Simple theory may explain dark matter

Jun 10, 2013
This is a comparison of an anapole field with common electric and magnetic dipoles. The anapole field, top, is generated by a toroidal electrical current. As a result, the field is confined within the torus, instead of spreading out like the fields generated by conventional electric and magnetic dipoles. Credit: Michael Smeltzer, Vanderbilt University

Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole.

This proposal, which endows particles with a rare form of electromagnetism, has been strengthened by a detailed analysis performed by a pair of at Vanderbilt University: Professor Robert Scherrer and post-doctoral fellow Chiu Man Ho. An article about the research was published online last month by the journal Physics Letters B.

"There are a great many different theories about the nature of dark matter. What I like about this theory is its simplicity, and the fact that it can be tested," said Scherrer.

In the article, titled "Anapole Dark Matter," the physicists propose that dark matter, an invisible form of matter that makes up 85 percent of the all the matter in the universe, may be made out of a type of basic particle called the Majorana fermion. The particle's existence was predicted in the 1930's but has stubbornly resisted detection.

A number of physicists have suggested that dark matter is made from Majorana particles, but Scherrer and Ho have performed detailed calculations that demonstrate that these particles are uniquely suited to possess a rare, donut-shaped type of called an anapole. This field gives them properties that differ from those of particles that possess the more common fields possessing two poles (north and south, positive and negative) and explains why they are so difficult to detect.

"Most models for dark matter assume that it interacts through exotic forces that we do not encounter in everyday life. Anapole dark matter makes use of ordinary that you learned about in school – the same force that makes magnets stick to your or makes a balloon rubbed on your hair stick to the ceiling," said Scherrer. "Further, the model makes very specific predictions about the rate at which it should show up in the vast dark matter detectors that are buried underground all over the world. These predictions show that soon the existence of anapole dark matter should either be discovered or ruled out by these experiments."

Fermions are particles like the electron and quark, which are the building blocks of matter. Their existence was predicted by Paul Dirac in 1928. Ten years later, shortly before he disappeared mysteriously at sea, Italian physicist Ettore Majorana produced a variation of Dirac's formulation that predicts the existence of an electrically neutral fermion. Since then, physicists have been searching for Majorana fermions. The primary candidate has been the neutrino, but scientists have been unable to determine the basic nature of this elusive particle.

The existence of dark matter was also first proposed in the 1930's to explain discrepancies in the rotational rate of galactic clusters. Subsequently, astronomers have discovered that the rate that stars rotate around individual galaxies is similarly out of sync. Detailed observations have shown that stars far from the center of galaxies are moving at much higher velocities than can be explained by the amount of visible matter that the galaxies contain. Assuming that they contain a large amount of invisible "dark" matter is the most straightforward way to explain these discrepancies.

Scientists hypothesize that dark matter cannot be seen in telescopes because it does not interact very strongly with light and other electromagnetic radiation. In fact, astronomical observations have basically ruled out the possibility that dark matter particles carry electrical charges.

More recently, though, several physicists have examined dark matter particles that don't carry electrical charges, but have electric or magnetic dipoles. The only problem is that even these more complicated models are ruled out for Majorana particles. That is one of the reasons that Ho and Scherrer took a closer look at dark matter with an anapole magnetic moment.

"Although fermions are electrically neutral, fundamental symmetries of nature forbid them from acquiring any electromagnetic properties except the anapole," Ho said. The existence of a magnetic anapole was predicted by the Soviet physicist Yakov Zel'dovich in 1958. Since then it has been observed in the magnetic structure of the nuclei of cesium-133 and ytterbium-174 atoms.

Particles with familiar electrical and dipoles, interact with electromagnetic fields even when they are stationary. Particles with anapole fields don't. They must be moving before they interact and the faster they move the stronger the interaction. As a result, anapole particles would have been have been much more interactive during the early days of the universe and would have become less and less interactive as the universe expanded and cooled.

The anapole dark matter particles suggested by Ho and Scherrer would annihilate in the early universe just like other proposed , and the left-over particles from the process would form the dark matter we see today. But because dark matter is moving so much more slowly at the present day, and because the anapole interaction depends on how fast it moves, these would have escaped detection so far, but only just barely.

Explore further: New terahertz device could strengthen security

More information: Anapole dark matter. Physics Letters B, 2013; 722 (4-5): 341 DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2013.04.039 ( adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhLB..722..341H )

Related Stories

Mystery of dark matter may be near to being deciphered

Sep 04, 2012

(Phys.org)—The universe is comprised of a large amount of invisible matter, dark matter. It fills the space between the galaxies and between the stars in the galaxies. Since the prediction of the existence ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

Dec 06, 2011

Dark matter, the mysterious stuff thought to make up about 80 percent of matter in the universe, has become even more inscrutable.

