matter, given its theoretical stability.

In order to detect sparticles, scientists must probe the matter resulting from the collision for the absence of energy and momenta signals -- the sign that a sparticle was produced, rather than a standard particle.  This lack of energetic emissivity is the reason why dark matter is dark -- it does not transfer energy to photons, like standard particles.

More specifically, the researchers are trying to detect a "jet" of particles traveling in the same direction, post proton-beam collision, that lack a significant amount of detected energy and momentum.  

Professor Oliver Buchmueller [profile], a faculty member at the Department of Physics at Imperial College London who is doing research at CERN, describes the LHC team's findings, stating [press release], "We need a good understanding of the ordinary collisions so that we can recognise the unusual ones when they happen. Such collisions are rare but can be produced by known physics. We examined some 3-trillion proton-proton collisions and found 13 'SUSY-like' ones, around the number that we expected. Although no evidence for sparticles was found, this measurement narrows down the area for the search for dark matter significantly."

The CMS (compact muon solenoid) detector was co-designed by faculty at the Imperial College, one of Europe's best physics schools.  

Professor Geoff Hall [profile], another Imperial College physics faculty member working at CERN, describes the recent detection of "SUSY-like" streams of particles, stating, "We have made an important step forward in the hunt for dark matter, although no discovery has yet been made. These results have come faster than we expected because the LHC and CMS ran better last year than we dared hope and we are now very optimistic about the prospects of pinning down Supersymmetry in the next few years."

Later this year, physicists will run more trials, which they hope will verify the existence of dark matter in the stream.  They also hope that the theory of supersymmetry will be verified as an accurate description of dark matter, allowing the Standard Model of particle physics to be officially extended.

Looking ahead there's also much hope that the higher-energy collisions might yield a legendary Higgs boson, which would offer much more insight into the behavior of the universe.  The LHC's other major detector -- ATLAS (A Toroidal LHC ApparatuS) -- was designed to search for the Higgs boson.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I don't believe it
By dgingeri on 2/1/2011 2:24:47 PM , Rating: 0
I don't believe in dark matter or dark energy. I believe they are effects created by aspects of gravity that haven't been figured out yet, and are only observable at super large (galactic) or super small (quantum) scales. Likely additional sections to the current gravitational equations.

If they can show me proof dark matter and dark energy exist, something other than just gravitational profiles, then I'll believe them.

RE: I don't believe it
By MozeeToby on 2/1/2011 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 3

It is one theory (An explanation that agrees with all available observational evidence) amongst several others. Occam's razor makes it the preferred theory because the particles required to make it work are also predicted by super-symmetry theories of particle physics. The existence of those particles is seen as much less of an assumption than modifying special relativity (which would essentially modify our view of space-time). That isn't to say that the modified gravity theories (there are several) are right or wrong. It's just that they involve a much larger assumption.

Also, dark matter theories have the advantage that they are more testable; given a powerful enough accelerator you should be able to detect dark matter. Experimentally verifying modified gravity theories would be difficult or impossible.

RE: I don't believe it
By dgingeri on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: I don't believe it
By Goty on 2/1/2011 6:18:14 PM , Rating: 5
Every scientist says "this is how we think the universe works" (if they don't then they aren't good scientists), it's just the public that misinterprets the findings.

RE: I don't believe it
By jeff834 on 2/2/2011 3:17:44 AM , Rating: 2
I said this exact same thing when I read that post. I have known many a physicist and not one of them will say "this is how the universe works", nor do the text books. At most they might say "this is our current best understanding of how the universe works". Media outlets and non-scientist interpretations are what twist that into absolutes. Lay people like to think in absolutes, because that is how they live their lives, but scientists can't afford to do so because frankly nothing in physics is absolute at our current understanding.

RE: I don't believe it
By dgingeri on 2/2/2011 8:09:43 AM , Rating: 3
And yet, many have pursued destroying our economy for measures that reduce "carbon emissions" with far less proof than the theory of dark matter, stating they know this is how the atmosphere works.

I'm not saying that the theory of dark matter is wrong, I'm saying that many scientists need to make an arrogance check and start treating these things as theory instead of fact. I just happen to like the theory that this is an effect of gravity better than some unobservable matter.

Yes, there is a lot of supporting evidence of the big bang theory. I'm fine with that. Most will say "we think this is how the universe works" when it comes to that, and they have more evidence about that. However, this article is presented as if dark matter is proven, and is it far from proven.

When I was a physics major back in my first attempt at college (back before English teachers drove me off, I never had issues with any science or math, my problems in college could all be traced to stupid English Comp teachers) I had classes with a dozen physics and chemistry instructors, and I met 2 physists from Fermilab. All of them were emphatic that we treat these things as theory, and not yet proven. They told us that they were trying to prove these things, but they had not yet been proven.

Perhaps it's more about the media rather than the scientists, but I have seen a marked increase in "this is how the universe/world/atmosphere/atomic structure works" rather than treating it as theory over the last decade. It really irks me.

RE: I don't believe it
By Goty on 2/2/2011 3:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
A number of climatologists would fall into that "bad scientist" category I was speaking of (though, according to the few I know, the vast majority are just largely misunderstood by the public, as I mentioned before).

RE: I don't believe it
By vortmax2 on 2/1/2011 6:19:52 PM , Rating: 1
"There's too much *fact* and not enough proof yet."


RE: I don't believe it
By kingius on 2/3/2011 7:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
Once you have established a fact, proving it is very easy. You can point to it and go 'look here'.

That's the opposite of what has happened here. We have a theory being put forward to explain something that was observed, a theory that wasn't itself based on facts. The search is on now to try and find the facts that would prove the theory that attempts to explain what was observed. If you can follow that, you'll understand what's happening here.

RE: I don't believe it
By Odysseus145 on 2/2/2011 11:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between an incorrect theory and an incomplete one. Newton provide the foundation for others to build upon.

RE: I don't believe it
By kingius on 2/3/2011 7:40:28 AM , Rating: 2
Newton also believed that the ancients knew all secrets, everything, but they had been lost over time. An interesting fellow, not just what we consider now to be a scientist, but actually an alchemist, someone that mainstream science today would discredit at the earliest opportunity. How the world turns.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki