Inexplicable signal provides tantalising clue about dark matter

October 16, 2014
A sketch (not to scale) showing axions (blue) streaming out from the Sun, converting in the Earth's magnetic field (red) into X-rays (orange), which are then detected by the XMM-Newton observatory. (copyright University of Leicester

Cutting-edge paper by Professor George Fraser – who tragically died in March this year – and colleagues at the University of Leicester provides first potential indication of direct detection of Dark Matter – something that has been a mystery in physics for over 30 years.

Space scientists at the University of Leicester have detected a curious signal in the X-ray sky – one that provides a tantalising insight into the nature of mysterious Dark Matter.

The Leicester team has found what appears to be a signature of 'axions', predicted 'Dark Matter' particle candidates – something that has been a puzzle to science for years.

In a study being published on Monday 20 October in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the University of Leicester scientists describe their finding of a signal which has no conventional explanation.

As first author Professor George Fraser, who sadly died in March of this year, wrote: "The direct detection of has preoccupied physics for over thirty years." Dark Matter, a kind of invisible mass of unknown origin, cannot be seen directly with telescopes, but is instead inferred from its gravitational effects on and on light. Dark Matter is believed to make up 85% of the matter of the Universe.

"The X-ray background - the sky, after the bright X-ray sources are removed - appears to be unchanged whenever you look at it," explained Dr. Andy Read, also from the University of Leicester Department of Physics and Astronomy and now leading the paper. "However, we have discovered a seasonal signal in this X-ray background, which has no conventional explanation, but is consistent with the discovery of axions."

This result was found through an extensive study of almost the entire archive of data from the European Space Agency's X-ray observatory, XMM-Newton, which will celebrate its 15th year in orbit this December. Previous searches for axions, notably at CERN, and with other spacecraft in Earth orbit, have so far proved unsuccessful.

As Professor Fraser explains in the paper: "It appears plausible that axions – Dark Matter particle candidates - are indeed produced in the core of the Sun and do indeed convert to X-rays in the magnetic field of the Earth." It is predicted that the X-ray signal due to axions will be greatest when looking through the sunward side of the magnetic field because this is where the field is strongest.

Dr. Read concludes: "These exciting discoveries, in George's final paper, could be truly ground-breaking, potentially opening a window to new physics, and could have huge implications, not only for our understanding of the true X-ray sky, but also for identifying the Dark Matter that dominates the mass content of the cosmos."

President of the Royal Astronomical Society Professor Martin Barstow, who is Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Head of the College of Science & Engineering and Professor of Astrophysics & Space Science at the University of Leicester said: "This is an amazing result. If confirmed, it will be first and identification of the elusive dark matter particles and will have a fundamental impact on our theories of the Universe."

Explore further: Possible evidence for dark matter particle presented

More information: "Potential solar axion signatures in X-ray observations with the XMM-Newton observatory," G. W. Fraser, A. M. Read, S. Sembay, J. A. Carter, E. Schyns, Accepted (08/09/14) for publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (mnras.oxfordjournals.org/), Paper can be found on arXiv : arxiv.org/abs/1403.2436.

Related Stories

Possible evidence for dark matter particle presented

March 11, 2014

(Phys.org) —Dark matter, the mysterious substance estimated to make up approximately more than one-quarter of the mass of the universe, is crucial to the formation of galaxies, stars and even life but has so far eluded ...

Mysterious X-ray signal intrigues astronomers

June 24, 2014

(Phys.org) —A mysterious X-ray signal has been found in a detailed study of galaxy clusters using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA's XMM-Newton. One intriguing possibility is that the X-rays are produced by the ...

On the hunt for dark matter

August 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Recommended for you

Theorists solve a long-standing fundamental problem

August 30, 2016

Trying to understand a system of atoms is like herding gnats - the individual atoms are never at rest and are constantly moving and interacting. When it comes to trying to model the properties and behavior of these kinds ...

Quest to find the 'missing physics' at play in landslides

August 30, 2016

During the 1990s, Charles S. Campbell, now a professor in the Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Southern California, began exploring why large landslides flow great distances with apparently ...

Invisibility cloak with photonic crystals

August 30, 2016

Almost as elusive as unicorns, finding practical materials for invisibility cloaking is challenging. Michigan Technological University researchers have new ideas how to solve that.

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 16, 2014
no conventional explanation.


Need not be assumed to be "Matter" either.

inferred from its gravitational effects


The term "Gravitational" is conjecture, and should be replaced with "Unknown Attraction". Now "Gravity" has a general meaning of attraction, but in physics it refers to the "force" or the "warping" of space time. We should be careful not to mix up a "general" definition with a "specific" definition. There is no conclusive evidence that the mediating force is one and the same as gravity between ordinary matter, even if the DM exist. You'd need laboratory grade experiments with Axions, or whatever "ons" might exist, to validate that hypothesis.

I doubt these Axions could be a significant portion of DM, because the DM in the model must exist in specific distributions in the galaxies, and it would decay quickly in magnetic fields, so we shouldn't even see it any more...there's much stronger fields than Earth's.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 16, 2014
For example, if you have a binary system with one ordinary star and a black hole, the Axions leaving the star and moving towards the black hole should convert to x-ray at a specific energy level and spectral line, which should be distinguishable to other forms of matter. X-ray telescope should be able to tell the difference. Why isn't this phantom form of X-ray already detected around known Black Holes and neutron stars in binary systems?

Id suggest studying such objects during a relatively "quiet" time when they aren't aggressively feeding, that way you could more easily see this specific signal without interference. The huge magnetic field will help ensure the axions are converted. Should be a softly glowing x-ray halo around such objects if they are close enough to the right kind of star, but far enough away to not be aggressively feeding.

This could help explain limits on black hole growth, jets and winds.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 16, 2014
Maybe it's a "massless" particle, like a Photon, but that interacts with the Magnetic Field and annihilates a quantum unit of the field, like matter/anti-matter reaction?

There aren't enough stars, nor enough dead star-matter, to explain the amount of DM you guys believe exists. The universe would have to be like trillions or quadrillions of years old, and most of the ordinary matter would need to be carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and Iron as stars burned to make the DM (Axion).

Another problem is Axions which never collide with the right strength field would escape the observable universe, causing the universe to lose energy. Roughly half of all Axions ever produced in this manner should have escaped the observable universe by now. This would cause the local universe to flatten at first, and then open up gradually, due to loss of mass.

Looks more like a DE contributor candidate than a DM candidate.
Returners
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 16, 2014
The DM in mainstream physics has to be moving at slow enough velocities to collect into clouds and clumps, and orbit stars, clusters, galaxies, galaxy clusters. A axion being made by stars would have a velocity exceeding the escape velocity of the system, and therefore wouldn't contribute to any "DM" in the system. It'd just escape to inter-galactic space and go out to "nowhere", unless it so happened to hit an objected or magnetic field.

Other problem is the DM in mainstream doesn't interact with magnetic fields in the first place.

I'm not saying this discovery doesn't matter, but whatever it is, it isn't "Dark Matter". It may contribute a tiny bit to the alleged DM effect over short time spans, but in the long term it actually would appear to contribute to the DE effect, as I mentioned, by radiating away mass-energy, either directly or as X-rays; this flattens/opens local space-time.

Thus the long term effect of this particle is the opposite of the hypothesized DM entity.
no fate
1.5 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2014
"This is an amazing result. If confirmed, it will be first direct detection and identification of the elusive dark matter particles and will have a fundamental impact on our theories of the Universe."

Detecting X-rays is not direct detection of DM or axions. You actually have to detect DM or axions, that is why it is called "direct detection".

Otherwise, flipping the magnetic moment of an electron will cause an X-ray emission, this "inexplicable signal" is happening at or near the earths EM field boundary...go figure.

Which begs the question, who is this inexplicable to?
Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2014
Otherwise, flipping the magnetic moment of an electron will cause an X-ray emission, this "inexplicable signal" is happening at or near the earths EM field boundary...go figure.

Which begs the question, who is this inexplicable to?


Presumably, they can tell the difference by the frequency/energy level of the X-ray photon, as well as any spectral lines associated with it; Much like telling the difference between Hydrogen and Helium with a spectrometer.

The experiment I posted above should be possible to test conclusively within a matter of days using all the various X-ray telescopes available to science right now.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2014
My cousin was right.
I should become a forensic accountant or something similar.
I'm much better at examining logical fallacies and oversights in other people's work than I am at actually doing the work myself.

This work is good "science", but be careful that you don't ignore other possible interpretations of the discovery, or that you don't automatically assume a new discovery is the particle you thought you were looking for, just because it has or shares some characteristics.

There are lots of weird effects which QM and Relativity predict different outcomes, like wave-particle duality and such. Given double slit experiments, I suppose one must consider entity duailty any time something new is discovered, regardless of it's predicted properties.

It may have unknown properties you couldn't possibly have predicted, because there was previously no basis for such a prediction. That type of discovery, if made, would be greater still, but X-ray telescope probably can't do it.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2014
The wave nature of a photon allows it to change the information it is carrying (double slit experiment) by interfering with itself. It never actually "touched" the double slit apparatus, yet it "remembers" passing through both holes simultaneously.

So in the right conditions, a particle can "remember" it's entire history, until it gets absorbed by something else.

What happens if the waves in a double slit experiment are prevented from merging and interfering with one another? Like another photographic plate orthogonal to the 2 slits, behind it, but in front of the detector? Shouldn't the photon be split permanently with no interference, or will it randomly pick a slit, or will the two photons somehow merge anyway, or will they "reflect" from the point they would have interfered, and go in perpendicular directions? Can the waves interfere even if they are physically prevented from passing through the same space?

