HIDDEN CLUE: Pulsars, including one inside this "guitar nebula," provide evidence of sterile neutrinos.
Image: Courtesy of Shami Chatterjee and James M. Cordes Cornell University
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Neutrinos are the most famously shy of particles, zipping through just about everything—your body, Earth, detectors specifically designed to catch them—with nary a peep. But compared with their heretofore hypothetical cousin the sterile neutrino, ordinary neutrinos are veritable firecrackers. Sterile neutrinos don’t even interact with ordinary matter via the weak force, the ephemeral hook that connects neutrinos to the everyday world. Recently, however, new experiments have revealed tantalizing evidence that sterile neutrinos are not only real but common. Some of them could even be the stuff of the mysterious dark matter astronomers have puzzled over for decades.
Physicists aren’t quite ready to make such dramatic pronouncements, but the results "will be extremely important—if they turn out to be correct,” says Alexander Kusenko of the University of California, Los Angeles.
How did scientists go about looking for particles that are virtually undetectable? Kusenko and Michael Loewenstein of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center reasoned that if sterile neutrinos really are dark matter, they would occasionally decay into ordinary matter, producing a lighter neutrino and an x-ray photon, and it would make sense to search for these x-rays wherever dark matter is found. Using the Chandra x-ray telescope, they observed a nearby dwarf galaxy thought to be rich in dark matter and found an intriguing bump of x-rays at just the right wavelength.
Another piece of evidence comes from supernovae. If sterile neutrinos really do exist, supernovae would shoot them out in a tight stream along magnetic field lines, and the recoil from this blast would kick the pulsars out through the cosmos. It turns out astronomers observe precisely that: pulsars whizzing through the universe at speeds of thousands of kilometers a second.
Astronomers don’t have to rely on the skies for evidence of sterile neutrinos, though. Scientists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory recently verified a 16-year-old experiment that sought the first evidence of these particles. The Fermilab scientists fired ordinary neutrinos through Earth at a detector half a kilometer away. They found that in flight, many of these neutrinos changed their identities in just the way they should if sterile neutrinos do in fact exist.
The next step is to confirm the results. Loewenstein and Kusenko recently repeated their experiment on another space-based x-ray telescope, the XMM-Newton, and Fermilab scientists are also setting up another run. The shyest elementary particles may not be able to evade their seekers for long.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
46 Comments
Add Comment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will bet dollars to donuts that the mythical "sterile neutrinos" will be added to the very long list of false-positives and "no-shows" racked up by our heroic high-energy fashionistas over the last few decades.
Any takers?
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
No, but I'll back your bet!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might have been mentioned that 'normal' neutrinos zip around the universe because they have extremely low mass, between a photon and an electron. If this hypothesized presumedly massive 'sterile neutrino' decays into an extremely low mass 'normal' neutrino, a Higgs boson should be emitted in addition to the x-ray in accordance with standard particle theory, correct?
So they evidence for this particle is the observation of "an intriguing bump of x-rays at just the right wavelength" in a region though to contain dark matter. In this case, the dark matter decay should accumulate over time, producing, at least to some extent, temporal changes in the structure of galaxies, correct?
As I understand, the reason 'normal' neutrinos do not interact with 'ordinary' matter is that they are extremely low mass, self-propagate at near the speed of light, and are electrically neutral. A massive 'sterile neutrino' particle would necessarily not be self-propagating and would interact gravitationally with 'ordinary' matter as well as other dark matter, even if it were electrically neutral, correct?
If supernovae are spewing out new dark matter, galaxies with high levels of new star production (producing stars of just the right mass, so that supernova but do not produce black holes) should be producing new dark matter, presumedly altering their structure or at least compensating for the described dark matter decay, correct?
Maybe this is 'the big one', but I think the universe would look quite a bit different if this was the dynamic source of dark matter production and decay. Astrophysicists can always hope, though, that their compensating proxy for erroneous 'planetary' gravitational estimations of (especially spiral) galaxies really comes true.
The article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Fermilab scientists fired ordinary neutrinos through Earth at a detector half a kilometer away. They found that in flight, many of these neutrinos changed their identities in just the way they should if sterile neutrinos do in fact exist."
First of all and most critically, the article describes that the heavy 'sterile' neutrinos decay into light 'ordinary' neutrinos, _not_ the other way around! This experiment seems to be fundamentally flawed: have I misunderstood something?
How could it be determined that the detected 'changed neutrinos' were in fact the neutrinos 'fired' a half a kilometer away and not some other particles from space, for example?
