Image: Matt Collins
-
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 »
Even as scientists and politicians from around the world debated in December how to deal with a practical problem of profound importance—global climate change—another international group of physicists was waiting with bated breath for a more esoteric development. In both cases, at the conclusion of events, the participants were left salivating and unsatisfied.
The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) experiment, located in the deep Soudan mine in Minnesota, is designed to directly detect new elementary particles that might make up the dark matter known to dominate our galaxy. In early December rumors started circulating that the CDMS experiment might actually have seen a signal.
To appreciate the significance of such an event, one needs to recognize that scientists have spent the past 40 years building a magnificent theoretical house of cards that could have toppled with the slightest whiff of inconsistent data. In the 1970s evidence began to accumulate from observations of our galaxy’s rotation that there was perhaps 10 times as much invisible as visible material out there. Although mundane explanations for such material—from snowballs to planets to cold gas—at first seemed possible, gradually it became clear that none of these could fit the bill. Meanwhile independent calculations of the abundance of light elements expected to be produced in the first minutes after the big bang implied that the universe simply lacked enough protons and neutrons to account for this dark matter if the predictions were to agree with observations.
Similarly independent computer calculations about the formation of galaxies as the universe expanded suggested that only some new kind of material, which did not interact as normal matter does, could collapse early enough to lead to the structures we see.
The past 50 years of particle physics has also driven us to realize that for what we see to make sense, a host of new elementary particles quite likely exists. If so, theorists have determined that the earliest moments of the fiery big bang could have produced these particles in precisely the abundance to account for dark matter, and their interactions with normal matter would have been weak enough to make them invisible to telescopes today.
Egged on by the suggestion that such new dark matter particles in our galactic halo might be directly detectable, a brave set of experimentalists began to devise techniques to observe them with detectors deep underground, far from the reach of most cosmic rays that would overwhelm such acute sensors.
When we first proposed those experiments more than 25 years ago, I had expected that within a decade we would have the answer. But technologies at the forefront take time to build and develop, and nature rarely reveals its secrets willingly.
So after a generation of anticipation, when the physics community heard rumors that the CDMS experiment had detected something, we tuned in to the online announcement as if it were a Beatles reunion concert. It is an unreal feeling, if you are a theorist like me, to imagine that nature might actually obey the delicate theories and fanciful ideas you develop at your desk late at night on scraps of paper or at a computer screen.
The actual announcement was disappointing, however: just two pulses were detected over almost a year, and they might have been caused by dark matter. Unfortunately, there was also about a 25 percent chance that the events were instead caused by background radioactivity.
I admit to feeling let down at the time, but months later it is easier to regain perspective. Within a year bigger detectors will turn on, and they may yet confirm the present hints to be real signals. Moreover, the hypothesized particles might yet be detected if collisions can create them at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.
If these experiments pan out, the result won’t yield a better toaster or solve the problems of climate change. But it will provide remarkable vindication of the power of human imagination, combined with rigorous logic and technological know-how, to uncover hidden worlds that even half a century ago could not have been conceived. And if not, we will all just have to work harder to solve the mystery of dark matter. New challenges bring new inspiration, which isn’t such a bad thing, either.
This article was originally published with the title Dark Matters.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentHowever, the fundamental issue is that dark matter was originally conjured up to conceal a misconception regarding the affects of gravitation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one merely visualizes a representation of the distribution of mass in spiral galaxies and compare to that of the solar system, it should be obvious that local gravitational effects proportional to mass distributions would not be similar in these disparate systems.
Please refer to the comment/essay: "Dark Matter as Gravitational Estimation Error" and its subsequent discussion posted with the article at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dark-matter-cdms
By the way, Dark Matter's massive particles are required to surround the periphery of galaxies in order for them to produce the Keplerian rotational curve, yet the gravitational effect of their mass would draw them to the galactic center. These requirements are mutually exclusive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey jtdwyer, I definitely have not followed the dark matter theories enough to know if your comments are spot on or not, so please forgive the lame comment below:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just wonder if the two points you made (the difference of gravitational effects across disparate systems, and the issue of requiring dark matter to be surrounding galaxies while at the same time they would be pulled to the center) are not already addressed somewhere.
I mean they seem to be pretty basic observations, and if any theories around dark matter could be tossed out based on such simple concepts, I would be astounded to find that none of the great minds working on this considered those issues and perhaps have clear answers as to why the theory holds up in spite of those concerns.
I'd love to hear from anyone in the dark matter camp who could speak to the points you have made.
tharriss - I totally agree with your remarks about basic, simple, etc. This appears to be a case of a great deal of long established knowledge about the nature of gravitation within our Solar system being inappropriately applied directly to a disparate system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one unpublished paper I'm aware of that solves the Galaxy Rotation Problem using the equations of GR, and representing the galactic disc as a fluid mass. Those folks attribute their (unacknowledged) success to the superiority of GR equations.
Other than that, the expected orbital velocity of individual stars in spiral galaxies has been estimated by treating their gravitational interaction with the 'galactic bulge' (photographic artifact) as a singular object in a two body gravitational solution. Just like planets in the Solar system. Unfortunately, galaxies actually present an insolvable n-body problem where 'n' is around one trillion.
You figure it out.
tharriss - Re. your request to hear from experts on my remarks - I'd more than welcome that, but only on the original identification of dark matter intended to resolve the Galaxy Rotation Problem. The expert professional particle hunters mentioned in this article would not be the best experts to discuss that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI haven't had a chance to read the full article in the mag yet...but one snip of this article intrigues me...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Meanwhile independent calculations of the abundance of light elements expected to be produced in the first minutes after the big bang implied that the universe simply lacked enough protons and neutrons to account for this dark matter if the predictions were to agree with observations"
anybody have any links to these independent calculations....
It just seems to me that the initial condition (read - big bang) could only be calculated if you knew how big the universe is now and how much energy/matter it contains....not the other way around...
We find out electromagnet,light and photon and why havn't we find the gravity and ...... may be it's stucking in our lip..NIRVANA.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne Williamson - The best I can say is that I have no idea what the cosmologists are thinking of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing unreal exists. Get over yourselves, already.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne Williamson – Actually, there’s a brief discussion of the issue in Wikipedia under Baryonic dark matter, or a much larger discussion under (non-Baryonic) Dark matter. Protons and Neutrons are Baryons. I won’t go on, except to say that once you start presuming dark matter in your calculations, you’re either a heroically brave explorer, as inferred by this article, or…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "dark matter" is caused by tremendous electrostatic charges that bend light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was bending light with 150,000 volt electrostatic pulses in 1967. The Flying Saucer' s crew use it to make it invisible.
tharriss - In an unpublished 2005 paper,"General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter", F.I. Cooperstock and S.Tieu identified the source of dark matter error: gravitational binding among galactic stars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619v1
That paper preceded my discovery in 2009 by four years. My completely independent arrival at the exact same conclusion certainly corroborates its correct identification of the error that produced the original requirement for dark matter to resolve the erroneous Galaxy Rotation Problem.
Neither Cooperstock's (professional work) nor my efforts to discredit the 40 year old Dark Matter Myth have been successful, so far. Many millions of dollars continue to be spent looking for some non-existent imaginary particle. Scientists continue to waste their time researching some peculiar aspect of dark matter that they think they've discovered. This situation may not be as critical as global warming, but this correct resolution should be acknowledged rather than continuing all the unnecessary nonsense. I'm not quitting!
ennui...i've spent way to much of my time researching your wild claims....please fly away on your saucer.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer...thanks for the link...very informative...ps..don't quit...i don't think dark matter or dark energy are necessary to explain the universe....
Wayne Williamson - Thanks. Cooperstock's work I think proves that dark matter is not necessary to explain galactic rotation. I have been focused more on explaining how the myth persisted for 40 years. I am still working on this issue...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us consider an antimatter universe on opposite entropy path is surrounding our universe and that antimatter is dark matter in our calculation. But gravitoethertons or ether produced by annihilation of matter and antimatter at common spherical boundary is injected into our universe to cause gravity and expansion of our universe. Read my balloon inside balloon theory and ether-gravity-dark energy theory of gravitoethertons published in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave a look on website www.darkfieldnavigator.com and read more abour dark energy and dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Visser
I think once someone figures what space-time is ,alot answers about dark matter and other mysteries will become clear,along with some answers concerning gravity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark matter is believed necessary to explain stellar dynamics within galaxies. Stars revolve at relatively constant angular velocity regardless of distance from the galactic centre, contrary to dynamical theory. Also the spiral arms survive over time, but radial stellar migrations are difficult to assess. Dark matter also requires a theory to explain its origin in the Big Bang scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a number of obvious problems that are known and ignored in both cases. Common to both problems is the assumption of a spacetime continuum basic to GR, which Einstein himself questioned late in life. There is no evidence whatever that a spacetime continuum exists as an entity distinct from gravitational mass as GR requires. There is no universal yardstick out there. How can spacetime concepts derived from creation be elevated to a priori status to explain the origin of spacetime? This is obvious boot strapping that used to be recognized as a contradiction.
GR assumes that gravitational mass is equivalent to inertial mass. That may be so but Foucaults pendulum proves that inertial velocity is completely distinct from gravitational mass. There is no explanation for this in a continuous universe but there is in a discontinuous universe. Plancks constant is a universal quantum of action and direct evidence of a fundamental discontinuity in space, time and atomic matter. Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally opposed to GR yet both are used in Big Bang cosmology.
The theory has other obvious flaws. If the spacetime continuum is expanding why isnt the space between the stars expanding or for that matter the size of the stars and atoms. Are atoms and suns shrinking in size? Are whole galaxies? If not how can relative expansion be known? In a discontinuous universe there are other reasons for the red shift and background radiation. Also if atoms are accelerated to relativistic velocities on a cosmic scale how can they be flattened in the direction of travel? This is not consistent with atomic theory.
