New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Dark Matter Looks WIMPy

Data from the International Space Station-based Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer experiment supports the idea that dark matter consists of the invisible particles called weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs. Clara Moskowitz reports
 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The universe seems to be full of dark matter, yet no one knows what it’s made of. The best guess is that invisible particles called weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs, contribute all this missing mass. And that idea matches the latest data generated by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, experiment. This instrument lives on the International Space Station, and it may be seeing direct signs of dark matter. The study is in the journal Physical Review Letters. [M. Aguilar et al, (AMS Collaboration), Electron and Positron Fluxes in Primary Cosmic Rays Measured with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station]

The AMS catches charged particles flying through space. Its new results show more positrons than expected. Positrons are the antimatter counterparts to electrons. Normal astrophysical processes create some positrons, but not as many as AMS registered. One possible explanation is that these excess positrons are a by-product of dark-matter interactions. That is, they’re being created by the elusive WIMPs.
 
When two WIMPs collide, they can annihilate each other, giving rise to other particles—such as positrons. The data from AMS so far match these predictions.
 
The positrons might also have a more mundane source, such as the spinning stars called pulsars. Time will tell if the space-based AMS has indeed seen the first sign of what makes up dark matter—or if we’re still stuck in the dark.
 
—Clara Moskowitz

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe