Particle detector finds hints of dark matter in space

September 19, 2014 by Jennifer Chu
The starboard truss of the International Space Station while Space Shuttle Endeavour docked with the station. The newly installed Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is visible at center left. Credit: NASA

Researchers at MIT's Laboratory for Nuclear Science have released new measurements that promise to shed light on the origin of dark matter.

The MIT group leads an international collaboration of scientists that analyzed two and a half years' worth of data taken by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)—a large particle detector mounted on the exterior of the International Space Station—that captures incoming cosmic rays from all over the galaxy.

Among 41 billion events—instances of entering the detector—the researchers identified 10 million electrons and positrons, stable antiparticles of electrons. Positrons can exist in relatively small numbers within the cosmic ray flux.

An excess of these particles has been observed by previous experiments—suggesting that they may not originate from cosmic rays, but come instead from a new source. In 2013, the AMS collaboration, for the first time, accurately measured the onset of this excess.

The new AMS results may ultimately help scientists narrow in on the origin and features of —whose collisions may give rise to positrons.

The team reports the observed positron fraction—the ratio of the number of positrons to the combined number of positrons and electrons—within a wider energy range than previously reported. From the data, the researchers observed that this positron fraction increases quickly at low energies, after which it slows and eventually levels off at much higher energies.

The team reports that this is the first experimental observation of the positron fraction maximum—at 243 to 307 gigaelectronvolts (GeV)—after half a century of cosmic ray experiments.

"The new AMS results show unambiguously that a new source of positrons is active in the galaxy," says Paolo Zuccon, an assistant professor of physics at MIT. "We do not know yet if these positrons are coming from dark matter collisions, or from astrophysical sources such as pulsars. But measurements are underway by AMS that may discriminate between the two hypotheses."

Computer-generated drawing of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). Credit: NASA

The new measurements, Zuccon adds, are compatible with a with mass on the order of 1 teraelectronvolt (TeV)—about 1,000 times the mass of a proton.

Zuccon and his colleagues, including AMS's principal investigator, Samuel Ting, the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Physics at MIT, detail their results in two papers published today in the journal Physical Review Letters and in a third, forthcoming publication.

Catching a galactic stream

Nearly 85 percent of the universe is made of dark matter—matter that somehow does not emit or reflect light, and is therefore invisible to modern telescopes. For decades, astronomers have observed only the effects of dark matter, in the form of mysterious gravitational forces that seem to hold together clusters of galaxy that would otherwise fly apart. Such observations eventually led to the theory of an invisible, stabilizing source of gravitational mass, or dark matter.

The AMS experiment aboard the International Space Station aims to identify the origins of dark matter. The detector takes in a constant flux of cosmic rays, which Zuccon describes as "streams of the universe that bring with them everything they can catch around the galaxy."

Presumably, this cosmic stream includes leftovers from the violent collisions between dark matter particles.

According to theoretical predictions, when two dark matter particles collide, they annihilate, releasing a certain amount of energy that depends on the mass of the original particles. When the particles annihilate, they produce ordinary particles that eventually decay into stable particles, including electrons, protons, antiprotons, and positrons.

As the visible matter in the universe consists of protons and electrons, the researchers reasoned that the contribution of these same particles from dark matter collisions would be negligible. However, positrons and antiprotons are much rarer in the universe; any detection of these particles above the very small expected background would likely come from a new source. The features of this excess—and in particular its onset, maximum position, and offset—will help scientists determine whether positrons arise from astrophysical sources such as pulsars, or from dark matter.

After continuously collecting data since 2011, the AMS team analyzed 41 billion incoming particles and identified 10 million positrons and electrons with energies ranging from 0.5 to 500 GeV—a wider energy range than previously measured.

The researchers studied the positron fraction versus energy, and found an excess of positrons starting at lower energies (8 GeV), suggesting a source for the other than the cosmic rays themselves. The positron fraction then slowed and peaked at 275 GeV, indicating that the data may be compatible with a dark matter source of .

"Dark matter is there," Zuccon says. "We just don't know what it is. AMS has the possibility to shine a light on its features. We see some hint now, and it is within our possibility to say if that hint is true."

If it turns out that the AMS results are due to dark matter, the experiment could establish that dark matter is a new kind of particle, says Barry Barish, a professor emeritus of physics and high-energy physics at the California Institute of Technology.

"The new phenomena could be evidence for the long-sought dark matter in the universe, or it could be due to some other equally exciting new science," says Barish, who was not involved in the experiments. "In either case, the observation in itself is what is exciting; the scientific explanation will come with further experimentation."

Explore further: Shining light on elusive dark matter

More information: L. Accardo et al. (AMS Collaboration). "High Statistics Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–500 GeV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station." Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 121101 – Published 18 September 2014. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.121101

M. Aguilar et al. (AMS Collaboration) "Electron and Positron Fluxes in Primary Cosmic Rays Measured with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station." Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 121102 – Published 18 September 2014. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.121102

Related Stories

Shining light on elusive dark matter

April 4, 2013

The antimatter hunter AMS-02 on the International Space Station is searching for the missing pieces of our Universe. The project's first results published yesterday are hinting at a new phenomenon and revealing more about ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

December 6, 2011

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

New data from PAMELA provides better measure of positrons

August 26, 2013

(Phys.org) —A large team made up of researchers from several European countries (Italy, Russia, Sweden and Germany) has published, in the journal Physical Review Letters, the latest findings from the Payload for Antimatter/Matter ...

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Recommended for you

Melting solid below the freezing point

January 23, 2017

Phase transitions surround us—for instance, liquid water changes to ice when frozen and to steam when boiled. Now, researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science have discovered a new phenomenon of so-called metastability ...

Probe for nanofibers has atom-scale sensitivity

January 20, 2017

Optical fibers are the backbone of modern communications, shuttling information from A to B through thin glass filaments as pulses of light. They are used extensively in telecommunications, allowing information to travel ...

