Particle boffins calculate new constraints for probability of finding dark matter

The hunt for axions – a potential dark matter candidate – at the CERN Axion Solar Telescope has been fruitless. But scientists refuse to give up as they set a new limit that calculates the probability of finding these elusive particles. Axion particles are suspected to emerge from stars. Sunlight is filtered through the CERN …

[arctic_haze]

Dark matter would not be dark if the coupling between whatever it is and electromagnetism were not extremely weak.

[Mark 110]

Its just a mistake in either measurement or maths. I will believe it when I see it.

[John Smith 19]

Very small number times very big number --> Very small number

In this case O(1x10^-11) and O(1 x 10^9) --> 1x10^-2

IOW to get a 1% (actually about 0.6%) chance of finding something you need to see most (all?) of these particles having energies over the 1GeV mark to begin with

This assumes the machine's working alright and these particles are fairly numerous to begin with.

Note prolonged lack of detection suggests a) Particles not as numerous as thought (model wrong) b) Particles don't exist (model wrong)

Either way something has been learned and they continue to home on what is the real story.

Exiting times.

[James 51]

Well, the thing about dark matter - its main distinguishing feature - is it's dark. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Make mine a monopole!

Magnets! They also make you smarter and burn calories. Magnets, they're the solution to everything!

[Faux Science Slayer]

97% of the Universe is composed of math particles and hyperdense equations....

using a Rotating Universe Model does not require dark do-do....

"Mysterious Dr X says, Universe is NOT Expanding" at CanadaFreePress

[allthecoolshortnamesweretaken]

I like that they are repurposing elements from the Large Hadron Collider. But I guess the engineers at CERN are pretty sharp too, right?

[Axman]

Dark Matter - pah!

I confidently predict that Dark Matter doesn't exist and that within the next ten years a new and improved theory of gravity at galactic to universal distances (as opposed to mere solar distances) will gain experimental proof.

[Nick Ryan]

Re: Dark Matter - pah!

I don't know about your predicted propositions, however I've had a feeling for quite a long time that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just contructs made up to fill in missing gaps in current models. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, it's just feels like some "thing" has just been created to fill holes in a model and we've spent a large amount of time trying to prove this rather than consider the validity of adding "invisible" matter or energy to models.

At some point we, of course, have to try and corroborate theories but it just feels like dark energy/matter has been accepted rather than suitably challenged.

...probably reasons why I'm not a theoritical physicist...

[Axman]

Re: Dark Matter - pah!

Have we got some kind of hellishly perverted dark matter fetishist around?

I mean seriously! downvotes for merely suggesting that something which hasn't been found (despite the considerable effort placed into trying to find it) might not exist!

[Nick Ryan]

Re: Dark Matter - pah!

Have we got some kind of hellishly perverted dark matter fetishist around?

Probably, but scientists are human like the rest of us and if much of your professional life is based upon a proposition and somebody questions this the reaction may not be positive. There are quite a lot of notable scientists who have doggedly stuck with theories that were later disproved, it must have been very hard for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Dark Matter - pah!

"... I've had a feeling for quite a long time that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are just contructs made up to fill in missing gaps in current models."

You are correct, and the boffins would agree with you.

What has happened is that the boffins have observed a couple of things (anomalous galactic orbital rotation rates and accelerating expansion) for which they have no explanation within established physics.

The anomalous galactic rotation rates could be explained by additional mass, for which there is no evidence, and the accelerating expansion could be explained by additional energy, for which there is also no evidence. Because we can find no evidence for either the additional mass or the additional energy i.e. we can't see either, we call them 'Dark'.

Thus, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are more a description of two problems, representing two gaps in our knowledge, rather than being answers to those two problems and filling those two gaps.

[John Smith 19]

"Dark Matter and Dark Energy are more a description of two problems, "

Exactly.

It's the modern equivalent of Roentgen's fogged plates. They had been exposed to "something" IE a ray, but something that can go through visibly opaque covers. Hence the "X rays"

In the same way "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are placeholders for something that has to exist to cause the observed effects.

As always in proper science the candidate theories to explain what's happening have to explain all the behaviour and make testable predictions for what can be seen next. Eventually we will get a theory that does both and whose tests confirm it.

[David Green]

I'm not a physicist, but...

...has anyone asked the question whether dark matter is actually matter at all? Hear me out.

The existence of dark matter is (someone correct me, please) is demonstrated by the gravitational effects of said matter on the universe around it. Now, gravity is looked at as distortion of space-time by the mass of an object...what I'm wondering is, given the recent news about gravity waves and possible permanent "damage" to space-time by particularly large gravitational events, what if the "effects" of dark matter isn't due to mass, but big bunches and wrinkles in space-time, like a tablecloth that hasn't been smoothed out. I don't know what would cause such bunching on such a scale, beyond leftover scarring from the big bang or something.

These wrinkles might appear to us as gravitational effects, wouldn't it? This could explain why dark matter hasn't been seen or identified yet, because there's not matter involved at all.

Again, qualifying my ideas here as the brainfarts of an old IT puke, without the benefit of any physics education beyond high school...feel free to tear it apart.

[Axman]

Re: I'm not a physicist, but...

Which is basically what I said. You get 2 up votes, but I get 3 down votes. Up, Down, Strange and Charm are obviously not constrained to quarks but are universal aspects of the El Reg community, obviously...

[xyz]

imho

the 1800s had aether.

the 1980s gave us the dark stuff.

now we've got loop quantum gravity as the groovy name

same shit, different fashion statement.