Moreover, it would seem that if a small sample of neutrinos decayed into dark matter (or vice versa) at a rate detectable over a distance of one half of a kilometer, the consequences to the structure of the universe would be immense!
So a particle with no characteristics at all, the empty particle... it can't even tell if it exists except by x-raying itself... it sounds very familiar, the imaginary particle but still it could be split into figments!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have some specific issues with my comments? I realize that I may not be making myself understood to all readers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, I find that some readers feel that scientists should not be questioned by anyone who is not equally qualified in the specific field of study being discussed. In my experience, cross-disciplinary input can be very useful in identifying solutions to difficult problems.
I'd be particularly interested in an explanation of the process by which a less massive particle decays into a more massive particle, as implied by the author. Perhaps the author could explain this to me, assuming that you can't.
You inspired me to find a recent related research paper to be published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, coauthored by Alexander Kusenko, quoted in this article. The article is: "Collider signatures of sterile neutrinos in models with a gauge-singlet Higgs", http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5458
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears to me to be a highly theoretical work that I certainly don't comprehend very well. However, I find enough information that I can comprehend that I think validate many of the questions I've raised. I would sincerely appreciate some feedback from the author of this article or someone qualified to discuss these issues.
By the way, the article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if sterile neutrinos really are dark matter, they would occasionally decay into ordinary matter, producing a lighter neutrino and an x-ray photon, and it would make sense to search for these x-rays wherever dark matter is found. Using the Chandra x-ray telescope, they observed a nearby dwarf galaxy thought to be rich in dark matter and found an intriguing bump of x-rays at just the right wavelength."
Is it really surprising that x-rays might be observed in the area of a dwarf galaxy, even of "just the right wavelength"? Are no x-rays of the 'wrong wavelength' detectable in the area? Are x-rays of "just the right wavelength" detectable in the area of elliptical galaxies that are not expected to include a large percentage of dark matter?
I read the "Reliance on Indirect Evidence Fuels Dark Matter Doubts" and all the comments regarding this issue, I think this article poses the same question, WHAT IS DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY ? In my opinion however it is a little too much for mankind if once he discovered that our visible UNIVERSE is made of baryonic particles which only consists of 5% of the "mass" that we can account for in our formulas, how the hell it is possible that the rest of our Universe also has to follow this tiny 5%, it is like reinstalling the earth in the centre of teh universe and the sun is obliged to turn around us, the "dark matter" has to fit in the theories we know untill now but are not sure !) as a matter of fact we have to be glad that there is a massive part of the universe that we don't understand yet, we have to search for a much wider solution as the "sterile neutrino", we have to open our eyes and all the other techniques we have for new approaches of this new "problem" for I think it is impossible to resolve this problem olny with our knowledge of today, you cannot put an elephant in an alladin lamp, only alladin will go inside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPathetic? - Aside from quoting the article (without proper quotes), all you can say is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Pretty clear they have an interesting lab result in search for a mathematical (theoretical) explanation."
If you can read any of the research report I referenced in my "pathetic" comment #8 you'll find that the authors done about as much as can be done to provide a theoretical basis for dark matter by proposing an extension the standard model of particle physics. Your pathetic little contribution is invalid.
I doubt their observations provide definitive evidence, since they haven't been fully delineated to eliminate other possibilities, as I described in my "pathetic" comment #9.
All of the evidence for the existence of dark matter both observational and experimental is based on indirect inferences. Pathetically, dark matter has become a matter of faith for astronomers physicists for the past forty years now, seemingly finding confirmational evidence wherever they search for it.
"a Higgs boson should be emitted in addition to the x-ray in accordance with standard particle theory, correct?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit, I don't really know, nor does anyone else at present. I don't know what your point is either.
"In this case, the dark matter decay should accumulate over time, producing, at least to some extent, temporal changes in the structure of galaxies, correct?"
No, wrong.
"A massive 'sterile neutrino' particle would necessarily not be self-propagating and would interact gravitationally with 'ordinary' matter as well as other dark matter, even if it were electrically neutral, correct?"
No, wrong.
"... presumedly altering their structure or at least compensating for the described dark matter decay, correct?"
No, wrong.
"... 'planetary' gravitational estimations of (especially spiral) galaxies ..."
Another of your misunderstandings.
"First of all and most critically, the article describes that the heavy 'sterile' neutrinos decay into light 'ordinary' neutrinos, _not_ the other way around! This experiment seems to be fundamentally flawed: have I misunderstood something?"
Yes, introductory quantum physics.
"How could it be determined that the detected 'changed neutrinos' were in fact the neutrinos 'fired' a half a kilometer away and not some other particles from space, for example?"
Very very easily.
"Moreover, it would seem that if a small sample of neutrinos decayed into dark matter (or vice versa) at a rate detectable over a distance of one half of a kilometer, the consequences to the structure of the universe would be immense!"
I don't know what their sample size is, apparently you do. Not that it alters the invalidity of your conclusion.
However, do not expect anyone to take their time to explain these things or any of your many other misunderstandings of the most elementary concepts of physics - elementary in terms of the knowledge required to understand them - unless you're willing to listen to the explanations and accept that sometimes it may actually be you who are wrong, and not all experts in several fields who've just overlooked some obvious flaws for the last fifty years. From other comments it is clear that you're not.
For the record, I'm not an expert either, but I have learned for instance about integration of the gravitational effect of extended masses. It may not be taught in high school, but it could be. Every astronomer knows about it, they do not just assume point masses, they never have, and they clearly don't in the article you refer to in another thread, as evidence that they do.
I'm being criticized for being ignorant and opinionated: you expect to dismiss my questions and assertions with: "No, wrong." Absurd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll respond.
"a Higgs boson should be emitted in addition to the x-ray in accordance with standard particle theory, correct?"
This is confirmed in the reference in comment #8:
"...a recent related research paper to be published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, coauthored by Alexander Kusenko, quoted in this article. The article is: "Collider signatures of sterile neutrinos in models with a gauge-singlet Higgs", http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.5458
You may realize from the title and certainly in the report that the theoretician interviewed in this article hypothesizes with, I think, most particle physicists that Higgs bosons, mediating the release of particle mass, are emitted in the process of transforming the hypothesized heavy 'sterile' neutrinos decay into light 'ordinary' neutrinos.
This is critical, because if galactic dark matter has been decaying into neutrinos for the past maybe 13Gy, the undetected mass presumedly supplied by galactic dark matter
has been diminishing since its creation or configuration.
You vaguely refer to the other thread and an article referenced. My descriptions of galactic gravitation are based on the descriptions used in the research that precipitated the perceived requirements for compensatory galactic dark matter. I'll give you a very clear reference of a paper by Vera Rubin, et al. To explain for you, her work focused on measuring the rotational curve of galaxies by measuring the orbital velocity of individual stars within the galactic disc at varying distances from the galactic core.
Plots of these stars' velocities over distance produces the rotational curve for comparison with the similar chart prepared by Kepler representing the rotational curve of our Solar system. The discrepancy of galactic rotational curves and the rotational curve of planets in the Solar system was the principal evidence (to my knowledge the only evidence) supporting the conclusion that some undetected mass must be present or gravitation must work differently at larger scales. Please review "Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/", 1980, Rubin et al, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...238..471R
Please pay attention to pages 479 and 485, "VIII DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS"; 1: "The conclusion is inescapable that non-luminous matter exists beyond the luminous galaxy."
For the record, I am an expert information systems analyst with over 30 years experience. It is in that capacity that in 2008 I identified the erroneous analysis that led to the establishment of the perceived requirement for dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my retirement I think the most important contribution I could make would be to resolve the issues that has consumed so many scientific resources for the past forty years. Unfortunately, I am not a trained physicist or mathematician. I think that this is the principal reason I cannot effectively communicate with either subject area experts or even casual students. However, I am compelled by the criticality of this issue to continue my efforts, thanks.
In the elusive search for an explanation for the reason why our universe is expanding at the rate in which it is, could only be explained through such wizardary as "Dark Energy and Dark Matter". The question of Dark Energy and Dark Matter is like the ago old question of whether the world is flat, like a pizza, or round, like an orange? We want to believe that we are the center of all that exists and shall exist, and therefore this is the only universe in existence and there are no other forces at play on or interact with our universe. We want to, also, want to believe that if are any other universes in existence then they are a mirror image of us, like Narisissus who fell in love with himself as he gazed at his reflection in the spring. Dark Energy and Dark Matter, although its existence is always so elusive that no one has directly seen it, is responsible for the expansion of the universe. We have all our eyes trained towards the center of the universe, maybe one of our eyes should look down or up to see what is above us or below us; and see the force that lies beyond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, I'll put up a donut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a bigger surprise . Read balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing GRAVITOETHERTONS--FIVE GOD PARTICLES --by annihilation at boundary. THESE FIVE GOD PARTICLES WILL BE SOON DISCOVERED IN LHC--GENEVA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"New Subatomic Particle Could Help Explain the Mystery of Dark Matter"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't that how we do Science Fiction?
Ooooooo, we made it up. Like AGW.
I'd be careful on that. Donuts cost more than dollars these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that this story downplayed the extraordinary results obtained by Fermilab. The recent preliminary results not only indicate the possible existence of a potential dark matter candidate, sterile (anti)neutrinos, but violate the symmetry between matter and antimatter properties, potentially overturning the standard model of particle physics, and hint at the cause of the imbalance of matter and antimatter in the universe. In addition, the results obtained seem indicate that, strangely, dark matter is actually sterile anti-neutrinos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt turns out that neutrino oscillation test for the presence of (still) undetected sterile neutrino has repeatedly failed in the past. However, the test was repeated using anti-neutrinos which provided results of disappearing (oscillating) anti-neutrinos consistent with the predictions of the sterile neutrino.
Muon neutrinos, detected by the experiment's detectors, were beamed from Fermilab to a detector in a mine in Soudan, Minn. Some neutrinos are not detected because of a known phenomena whereby a known percentage of muon neutrinos oscillate into tau and electron neutrinos that cannot be detected by the test equipment. The existence of hypothesized 'sterile neutrinos' would be expected to produce a greater percentage of 'disappearing' undetected muon neutrinos, but those results had never been observed in repeated testing. The recent testing using muon anti-neutrino beams produced a greater than expected percentage of disappearing anti-neutrinos, which may indicate the existence of sterile anti-neutrinos (but not sterile neutrinos).
These extraordinary results will require statistically significant samplings to produce reliable results. I do not know what additional results have been obtained since this report of initial results.
Of course, these results, if confirmed, again constitute only indirect evidence, since sterile anti-neutrinos would be expected to interact with 'ordinary' matter only through gravitation (there is no anti-mass or anti-gravitation).
Please see the June, 2010 NewScientist report:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19051-antineutrinos-odd-behaviour-points-to-new-physics.html
On the other hand, that a greater than expected percentage of muon anti-neutrinos have gone missing does not prove that they have oscillated into sterile anti-neutrinos. That the sterile neutrino oscillation experiment only seems to work with anti-neutrinos and not work with neutrinos could more simply result from increased anti-neutrino interaction with normal matter during its 730km transmission through mostly underground stone on its way to Minnesota. In this case, particle physicist would not be required to scrap their extremely accurate standard model, only understand how anti-neutrinos more often interact with matter than neutrinos do. That seems like a much more achievable objective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, that would also mean that the neutrino oscillation experiment still hasn't produce a result indirectly indicating the existence of the sterile neutrino - dark matter candidate particle.
I usually find jtdwyer's skepticism to be refreshing and good food for thought. A far cry from the usual responses by the willfully ignorant and conspiracy theorists who all too often hijack any legitimate debate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you very much - I am your humble servant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre there any EM spectrum particles besides photons?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm coming in late to this discussion but I have observed a couple of things. First - there are far too many clothing advertisments being posted on this thread. Second - One side of the argument is posting references, asking questions and asking for clarification on poorly explained elements of the article. The other side is calling names and being rude without posting any sources or making any attempt at reasonable discourse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first rule of science is to always be skeptical and ask questions. Anyone that attacks others for asking questions isn't responding on an intellectual level but is instead responding on an emotional theocratic level and thus should be ignored until they calm down and begin to discuss things rationally.
I've had problems in the past with participating rationally on certain topics so I feel (emotionally) competent to recognize when someone else is having a tantrum.
I do have one tiny bit of quantum physics curiosity. Admittedly I don't understand most of quantum physics but I've never read anything where it has been claimed that a particle can break into larger particles than it started as. If someone could post a link I'd like to read up on it.
Well stated observations re. commentary - thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm certainly no physicist, but I thought that particles could not decay into more massive particles... However, neutrinos seem to be something of a chimera. The neutrino oscillation process does seem involve something referred to as neutrino mixing and neutrino mass-squared differences. To top it off, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the only difference between a neutrino and an anti-neutrino is its spin orientation. One prominent theory suggests that they can dynamically flip their spin state, switching between particle and anti-particle state. It almost makes one wonder if a single neutrino could annihilate itself...
I do suggest starting with the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
One more technical but somewhat general paper is still beyond my comprehension but may be helpful to someone more knowledgeable: "Neutrino Oscillations, Masses and Mixing",
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306239v1
Please let me know if you figure something out.