Nobody ever discusses any of this. Has it even been tested?
Rutzs
4.6 / 5 (24) Oct 16, 2014
@Returners

Please stop talking to yourself.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (20) Oct 16, 2014
My cousin was right.
I should become a forensic accountant or something similar.


Skippy, he was making the fun with you.

I'm much better at examining logical fallacies and oversights in other people's work than I am at actually doing the work myself.


Of course you are Cher, there is a name for that mental condition, but I forget what it's called right now.

There are lots of weird effects


What, from all those drugs they make you take?

Oh yeah, I almost forget to ask. How you get them to let you out again so soon?
Scroofinator
3 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
flipping the magnetic moment of an electron will cause an X-ray emission


I haven't heard of this before, do you have any links to back it up? It helps explain an anomaly that I have been looking into.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2014
Oh yeah, I almost forget to ask. How you get them to let you out again so soon?


I am considered perfectly normal, except for primary depression and anxiety.

I believe you think anyone who disagrees with a mainstream view is "psychotic".

Perhaps it is you who needs to seek professional mental help, since you have a need to project your own mental deficiencies and inadequacies onto everyone else.
no fate
2 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2014
flipping the magnetic moment of an electron will cause an X-ray emission


I haven't heard of this before, do you have any links to back it up? It helps explain an anomaly that I have been looking into.


Here you go.

http://imagine.gs..._el.html
no fate
1 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2014
The dentists office plate is the example which flips the magnetic moment to produce the x-rays, the synchrotron demonstrates emission moving through a field. The photon energy level dictates which reaction you are dealing with. Hard x-rays for medical apps and soft such as Synchrotron.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2014
This paper shows an *excess* of X-rays over that expected to be created by these well-known processes. And this excess happens in sync with the seasons. Neither of which your extremely simplistic (i.e. over-simplified) conjecture explains.
saposjoint
4.2 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2014
I wondered how many halfwits would post the evidence of their malady before someone with a brain stepped in.

We should start a pool.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (18) Oct 16, 2014
My cousin was right.
I should become a forensic accountant or something similar.
I'm much better at examining logical fallacies and oversights in other people's work than I am at actually doing the work myself
-Because, you know, you never actually do the work do you? You only guess and pretend. You should really consider sobering up before entertaining future career paths.
I believe you think anyone who disagrees with a mainstream view is "psychotic".
No, a psychotic is someone who is certain he can do astrophysics and celestial mechanics better than the genuine professionals, simply by reading an article or 2, watching a few youtube vids, and doing a few postings full of garbled calculations.

And when proven wrong time and time again, a psychotic will conclude that the fault lies with his critics and not himself.

You sir are most likely psychotic.
no fate
1 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2014
This paper shows an *excess* of X-rays over that expected to be created by these well-known processes. And this excess happens in sync with the seasons. Neither of which your extremely simplistic (i.e. over-simplified) conjecture explains.


First of all, when it comes to "mainstream" expectations, not alot is going your way these days when measured against reality.

Secondly...seasonal dark matter? You just made my day, in the most simplistic of ways, thank you.

Perhaps Sappy can explain the seasonal nature of DM while he's fantasizing about Zeph...
no fate
1 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2014
Oooh Sappy's pissed!

Perhaps there is scientific remark waiting in the wings...or have they all fucked off on you as well?
Feyn Man
5 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
I hope Lawrence Krauss talks about this on his next appearance on Arizona Horizons.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2014
This paper shows an *excess* of X-rays over that expected to be created by these well-known processes. And this excess happens in sync with the seasons. Neither of which your extremely simplistic (i.e. over-simplified) conjecture explains.
First of all, when it comes to "mainstream" expectations, not alot is going your way these days when measured against reality.
Like what? They appear to have just found a signature of one kind of dark mass.

Maybe you forgot what the article is about.

Secondly...seasonal dark matter? You just made my day, in the most simplistic of ways, thank you.
No, it's not "seasonal dark matter." It's a seasonal satellite. Derp. Maybe you forgot orbital mechanics, too.

Perhaps Sappy can explain the seasonal nature of DM while he's fantasizing about Zeph...
Perhaps he doesn't have to because it gives the cause of the seasonality in the paper, which perhaps you didn't read. Derp again.
no fate
1 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2014
This paper shows an *excess* of X-rays over that expected to be created by these well-known processes. And this excess happens in sync with the seasons. Neither of which your extremely simplistic (i.e. over-simplified) conjecture explains.


Let me put it another way as I have noticed actual thought in some of your remarks. Why invoke a hypothetical particle as the source of a photon population in an environment where the same photons are already being produced, as you stated by "well known processes"? It is a blatant grasp a yet another straw, invoking the "possible" presence of a hypothetical particle in order to claim "possible" detection of another hypothetical particle.

