Superconductors could detect superlight dark matter

February 9, 2016 by Lisa Zyga feature
A massive cluster of yellowish galaxies, seemingly caught in a red and blue spider web of eerily distorted background galaxies, makes for a spellbinding picture from the new Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. To make this unprecedented image of the cosmos, Hubble peered straight through the center of one of the most massive galaxy clusters known, called Abell 1689. The gravity of the cluster's trillion stars — plus dark matter — acts as a 2-million-light-year-wide lens in space. This gravitational lens bends and magnifies the light of the galaxies located far behind it. Some of the faintest objects in the picture are probably over 13 billion light-years away (redshift value 6). Strong gravitational lensing as observed by the Hubble Space Telescope in Abell 1689 indicates the presence of dark matter. Credit: NASA, N. Benitez (JHU), T. Broadhurst (Racah Institute of Physics/The Hebrew University), H. Ford (JHU), M. Clampin (STScI),G. Hartig (STScI), G. Illingworth (UCO/Lick Observatory), the ACS Science Team and ESA

(Phys.org)—Many experiments are currently searching for dark matter—the invisible substance that scientists know exists only from its gravitational effect on stars, galaxies, and other objects made of ordinary matter. On Earth, scientists are using particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to search for dark matter, while keeping an eye out elsewhere with detectors in space and even detectors located thousands of feet underground. Although scientists have covered all of their bases location-wise, these detectors may not be sensitive enough to detect dark matter if the mass of the dark matter is less than about 10 GeV (10 billion electron volts).

To address this problem, physicists are working on developing ever more sensitive dark matter detectors. In a new paper, researchers have proposed a new type of dark matter detector made of superconductors—materials that conduct electricity with zero resistance at ultracold temperatures—that may offer the highest sensitivity yet for detecting "superlight" dark matter. Superlight dark matter has a mass at the low end of the range of 1 keV (1000 electron volts) to 10 GeV, or in other words, up to a million times lighter than the proton.

The physicists, Yonit Hochberg and Kathryn M. Zurek at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, and Yue Zhao at Stanford University (now at the University of Michigan), have published a paper on the superconducting detectors in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

"The greatest significance of our work is the potential ability to detect dark matter with mass between a thousand to a million times lighter than the mass of the proton," Zurek told Phys.org. "Current dark matter direct detection experiments and other proposed methods are not sensitive to such light dark matter. Superconducting detectors are the only (proposed) game in town for dark matter in this mass range."

Although most of the time dark matter does not interact with anything, scientists have to assume it interacts with somehow, or else they could not detect it in the lab. But it's unclear whether dark matter interacts with electrons, nuclei, both, or something else.

In general, dark matter detectors are based on the principle that, if a dark matter particle were to hit the detector and interact with it, the collision would produce another type of particle such as a photon or phonon (a quanta of vibration) at a specific energy. The detector material is extremely important, as the interaction between dark matter and the detector determines the specific properties of the particle that is produced. Some of the most highly sensitive detectors today are made of liquid xenon (LZ detector), germanium crystal (SuperCDMS), and other similar materials.

In the new paper, the physicists showed that a dark matter detector made out of a superconducting material, such as ultrapure aluminum, could be the most sensitive material yet, capable of detecting dark matter with a mass of a few hundred keV or less. The sensitivity arises from the fact that superconductors have a zero or near-zero band gap, which is the energy gap that electrons must cross to allow a material to conduct electricity. Aluminum, for example, has a tiny band gap of 0.3 meV (0.0003 eV).

"Superconducting detectors are more sensitive than other detectors due to their tiny energy gap," Hochberg said. "This tiny gap means that they are sensitive to very small energy depositions, which in turn means that they are sensitive to very light dark matter masses, down to a million times lighter than the proton. This is in contrast to, for example, standard semiconductors, which (due to their thousand-times-larger band gap) can be sensitive to dark matter only down to a thousand times lighter than the proton."

The idea is that one of the that are thought to be constantly flowing through the Earth will scatter off a free electron in the superconductor. In a superconductor, the free electrons are bound into Cooper pairs with a binding energy of a little less than 1 meV. If a dark matter particle has enough energy to pull an electron above the material's , it will break the Cooper pair. In this way, the superconductor absorbs the energy of the incoming dark matter particle. Then a second device (a calorimeter) measures the heat energy deposited in the absorber, providing direct evidence of the dark matter particle.

The physicists predict that reasonable improvements in current detector technology could make this concept feasible in the near future. One of the biggest challenges (as in all dark matter ) will be to reduce the noise from non-dark-matter sources, such as thermal and environmental noise. If the superconductor detector can be built, it would provide the most sensitive test of to date and give scientists a better chance of finding out what the majority of matter in the universe is made of.

Explore further: Scientists crank up the voltage, create better dark-matter search

More information: Yonit Hochberg, Yue Zhao, and Kathryn M. Zurek. "Superconducting Detectors for Superlight Dark Matter." Physical Review Letters. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.011301 , Also at arXiv:1504.07237 [hep-ph]

Related Stories

Physicists suggest new way to detect dark matter

November 18, 2014

For years physicists have been looking for the universe's elusive dark matter, but so far no one has seen any trace of it. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place? Now physicists from University of Southern Denmark propose ...

Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

February 1, 2016

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of ...

Recommended for you

Color-changing water reflects a rainbow of colors and beyond

September 21, 2016

(Phys.org)—Scientists have created a water-based mixture that rapidly changes color when exposed to a variety of stimuli, such as a change in magnetic field, temperature, or pH. The scientists call the mixture "photonic ...

37 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bschott
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
The idea is that one of the dark matter particles that are thought to be constantly flowing through the Earth


Why would something that only interacts gravitationally "flow through" the earth? The only force it theoretically reacts to would have to have to stop it at the point of greatest force. Then again with an object like the sun as close to earth as it is, why would DM come anywhere near the earth at all when an object with the suns gravity is out there?

So we've heard about DM hairs permeating the solar system, a disk of the stuff right at the plane of the ecliptic in our galaxy as an attempt to explain observations and other untested theories, as well as a halo engulfing the galaxy to "hold" everything out there in place to explain those observations.

Please come back to reality soon. We could really use a break from the above dementia.
gunnqu
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Dark energy and Dark matter are mirages
http://vixra.org/...51v6.pdf pp.161--167
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Feb 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2016
Your on double super secret probation!
LagomorphZero
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
bshott: Then again with an object like the sun as close to earth as it is, why would DM come anywhere near the earth at all when an object with the suns gravity is out there?

By your logic: Why does the moon bother with orbiting the earth then when the sun is so much more massive?

The answer is distance, btw, the effect of the suns gravity declines at the square of distance, so there end up areas near the earth where the earths gravity will over power all the other sources. Which is a zone that the moon comfortably sits in.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2016
bshott: Then again with an object like the sun as close to earth as it is, why would DM come anywhere near the earth at all when an object with the suns gravity is out there?


So what........old Sol is 99.99 % of the mass of the entire solar system.

The answer is distance, btw, the effect of the suns gravity declines at the square of distance, so there end up areas near the earth where the earths gravity will over power all the other sources. Which is a zone that the moon comfortably sits in.


More "so what".....old Sol is 99.99% of the mass of the solar system. So if you want to apply the inverse square law of Earth's gravitational effects on Pluto compared to that of our Sun, I'd say a deeper study of that gravitational force pales that of Earth's into insignificance.
RealityCheck
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Hi LagomorphZero. :)
@bshott:

By your logic: Why does the moon bother with orbiting the earth then when the sun is so much more massive? The answer is distance, btw, the effect of the suns gravity declines at the square of distance, so there end up areas near the earth where the earths gravity will over power all the other sources. Which is a zone that the moon comfortably sits in.
I suspect that bschott means that DM has no 'cohesive' capabilities akin to the Moon's electromagnetic forces of its baryonic matter which keep it in a 'localized' state of motion which can only be 'at one place' of stability in the gravity well interplay.

Eg, 'diffuse' DM expanses would naturally stabilize near/within or go into/around any body, especially massive bodies like Giant Planets and our Sun (since there is no 'radiation pressure' repulsion from sun because DM hypothesized NOT to interact with anything except via gravity effects).

Did I 'get' your implications ok, bschott? :)
LagomorphZero
4.8 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2016
Hi Benni,

While the sun is the vast majority of mass in the system, it is also really, really far away.

Distance from moon:
Sun: 150 x 10^6 km
Earth: 400 x 10^3 km

Mass:
Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg
Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg

Given the mass difference of 6 orders of magnitude, and the distance difference of 3 orders of magnitude. It would certainly appear that mass is more important, but the square of distance turns it into a 9 orders magnitude difference (3^2 = 9), and suddenly the earth applies 3 orders of magnitude more gravity to the moon than the sun does. This is only speaking in terms of classical newtonian gravity, which I believe is sufficient for this conversation.
RealityCheck
4.1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Hi again LagomorphZero. :)
Hi Benni,

While the sun is the vast majority of mass in the system, it is also really, really far away.
In your explanation to Benni, you didn't mention the respective/relative 'escape velocities' involved. When you combine that information with the hypothesized velocities of hypothesized DM 'particles', and lack of electro-magnetic interactions which could brake them in vicinity of lesser planets, then what is the most likely dominant determinant of where such hypothesized DM 'particles' might more likely 'go to' within the solar system (given the billions of years of randomly diffuse behavior of the hypothesized DM 'particle clouds/distributions')?

Can you re-do your rough analysis to include what the sun's mass/escape-velocity advantage would be over lesser planets re attracting/holding onto any hypothesized DM distributions in our solar system (assuming, of course, there was any such hypothesized DM to start with)?

Cheers. :)
RealScience
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
@Lagomorph - when multiplying numbers with exponents, the exponents add.

For example, do you agree that 1000 * 1000 = 1,000,000?
So 10^3 * 10^3 is 10^6.
So the square of 10^3 is 10^6, not 10^9

If you look at the orbit of the moon from a distance(say, from the North Star), it does not appear to have little loops in - it appears to be a circle around the sun but drawn with a very-slightly-wavy line (to see how little it waves, see part 2 of the last illustration in http://io9.gizmod...356920).

The sun actually pulls more on the moon than the earth does - it is ~300,000 times as massive and ~400 times further away, and 400^2 is only 16,000, which is much smaller than 300,000.
LagomorphZero
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2016
Hi RealityCheck,

The escape velocity equation depends only on the mass of the object and distance from the object to escape from:

Ve = sqrt(2GM/r)

I don't know the hypothesized velocities of DM. My search turned up hypothesized DM galactic rotation curves, with the average velocity being ~275 km/s. Escape velocity of the sun (from the radius of earths orbit) is ~45 km/s. Escape velocity of the sun from the sun is ~450 km/s. Escape velocity of earth (from earth) is 11 km/s

There are going to be a range of velocities of the DM, and some may have a low enough velocity to stay with earth in orbit.

http://arxiv.org/...28v2.pdf

LagomorphZero
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Thanks RealScience! I was totally wrong there, and my calculations are invalid, its' been too long since I got into magnitude math. Good catch!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
There are going to be a range of velocities of the DM, and some may have a low enough velocity to stay with earth in orbit
.........but first you need to locate it or you can't do a mass calculation to figure out anything else.