Magnetic recording with light and no heat on garnet

January 19, 2017

A strong, short light pulse can record data on a magnetic layer of yttrium iron garnet doped with Co-ions. This was discovered by researchers from Radboud University in the Netherlands and Bialystok University in Poland. ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2014
Fascinating. I would expect anomalies in the cosmic ray spectrum where collisions with dark matter particles would shift the energies of the cosmic rays, as well, but I can't see what you'd compare them with to detect the shifts. It would show up as a "dip" or "hole" in the spectrum at the right energies. Perhaps longer observation and proper analysis will show such an effect, as well. It might be very subtle.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2014
That is so cool - the data is following an early prediction - but it is few and uncertain points that straddles the possible peak. It needs more data.

Else ~ TeV DM is both consistent with LHC and desirable as else the SM is pushing naturalness way out of bounds. Already 1 TeV is about an order of magnitude larger energy than SM should cover. (With a 125 GeV Higgs, the SM should go up to 250 GeV without finetuning AFAIU. A few TeVs are 4-40 times higher.)

So possibly, and preferably.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2014
@ Schneid, TL, WG, & a couple others I've been able to identify as being serious about scientific endeavor; just what are your thoughts about the lack of observable mass within our solar system that should lead to a "pro" or "con" consensus for existence of DM?

Succinctly my point is this: Astrophysicists have hypothesize we need DM as a sort of glue that prevents the rotational speeds from causing self destruction of all the galaxies. But the dilemma we're staring at within own galactic neighborhood is that all gravity is accounted for by the observable mass.

Or are we to conclude our solar system is simply an anomaly for DM? Then if we were to conclude that, we should also conclude that due to the lack of this "cosmic glue" in our neighborhood, we should have been flung out of the galaxy a long time ago & there are no observable indications of this occurring. Any thoughts about this?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2014
DM is pervasive at cosmological scales, and is concentrated near galaxies, so it forms a background of gravitation rather than clumping around solar systems. Its effects are too small to affect solar system dynamics measurably at this time, given the sensitivity of our current equipment. This will change in the future, and we'll include DM in calculations for ephemerides. (For lurkers, an ephemeris is a "weather report" for the Solar System, cataloging the expected motions of all the planets and asteroids around the Sun. It's never precise, because a) there is no solution to the three-body problem, far less our ten-body Solar System, and because b) we can't calculate the influences of DM and gas and dust clouds and other stars precisely, again because we don't have sensitive enough equipment, and because this increases the ten bodies to a hundred or more.)

Good question, Benni.
Benni
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 19, 2014
@Ira- Special education classes are not held here, this site is for science.
Uncle Ira
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 19, 2014
@Ira- Special education classes are not held here, this site is for science.


What is the matter with you Bennie-Skippy? I didn't say anything about you not understanding the dark matters. Next time why don't you wait for me to say something before you write down something silly to me?
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 19, 2014
Good question, Benni.


He thinks it is. The reason I know he thinks it is is because he's asked the exact same question about 100 times thinking that his question is the proof of there being no dark matters.

Captain-Skippy, anti-Skippy, Maggnus-Skippy, brt-Skippy, Q-Skippy, Fleet-something-Skippy, xyz-Skippy, and some lot of other Skippys I can't remember have all given him the exact same answer you gave up there.

But I'm sure the Bennie-Skippy thinks it's such a good question he'll ask it again the next there is a dark matters article for him to ask it on.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
DM is pervasive at cosmological scales, and is concentrated near galaxies, so it forms a background of gravitation rather than clumping around solar systems.


Concisely stated Schneid, and the reason I bring it up is from studies in Einstein's GR in which he stated that he would expect the shape of the universe to be quasi-spherical as opposed to being perfectly spherical. Are you familiar with that section of GR?

Einstein surmised that clumping of galactic material would result in an egg shaped universe caused by an uneven distribution of galactic material & the consequent manner the gravity of that uneven distribution would shape energy distribution & matter. I've wondered if there are "nodes of DM" or if maybe there are entire galactic entities composed solely of DM as there are of the observable kind.

If the above may be the case, the next question would be: How does DM segregate itself from baryonic matter & clump?

Osiris1
1 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2014
Our own world is chaotic and ruled by entropy. Why not the universe. Look at explosions at quarries. They are messy! Our universe' shape if not spherical would be some lumpy bumpy analog to it. But we are far from seeing it in its entirety, as much of our 'home' space is expanding away from us faster than 'C'. If space can expand, it can also contract, so no matter what Einstein says, we can one day be star travelers. That nay sayer about Jupiter mass/energy conversions will one day be proven very wrong. And the warp ships will not bear time dilation penalties either as they are not really translating in their bubble universes while at warp.
theon
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Oh, yes, it must be dark matter to pay off. Forget that the antiproton fraction observed notably by AMS rules this hypothesis out. For those interested in the physics, rather than in marketing the hype, see the Resonances blog. Conclusion: these are secondary positrons, from cosmic rays.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2014
From the article...
"We do not know yet if these positrons are coming from dark matter collisions, or from astrophysical sources such as pulsars."


Why attribute/relate 'positron' presence/ratios to such speculative causes when known science already explains it?

The space environment/dynamics there is full of Kaons, Pions and Muons; from all sorts of solar-wind/cosmic-ray collisions 'products'.

Certain Kaons and Pions decay to +muons, which in turn decay to positrons (+e) and neutrino(or is it anti-neutrino, can't recall which).

So positron presence/ratio would be locally determined by solar-wind and cosmic ray collision frequencies/densities from place to place and time to time.