The fact that it is seasonal is more likely an indication of increased electron density due to simple proximity to the sun. Invoking axions to explain this (sorry dead guy) is foolhardy. If it is a particle that only reacts to gravity...why did it leave the sun? - -DERP
no fate
1 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2014
"No, it's not "seasonal dark matter." It's a seasonal satellite. Derp. Maybe you forgot orbital mechanics, too. "

Define seasonal satellite, it has a 48 hour orbital period...what orbital mechanics am I missing? (double derp)
no fate
1 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2014
"If it is a particle that only reacts to gravity...why did it leave the sun?"

Figured I would re-post this since the claim of the hypothetical axion is that they are produced in the core of the sun. This little tid bit alone (although quite SIMPLISTIC) is an answer that would be required in the paper...unless we have some more new and special DM properties we wish to bestow on our magic little particle so that it can continue to behave as required to fit what ever model it is being used in.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 16, 2014
This paper shows an *excess* of X-rays over that expected to be created by these well-known processes. And this excess happens in sync with the seasons. Neither of which your extremely simplistic (i.e. over-simplified) conjecture explains.
Let me put it another way as I have noticed actual thought in some of your remarks. Why invoke a hypothetical particle as the source of a photon population in an environment where the same photons are already being produced, as you stated by "well known processes"?
Because those well-known processes don't account for all the X-rays, duh.

invoking the "possible" presence of a hypothetical particle in order to claim "possible" detection of another hypothetical particle.
Ummm, no, they're saying axions *are* dark matter, or at least part of it. Another paper you didn't read.

contd
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 16, 2014
The fact that it is seasonal is more likely an indication of increased electron density due to simple proximity to the sun.
ROFL! Did you know that the closest approach to the Sun is in the Northern Hemisphere *Winter*? If it made that much difference, it would be *hotter* than Summer!

Abandon all science ye who enter here!

Invoking axions to explain this (sorry dead guy) is foolhardy. If it is a particle that only reacts to gravity...why did it leave the sun? - -DERP
LOL, the Sun is not a black hole, sport. Nor is an axion created with zero energy; in fact, it's created with enough energy to overcome the Sun's gravity, derp, just like photons, derp, and neutrinos, derp ah duh.

Define seasonal satellite, it has a 48 hour orbital period...what orbital mechanics am I missing? (double derp)
The ones from the Earth's orbit around the Sun, derp ah duh.

You're being silly.
Alwayswonder
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2014
`keeep diggin' ...
EyeNStein
1.8 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2014
If this is so then every magnet on earth should be a measurable source of X-rays.
I think we would have noticed that by now!
Or taken faint X-ray photographs of a powerful magnet down a deep mine somewhere.
Ojorf
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
Define seasonal satellite, it has a 48 hour orbital period...what orbital mechanics am I missing? (double derp)


Orbit 'round the sun maybe? (tripple derp)
no fate
1 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2014
"LOL, the Sun is not a black hole, sport. Nor is an axion created with zero energy; in fact, it's created with enough energy to overcome the Sun's gravity, derp, just like photons, derp, and neutrinos, derp ah duh. "

- Axions are hypothetical dipshit, you are talking about something that doesn't exist... You can GIVE it whatever properties you want, that you are too stupid to realize they are conflictionary is very amusing.

"Ummm, no, they're saying axions *are* dark matter, or at least part of it. Another paper you didn't read"

Perhaps you need to re-examine the proposed properties of DM, you know, the stuff that doesn't have an EM signature and only re-acts gravitationally...as per EVERY (non) OBSERVATION thus far. Now tell me again how something that only reacts to gravity finds itself streaming away from the most gravitationally attractive object within 2 light years and emitting x-rays when interacting with an EM field.

ya, you got this.

no fate
1 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2014
Define seasonal satellite, it has a 48 hour orbital period...what orbital mechanics am I missing? (double derp)


Orbit 'round the sun maybe? (tripple derp)


The earth has seasons Gentlemen, we are not talking about the orbital mechanics of a satellite when we talk about the earths orbit around the sun.


"ROFL! Did you know that the closest approach to the Sun is in the Northern Hemisphere *Winter*? If it made that much difference, it would be *hotter* than Summer!"

The satellite orbits the WHOLE earth genius, the northern hemisphere's seasons mean jack shit in this context. The satellite "seasons" can only be reduced to earths proximity to the sun. Or is the entire earth now basing seasonal designations on what the northern hemisphere experiences? You're pretty cocky for an idiot.
no fate
1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2014
If this is so then every magnet on earth should be a measurable source of X-rays.
I think we would have noticed that by now!
Or taken faint X-ray photographs of a powerful magnet down a deep mine somewhere.


I can just see Da Putz frantically googling up a response to this one.
Returners
1 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2014
I hope Lawrence Krauss talks about this on his next appearance on Arizona Horizons.


Why?

He believes everything came from nothing. He doesn't get basic truths of reality and philosophy, so why should you trust him on something like this?

Or maybe I misunderstand, and you're prepared to mock him, with my help, if he gives another metaphysically ignorant response?
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2014
This isn't a "dark matter" candidate.

It doesn't even remotely make sense as a DM candidate over cosmic time.

It actually makes sense as a candidate of a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the DE effect.

If Krauss actually thinks about this, he'll say the same thing.

Which will lead to yet another unknown unknown in physics, because the candidate you thought you had does the opposite of what you thought it did.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (14) Oct 17, 2014
Here goes mainstream science casually "inventing" a new particle called the "axion", which seems to share many properties with my particle, the "tird", which many of you will be familiar with after long-time adversarial exchange with me. Why is it that when I proposed a similar particle 50 years ago, with better evidence than this, I was immediately called a crackpot by the establishment, whereas this guy (God rest his soul) is published and revered? Ah, I know! I didn't die......
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2014
If this is so then every magnet on earth should be a measurable source of X-rays.
Why?
Benni
1 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2014
Axions cannot be the source of DM. The simple reason being that the hypotheses for existence axions is that they are presently being created from the observable mass (OM) of the sun. DM is hypothesized to never interact with OM.

The total OM of the sun correlates very precisely with its known gravity field, therefore we know the sun is not a repository for DM or for production of it from OM which would violate the conditions under which DM is hypothesized for its very existence (non-interacting with OM).
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 17, 2014
Axions cannot be the source of DM. The simple reason being that the hypotheses for existence axions is that they are presently being created from the observable mass (OM) of the sun. DM is hypothesized to never interact with OM.
Wrong. It's hypothesized to interact at most very rarely. "Very rarely" is not "never."

The total OM of the sun correlates very precisely with its known gravity field, therefore we know the sun is not a repository for DM or for production of it from OM which would violate the conditions under which DM is hypothesized for its very existence (non-interacting with OM).
The Sun converts tons of mass into energy every second. If some of this energy were used up making axions, very rarely, then we couldn't measure the difference.

You're confusing philosophy with physics with all these "never" statements.

Furthermore, the observable mass is the very reason for the theory of missing mass. You're obfuscating.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2014
Folks should be aware that neutrinos are detected by their very rare interactions with matter. So this is nothing new or unusual, in that respect. Because of the very large area of the Earth's magnetosphere compared to the size of neutrino detection experiments (the magnetosphere is thousands of miles across; the typical mass in a neutrino detector is minuscule compared to the matter trapped in the magnetosphere, tonnes vs megatonnes, and its area is as well, hundreds of feet vs. thousands of miles. Therefore, there is much more chance for an axion interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere than a small structure like a neutrino detector). To filter out noise, this experiment looked at data from passes of XMM-Newton when it was behind the Earth from the Sun, and looking in the correct direction, to see if there was seasonal variation in these views.

There was.

Now the rest of the scientific community will try to disprove it. This is how science works.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2014
Geez, I made a mess.

Because of the very large area of the Earth's magnetosphere ... thousands of miles.
Was OK. But [s]Therefore,[/s] should have been eliminated, and
there is much more chance for an axion interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere than a small structure like a neutrino detector)
should have been outside the parenthesized comment.

So:

Because of the very large area of the Earth's magnetosphere compared to the size of neutrino detection experiments (the magnetosphere is thousands of miles across; the typical mass in a neutrino detector is minuscule compared to the matter trapped in the magnetosphere, tonnes vs megatonnes, and its area is as well, hundreds of feet vs. thousands of miles) there is much more chance for an axion interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere than a small structure like a neutrino detector.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2014
So:
Folks should be aware that neutrinos are detected by their very rare interactions with matter. So this is nothing new or unusual, in that respect. Because of the very large area of the Earth's magnetosphere compared to the size of neutrino detection experiments (the magnetosphere is thousands of miles across; the typical mass in a neutrino detector is minuscule compared to the matter trapped in the magnetosphere, tonnes vs megatonnes, and its area is as well, hundreds of feet vs. thousands of miles) there is much more chance for an axion interaction with the Earth's magnetosphere than a small structure like a neutrino detector. To filter out noise, this experiment looked at data from passes of XMM-Newton when it was behind the Earth from the Sun, and looking in the correct direction, to see if there was seasonal variation in these views.

There was.

Now the rest of the scientific community will try to disprove it. This is how science works.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2014
And even then, I STILL made another mistake!

The *original* proposal was to look through the Earth to eliminate noise; but instead, because the XMM-Newton primary instrument (its EPIC detector) was never pointed to look through the Earth at the Sun, they looked at expected deflected signals (which are expected for axion interactions), in a particular rage of energies expected for these interactions, and they looked for X-rays that had scattered through a right angle from the magnetosphere, and then filtered out all known point sources, and looked for a seasonal variation. (The point sources, of course, can vary due to the Earth's orbit around the Sun; when checking for seasonal variations, therefore, these must be eliminated to avoid contamination of the potential seasonal signal.)

These X-rays are anomalous given this background, and therefore easier to detect.
Benni
1 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2014
Axions cannot be the source of DM. The simple reason being that the hypotheses for existence axions is that they are presently being created from the observable mass (OM) of the sun. DM is hypothesized to never interact with OM


Wrong. It's hypothesized to interact at most very rarely. "Very rarely" is not "never."

Axions not proven to exist.

The total OM of the sun correlates very precisely with its known gravity field, therefore we know the sun is not a repository for DM or for production of it from OM which would violate the conditions under which DM is hypothesized for its very existence.


The Sun converts tons of mass into energy every second. If some of this energy were used up making axions, very rarely, then we couldn't measure the difference.

There is no proof for the existence of axions, thus none for DM in the Sun.

Furthermore, the observable mass is the very reason for the theory of missing mass. You're obfuscating.
Duh?

Benni
1 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2014
Axions cannot be the source of DM. The simple reason being that the hypotheses for existence axions is that they are presently being created from the observable mass (OM) of the sun. DM is hypothesized to never interact with OM.
Wrong. It's hypothesized to interact at most very rarely. "Very rarely" is not "never."


The total OM of the sun correlates very precisely with its known gravity field, therefore we know the sun is not a repository for DM or for production of it from OM.

If some of this energy were used up making axions, very rarely, then we couldn't measure the difference.


You're confusing philosophy with physics with all these "never" statements.


Furthermore, the observable mass is the very reason for the theory of missing mass.
You're obfuscating.


.......and your'e the resident philosopher claiming to know everything there is to know about anything that doesn't exist?
tritace
Oct 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
Wrong. It's hypothesized to interact at most very rarely. "Very rarely" is not "never."

Axions not proven to exist.
Ummm, it's a *hypothesis*. And *you* have no explanation for the anomalous X-rays. You're just ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
Hi all. :)

Please be careful! Take a deep breath before 'accepting/defending' anything like this 'finding'. Such 'findings' may be subject to 'confirmation bias' interpretations by the researchers involved. This lesson should have been well learned by now...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

The case of BICEP2 confirmation bias 'interpretation' of observation/data treatment was a lesson no-one should forget in a hurry!

Eg of another recent assumptives-laden 'claims'; ie, of "positron excess"...

http://phys.org/n...ace.html

...where OTHER more obvious sources may explain the "positron count" observed, and so obviate any need to invoke a supposed "excess" situation "due to Dark Matter collisions".

In short: Take care to check for yourselves all alternative possibilities before jumping to uncritically 'accepting/defending' such 'claims/findings' just because they come from 'mainstream source/team'.

Cheers all!
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2014
So you're denying they detected X-ray seasonal variation where there is no cause for seasonal variation but the Earth's orbit, the Earth's magnetosphere, and axions?

Really?

Dude, they're *bent through a right angle or more*. They plain flat should not be there, and they aren't if we look at the X-ray background (visible when the XMM-Newton satellite was not looking through Earth's magnetosphere). What's your conjecture for where these anomalous X-rays come from, then, since all point sources have been eliminated?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2014
So you're denying they detected X-ray seasonal variation where there is no cause for seasonal variation but the Earth's orbit, the Earth's magnetosphere, and axions?

Really?

Dude, they're *bent through a right angle or more*. They plain flat should not be there, and they aren't if we look at the X-ray background (visible when the XMM-Newton satellite was not looking through Earth's magnetosphere). What's your conjecture for where these anomalous X-rays come from, then, since all point sources have been eliminated?


Like BICEP2 etc treatments/interpretations 'eliminated everything else' for what was observed?

Look, Schneib, please stop strawmanning; it makes you look desperate, dishonest and wrong from the get-go.

I cautioned to wait for further observations and discussion before 'accepting/defending' uncritically at this stage. The alternative sources/causes may be worked out in due course IF we don't just opt for 'accepting/defending' uncritically. Ok? bye.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2014
Ummm, the X-rays are coming from *somewhere*. I don't see you explaining it, rc.

Looks like another brute physical fact you're denying again.
yep
1 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2014
http://www.jp-pet...2011.pdf
http://onlinelibr...abstract
Easy explanations with a priori "standard model assumptions" excluded.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2014
yep, how about you quote where you claim they say where these anomalous seasonally varying X-rays are coming from.

Thanks in advance.
yep
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2014
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2014
Quote, not more links, yep.
bee_farms_7
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2014
the universe gains structure somehow maybe -- it's getting weightier or more organized or something - i dont know the wrods - it's not extra mass or energy -- it's extra structure of some sort maybe - what am i trying to say - someone else explain it -- there is no extra anything -
it's all just far more organized and structured than we realize (someone else try to think of what i am trying to say thanks)
yep
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2014
As Professor Fraser explains in the paper: "It appears plausible that axions – Dark Matter particle candidates - are indeed produced in the core of the Sun and do indeed convert to X-rays in the magnetic field of the Earth." It is predicted that the X-ray signal due to axions will be greatest when looking through the sunward side of the magnetic field because this is where the field is strongest.
Mastoras
4.4 / 5 (9) Oct 19, 2014
My sincere thanks to the people who are taking the pain to explain something more to all of us amateurs.

