Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014
Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter
Dark matter.

The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported a very similar signal just a few days earlier.

Sterile neutrino has mass

The two groups this week reported that they have found an indirect signal from in the spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. They made this discovery independent of one another, but came to the same conclusion: A tiny spike is hidden in the X-ray spectra of the Perseus galaxy cluster, at a frequency that cannot be explained by any known atomic transition. The Harvard group see the same spike in many other galaxy clusters, while Boyarsky also finds it in the nearby Andromeda galaxy. The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called 'sterile' because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos. A sterile neutrino does have mass, and so could be responsible for the missing dark matter

Minor expansion of the standard model for elementary particles

The first indications for the existence of dark matter in space were found more than eighty years ago, but there are still many questions surrounding this invisible matter. Sterile neutrinos are a highly attractive candidate for the , because they only call for a minor extension of the already known and extensively tested standard model for . Boyarsky and his colleagues have already had this extension of the ready for some time, but were waiting for the first observation of the mysterious particle. Measurements at higher resolution will shed light on the matter, and there is reason to hope that the spectral line just discovered will finally eliminate the problem of the missing mass.

Explore further: Massive neutrinos solve a cosmological conundrum

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Massive neutrinos solve a cosmological conundrum

Feb 10, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientists have solved a major problem with the current standard model of cosmology by combining results from the Planck spacecraft and measurements of gravitational lensing to deduce the mass ...

New results confirm standard neutrino theory

Feb 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In its search for a better understanding of the mysterious neutrinos, a group of experimenters at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has announced results that confirm the theory ...

Recommended for you

Particles, waves and ants

3 hours ago

Animals looking for food or light waves moving through turbid media – astonishing similarities have now been found between completely different phenomena.

User comments : 17

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

chardo137
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2014
"The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called 'sterile' because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos."
In fact, since a sterile neutrino would have no color or electromagnetic charge, and a right handed spin would keep it from interacting via the weak force, the only contact with our universe of normal matter would be Gravity, this possible decay channel, and mixing of types with the other neutrinos (possible because they all have mass).
chardo137
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
In fact, the mixing of neutrino types is what is happening in this hypothetical decay channel. Bottom line: Besides gravity, decaying into another type of neutrino is the only hope we have of ever detecting sterile neutrinos.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
In fact, the mixing of neutrino types is what is happening in this hypothetical decay channel. Bottom line: Besides gravity, decaying into another type of neutrino is the only hope we have of ever detecting sterile neutrinos.


Can they be detected with the LUX detector? It seems a lot of effort is being put into this machine to do just that.
tadchem
4 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
I would be interested in seeing the arguments that would account for a distribution of sterile neutrinos throughout a galaxy that would correspond with the observed distribution of dark matter.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
I would be interested in seeing the arguments that would account for a distribution of sterile neutrinos throughout a galaxy that would correspond with the observed distribution of dark matter.
Getting a little ahead of yourself I think. First, this is only one particle, and there may be others. Second, it hasn't been peer reviewed yet, and so the results of both groups have to be checked and replicated. Then a means must be determined to measure them. And so on.

I suspect there will be a number of PhD's coming from this work!
Bonia
Feb 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Zephyr, you are reading the LUX findings wrong. They make no mention in the article of LUX's ability to detect, nor an insensitivity towards detecting, neutrinos.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Zephyr, you are reading the LUX findings wrong. They make no mention in the article of LUX's ability to detect, nor an insensitivity towards detecting, neutrinos.

I think he confused neutrons with neutrino's...
The recent study proved, that the LUX is insensitive for neutrinos

the LUX was calibrated with neutrons, which are different from neutrino's Zeph.
read here (from your link):
To do that, the scientists use neutrons as a stand-in for WIMPs. The recoil created when a neutron hits the nucleus of a xenon atom is thought to be very similar to the recoil that would be created by a WIMP. To calibrate the LUX for low-mass WIMPS, the LUX team fired low-mass neutrons directly into the detector and used the detector's instruments precisely measure the characteristics of the neutron recoil

either that or there is a serious miscommunication due to language barrier again...
yyz
5 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
A preprint of "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster' is available here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

[definitely an interesting, experimentally testable avenue of research here]
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
"The researchers put it down to the decay of a new kind of neutrino, called 'sterile' because it has no interaction with other known neutrinos."
In fact, since a sterile neutrino would have no color or electromagnetic charge, and a right handed spin would keep it from interacting via the weak force, the only contact with our universe of normal matter would be Gravity, this possible decay channel, and mixing of types with the other neutrinos (possible because they all have mass).

I'm confused. We cannot even see normal neutrinos. How can we tell if another type neutrino is or is not interacting with them?
zorro6204
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
Susskind predicted this, assuming it proves out, that dark matter would turn out to be something relatively ordinary, just another particle we've missed up to now.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
Susskind predicted this, assuming it proves out, that dark matter would turn out to be something relatively ordinary, just another particle we've missed up to now.

It IS pretty ordinary. Kinda like (not so) empty space...
chardo137
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
https://sciencex....20Gyre/, detecting neutrinos is difficult, but not impossible. Shielded from cosmic rays in mines deep underground, there are experiments that are set up to detect neutrinos. Also, the Ice Cube telescope in Antarctica detects neutrinos. We even have the capability to measure the mixing angle (the rate at which one variety of neutrino transforms into another) for the various neutrino flavors.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2014
Of course, if the LUX cannot detect the neutrons in well controlled experiments with high density neutron beam
Um, no Zephyr, you've still read it wrong. Neutrons are detected; they used neutrons fired into the detector to calibrate LUX.

You are again trying to equate waves in a liquid to properties of quantum mechanics. It has been explained to you (several times) why this analogy does not work; why Zephyr do you insist on restating things that you have already been forced to admit you do not understand? Or, more precisely, that you do not understand why they do not produce similar effects?

Scientese - sciency-sounding jargon - is not a replacement for mathematics Zephyr. Sure wish you could get that through your head.

Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
https://sciencex.com/profile/user/Whydening%20Gyre/, detecting neutrinos is difficult, but not impossible. Shielded from cosmic rays in mines deep underground, there are experiments that are set up to detect neutrinos. Also, the Ice Cube telescope in Antarctica detects neutrinos. We even have the capability to measure the mixing angle (the rate at which one variety of neutrino transforms into another) for the various neutrino flavors.

Interesting. Was not aware of that. Being self employed and over fifty sometimes create info gaps..:-) Thanks!
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
Susskind predicted this, assuming it proves out, that dark matter would turn out to be something relatively ordinary, just another particle we've missed up to now.

Not necessarily a particle. More like an energy gradient.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
They didn't measure the LUX signal with it, but the recoil of neutrons (scattering of D-D beam).
What exactly do you think caused the NUCLEUS (not neutrons) to recoil?
Some other people are of http://arxiv.org/...01.4356. Should I believe them or to anonymous internet troll?
I do not believe that unreveiwed paper says what you think it says. I am not going to take the time to confirm my opinion, given your past history of mis-understanding papers you link to.

The formal math becomes poorly conditioned for description of highly dimensional multiparticle interaction and their geometry. This is why the formal proof of Kepler conjecture is so difficult.
That it is hard is exactly the reason your speculations are idle and without merit.
Osiris1
4 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
Suppose the 'sterile neutrino' is not the only dark particle in the 'woods'?
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.