Why the need/rush for anyone to postulate 'dark matter' collisions or far away pulsars for positron presence/ratios here if they already (I assume) know about these local known physics sources/causes of same?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2014
Oh, yes, it must be dark matter to pay off. Forget that the antiproton fraction observed notably by AMS rules this hypothesis out. For those interested in the physics, rather than in marketing the hype, see the Resonances blog. Conclusion: these are secondary positrons, from cosmic rays.
You know, resonance is the term most often misused by cranks. Deepak Chopra for example.

Just sayin'.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2014
From the article...
"We do not know yet if these positrons are coming from dark matter collisions, or from astrophysical sources such as pulsars."
Why attribute/relate 'positron' presence/ratios to such speculative causes when known science already explains it?
Because it doesn't. It explains a certain amount; the rest is unexplained.

It says so in the article.

You apparently didn't read it, or if you did, didn't understand it.

OTOH at least now you're talking about science instead of your usual BS, so I give you a 3.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Because it doesn't. It explains a certain amount; the rest is unexplained.
It only stated that there was 'an excess' detected previously, and that the new observations were more precise in quantifying/identifying the numbers/energy spread. Nowhere did it explain 'excess to what'? Not only that, but it said in the article that the greater numbers of positrons were in the LOWER energy ranges, and level off going to higher energy levels. So obvious implication is that LOCAL sources/causes of positrons at LOCALLY achievable energy-levels processes from solar-wind/cosmic-ray collisions 'products' are responsible. Hence my pointing out obvious causes/sources of known 'products/processes' from Kaon/Pion/Muon decays to positrons (+e), neutrinos/antineutrinos. Fluctuations should be observed over time enough to establish 'base average' which may then be used to quantify and local excess etc. Untill all that is done, involving 'dark matter' is uncalled for by known facts. :)
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
That's what "excess" means.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
That's what "excess" means.
Like I asked: Excess to what?

I pointed out that plenty of positrons would naturally be there from know physical sources/causes (decay of Kaons, Pions, Muons to positrons (e+) plus neutrino/anti-neutrinos.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
DM is pervasive at cosmological scales, and is concentrated near galaxies, so it forms a background of gravitation rather than clumping around solar systems.
Concisely stated Schneid, and the reason I bring it up is from studies in Einstein's GR in which he stated that he would expect the shape of the universe to be quasi-spherical as opposed to being perfectly spherical. Are you familiar with that section of GR?
Actually that's not part of GR. And it appears he may have failed in this conjecture.

In fact many of his arguments prefigured the anti-filamentarian arguments of the 1990s, so despite being wrong he was visionary. Of course, in the end the filamentarians won.

If the above may be the case, the next question would be: How does DM segregate itself from baryonic matter & clump?
It doesn't separate itself. In fact, DM does the clumping and matter is attracted to the clumps, considering that there is about five times more DM than matter.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2014
Frankly, what we can see currently is about 5%, or 1/20, of the universe's content of matter and energy. The other 95% is dark matter and dark energy that we can't see, and we think the dark energy is an attribute of spacetime, not a substance or thing. Yet, because we see its effects on the ordinary, visible matter, we can tell it's there.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
That's what "excess" means.
Like I asked: Excess to what?
In excess of what is predicted by theory to be from the exact local sources you''re trying to pretend they ignored.

And BTW it's "in excess of what," not "in excess to what."

In English.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
In excess of what is predicted by theory to be from the exact local sources you''re trying to pretend they ignored.

And BTW it's "in excess of what," not "in excess to what."

In English.

It's "an" excess of what compared "to" what. The English custom of contracting and understood terms in a sentence construction makes it understood exactly what I meant in that context.

So, again, 'excess to what' (benchmark numbers)?

What benchmark numbers have been determined/provided in the research/literature to judge what detected previously/now is 'excess'?

What theory has used any such approximations for local production as I mentioned?

PS: Gotta go. Back tomorrow. :)
.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
But the correct answer is, in excess of the predicted number. So you're trying to parse.

And parsing is for lying.
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Dark matter is everywhere in the universe, and yet it becomes a miracle when a relatively small amount of matter that does radiate significant electromagnetic energy is detected. This is more of the nonsense about dark matter. Better go back and check your dark matter theory equations. We know from electromagnetic measurements that there is something surrounding us that we can measure. Back to Planck.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
Anybody,

Take a stab at this: If DM "clumps", & if it "clumps" between galaxies along "filaments", how does that cause galaxies to rotate faster than than they supposedly ought to? This should be a case where the superior mass of DM's gravity tears galaxies apart, not holds them together. What are the supposed gravitational dynamics here holding galaxies together if the DM is not inside the galaxy itself?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2014
@theon: Thanks, but Resonaances doesn't know the reason for the observations anymore than the AMS collaboration. It is an open question.

@Da Schneib: Resonaances is a high energy physicist's blog. But it can be overly critical...

****
@Osiris: Sorry, your comment has too much fractal error (small and large errors) to be coherent. Love to help out though, so I suggest you try to study physics. There are free material on the web!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2014
@benni: There is no "lack of observable mass within our solar system". See http://scienceblo...-system/]http://scienceblo...-system/[/url]

Questions are good! But if they contain claims, try to look up references for your claims first. If you can't find a reference, it is a bogus claim.

"... we spent the next half-hour doing just that. When we finished, we'd found that about 10^13 kg of dark matter ought to be felt by Earth's orbit, while around 10^17 kg would be felt by a planet like Neptune. These values are tiny; the Sun has a mass of 2 ✕ 10^30 kg, while values in the 10^13 - 10^17 kg range are the mass of a single modest asteroid. Someday, we may understand the Solar System well enough that such tiny differences will be detectable, but we're a good factor of 100,000+ away from that right now."

[ http://scienceblo...-system/]http://scienceblo...-system/[/url] ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
[ctd] As for the rest, are you really asking questions to learn or are you simply trying to criticize modern cosmology?

You ask many questions that are described in the nearest encyclopedia. Read their article first, and if there are any remaining questions that you can't seem to find any answer to, please ask them!