To date, the mass calculations Einstein made in GR for calculating photon deflection as starlight passes the immediate peripheral disk of the Sun, were made from it's observable mass within 0.02% of error. This can't be done so precisely if there is even the smallest amount of unaccounted for mass. If DM exists inside our solar system, then 99.99% must resides inside the sun & Einstein's calculations for photon deflection should not work because he didn't add any fudge factors for missing mass, yet got it right within 0.02% of error.

So now, who wants to speculate how much of our Sun is composed of Zwicky's Dark Matter?

BartV
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2016
Benni says:
So what........old Sol is 99.99 % of the mass of the entire solar system....


Not true. Old Sol is 99.86% of the mass of the entire SS.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2016
Benni says:
So what........old Sol is 99.99 % of the mass of the entire solar system....


Not true. Old Sol is 99.86% of the mass of the entire SS.


OK, you want to quibble, so tell us what the maximum amount of Dark Matter is possible in light of the fact Einstein made his Photon Deflection calculations within 0.02% of error? This will require a calculation, so try not to get lost in the math.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2016
@Benni
Benni says: "So what........old Sol is 99.99 % of the mass of the entire solar system.... "

BartV says "Not true. Old Sol is 99.86% of the mass of the entire SS."

Benni says "OK, you want to quibble, so tell us what the maximum amount of Dark Matter is possible in light of the fact Einstein made his Photon Deflection calculations within 0.02% of error? This will require a calculation, so try not to get lost in the math."

I honestly don't understand that last quote, care to explain it in simpler terms? It reads as if you're conflating DM and GL. They seem to be related at the scale of GCs, but I doubt any local (ie SS) effects would be detectable, given the small amount estimated to to exist in our locale.
(cntd)
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2016
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 10, 2016
"Now consider the effect of dark matter upon the orbit of the sun around the galactic center. Let's suppose that the density of the dark matter is the same everywhere in the galaxy; this is NOT true (the density is much higher near the galactic center), so the dark matter mass will really be higher than we calculate."

TehDog: The above quote from the link you put up is nowhere found in Zwicky's original theses on DM. Zwicky explicitly states DM will be found in envelopes beyond the visible peripheral edges of Spiral Galaxies, anyone who doesn't care to believe this can do a search for his original thesis & dissertations.

It is ONLY the Pop-Sci proclamations of he Trekkie Class of science aficionados who are desperate in their attempts to selectively insert DM inside every galaxy in the Universe, except of course in those places where it can be measured locally, in our solar system. Einstein's Photon Deflection calculations prove there is no DM inside our Sun.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
The only force it theoretically reacts to would have to have to stop it at the point of greatest force.

Erm...no? Why would it? A particle that can pass through ordinary mass and only gets accelerated by gravity would get accelerated while travelling towards Earth, pass through it, and get decelerated on the way out and end up at the same speed (though possibly a different direction if it didn't hit centrally)

Then again with an object like the sun as close to earth as it is, why would DM come anywhere near the earth at all when an object with the suns gravity is out there?

For the same reason why the Earth doesn't fall into the sun? Conservation of angular momentum.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2016
Erm...no? Why would it? A particle that can pass through ordinary mass and only gets accelerated by gravity would get accelerated while travelling towards Earth, pass through it, and get decelerated on the way out and end up at the same speed (though possibly a different direction if it didn't hit centrally)


Erm...no.

For the same reason why the Earth doesn't fall into the sun? Conservation of angular momentum.


Angular Momentum can have nothing to do with acceleration/deceleration of something (DM) that has not been proven to exist.

How do you know DM even has Angular Momentum? The narratives DM Enthusiasts carry on most vociferously about is how DM is so unlike Visible Matter, that this stuff carries seems to carry an intrinsic property of zero Angular Momentum. If there is no interaction between Visible & DM , it is due to the absence of DM Angular Momentum which is an intrinsic property of Visible Matter which causes VM to interact with itself.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
Erm...no? Why would it? A particle that can pass through ordinary mass and only gets accelerated by gravity would get accelerated while travelling towards Earth, pass through it, and get decelerated on the way out and end up at the same speed


Really...you didn't think too much about this one did you? Gravity cannot accelerate something fast enough to escape it's own field. Even if that "something" is imaginary.

