Two studies show possibility of some cosmic rays existing due to dark matter collisions

May 17, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
Dark matter map of KiDS survey region (region G12). Credit: KiDS survey

(Phys.org)—Two teams working independently have conducted studies with similar results suggesting the possibility that some of the cosmic rays striking the Earth arise from dark matter particles colliding with one another. One group, a trio of researchers with RWTH Aachen University in Germany, created models simulating conditions both with and without dark matter-produced particles. The other group, a team with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, conducted a study involving the boron-to-carbon ratio in cosmic particles. Both teams have published their results in Physical Review Letters.

Part of the theory surrounding dark matter is the likelihood that if it does, indeed, exist, then it is likely that at least some of it is moving very fast, and if that is the case, then it seems logical to conclude that some of those particles might collide, causing them to break apart. If they do, the thinking goes, then it might be possible that other particles could result, some of which might be detectable. If scientists could detect such particles and were able to attribute them to dark matter, then they could prove that dark matter exists. To that end, the two teams involved in this latest research used data from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) aboard the International Space station to conduct independent studies of possible .

The team in Germany created models meant to depict two very different scenarios, one in which some of the particles detected by the AMS originated with dark matter collisions and the other in which no such particles exist. After making adjustments, the researchers report that the best fit for the observations came from assuming that dark matter particles did exist and that they were likely 80 GeV∕c2.

Meanwhile, the team in China took another approach using the same data. They looked at boron-to-carbon ratios, which can be used to measure how far have traveled before reaching the AMS. Using that data, they created their own model that showed the best explanation for the observations was dark matter particles of approximately 40 and 60 GeV∕c2GeV∕c2 striking the sensor.

Both teams, it should be noted, took certain liberties or made certain assumptions when creating their models, which may or may not be accurate; thus, the work is still purely theoretical.

Explore further: Team puts dark matter on the map

More information: Alessandro Cuoco et al. Novel Dark Matter Constraints from Antiprotons in Light of AMS-02, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191102 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03071

Abstract
We evaluate dark matter (DM) limits from cosmic-ray antiproton observations using the recent precise AMS-02 measurements. We properly take into account cosmic-ray propagation uncertainties fitting at the same time DM and propagation parameters, and marginalizing over the latter. We find a significant (~4.5 sigma) indication of a DM signal for DM masses near 80 GeV, with a hadronic annihilation cross-section close to the thermal value, sigma v ~3e-26 cm3s-1. Intriguingly, this signal is compatible with the DM interpretation of the Galactic center gamma-ray excess. Confirmation of the signal will require a more accurate study of the systematic uncertainties, i.e., the antiproton production cross-section, and modelling of the solar modulation effect. Interpreting the AMS-02 data in terms of upper limits on hadronic DM annihilation, we obtain strong constraints excluding a thermal annihilation cross-section for DM masses below about 50 GeV and in the range between approximately 150 and 500 GeV, even for conservative propagation scenarios. Except for the range around 80 GeV, our limits are a factor 4 stronger than the limits from gamma-ray observations of dwarf galaxies.

Ming-Yang Cui et al. Possible Dark Matter Annihilation Signal in the AMS-02 Antiproton Data, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191101 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03840

Abstract
Using the latest AMS-02 cosmic ray antiproton flux data, we search for potential dark matter annihilation signal. The background parameters about the propagation, source injection, and solar modulation are not assumed {it a priori}, but based on the results inferred from the recent B/C ratio and proton data measurements instead. The possible dark matter signal is incorporated into the model self-consistently under a Bayesian framework. Compared with the astrophysical background only hypothesis, we find that a dark matter signal is favored. The rest mass of the dark matter particles is ∼20−80 GeV and the velocity-averaged hadronic annihilation cross section is about (0.2−5)×10−26 cm3s−1, in agreement with that needed to account for the Galactic center GeV excess and/or the weak GeV emission from dwarf spheroidal galaxies Reticulum 2 and Tucana III. Tight constraints on the dark matter annihilation models are also set in a wide mass region.

Related Stories

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

The case for co-decaying dark matter

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—There isn't as much dark matter around today as there used to be. According to one of the most popular models of dark matter, the universe contained much more dark matter early on when the temperature was hotter. ...

Dark matter does not contain certain axion-like particles

April 22, 2016

Researches at Stockholm University are getting closer to light dark-matter particle models. Observations rule out some axion-like particles in the quest for the content of dark matter. The article is now published in the ...

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

66 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

pspringland
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2017
There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2017
Shades of Bicep 2 'team'! What the hell happened to respect for Scientific Method! Since BB, Inflation, 'exotic' DM etc 'myths' were built into 'science training', it has produced whole generations of pseudo-scientific 'exercises' by pseudo-scientific 'publish-or-perish' HACKS deluding themselves they are 'doing science'! This 'exercise' is so riddled with blatant Bias/GIGO potential at EVERY STEP! From 'exotic' DM assumptions to 'methodologies' for 'analyzing/fitting' data to self-selecting 'probabilities' based on THEIR ad hoc selection/possibilities criteria/exclusions! This sort of 'study' is nothing but lame guesswork/fantasy 'dressed up' in 'mathsey', 'sciencey' techniques/terminology in order to 'pass peer review' by the very same equally incompetent and/or biased 'peer reviewers' who were responsible for 'passing' BB /Inflation and 'exotic' DM etc 'myths' into the body of so-called 'science literature' for decades!

It's as if Bicep2 etc 'never happened! Learn, FFS!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (16) May 17, 2017
There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Hint:Plugging random sciency sounding words into a sentence doesn't make you sound smart. There's quite a few people here who actually know what these words mean.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
Quote @pspringland: "There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves."

Quote @antialias_physorg's response: "Hint:Plugging random sciency sounding words into a sentence doesn't make you sound smart. There's quite a few people here who actually know what these words mean."
Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!

Did you read the above article, @antialias? Do you see how much more egregiously the above teams/studies have done exactly the same thing that you accuse @pspringland of doing? Will you finally agree with me that lessons from Bicep2 MUST be learned by ALL purporting to be 'professional scientists' in astro/cosmo field? Have YOU learned that lesson yet, @antialias? Your critiques of others 'needs' you to, asap.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) May 17, 2017
Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!

Feel free to feel yourself included into the 'sciency' know-nothing category.

You're welcome.
Arthur_McBride
4.7 / 5 (15) May 17, 2017
@ RealityCheck. Mate you are to science what Trump is to statesmanship. Why don't you give a rest?
cortezz
4.6 / 5 (10) May 17, 2017
Shades of Bicep 2 'team'! What the hell happened to respect for Scientific Method!
It's as if Bicep2 etc 'never happened! Learn, FFS!


Your messages all always a big mumbo jumbo/word spam/full of weird slashes/usage of '' so they can be a bit hard to understand. I think you can actually write like a normal person but you just want to look smarter than you are (it does not really work). Just check any real book or another publishing and you see they write differently than you do.

But on the point. How is doing observations and basing you theories on the data againts the scientific method? I don't know what the bicep2 group did but somehow I quess they didn't do the excatly same thing?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2017
@cortezz.
Your messages all always a big mumbo jumbo/word spam/full of weird slashes/usage of '' so they can be a bit hard to understand. I think you can actually write like a normal person but you just want to look smarter than you are (it does not really work). Just check any real book or another publishing and you see they write differently than you do.
I post/write here in a a text-limited context, employing all manner of abbreviations/short-cuts to fit the character limits. Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).
But on the point. How is doing observations and basing you theories on the data againts the scientific method?
Again, if you are not au-fait with the history/subject matter, you are doomed to miss the import; ie: Bicep2 'team' also did a biased/GIGO 'exercise'. Ok?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2017
@Arthur_McBride.
@ RealityCheck. Mate you are to science what Trump is to statesmanship. Why don't you give a rest?
Meanwhile you have not said anything about the point made to antialias-physorg. Until you do, and support your opinion objectively, then you are just trolling/opining your own personal biases and ill-informed attacks on 'the messenger'. Do/Be better than that, Arthur; for science and humanity's sake. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!

Feel free to feel yourself included into the 'sciency' know-nothing category.

You're welcome.
The forum will have noted that you evaded all the points made to you, mate. Have you read the above article re these teams/studies and their blatant use of mathsey/sciencey techniques/terms which any objective scrutiny will show cannot 'hide' the litany of biased assumptions and selection/analysis 'methodologies' which they (like the Bicep2
team/exercise) employed so against all good principles of objective science method? And have you learned the lesson from your own Bicep2 fiasco yet, @antialias? And can you see how double-standard, hypocritical, biased and self-serving your own above criticism of @pspringland was?