E.g. "how does that cause galaxies to rotate faster than than they supposedly ought to? This should be a case where the superior mass of DM's gravity tears galaxies apart, not holds them together." is another unsupported claim.

Wikipedia describes this: "Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). Dark matter can explain the 'flat' appearance of the velocity curve out to a large radius". E.g. no tearing apart. [ http://en.wikiped...k_matter ]

DM increases mass, which increases gravity, which acts to keep systems clumped, not tear them apart.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2014
@Da Schneib: Resonaances is a high energy physicist's blog. But it can be overly critical...
Heh, I wasn't talking about him. I read that blog pretty regularly; he's very good, and very in touch with happenings at the LHC. There is, after all, a proper use for the term.

But I've seen too much water woo and other types of woo, like Chopra, that talk about resonance without any apparent understanding of what it means. My antennae always quiver when I hear it, but I make my own judgments.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2014
You know, resonance is the term most often misused by cranks. Deepak Chopra for example.

Just sayin'

Looks a tad more like slingin' than sayin'. I had to check. Chopra has responded to pseudoscience allegations: http://www.newrep...egations

It appears, especially from the comments there, that such allegations are clearly inaccurate. There's a battle of intellectual titans taking place there, Da Schneib, why the ax grinding? (It's off-topic from DM studies, but fascinating nevertheless, thanks for the diversion. I gave you 5's on your other comments.)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
LOL

A Chopra believer, no less. Amazing what these conversations drag up from the depths.

Orac has coined "Choprawoo" for Chopra's BS, and Michael Shermer calls it "Deepakese." He's a woo artist, period.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2014
Consciousness may exist in photons, which seem to be the carrier of all information in the universe.


Well the Deepka-Skippy sure sounds like the crankpot to me.

You know, the idea here is that if we quieten the turbulence in our collective mind and heal the rift in our collective soul, could that have an effect on nature's mind, if nature has a mind? The gaia hypothesis says nature does have a mind, that the globe is conscious. So a critical mass of people praying or a critical mass of people collectively engaging in meditation could conceivably, even from modern physics point of view, through non-local interactions, actually simmer down the turbulence in nature.


Now that sounds a lot like some of the really weird stuffs that the crankpots write here on the physorg comment pages. I wonder if this is where the Deepka-Skippy comes to get his ideas?

Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2014
The Deepka-Skippy had some more good stuffs to make the fun with too.

The moon exists in consciousness—no consciousness, no moon—just a sluggishly expanding wave function in a superposition of possibilities. All happens within consciousness and nowhere else.


Now that one was just plain weird, like he's on drugs or something.

Intelligence doesn't "appear" at a late stage of evolution. It seems to be inherent in nature.


Maybe one of you pretend-to-be-the-scientist-Skippys would like to tell ol Ira what that is supposed to mean?

Consciousness is the driver of evolution. Every time you eat a chicken or a banana it transforms into a human.


Did Deepka-Skippy really say that with the straight face in that article where he claimed he was the really-serious-scientist-Skippy? Maybe he was just kidding around, eh?
Goika
Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rufusgwarren
3 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Any proof of dark matter is a dis-proof of current physics, either way logic suggest present physics to be in error. However, I don't think it is because of mysterious matter rather than the human condition! A desire not be grossly incompetent as physicist, rather than admit an error in logic. Same as politics. we shall perish under our own foolishness.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
@Da Schneib, Ira, I merely pointed out that Chopra has defended the allegations of pseudoscience quite successfully, but he's a medical doctor among other things so that's not a surprise. But don't let those facts get in the way of your own beliefs regarding the area he's actively researching. You believe it's wrong; fair enough. Fact is it's grounded in science so the research should bear out the extent of "consciousness".

Also, I said nothing about my beliefs other than indirectly about believing in science and the scientific method. I believe human physiology, animal physiology, and bioshperical physiology are all fascinating fields deserving of much research and study. A measure of the length, breadth and depth of "consciousness" is particularly fascinating.

Lastly, Da Schneib, I was focused on DM, so you actually dragged me down from the heights more so than up from the depths, but that's okay. I appreciate your keeping it real, and grounded.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Scneib. :)
But the correct answer is, in excess of the predicted number. So you're trying to parse. And parsing is for lying.
That's rich coming from you, mate. You resort to semantics distractions and strawmen arguments etc in order to evade a point, and you have the gall and straight face while you accuse others? Take a good look at your own behavior, Schneib.

Anyhow, you still did not say what benchmark such 'predictions are predicated on. Nor what theory was being applied when making such predictions. Nor did you answer what theories/predictions involved or took into account the numbers/ratios of positrons which are locally produced naturally by Solar-wind/Cosmic-ray collision common products wherein Kaons, Pions and Muons decay to positrons (e+) and neutrinos/antineutrinos.

How about stopping your non-scientists' personality cult attempts at convincing yourself/others that you know what you are talking about while criticizing others.

Practice what you preach, Schneib.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2014
No science, RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
Did you miss it again? Here again are the scientific questions put to you...
Anyhow, you still did not say what benchmark such 'predictions are predicated on. Nor what theory was being applied when making such predictions. Nor did you answer what theories/predictions involved or took into account the numbers/ratios of positrons which are locally produced naturally by Solar-wind/Cosmic-ray collision common products wherein Kaons, Pions and Muons decay to positrons (e+) and neutrinos/antineutrinos.


Asking YOU to support your cavalier claims made, so far without any attempt on your part to explain your claims except with semantics, evasions and trolling your inane one-liner silliness.

Practice what you preach, Schneib.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
You're lying again, RC. I'll answer any legitimate question, but I won't bother with semantic quibbling like you engage in.

Meanwhile, how about you quote some of these "cavalier claims." Like, for example, the "cavalier claim" that most scientists know what they're doing, and are doing science, most of the time. Is that perhaps one of these so-called "cavalier claims?"

How about the "cavalier claim" that Einstein and Feynman were a great deal smarter than you. Is that another 'cavalier claim?"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You're lying again, RC. I'll answer any legitimate question, but I won't bother with semantic quibbling like you engage in.
...says the insensible non-scientist who has often resorted to semantics quiblles to avoid and evade when it suits him. :)

Meanwhile, how about you quote some of these "cavalier claims." Like, for example, the "cavalier claim" that most scientists know what they're doing, and are doing science, most of the time.
You miss the CRUCIAL point, as usual.

Which is:

ALL scientist claiming to BE 'scientists' SHOULD be doing NOTHING BUT science; and not the sort of publish-or-perish flawed/BS 'exercises' I have often cautioned you against 'believing' so uncritically.

How about the "cavalier claim" that Einstein and Feynman were a great deal smarter than you. Is that another 'cavalier claim?"
It's not about more/less 'smart', it's having worked out a different perspective which allows advance to be made from current 'herd' impasse. :)
Benni
1.3 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
Wikipedia describes this: "Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). Dark matter can explain the 'flat' appearance of the velocity curve out to a large radius". E.g. no tearing apart. [ http://en.wikiped...k_matter ]

DM increases mass, which increases gravity, which acts to keep systems clumped, not tear them apart.


........and WikiPedia also describes DM residing INSIDE galaxies. So where is the DM? Inside galaxies or along filaments interspersed between galaxies? If DM is located in extra-galactic space that's a far different effect than if it is located intra-galactic space.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
No science again, RC.

Benni, the galaxy superclusters are embedded in the filaments. And filled with dark matter.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (3) Sep 20, 2014
Anyhow, you still did not say what benchmark such 'predictions are predicated on. Nor what theory was being applied when making such predictions. Nor did you answer what theories/predictions involved or took into account the numbers/ratios of positrons which are locally produced naturally by Solar-wind/Cosmic-ray collision common products wherein Kaons, Pions and Muons decay to positrons (e+) and neutrinos/antineutrinos

Hi RC, maybe this is helpful: http://ams.nasa.g...2014.pdf (see Figs, 1 & 3 specifically)
Benni
1.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2014
Benni, the galaxy superclusters are embedded in the filaments. And filled with dark matter.


What is filled with DM? The "filaments" or the galaxies?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science again, RC.

Benni, the galaxy superclusters are embedded in the filaments. And filled with dark matter.
Mate, it pains me to say this of anyone, but you wouldn't know science if you fell over it in broad daylight. Not only are you obviously a mainstream parroting 'believer' in even the most flawed stuff which you trust because of source/person, you are also an admitted non-scientist; who is obviously trolling and ego-tripping on the net and making personality-cult attacks and insults instead of practicing what you preach to others while pretending to be any sort of objective observer/commenter.

Practice what you preach, Schneib, and stop digging that silly ego-tripping troll-trench, mate.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
@Benni, the DM collects in filaments, and attracts matter which collects in the DM. Remember that visible matter is only 5% and DM only 25% (but still five times as much as visible matter) of the universe. Because the galaxy clusters are inside the filaments, they are filled with DM, and they both are acted upon by it, and act upon it, further concentrating the filaments, and further extracting more matter, visible and dark, from the voids.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
Hi protoplasmix. :)
Anyhow, you still did not say what benchmark such 'predictions are predicated on. Nor what theory was being applied when making such predictions. Nor did you answer what theories/predictions involved or took into account the numbers/ratios of positrons which are locally produced naturally by Solar-wind/Cosmic-ray collision common products wherein Kaons, Pions and Muons decay to positrons (e+) and neutrinos/antineutrinos

Hi RC, maybe this is helpful: http://ams.nasa.g...2014.pdf (see Figs, 1 & 3 specifically)

I note 'predicted excesses' may differ depending on which 'dark matter' models invoked for such speculative 'predictions'. So no models/theories using numbers/energies of ordinary known solar-wind/cosmic-ray collision products decays (ie, certain types of Kaons, Pions, Muons decay to positrons etc) are used/reflected in the various 'predicted excesses'. Only DM collision models. Thanks for that.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2014
RC, you're not talking about science, and you know it, and you're making claims all the time, for example "you wouldn't know science if you fell over it in broad daylight." None of which you ever provide any evidence for, and most of which are mere insults.

Now stop bullshitting and wasting our time.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2014
.... DM collects in filaments, and attracts matter which collects in the DM.


So, there is a mixing of DM with visible matter due to this attraction?

Because the galaxy clusters are inside the filaments, they are filled with DM


So, galaxies can be filled with DM? But only if those galaxies are located within a cluster of some minimum size?

both are acted upon by it, and act upon it, further concentrating the filaments, and further extracting more matter, visible and dark, from the voids.


What "voids"? How is matter extracted from voids?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
RC, you're not talking about science, and you know it, and you're making claims all the time, for example "you wouldn't know science if you fell over it in broad daylight." None of which you ever provide any evidence for, and most of which are mere insults.
That's an OBSERVATION based on YOUR failure to address the scientific point/question while YOU keep making it about the person and semantics and false attributions and strawmen etc evasions. You are not bringing any science at all, only parroted opinions and troll kneejerks and irrelevant distractions/disruptions like the ones lately. Your false attributions don't count as 'science', Schneib; only as 'trolling'.

Now stop bullshitting and wasting our time.
Practice what you preach, Schneib.

PS: Did you see where the 'predicted excess' was based on DM 'models', not any known science of Kaon, Pion, Muon decays as I pointed to?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
DM collects in filaments, and attracts matter which collects in the DM.
So, there is a mixing of DM with visible matter due to this attraction?
No, actually the DM and visible matter move through each other without interacting except by gravity.

Because the galaxy clusters are inside the filaments, they are filled with DM
So, galaxies can be filled with DM? But only if those galaxies are located within a cluster of some minimum size?
No. All galaxies are in or near galaxy clusters, and all galaxy clusters are collected in galaxy superclusters. There are sparse (extremely sparse- like sand in the surface water a mile offshore) miniature galaxies outside the superclusters and filaments of DM.

both are acted upon by it, and act upon it, further concentrating the filaments, and further extracting more matter, visible and dark, from the voids.
What "voids"? How is matter extracted from voids?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
You're asking better questions as you go along, Benni. I think you might be learning.

You're not, RC. Still no science.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You're asking better questions as you go along, Benni. I think you might be learning.

You're not, RC. Still no science.

Meanwhile you missed the scientific implications of my PS to you in my post above. Keep trying on that mantra, Schneib, you might even fool yourself into 'believing' it one day. And stop pretending you are anyone to judge anyone or anything, Schneib, Benni is above your non-scientist league when it comes to REAL science questions/perspectives; especially as your 'answers' require even more questions to make it clear to you that your answers are non-answers and just plain pretend answers from a trolling insensible parrot.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Still no science, RC.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
If you mix up science with a bunch of BS, I don't promise to spot it. Sorry if you're putting both in your posts, but that doesn't mean I'm misjudging you.

Make the science obvious or I'll deem it just more of your BS, RC.

Good luck with that.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
So no models/theories using numbers/energies of ordinary known solar-wind/cosmic-ray collision products decays (ie, certain types of Kaons, Pions, Muons decay to positrons etc) are used/reflected in the various 'predicted excesses'.

No, that's not quite right. See the green plot on Fig. 3 – that's the positron fraction from collision of cosmic rays. The two plots in red are for the models – from the text, "Different models of the nature of dark matter predict different behavior of the positron-fraction excess above the positron fraction expected from ordinary cosmic-ray collisions."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
You gotta be kidding. Chopra is a crank, so-named by two of the most reliable anti-crank sites on the 'Net.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
No, that's not quite right. See the green plot on Fig. 3 – that's the positron fraction from collision of cosmic rays. The two plots in red are for the models – from the text, "Different models of the nature of dark matter predict different behavior of the positron-fraction excess above the positron fraction expected from ordinary cosmic-ray collisions."
Thanks again, proto. Much obliged.

So, previous/new 'benchmark' positron figure is/was from cosmic ray collisions data. And any 'excess' figures vary according to whatever DM collisions models being invoked to get a DM-related figure to compare to benchmark from cosmic rays only?

Does any benchmark reflect positrons from Solar-wind colliding with prior wind fragments trapped in Earth's Magnetic field lines and accelerated to the energies observed? Ie, have Kaons, Pions, Muons decays from Solar-wind/Magnetic Field line 'trapped' ions collisions (as distinct from external cosmic ray collisions) been counted?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Still no science, RC.
You keep missing it.

If you mix up science with a bunch of BS, I don't promise to spot it. Sorry if you're putting both in your posts, but that doesn't mean I'm misjudging you.

Make the science obvious or I'll deem it just more of your BS, RC.

Good luck with that.
Only you seem to have trouble. maybe if you did less kneejerking and more courteous and attentive reading/comprehension as to what's being said, then you might not miss it.

Take a leaf out of Protoplasmix's book. He is courteous and not personal, so has no problem paying proper attention and courtesy to his interlocutor, based on science not person.

PS: Anyhow, Schneib, Protoplasmix, everyone, must go now. Have run out of time allocated for recent internet activity. Must return to concentrate on my other work off-line. Cheers and good bye for now, and good luck and good thinking all! :)
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
You gotta be kidding. Chopra is a crank, so-named by two of the most reliable anti-crank sites on the 'Net.

I think doctors are getting pretty good at using (and continually refining) techniques like fMRI to peer inside the brain as it functions under a range of conditions, states, circumstances and stimuli. I wonder just how analogous the internet, with all the papers, articles, blogs, tweets, posts and comments, is to a giant meta-brain. Schneib, I seriously thought I just coined a new term there with 'metabrain' - I had to google it and there it is already: http://brainmeta.com/ Coincidental, yes, but was it lucky? As for Chopra, I'll try to keep an open mind while looking forward to results that can be verified and repeated.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
Actually everyone has trouble with it, that's why they don't respond.

You're a conversation killer, RC.

Chopra has nothing to do with fMRI, Proto. He's a crank.
Protoplasmix
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
Chopra has nothing to do with fMRI, Proto. He's a crank.

After looking at his website I understand and share your concern about sale of snake oil. But a quick quote from a guest blogger at the site (Steven Crain, Ph.D., "Cravings and Addictions: Beyond Willpower") shows the efforts to study and further the field of neurophysiology aren't quite as cranky as "nothing to do with fMRI":
Exciting innovations in neuroimaging, such as fMRI studies that literally show the maladaptive reward circuits in the brain that strongly activate when people simply anticipate substances or behaviors, demonstrate the brain dysfunctions underlying cravings and addictions.

Hi, i'm proto and i'm addicted to science :)
Benni
1.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2014
DM collects in filaments, and attracts matter which collects in the DM.
So, there is a mixing of DM with visible matter due to this attraction?
No, actually the DM and visible matter move through each other without interacting except by gravity.


I should more accurately restate what I meant concerning the "mixing of DM with visible matter" (VM). It is in reference to these two forms of matter occupying the same space alongside one another, not that they interact with one another & can somehow bond as in a chemical reaction.

If these two forms of matter can occupy the same space then there must be more DM in our solar system than there is VM. Problem is, where is the unaccounted for gravity, by a factor of at least 3:1 ?

I have read a lot of material on DM. Nowhere can I find a sensible explanation how DM prevents galaxies from self destructing at their current speeds of rotation of their outer limits, especially when considering our own galactic position.