These are indeed many, many comments. Once, I was hesitating to go through them. But, as I found out, using the option for showing only comments above a certain level of rating, it works!! Only the science based and the reasonable comments remain!!

Sometimes, people with knowledge try to answer some of the non-scientific, even un-scientific, comments, thoughs beating the rating option and bringing them to our attention! Even so, it is nice to have among us people willing to help with their expertise.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 19, 2014
@Mastoras
That's a very naive viewpoint, M. There are many users of this site who run filter engines automatically downvoting anybody they don't like, no matter what their comment is. I am proud to figure on many of the lists of comment-makers these engines target, and you will notice this applies to many others as well. Also, the same people running these engines also log on with many proxy names and upvote themselves at the same time.
tritace
Oct 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Ummm, the X-rays are coming from *somewhere*. I don't see you explaining it, rc. Looks like another brute physical fact you're denying again.
Why keep making disingenuous one liners, Schneib? Are your arguments so weak that you need these to convince yourself they aren't weak?

Remember when you didn't know about plasmoid occurrences/activities in/on the solar processes which lead to flares/ejections and coronal heating? Now you do know, yes?

Remember when you didn't know about the ordinary well known processes I pointed out for you which would explain supposed 'excess positrons' in earth's field?

Have you nothing but disingenuous tactics to avoid admitting that earth's field can behave as a particle accelerator, producing all sorts of 'collision scenarios' between many sorts of particles? Like positrons-electrons, which when annihilate/interact with the field and other particles produce all sorts of radiation, including x-rays and etc. Think.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2014
And even then, I STILL made another mistake!

No worries, a puppet squad of four gave you solid 5's on the whole slew of posts and self-quotes. 4's to be reckoned with. Other than eviscerating the soul of wit, the odor of "ends justify the means" bovinical defacatoriousness is strong in the air. Good work. Glad you know your axion from a hole in the ground. Plenty more cyberink where that came from, Pyhs.org's cool that way. Ask tritace :)
tritace
Oct 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Oct 20, 2014
@Mastoras
That's a very naive viewpoint, M. There are many users of this site who run filter engines automatically downvoting anybody they don't like, no matter what their comment is. I am proud to figure on many of the lists of comment-makers these engines target, and you will notice this applies to many others as well. Also, the same people running these engines also log on with many proxy names and upvote themselves at the same time.


This thread is a perfect example, it is clear to anyone who understands science that the low rated posters in this thread have a better grasp on why the axion hypothesis doesn't fit as a DM candidate. But the lemmings ignore logic in favor of supporting whomever is trumpeting the view they support. So you get a guy like Da Putz getting 5 ratings for apologies. Of course if you only care about how others feel about an issue when formulating your opinion...by all means, go by ratings.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2014
As Professor Fraser explains in the paper: "It appears plausible that axions – Dark Matter particle candidates - are indeed produced in the core of the Sun and do indeed convert to X-rays in the magnetic field of the Earth." It is predicted that the X-ray signal due to axions will be greatest when looking through the sunward side of the magnetic field because this is where the field is strongest.
Yep, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do you disagree with that?

rc, you didn't explain where the X-rays are coming from.

Proto, no science. Just trolling. I'm going to start reporting these if you don't stick to the science and stop trolling.
yep
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
Yes, as it is a ridiculous assumption, but then again so is most of standard cosmological theory based in the gas light era priori.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2014
It's not an assumption. Explain where these off-axis X-rays came from.

Or get added to my ignore list.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
Any region with charge separation can have Langmuir bursts which emit X-rays. We even have them in our atmosphere from lightening.
http://adsabs.har...11A0325L
Heck we have terrestrial Gamma rays from lightening as well.
http://vlf.stanfo...-flashes
Imagine that, we did not even need a dark matter fallacy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
But that's not in the magnetosphere. And it involves massive current flows in a very small area that are not apparent in the magnetosphere. Finally, it is Bremsstrahlung, not "Langmuir bursts." Says so in the abstract at your link to the Harvard Advance Abstracts page, right at the end of the abstract.

This has absolutely nothing to do with X-rays coming from the magnetosphere. You are obfuscating. That's all, good bye yep.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
the universe gains structure somehow maybe -- it's getting weightier or more organized or something - i dont know the wrods - it's not extra mass or energy -- it's extra structure of some sort maybe - what am i trying to say - someone else explain it -- there is no extra anything -
it's all just far more organized and structured than we realize (someone else try to think of what i am trying to say thanks)

It's the Universe trying to pack more into a "frame"....
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
"Any region of charge separation"
http://www.iaea.o...0222.pdf
Your incomprehension is not my obfuscation.
I hope this lecture puts it into perspective for you.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2014
yep, how about you quote where you claim they say where these anomalous seasonally varying X-rays are coming from.

Thanks in advance.