Take care, @antialias. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) May 17, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience crackpot delusional fraudulent liar with a police record
@antialias_physorg
The forum will have noted that you evaded all the points made to you, mate
the forum also notes that you've posted 6,727 PLUS times since making a fraudulent libelous claim against the science of BICEP2

not only have you still not made an attempt to produce the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you claim to have spotted, but you can't even produce a subsequent conversation or thread where you mention said flaws with the sole exception of cry-baby whining about redshift to which you argued from your delusional pseudoscience and still haven't been able to produce any empirical evidence supporting

reported for spamming, trolling, pseudoscience, fraud, lying and blatant stupidity

.

PS- reply all you want
you will be ignored and simply reported because you're a liar and fraud as demonstrated by your own web-page
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) May 17, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot pseudoscience crackpot delusional fraudulent liar with a police record
What "police record", Captain Stumpy? Please post details/links re this (imaginary) 'police record' you claim I have, thanks. If you cannot then it will be obvious such a 'police record' doesn't exist, and is yet another figment of your malignant lying character which has been so long displayed by you here and elsewhere beyond denial.

Please either retract your above lie or else post your proof (which is as non-existent as the alleged 'police record' is), Stumpy. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@RNP, @antialias-physorg and @Da Schneib et al.

Please read @Captain Stumpy's latest lie in the address line of his above post to me. It is a blatant lie. Do you condone such behavior from that all too often self-demonstrated personal, malignant, bot-voting ignoramus? If you do not condone it, then this is your latest opportunity to make clear your condemnation of Stumpy's latest egregious offense against all objective and good science and humanity principles. The ball is in your court. The forum is watching. Good luck with your choices re this one, guys! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

Was that your bot-voting program that gave Captain Stumpy a '5' for his deliberate LIE about a "police record"? If that was your bot, then maybe you might want to post a disclaimer right away so that the forum can be satisfied it wasn't your deliberate vote supporting Stumpy's LIE there.

PS: Do you go along with Stumpy's campaign of LYING about such serious matters like that, Ira? If not, then also make your opinion on his atrocious behavior clear so that no 'guilt by association with Stumpy' can attach to you in the minds of the readers here. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (11) May 17, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

Was that your bot-voting program that gave Captain Stumpy a '5' for his deliberate LIE about a "police record"?
What if it was?

If that was your bot, then maybe you might want to post a disclaimer right away
Why I have to unclaim a claim I did not make?

so that the forum can be satisfied it wasn't your deliberate vote supporting Stumpy's LIE there.
Why you think I care if anybody here is satisfied with anything I do? They don't pay my bills and I don't have to share a house with them. Why you don't satisfy the forum if it is that important to you that they go to bed satisfied? You can start by not hijacking another interesting article with your gobbledygook.

I will P.S. you with the rest because I am running short of letter spaces.

Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) May 17, 2017
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

PS: Do you go along with Stumpy's campaign of LYING about such serious matters like that, Ira?
I don't go along with anybody. I come here alone, and I will leave alone too.

If not, then also make your opinion on his atrocious behavior clear so that no 'guilt by association with Stumpy' can attach to you in the minds of the readers here. Cheers. :)
Guilt of what? Cher, I have not written anything to you or even about you on this web place for over two week. I don't know about the minds of the readers, but I have a pretty good idea you won't like my opinion of this thing.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That is coonass for: "Cher, why you want to drag me into a conversation that is only going to make you mad, eh?"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
so that the forum can be satisfied it wasn't your deliberate vote supporting Stumpy's LIE there.
Why you think I care if anybody here is satisfied with anything I do? They don't pay my bills and I don't have to share a house with them.
So you don't care about 'guilt by association' with Stumpy's lying there. Ok then, your choice, Ira; it was only a suggestion for your benefit; no skin off my nose if you don't take it. Good luck, Ira. :)
Why you don't satisfy the forum if it is that important to you that they go to bed satisfied? You can start by not hijacking another interesting article with your gobbledygook.
It wasn't me who derailed it, Ira; it was Stumpy's lie that derailed it, necessitating challenge/defense against his lie about "police record". Anyway, you haven't said whether you condone his lie there, Ira. You had the opportunity to condemn Stumpy's lie there, Ira; if you still don't then that's that, hey? Good luck, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.
PS: Do you go along with Stumpy's campaign of LYING about such serious matters like that, Ira?
I don't go along with anybody. I come here alone, and I will leave alone too.
If not, then also make your opinion on his atrocious behavior clear so that no 'guilt by association with Stumpy' can attach to you in the minds of the readers here. Cheers. :)
Guilt of what? Cher, I have not written anything to you or even about you on this web place for over two week. I don't know about the minds of the readers, but I have a pretty good idea you won't like my opinion of this thing.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That is coonass for: "Cher, why you want to drag me into a conversation that is only going to make you mad, eh?"
You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'. That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira. You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)
gculpex
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2017
Enough! Get back on subject!
The two teams used the same data and approached it differently but are trying to say they arrived at the same conclusion.
As long as no one can 'magically' make a dark matter particle appear then it is safe to say, it is not.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2017
You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.
How the heck do I know it is a lie?