For the same reason why the Earth doesn't fall into the sun? Conservation of angular momentum.


Gotcha, conservation of angular momentum is the reason that DM particles would be less attracted to the sun than they are to earth.

Thanks for the wisdom.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2016
@Lagomorph - Thanks for explaining the relationship between strength of competing gravity fields and their relationship to object proximity. DM will be attracted to the strongest gravity field in it's vicinity...got it. (This was actually why I asked why there would be flow "through the earth"in case you missed that, and why AA's response was somewhat comical)

According to mainstream theory it ONLY reacts to gravity and it ONLY produces gravity, therefore the best place to find it is gathered around every center of gravity...or does this not make sense?

The properties of imaginary particles can be so confusing....
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 10, 2016
Gotcha, conservation of angular momentum is the reason that DM particles would be less attracted to the sun than they are to earth.


You betcha, because it is via Angular Momentum that defines how matter interacts with itself. If DM interacts with nothing, this is because it has no Angular Momentum thus preventing it from interacting with Visible Matter.

AP, you need to study up on Angular Momentum.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
Really...you didn't think too much about this one did you? Gravity cannot accelerate something fast enough to escape

Definition of escape velocity is this: Take an object and fire it from the Earth (ignoring air resistance). Then at infinity it will come to rest relative to Earth. Conversely an object that starts at infinity at rest relative to Earth (minus a tiny epsilon) will be accelerated to escape velocity before it hits Earth. Speed gained is related to gravitational potential travelled through (by m*g*h = 1/2 * m* v^2)
If the mass already has a speed before reaching the 'infinity minus epsilon' then it will have that speed again when it comes out the other side after travelling infinity (minus epsilon) away.

So no - no catching of dark matter by Earth.
bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2016
So no - no catching of dark matter by Earth.


This comment is accurate....because there is no dark matter.

The rest of your calculation is accurate as far as particles which could only experience gravitational acceleration and deceleration, and only react to gravitational fields while passing through matter. Missing from your calculations, and what we do not see evidence of, is the earths gravitational field fluctuating as a result of the continuous but not uniform flow of extra matter which produces gravity going through it adding to it's mass. Nor was this extra mass part of any calculations performed by Einstein, Newton, or Keplar when the equations of motion for the solar system bodies were first derived.

You assume all particles have a velocity prior to interaction with the earths gravitational field, How do particles which only react to gravity obtain a velocity? The only answer would be gravitational acceleration, so how do they ever escape the first field?
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Feb 10, 2016

"Now consider the effect of dark matter upon the orbit of the sun around the galactic center...
TehDog: The above quote from the link you put up is nowhere found in Zwicky's original theses on DM."

So? I didn't mention Zwicky. Oh, BTW "Zwicky explicitly states" is inaccurate, "in 1933, Zwicky was the first to use the virial theorem to infer the existence of unseen matter, which he referred to as dunkle Materie"
Key word "infer"
Of course, this was before radio astronomy and Hubble, both of which have enabled much higher resolution observations, and computers which enable us to explore the data these tools provide.
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2016
But I digress :)
Benni says "OK, you want to quibble, so tell us what the maximum amount of Dark Matter is possible in light of the fact Einstein made his Photon Deflection calculations within...

I honestly don't understand that last quote, care to explain it in simpler terms?
Please?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2016
How do particles which only react to gravity obtain a velocity?

Earth's gravitational field isn't the only one out there.

(Also if Dark Matter has a tiny interaction possibility with each other, normal mass and/ore electromagnetic radiation then there can be transfer of impulse)

The only answer would be gravitational acceleration, so how do they ever escape the first field?