SpiffyKavu
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
The Solar wind is comprised primarily of protons, though there are plenty of electrons and atomic nuclei flying around. In order to produce kaons (~500 MeV/c^2) or pions (~130 MeV/c^2) a collision needs at least this much energy. As an example of the energy spectrum of the Solar wind (this is taken during a flare):
http://www.srl.ca...ster.pdf
The plot on the right of page 2 shows that the Solar wind does not have a huge amount of energy. The instrument measured a flux of just a handful with energies larger than the mass of the kaon/pion. And most collisions will be with something essentially at rest -- what we care about is the center-of-mass energy, which will then be significantly smaller than the energy/nucleon shown in the plot.

Then, of course, once we collide protons, we know the frequency to create other particles ... The number of positrons does not add up from known cosmic ray particle interactions.
Goika
Sep 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
I should more accurately restate what I meant concerning the "mixing of DM with visible matter" (VM). It is in reference to these two forms of matter occupying the same space alongside one another, not that they interact with one another & can somehow bond as in a chemical reaction.
No, you don't get it yet. They don't interact at all except by gravity. We are nothing to them, and they are nothing to us, other than that gravity.

If these two forms of matter can occupy the same space then there must be more DM in our solar system than there is VM.
Not at all. Why do you think that?

I have read a lot of material on DM. Nowhere can I find a sensible explanation how DM prevents galaxies from self destructing at their current speeds of rotation of their outer limits, especially when considering our own galactic position.
No, the gravity from the DM holds the galaxy together.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2014
"The new AMS results may ultimately help scientists narrow in on the origin and features of dark matter—whose collisions may give rise to positrons."

Schneib: Above is quoted from the article. The researchers here are hypothesizing positrons (VM) may arise from collisions of DM particles with one another. What do you think? Or anybody else?

Benni
1.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2014
If these two forms of matter can occupy the same space then there must be more DM in our solar system than there is VM.
Not at all. Why do you think that?


The ratio of DM to VM, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, depending on which ratio one wishes to ascribe to. If DM is indeed inside our solar system at whichever one of these ratios one ascribes to, then we should be able to observe associated gravitational perturbations matching the ratio of DM to VM, but we don't. We observe gravity exactly in accord to the presence of VM only, in lieu of even the scantest presence of DM.

Goika
Sep 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Sep 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Schneib & Benni. :) This clarification from Benni...
I should more accurately restate what I meant concerning the "mixing of DM with visible matter" (VM). It is in reference to these two forms of matter occupying the same space alongside one another, not that they interact with one another & can somehow bond as in a chemical reaction.
...specifically says ONLY gravity interaction while 'mixing' was what he meant, and NOT any e-m interaction/agglomeration etc. But Schneib's reply to that...
No, you don't get it yet. They don't interact at all except by gravity. We are nothing to them, and they are nothing to us, other than that gravity.
...seems to have missed that clarification and just repeated back what Benni's clarification just said.

Why did you do that, Schneib?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
Hi SpiffyKavu. :)
As an example of the energy spectrum of the Solar wind (this is taken during a flare):...

The plot on the right of page 2 shows that the Solar wind does not have a huge amount of energy. The instrument measured a flux of just a handful with energies larger than the mass of the kaon/pion. And most collisions will be with something essentially at rest -- what we care about is the center-of-mass energy, which will then be significantly smaller than the energy/nucleon shown in the plot.
Thanks, for that link and observations. IIRC, 'particle acceleration' within Earth's Magnetic Field 'layers' produce speeding particles at relatively high energies. Solar wind particles colliding with such could be producing enormous numbers of high-energy-collision products, and hence of further decay products like positrons.

Anyone know if that ordinary source been quantified to get a better idea what the non-DM 'benchmark' number really is before further DM-collision attribution?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2014
No, you don't get it yet. They don't interact at all except by gravity. We are nothing to them, and they are nothing to us, other than that gravity.
...seems to have missed that clarification and just repeated back what Benni's clarification just said.


Why did you do that, Schneib?


Yeah, that's the point I'm making. If DM doesn't interact except by gravity, what's all this positron stuff about? Now they're coming up with a new version of "transformation" or should it be labeled "conversion" being's how it is we're not talking about energy here .
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
You're a conversation killer, RC.
Any objective observer would tell you that the only things I have 'killed' is internet troll-gangs; and their irrelevant-to-science personality/ego cult 'conversations' which sabotage other members' otherwise fair and open discourse based on science and ideas, not on what trolls 'like/dislike' during their infantile and irrelevant inter-troll 'conversations'. Do better Schneib.
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2014
The new AMS results may ultimately help scientists narrow in on the origin and features of dark matter—whose collisions may give rise to positrons.


on what basis is that statement made, seeing as how nobody knows what "Dark Matter" is?

There is no evidence that "Dark Matter" is a particle.

There is no evidence that "Dark Matter" is definitely "Matter" at all.

Even if there is "something" there, attraction not necessarily equals gravity, much less mass. There could be some other explanation.

For all anyone knows, an excess of positrons could be coming from background assymetry, or "Dark Matter" or whatever.

What evidence, besides conjecture, do they have to substantiate the claim that these positrons are a signature of "Dark Matter"?

The new measurements, Zuccon adds, are compatible with a dark matter particle with mass on the order of 1 teraelectronvolt (TeV)—about 1,000 times the mass of a proton.


Yeah well, it can't exceed 750km/s or it would escape.

Returners
1 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2014
The new measurements, Zuccon adds, are compatible with a dark matter particle with mass on the order of 1 teraelectronvolt (TeV)—about 1,000 times the mass of a proton.


Great,s o something with the mass of a microscopic black hole is passing through everyone and everything every day without any of us feeling the "graininess" of the passage of it's mass...

I think NIST has instruments that should be sensitive enough to detect the mass of such an object passing through a vaccume chamber or a water chamber.