Recommended for you

New terahertz device could strengthen security

Nov 21, 2014

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

Nov 21, 2014

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

New technique allows ultrasound to penetrate bone, metal

Nov 20, 2014

Researchers from North Carolina State University have developed a technique that allows ultrasound to penetrate bone or metal, using customized structures that offset the distortion usually caused by these ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Infinum
1.2 / 5 (23) Jun 10, 2013
Well, there are people on the Internet like the ThunderBold Project (https://www.youtu...roject), Vernon Brown (https://www.youtu...ern3666) and others who claim all interactions in the Universe are electromagnetic in nature. Quantum mechanics is just a fancy way of describing it.

But they are called crazy just because they rely on intuition and are not that versed in producing scientific papers. Nonetheless their view on reality seems to be more or less the correct one after all and is very similar to how Nicola Tesla thought of the Universe i.e. in terms of energy, waves and resonant frequencies.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (38) Jun 10, 2013
Nonetheless their view on reality seems to be more or less the correct one after

...and you say this because...?

I'm wondering, because observational data doesn't seem to support that view at all.
And 'intuition' without match to observation isn't science - it's religion.

As for the article. It's interesting that this will be testable with current dark matter detectors. Testable and falsifiable - the hallmarks of good theoretical work (no matter whether it turns out to be right or wrong).
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 10, 2013
IMO the rings of dark matter are formed only rotating bodies and we already have a theory for it.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (14) Jun 10, 2013
Nonetheless their view on reality seems to be more or less the correct one after

...and you say this because...?

I'm wondering, because observational data doesn't seem to support that view at all.
And 'intuition' without match to observation isn't science - it's religion.

As for the article. It's interesting that this will be testable with current dark matter detectors. Testable and falsifiable - the hallmarks of good theoretical work (no matter whether it turns out to be right or wrong).


Testable and falsifiable. Ya are correct. Any idea on the mass proposed by this idea? Would they be the sort of item that would show up in accelerators?
Stephen_Crowley
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2013
For those interested the complete citation is Physics Letters B Volume 722, Issues 4–5, 24 May 2013, Pages 341–346 and can be downloaded/further discussed at http://vixra.free...t77.html
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 10, 2013
Re: "I'm wondering, because observational data doesn't seem to support that view at all."

The observational and experimental challenges of cosmology put all cosmological theories on equal footing. Everybody should observe caution for all theories in disciplines for which we run into difficulties making measurements.

That said, to suggest that observational data does not support the EU view is a difficult claim to defend. The conventional theories only work if there is 96% invisible matters & forces placed where they need to be to make the models work -- which could fairly be interpreted as theory does not match observations.

The Electric Universe can point to a number of successes. The problem you will typically observe in conversations about the EU is that since the core concept of the EU is plasma, there is some background reading necessary to formulate a meaningful comprehension of whether or not the EU exhibits successes. Many people think they can skip this reading.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (17) Jun 10, 2013
Re: "But they are called crazy just because they rely on intuition and are not that versed in producing scientific papers."

The problem is better stated that the plasma concept is a difficult one to work with. Plasma experimenters will oftentimes see the plasma diverge from the various models used. Also, the large bulk of what we see with our telescopes is matter in the plasma state (99%+). So, the question of how this cosmic plasma is modeled can have an extraordinary impact upon the dark matter question itself.

It's important to realize that the inventor of the MHD plasma model technique recused himself from the ways in which those equations were being applied. So, it is somewhat problematic that we are talking about new physics here when we have a huge & somewhat technical debate over the details of these cosmic plasma models that truthfully dates back decades. In short, the cosmic plasma models are an electrically sterile version of what we see plasmas doing in the lab.
Greenwood
5 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2013
Nonetheless their view on reality seems to be more or less the correct one after all...

Not really. Every post I've seen about dark matter claimed (never proved) that in the EU "theory" dark matter was unnecessary and EU explained everything. But in this article it makes it very clear in this picture that is not the case and that DM is something, so if this is correct the EU people would have been talking rubbish. It's very easy for those people to stand over this and claim a small victory but this is nothing like what the people behind this claimed was the case, just because it's electromagnetic doesn't mean it's the same.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (23) Jun 10, 2013
"Most models for dark matter assume that it interacts through exotic forces that we do not encounter in everyday life. Anapole dark matter makes use of ordinary electromagnetism that you learned about in school – the same force that makes magnets stick to your refrigerator or makes a balloon rubbed on your hair stick to the ceiling," said Scherrer…...