Cosmology in a discontinuous universe gives explanations consistent with empirical evidence without having to invent dark matter or a Big Bang. See www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Much the same way an aircraft is pushing againist air trying to break the sound barier,all objects that are pushing againist space-time are flating out against it, and streching time till it reaches the plank leanth at which time reaches 0,at that point all wave funtion stops,because there is no longer any room for anything to move
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a discontinuous universe atomic matter is synchronously projected as very rapid series of space frames linked up by light as in a cosmic holographic movie. Atoms are particles and waves at the same time because one oscillation defines one primary interval of time. Light can only travel a limited distance with respect to each atom in each space frame so its speed is universal. It defines external linear space with respect to the internal spherical space of an atom. This is the only universal yardstick available. Light comes to us in a series of pulses consistent with the Planck constant. Space and time are thus quantized. They are concepts derived from creation not entities that can explain creation. They are not things in themselves. They do not exist apart from creation. There is no evidence that they are entities in themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatterns of relative motion introduce the relative skipping of atomic space frames because light cannot fully bridge relative quantum jumps in position. Because space and time are quantized they are integrated digitally. Atomic space frames are either whole or skipped altogether. The integrated fabric of space-time thus becomes curved or warped accounting for relativity effects. There is no distortion of atomic matter embedded in a curved spacetime continuum because there is no continuum.
A discontinuous universe requires that atomic matter has both a universal and a particular aspect. The intimate relationship between these two aspects determines the nature of the atom. The universal aspect is confined like quarks. Bells Inequalities and quantum correlation confirm that atomic matter has a universal aspect.
The GR assumption that gravity and acceleration are equivalent requires that there are only local influences. This assumption requires that there are no universal influences such as the apparent action at a distance of gravity. But anyone should be able to see gaining weight in an elevator accelerating upward is not the same as gravitational attraction to the earth. From inside the elevator it may not be possible to tell the difference but everyone knows that an elevator has a draw works whereas gravity does not. Gravitational acceleration is not caused by curvatures in a hypothetical spacetime continuum. It is implicit in the primary synchronous projection of atomic matter everywhere at once.
The phenomenal evidence directly confirms that the universe is discontinuous. There are articles at www.cosmic-mindreach.com that demonstrate this. GR is a hypothetical theory unsubstantiated by the evidence. It also requires that the planets, stars and galaxies can be treated as smoothed out like a gas on a cosmic scale. This is not consistent with black holes or singularities of infinite density that emerge in the theory. Einstein pointed out that these must be cut out.
Anyone can say whatever they want to. Anyone can invent a theory if they do not have to provide direct evidence of its reality. This has become very popular. No one will ever prove that probability waves really exist, or infinitesimal strings, or parallel universes, or dark matter, or a Big Bang, or spacetime knots, or many other ideas that have been put forward. It is not for us to re-invent the creation of the universe. It is for us to discover how it works according to direct evidence. The direct evidence for a discontinuous universe is there and yet this option has never been properly investigated. Researchers work in a closed community that is career oriented and they have to pass the peer review process to get published and succeed.
jack.123 - When Einstein began working on gravitation, it was because he justifiably discarded Newton's fabricated notion of an imaginary attractive force. Unfortunately, Einstein also never identified an actual physical force producing the effects of gravitation, settling on the imaginary dimensional construct of space-time curvature to predictively describe only the effects of gravitation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the effects of gravitation are produced by an actual physical force. Obviously, a fundamental component of gravitation, the quantum mass effect which produces the affects of gravitation, has not yet been described. I do have some ideas on this subject, but unlike dark matter, they still require significant additional work.
Is Dark Energy ("expansive energy") an expression of Dark Matters' half life ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease review the essay at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/Mass_Distribution-_Galaxy_Rotation_Problem.pdf
A Google search for "Dark Matter Myth" turns up 1.75 million hits...within the past year. That's some pretty healthy skepticism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING IN MY THEORIES OPEN MIND AND FREE FROM EINSTEINS IDEAS AND CONSIDER NO GRAVITY PULL BUT ONLY GRAVITOETHERTONS AS SPACE WITH VARIOUS FIELD STRENGTH WHIRLING AS FLUID . OUTER UNIVERSE IS ANTIMATTER AND OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark matter and dark energy are not a myth. Infinite Wave Theory (actually "Solution") quantifies gravity, defines the graviton. It doesn't require (actually accounts for) dark matter, dark energy and does not need singularities, membranes or anything else unverifiable. It explains an expanding, accelerating expansion universe, defines gravity as having properties of wave and particle and reconciles gravity with string theory or M theory, and may inspire a new version of it. It works with everything we already know. It mimics other things we are familiar with, the fractal effect. The micro is the macro. We exist within a particle of gravity. It's not small, it's huge. Gravity is the Ether. It makes understanding black holes simple. It's as simple as an apple falling from a tree, as it should be:) Details here- http://www.waynemcmichael.com/iwt.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this