1000 proton masses is more than most molecules, and even bigger than some organic macro-molecules....and it would need to have that mass while moving at non-relativistic speeds or it would fly out of the galaxy and fail to serve it's alleged purpose of gluing stars together within galaxies, and galaxies together within clusters.

Looks like we've found the true culprite for Heart Attacks, Cancer, and Huntingtons guys. Molecular mass particles passing through us...
Returners
1 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2014
According to theoretical predictions, when two dark matter particles collide, they annihilate, releasing a certain amount of energy that depends on the mass of the original particles. When the particles annihilate, they produce ordinary particles that eventually decay into stable particles, including electrons, protons, antiprotons, and positrons.


This is outrageously stupid.

The amount of energy released by such a decay process would be obliterating star systems if there were 4 times as much DM as OM, like the theorists claim.

Think about OM collisions in space, and then think that if there were 4 times as much DM, it ought to be colliding with itself exponentially more often than ordinary matter collides with other ordinary matter.

The whole sky would be radiating with this stuff.

Statistically, if DM theory were true, there ought to be about 4 solar masses worth of the stuff within 2 light-year radius of us. There's no evidence of it within 1000ly radius.
Goika
Sep 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2014
In AWT the dark matter is formed with...
@Goika-Zephir
Let me fix this for you
AWT is debunked pseudoscience
for proof, see:

http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

or

http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

see also: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Any objective observer would tell you...
@rc
let me finish this for you
...that you are a whiner, crackpot pseudoscience troll who baits others into flame wars

TRY SCIENCE and DO BETTER, rc :-)

AND
As I will be retreating from serious science talks due to my work on my new ToE, please don't respond to me any more as I will not be able to provide discourse with you, rc. I don't want you to hack me and steal and plagiarize my original work.

https://www.googl...1632a850

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
let me finish this for you
...that you are a whiner, crackpot pseudoscience troll who baits others into flame wars

https://maps.goog...;dg=ntvb
You have already and often proved you are no 'objective observer', CapS.

And you again posted a google map reference (of what you apparently think is my address/neighborhood). However, as Dr_Toad will tell you, you are mistaking some innocent person whom you are obviously STALKING thinking it's me. The unfortunate thing for you, and even more for your mistaken 'target', is that I don't live anywhere near there; hundreds of kilometers away in fact.

What next? Will you be sending a 'hit man' to 'take out' an innocent person there; or will you fly over yourself to 'do the job'?

CapS, your STALKING me, or anyone else, is telling of your psychosis.

Mate, you are getting really sick. Seek help. Now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2014
CapS, your STALKING me, or anyone else, is telling of your psychosis
WTF? paranoid much?
what are you on about, eh?

PS. reported to PO for being OFF TOPIC / TROLLING / BAITING / FLAMING / LIBEL

also to: Internet crime center for LIBELOUS THREATENING remarks without proof or reason, as well as OTHER complaints :-)
(of which AUS is a part of, btw)

do better mate:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
CapS, your STALKING me, or anyone else, is telling of your psychosis
WTF? paranoid much?
what are you on about, eh?

PS. reported to PO for being OFF TOPIC / TROLLING / BAITING / FLAMING / LIBEL

also to: Internet crime center for LIBELOUS THREATENING remarks without proof or reason, as well as OTHER complaints :-)
(of which AUS is a part of, btw)

do better mate:-)
So, you pretend you are "an investigator" so you can STALK people in your biased, creepy lying way, even using Google Maps ( https://maps.goog...;dg=ntvb ), and you now think you are the victim instead of the perpetrator?

Wow. What sort of twisted 'projection' is that to post on a science site where everyone can see your psychosis running riot?

CapS, walk away from those guns and that internet connection.

Stop fooling yourself that you are anything other than a creepy, possibly very dangerous, psycho with access to guns and sniper rifles who lives in the wilderness and is slowly becoming more manic. Get help. Now.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2014
The new AMS results may ultimately help scientists narrow in on the origin and features of dark matter—whose collisions may give rise to positrons.
Schneib: Above is quoted from the article. The researchers here are hypothesizing positrons (VM) may arise from collisions of DM particles with one another. What do you think? Or anybody else?
Not sure what "VM" means; positrons are antimatter, specifically antielectrons. I'd need to see what the Feynman diagram of this supposed collision of DM particles leading to annihilation looks like. The reason they're looking at positrons is because electrons are common so a surplus would be hard to detect. But remember that they're saying whatever this interaction is, it would create both electrons and positrons, they're looking at the positrons because they're easier to detect a surplus in. If DM particles commonly annihilated, it seems to me there wouldn't be any DM left after 14 billion years. And that doesn't sound right.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2014
No science, RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
If you remember, I had withdrawn from detailed science discussion. The only reason I come in is to read-only research the physorg news items. But of course, I respond to any posts to/about me. If not for those, I wouldn't be posting at all now. But it seems that that is too hard for certain particularly silly trolls (not you, mate, you are doing a lot better since we spoke last; kudos!) to comprehend and stop trying to take lying cowardly hypocritical cheap shots thinking I won't/can't respond.

Good luck, Schneib. :)
Goika
Oct 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
If you remember, I had withdrawn from detailed science discussion.
Then you aren't posting about science on the science forum, RC, and that's against the rules. Thanks for admitting it. Hope a moderator sees that. Reported to help them.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
If you remember, I had withdrawn from detailed science discussion.
Then you aren't posting about science on the science forum, RC, and that's against the rules. Thanks for admitting it. Hope a moderator sees that. Reported to help them.
@Da Schneib
Yep!
Me too... and I forward it to the site admin as well, just to make sure that it got noticed.

Thanks
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2014
My my, Schneib and CapS have both reported someone for responding to THEIR lack of science in their OWN posts which were blatant unnecessary baits and trolls! Wow.

How 'cute' can the hypocrisy get with these patently 'incompetnent snitches' who conveniently ignore their own idiocies while 'reporting' their fantasies to the admins?

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.