But the problem is that nowadays we still cannot understand how the conventional electromagnetic force works! Maybe understand its mechanism, as follow, could help to solve the problem of the anapole dark matter.
http://www.vacuum...21〈=en
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2013
Cold dark matter: controversies on small scales cannot explain why most of the dark matter subhalos orbiting the Milky Way do not host visible galaxies. We should consider the shielding models of dark matter too, i.e. the fact that dark matter doesn't exist at some places, because the visible matter is residing there - but just the opposite reason: i.e. the visible matter is missing and its gravity field is shielded from there.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
the cosmic plasma models are an electrically sterile version of what we see plasmas doing in the lab
Electrically sterile plasma is semantic nonsense. IMO the dark matter rings are fucking the magnetic dipoles, they only care about axis of rotation, which may serve for the falsification of their electrical nature in its entirety.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2013
Any idea on the mass proposed by this idea? Would they be the sort of item that would show up in accelerators?

If the commenter linked to by Stephen_Crowley is correct: 30-40GeV - which is easily achievable with the larger colliders/synchrotrons (e.g. the LHC is designed to max out at 7TeV...currently can do about 4TeV in proton mode)

Though none currently have the detector types that would be needed and I'm not certain whether hadron collisions would even produce any DM.
Howhot
5 / 5 (1) Jun 10, 2013
This is a very interesting idea that may be applicable to dark matter. Since it doesn't interact electromagnetically but it does have mass. Those are the two long range forces. You might not even see the electro-weak force if it's under cover. So what about the strong force(s)? Are they just too short range to matter?

Anyway, very cool idea. Certainly one that makes you go hum.
lengould100
1 / 5 (2) Jun 10, 2013
Any idea on the mass proposed by this idea? Would they be the sort of item that would show up in accelerators?


It's quite difficult to propose what signal a detector in an accelerator should be set up to look for, given that by definition the proposed particles interact with nothing.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2013
Any idea on the mass proposed by this idea? Would they be the sort of item that would show up in accelerators?


It's quite difficult to propose what signal a detector in an accelerator should be set up to look for, given that by definition the proposed particles interact with nothing.
You'd look for missing energy.

antialias_physorg
2.7 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2013
You'd look for missing energy.

That's hard to do as there are potentially a lot of particles that
a) you don't catch (because they decay before they reach the detector ring
b) come in a form that passes through the detectors (neutrinos)
c) is in an energy range that the detectors don't register

If any of these are significant - and the production probability of DM per shot is low - then a statistical analysis of 'missing energy' is nearly impossible.
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2013
It's quite difficult to propose what signal a detector in an accelerator should be set up to look for, given that by definition the proposed particles interact with nothing.

Here's my brainfart of an idea:

If DM is composed of majorana particles then they are more symmetrical than other particles (i.e. they exhibit less symmetry breaking).
So if one could quantize "how much symmetry breaking"* is expected at collision energy X, and the measured quantity is significantly ABOVE the expected value, then we could infer that there is unaccounted for matter which does not show symmetry breaking (DM) being generated.

* NB: I have no clue how one would go about quantifying the amount of symmetry breakage.
Doug_Huffman
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2013
@Crowley, thank you very much, for the principle and the link and the full text.
jdbertron
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2013
Didn't the USS Eldridge have large toroidal coils on board ? ;-P
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2013
The "anapole" is not new. In "Secrets of the Atom", (1999), the three-dimensional path of the electron in a hydrogen atom model was pictured (p.98) (see www.science-site....oksofa). This model was refined and also described (www.science-site....kmatter) in a 2010 book. It was further refined in an article in the AIP/IEEE publication article "Analyzing Atoms Using the SPICE Computer Program" May/June 2010. The electron in the hydrogen atom has two rotational vectors in two orthogonal planes. This actually produces two orthogonal magnetic vectors. The low velocity, low magnetic moment varies with the energy state of the atom.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (1) Jun 11, 2013
I know, I know; "neutron repulsion".

Ober
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2013
@hat1208 you really need to include some REAL science. :-)

It's not just neutron repulsion, but it's their interaction with some water waves under the surface, generating transverse waves and longitudinal electric universe plasma interactions. Electron - Neutron repulsion voritces under the surface interact with zero point energy waves which coalesce into surface waves which scatter and explain everything. Since science still can't explain why a kick to the nuts hurts perhaps this link to some Pure B.S. would help you to understand it.
MB2BM55
5 / 5 (2) Jun 13, 2013
Interesting proposition, and, granted, that this is only a summary of the paper, but it seems to me that it would be quite a stretch for this to explain all of the observations that do not fit within the current framework that dark matter explains. This model may reduce the necessary amount of dark matter but as far as I can tell, it really only has potential to explain some gravitational lensing, some galactic orbital velocities, and possibly the accelerating rate of expansion. This model does not seem to have the potential to explain non-baryonic mass centered gravitational lensing ( as possibly observed in the bullet cluster), or the post cosmic inflationary large scale structure formation (baryonic matter was too hot to gravitationally condense on its own during this period yet managed to form stars and galaxies). There are probably several more observations that need to be satisfied as well. Measured fluctuations in the CMB for example.
Requiem
1 / 5 (4) Jun 14, 2013
Interesting proposition, and, granted, that this is only a summary of the paper, but it seems to me that it would be quite a stretch for this to explain all of the observations that do not fit within the current framework that dark matter explains. ...