That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.
How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie?

You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)
My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.
How the heck do I know it is a lie?
It must be a lie, since I have no "police record", and Stumpy knows it because he is lying because there is nothing to support his lying claim.
That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.
How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie? Did yu bother to check before you gave his lie a '5'? No, you didn't; so you just accepted his lies without proof, Ira. Not good.
You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)
My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
...says a bot-voting ignoramus,Ira? Your retraction via post would negate the '5' in the minds of forum/readers.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.
How the heck do I know it is a lie?
It must be a lie, since I have no "police record", and Stumpy knows it because he is lying because there is nothing to support his lying claim.
That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.
How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie?
Did you bother to check before you gave his lie a '5'? No, you just accepted his lies without proof, Ira. Not good.
You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands?
My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira? Your retraction via post would negate the '5' in the minds of forum/readers.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2017
Your retraction in a post would negate the '5' in the minds of the forum/readers.
I doubt the "forum/readers" would be letting somebody like me negate their minds on anything important.

Your choice, Ira.
That is what I have been trying to explain to you for years and years and some more years Cher. I am glad to see that it is finally sinking in.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2017
Anyhow, @Captain Stumpy, please retract your blatant and unsupported lie about me at the end of the address line of your post to me above. Then I can forgive and forget and we can get back to the science-related issues/topic. Thanks. :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2017
In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira?
My opinion will only make you mad, but you have asked for it several times now so I will give him to you.

My opinion is that it is more likely true than a lie.

I don't know how you do things over there in Australia, but I do know how they work here. You claim you are an elderly man who has been doing what you do here since you was nine years old.

Oaccum-Skippy with the blue blade razor will be the first to tell you. Nobody could be as bat-doo-doo crazy as you since you was nine years old without coming into some sort of intimate relationship with the deputies or police or constables or whatever you have over there.

How you like me now Cher?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Your retraction in a post would negate the '5' in the minds of the forum/readers.
I doubt the "forum/readers" would be letting somebody like me negate their minds on anything important.

Your choice, Ira.
That is what I have been trying to explain to you for years and years and some more years Cher. I am glad to see that it is finally sinking in.
It is your anti-science skewing of ratings metrics that innocent readers may be unwittingly affected by, Ira. I've been pointing that out to for years, Ira. Your bot-voting program has effects which any objective scientist or fairminded reader cannot in all conscience condone, Ira. Why do you persist in such a destructive bot-voting campaign even when the posted content is proven correct by mainstream itself, Ira? Is it that you really are so insensible and irresponsible that you have no conception how UN-funny and stupid your behavior/bot-voting is on a science site, Ira? Wise up, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira?
My opinion will only make you mad, but you have asked for it several times now so I will give him to you.

My opinion is that it is more likely true than a lie.

I don't know how you do things over there in Australia, but I do know how they work here. You claim you are an elderly man who has been doing what you do here since you was nine years old.

Oaccum-Skippy with the blue blade razor will be the first to tell you. Nobody could be as bat-doo-doo crazy as you since you was nine years old without coming into some sort of intimate relationship with the deputies or police or constables or whatever you have over there.