Just like any other particle that has ever escaped a gravitational field? And note that from the calculated distribution there should be DM concentrations bound to each other or galactic masses. The difference betwen DM and 'normal' mass would simply be that DM oscillates through the galaxy (because it isn't stopped by anything) while 'normal' is prone to a lot more collisions that can slow it down (i.e. cause it to settle into the galactic disc)
promile
Feb 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
Just like any other particle that has ever escaped a gravitational field?


Magnetic repulsion? LMAO!

Think AA, stationary particle is accelerated towards a gravitational field (the most intense one in the area). By your claim, it is the DM particles destiny to oscillate back and forth through an objects center of gravity endlessly until a greater gravitational field effects the particle....what's the mass of the earth again? I mean with all this DM oscillating through it's center of G our gravity it has to be in a state of constant flux right? We measure that right?

Oh...we don't....weird.

At what point will the claims of what DM does and doesn't do NOT conflict with established physics?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 11, 2016
our gravity it has to be in a state of constant flux right?

Why? If the density of DM in our vicinity is fairly uniform then the contribution will be constant. And why shouldn't it be uniform if it interacts with (neraly) nothing to call a disturbance?

It's a bit like neutrinos. Lots of those are streaming through us every second - but there's no real fluctuation to the density that would cause a gradient. (There's a gradient because most neutrons we encounter have a localized source (the sun) - but that is another issue. DM does not have, for all we know, such a localized emitter)
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
Why? If the density of DM in our vicinity is fairly uniform....


So when you say uniform, you mean that for G to be a constant, all of the DM oscillating back and forth through the earth is perfectly balanced so that the exact same amount is always in the same spots, thus the earths mass never changes. DM oscillations are self balancing....right.

Also if Dark Matter has a tiny interaction possibility with each other, normal mass and/ore electromagnetic radiation then there can be transfer of impulse


Thank you for iterating the theory of "if" as it pertains to DM. Very convincing.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
DM oscillations are self balancing

As I said: as long as there is no argument for non-uniformity then that's the first working hypothesis. If you have an argument for non-uniformity at local scales then let's hear it.

Thank you for iterating the theory of "if" as it pertains to DM.

DM is still a lot of 'ifs'. What you don't seem to understand that DM is not a single theory but a whole set of theories. Like string theory. There's something there but we don't really know what it is besides that it acts like a lot of mass and doesn't show up in the EM spectrum.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2016
If you have an argument for non-uniformity at local scales then let's hear it.


I have a very convincing argument for non-existence on ANY scale. But for starters let's go back to the fact that locally,DM was not part of any calculations regarding masses and motions in the solar system. It was added to explain galactic motion.

DM is still a lot of 'ifs'.


it is nothing but "ifs".

What you don't seem to understand that DM is not a single theory but a whole set of theories.


It is still accomodated in the equations by adding mass, regardless of how many theories there are. (NONE of which have anything definitive that can be tested or proven as it is treated as a particle).

There's something there but we don't really know what it is besides that it acts like a lot of mass and doesn't show up in the EM spectrum.


"You" don't really know what it is, "we" do.

Magnetic fields lack a frequency in the EM spectrum.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2016
They can build it if they want, but they're getting no money from me.

Speculation that DM exists all around us is just that - compulsive theorizing based on quasi-logic - ie. speculation.

The theory of DM arose from the study of the interaction of large masses like galaxies and galactic clusters at EXTREME distances from here. NASA says, "It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."

Using my own quasi-logic, since the "observable universe" comprises less than 5% of the whole, that 95% of the rest of it is too far away to be detectable - its light will never reach us, but its gravitational effects are still observable. So, what's wrong with this theory? Too logical...
fckthierreyhenry
1 / 5 (2) Feb 16, 2016
Do y'all realize how stupid you look debating Zephyr's sock puppets? Probation? What a joke. Do you click on the scammer adverts too? The sad, sorry, shit should be ignored and if you can't do that, keep your dick in your pants.

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.