Is there a place on the internet where people like you regularly discuss topics like this?
CarolynKay
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2013
I never see any bring up this possibility: If string theory correctly describes the basis of the universe, and there are indeed 11 dimensions, then there should be 11! combinations of unfoldings that have different characteristics. Some of them we can detect, and some of them we can't, but they could still be influencing the matter and forces that we CAN observe.

And there may be even more than 11! combinations, if unfoldings can be partial.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Jun 17, 2013
A toroidal transformer still generates an external magnetic field though weak, that is, if it doesn't have an extra winding along the toroid to cancel that weak field. Given this is a complexity contrived to avoid this weak field, is it therefore likely the model as suggested here also has this ?

Or, if it does than how does such self cancellation arise from a 'simple particle' etc ?

Well I doubt it. If it is indeed a toroidal type of 'current' and it is not delivered by anything like an electron then we have an early hypothesis and not a theory. A good mathematical ie QM description/model would be essential and have that debated first long before launching into colliders with unclear ideas as to what to make the detectors from...
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2013
Mods: Could we please have a filter that dumps all posts that start with:

"In dense aether model..."

Please? Pretty please?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 17, 2013
dumps all posts that start with: "In dense aether model..."

But why?

You really need to ask 'why' ?

Let me make this very plain to you: You have been spamming this forum for YEARS now with this tripe. With thousands of posts (no, I'm not exaggerating. Thousands. Literally)
It has not once been on topic. Not once.

Dense aether isn't a model. It isn't a theory. It's a brainfart.
It makes no predictions. It has no math to back it up. It's your privat fairytale (and in all these years you have yet to encounter a single person here who would buy it - take a hint)

We're all dead tired of reading the same, flawed stuff over and over and over again. It was wrong when it was invented and it hasn't gotten any more right by now.

So just write those posts into mails to yourself. You obvisouly enjoy reading them. No one else does (and it stifles real discussion every time). Everybody (including you) would be SO much happier if you did that.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2013
The simplest prediction is the inverse square law

That's not a prediction. That is FIT to currently KNOWN data.

A prediction would be something like this:
"Dense aether predicts that if you measure X (which has hitherto not been measured) you will get value Y whereas if you use the current model it will show Z which is at odds with Y."
(Showing the math. This part is important).

Your brainfart doesn't do that. Until it does it (with the math to back it up) it is nothing but a brainfart.
aaroncohn
not rated yet Jun 18, 2013
"Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole."

If most of the matter in the universe has this type of field, then it's not very unusual, is it? :-p
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2013
The era of distinct mathematical predictions is over

You just use that as a cop-out to keep your 'theory' as vague as possible to fit it to any observables (i.e. the same strategy that religion uses).
You just use this assertion to cover up that you're unable to do (any) math. If the time of 'distinct mathematical predictions' were over we'd be in the age of "new-agey-hippy-feel-good"-theories...which is exactly what your theory is to you.

From an information theory standpoint this means your 'theory' carries no information whatsoever (unless you want to dispute that information theory is a good theory. Oh boy am I going to have a heyday if you try THAT stunt). Your theory is therefore utterly useless.

After all, if we are forced to believe in "multiverse model" without any math

No. It's just something mentioned as a possibility (with math behind it!) - just like string theory. Both are currently weak theories. No one would claim they are undisputed truth.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2013
aaroncohn sounded like he's on a pedant search
"Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole."
If most of the matter in the universe has this type of field, then it's not very unusual, is it? :-p
Unusual in terms of current experience & perception, if at least, up until the article was offered. Since we havent experienced anything like this yet in all our observations of what makes the matter we have now work for us then yes it is unusual & especially so as it coincides with being hidden to a great degree.

ie. There is nothing in respect of our current maths and physics which describes well the matter we deal with for all sorts of reasons that suggest particles reliant upon anapoles have any sort of part to play at our level of perception and utility, yes definitely an unusual concept...

@natello
Disagree totally with "..predictions is over..", come on try some basic maths !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.