The seasonal variation derives from the amount of atmosphere they encounter, just like solar heat? Therefore, they are from Earth or close proximity and are a result of solar particulate interacting with a combination of Terran atmospheric particulate and her magnetic field?
Or maybe just from spin alignment....
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
The seasonal variation derives from the amount of atmosphere they encounter, just like solar heat?
No. There is no atmosphere; the magnetosphere extends 40,000 miles out from Earth, even on the side of the Sun. The atmosphere is only about a hundred miles thick. On the night side, the magnetosphere's tail extends more than 3 million miles. But we're talking about the day side.

Therefore, they are from Earth or close proximity
Well, the X-rays are; but that's precisely the point. Furthermore, keep in mind that these X-rays are not only anomalous because there is a seasonal variation, but because they emerge in an entirely unexpected direction. There is no conventional explanation for these X-rays moving in this direction. I'll explain why in the next post.

contd
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014


and are a result of solar particulate interacting with a combination of Terran atmospheric particulate and her magnetic field?
Definitely not the atmosphere; these X-rays come from a lot farther away from Earth than the atmosphere.

And if they were from solar protons or heavier particles in the solar wind, their momentum would be in the direction from the Sun to the Earth. But these X-rays emerge at a right angle to that direction. This violates conservation of momentum unless the source of these X-rays is much more complex than simple interactions between solar wind particles and the magnetosphere.

Or maybe just from spin alignment....
Kidding, right? Remember that photons, even X-ray photons, are unaffected by magnetic and electric fields because they carry no electric charge.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Oct 29, 2014
Or maybe just from spin alignment....
Kidding, right? Remember that photons, even X-ray photons, are unaffected by magnetic and electric fields because they carry no electric charge.

What about the article on magnetic properties of light (using magnetic mirrors)?
Regardless, angular momentum is playing a part in this somehow...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
Sure, it makes the magnetic fields of Earth and the Sun in the first place. But that's about it. It's certainly not making X-rays created by solar wind particles suddenly fly off at 90 degrees to the momentum of the particles that created the X-rays.
yep
1 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
Tri posted this on another article but it fits quite well here.
https://medium.co...6488ba0e
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2014
If this is so then every magnet on earth should be a measurable source of X-rays.
I think we would have noticed that by now!
Or taken faint X-ray photographs of a powerful magnet down a deep mine somewhere.


In fact the guys at CERN have been doing just this in their "CAST" experiment since 2003. Their 9.5T magnet in a containment tuned to possible masses of Axions has eliminated a wide swath of possibilities for these DM candidates.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2014
Hi Daz! (and everyone) :)

Sorry for tardiness in replying to you/anyone. Been busy. Still very busy, so can only make an occasional post, like now...
rc, you didn't explain where the X-rays are coming from.
I was too busy to lead you through it at the time. I thought for sure you would have researched it enough by now to arrive at the known science/sources explanation for it.

So I will take a moment to point out that the Earth's magnetic filed lines/system behave like 'particle accelerator' system for all kinds of 'charged particles' (protons, electrons, pions, muons, kaons) which are being created by collisions in the space involved.

Consider then, that such 'accelerated' particles are caused to 'spiral around' along field lines!

So these can collide with incoming particles (solar or cosmic rays) in VARIOUS VELOCITIES/GEOMETRIES (speeds, angles, directions)!

Hence many X-rays may emit in many directions, not just in the 'expected' Sun-to-Earth direction.

Bye.
saposjoint
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2014
Too busy with your senility/madness/upcoming ToE/need-to-troll compulsions to not post complete BS?

Nah. Not you.
imido
Nov 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 16, 2014
Hi saposjoint.
Too busy with your senility/madness/upcoming ToE/need-to-troll compulsions to not post complete BS? Nah. Not you.


WTF??? You are 60 yrs old, and you come out with such childish personal trolling while ignoring the fact I just provided Da Schneib with the known science based answer to his question?

How can you bring such poisonous personal trolling like this and still be able to look at yourself in the mirror every morning without shame making you turn away in disgust at yourself, Sapo?

This is not the first time you've brought your irrational personal poisonous anti-science/humanity idiocy to science discussions. I elsewhere recently provided known science answers re CO2 being 'the' real problem (not clouds/vapour in atmosphere as argued by some), but you downvoted it "1" even though it was known-science based explanation!

Sapo, really, for your own health/peace of mind in remaining years, do stop trolling like that! Don't be a malignant/stupid troll.
MaxC500
not rated yet Dec 11, 2014
All of these build perhaps on the Italian underground Dark Matter (DAMA) lab that also claimed to have found evidence of dark matter in the form of axxions way back since 2003. They have since updated their facility again and again and continue to make the same claims of dark matter detection. Yet a large part of the scientific community strangely claims they did not find dark matter while never offering a real explanation for what has been found in Italy. Always talking about how their own experiments will find dark matter first. The DAMA results seem to be in conjunction with these axxions. A modulation in the signal strength based on a the Earth's position around the Sun.

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.