Did some homework and found out that non-visible EM radiation is also thought to be mediated by photons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery luminous star ( past and present ) has had or does have a stellar wind, so interstellar space ( and space inside star systems ) must now be awash in protons and electrons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that non-visible EM radiation is that which is not visible to humans, including gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, infrared and radio waves. The effective invisibility of most of the EM spectrum should not be confused with the undetectability required of dark matter. Unlike gamma rays, for example, dark matter cannot be detected by any direct means. This is expected to occur because the dark matter does not interact with 'ordinary' matter except through gravitation. As a result neither dark matter nor ordinary matter (gravitationally) interacting with dark matter emits any photons as a result of that interaction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStellar winds ( "solar wind" for the Sun ) consist of electrons and PROTONS ( not photons ). Since the protons will be widely dispersed, we can't detect them and they could be a contribution to dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks (jtdwyer) for suggestion to look at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
Quantum effects of gravity on these in gravitational lensing studies may reveal more than shockwave resilience and help us look in the right direction.
Mass
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs mass carried by a separate undiscovered Higgs particle? or could it be the product of both positive and negative static electric fields as carried by neutrino.
Experiments with my electrically opposed Van-DeGRaff generators indicate that mass is a product of both positive and negative static fields.
My reply was to your preceding post:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Did some homework and found out that non-visible EM radiation is also thought to be mediated by photons."
Regarding the contribution of stellar winds to galactic dark matter, the identified gravitational effect required of dark matter is generally (depending on type of galaxy) around 5-6 times the mass of 'visible' ordinary matter contained within the galaxy. It does not seem possible that remnants of stars could produce greater mass that the stars contained.
I'm not a physicist, but I understand that neutrinos are electrically neutral. Don't static fields require electrons?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that really depends on how old the Milky Way is and how many stars have come and gone. Plus a lot of star remnants will be neutron stars or black holes. Anyway, why don't we let the pros figure it out. It's not like we're getting paid to do this. lol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad to help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO, even though dark matter doesn't exist, at least in the amounts needed to compensate for galactic gravitational estimation error, it's challenging enough to comprehend the neutrinos that do exist!
Yeah, but the thing is I'm a retired professional something...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you're really interested, I did read some references to 'neutrino mixing' inferring combinations of up to four neutrinos, paired by their opposing spin orientations. I think you can read about such things in:"Neutrino Oscillations, Masses and Mixing",
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306239v1
reply to jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes neutrino are electrically neutral but that neutrality is the result of neutrino carrying both positive and negative static charge fields. The neutral field forms at the center between these two opposed fields and it is this neutral field that becomes mass.When a neutrino is captured it exhibits either a negative or positive charge bias.
Reply to jtdwyer. Thank you for those reference points I will access them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever I think you may have missed the main point of this discussion.
That is that all mass is the combined product of both positive and negative charged fields. A recent article November 2010 (science doi 101126 science 1192322) this article states that particles made from an electron and its anti particle behave as if the antiparticle wasn't there at all.This seems to confirm that there is a high probability that all particles carry both positive and negative charge and by this means produce their own mass without the need for a Higgs mass carrying particle.
I admit I'm in over my head here, but I'll take one more step: generally speaking, particles and antiparticles annihilate on contact. I realize there are some researchers who think that neutrinos (so named because they do not interact with charged particles) may combine with other neutrinos of opposing spin orientation. Unfortunately I don't have access to the pay-per-view Science articles. I'd be happy to take a look if you can find a link to a free prepublication copy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I think the directly inverse correlation of particle kinetic energy and mass is not just a mechanical/causal one: I think that more massive types of particles manifest as particles more often than energy waves whereas less massive types manifest as energy waves more often; the kinetic energy of self propagation is the physical reconfiguration of that same energy as the potential energy of mass. It's just a probabilistic matter of particle/wave state manifestation. But I'm just guessing.
reply to jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour earlier statement about electron being required to form static fields.That is correct however the static charge fields that I am referring to would be confined to the two basic particles that together form neutrino.
Dear Michael please do not call me a defected physicist, because I do not believe in any dark matter or dark energy. I believe, the equations, or theories are not correctly used. One of these days, somebody will get so mad who will come up with a theory, a better theory, not necessarily THE THEORY! We need a theory with no singularities. We might need to change the very concept of space-time. This new theory can come from:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) Mathematicians of logic, or
b) Philosophers without pen, or
c) physicist who has not been exposed to much exotic theories.
I hope this pans out. I'd love to see DM elevated to more than a religious doctrine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisokay first time on so not quite sure what to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy question from the article is why would the static
neutrinos give the star a motion? seems if they went out the poles they would be balanced. If they go out the flux lines they should be random.
An article of faith? Sounds like a biased observation. "Dark Matter" is a useful term for discussing a real observed phenomena. No faith involved, save for folks like yourself, who live their lives in a pathetic denial of reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this