How you like me now Cher?
Your bot-voting ignoramus drivel is still evading the point, Ira. Do you retract the '5' you gave to Stumpy's blatant personal lie, or not? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2017
@Stumpy. I know you're reading this, mate. Please retract your above "police record" lie so I can forgive and forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic. Thanks. :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2017
Oi! Don't forget me :)
Looks like we're leaving Kansas again :) (recalls Pressburger's film for some reason...)
"police record"
Interesting. I'll probably look into this, shouldn't be hard to find, public record and all that.
(Not to be used as ammo, wouldn't be fair on a public forum, just curiosity)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience crackpot delusional fraudulent liar with a police record
Please retract your above "police record" lie so I can forgive and forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic. Thanks
1- please produce the 4 fatal flaws, 4 other flaws and proof that you posted and addressed *at least* the 4 fatal flaws from BICEP2

2- until you actually provide evidence to back up your claims you aren't producing any *science*

so it boils down to this: Please either retract your above lie regarding BICEP2 or else post your proof
thanks

.

.

PS - 6,738 posts and still you can't produce evidence from an open paper

you could have saved yourself a lot of grief had you just posted the evidence
or admit that you lied like everyone knows you did

now, you will be outed as the fraud (etc) & criminal that you are
put up or shut up
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 18, 2017
Interesting. The first question that occurs to me is, "Why didn't we see this at the LHC?"
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2017
The first question that occurs to me is, "Why didn't we see this at the LHC?"

Maybe we did. But the LHC produces so many collisions and particle spoors persecond that most are discarded because they are either not interesting (produced from well known processes) or otherwise don't trigger any of the filter algorithms. With all the data (up to 10GB per second) you pretty much have to know what you're looking from (from theory) to discover anything.

With the above models they might be able to go through the data again and check if there's anything there.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2017
Good answer, @antialias. Might be rarer than the Higgs. It would be curious, however, if there were a peak around 80 GeV and no one spotted it. One of the obvious things to do is go looking for such peaks, and these are pretty close to the actual observed value for the Higgs. Perhaps this will show up later as you say, though.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2017
I'm not even sure the LHC would have the right detector setup to register a DM/DM collision. The innermost detectors are the calorimeters. If DM/DM produces (as the article notes) antiprotons then they would likely not be able to pass this to strike any of the spoor detectors further out.

LHC energies are also a lot higher than the 20-80GeV - which means the collisions it routinely produces create a lot of radiation in that region in any case. So the occasional, additional DM/DM event might be well below any reasonable S/N ratio.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2017
@ZergSurfer.
..."police record"
Interesting. I'll probably look into this, shouldn't be hard to find, public record and all that....
Please do, Zerg! Then watch Stumpy go silent but not apologize for his lie about me. It is puzzling what drives Stumpy to such obviously blatant lies which the public record can dispel so easily! Are you at all acquainted personally with Stumpy, Zerg? Can you shed light on what makes him such a malignant liar and troll here against me who has been confirmed correct by mainstream on many fronts now and who eschews the 'personal' tactics which Stumpy has 'infected' so many 'gang' members with over years now?

PS: There goes CS again, repeating his lie in another post! He must either be a raging ego-maniac or 'seriously disturbed'. Or both? Pity him.

PPS: After you confirm I have no 'police record', Zerg, go check out Stumpy's/Ira's "police records" involving domestic violence, paedophilia, demanding money with (armed) menaces etc etc. Ok?
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2017
"PPS: After you confirm I have no 'police record',"
I would not be able to to that unless I had access to all the relevant records. My interest is now piqued though, gonna do some digging later.

"go check out Stumpy's/Ira's "police records" involving domestic violence, paedophilia, demanding money with (armed) menaces etc etc. Ok?"

They don't have any. And making accusations like that can lead to legal action. I'd advise you not to repeat it, and retract that statement in this thread. Just because they're US and you're AUS does not render you immune.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2017
Dammit! All the other crackpots beat me to gibbering commentary to this report of proposed possible evidence from physical experiments.

These articles are interesting to read. However, obviously biased opinions based on something we read is neither proven facts nor repeatedly tested evidence.

Faux News accusing O_ _a & C_ _n of criminal behavior is not the same thing as watching a video of T_ _p bragging of committing criminal activities.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2017
@antialias, it wouldn't be a DM-DM collision. It would be a massive particle exiting that would unbalance the momentum. You're not looking for what you can see; it's DM. You're looking for something that disappears that shouldn't.
cortezz
4.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2017
I post/write here in a a text-limited context, employing all manner of abbreviations/short-cuts to fit the character limits. Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).

You claim to write with short-cuts? For real? How is it shorter to use many words instead of one. If you can't make up your mind about what word to use in a sentence, it only tells that you lack writing skills or something else. For example "forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic". You could've used just one word instead on two words and everybody would have understood your point.

You say I risk being irrelevant because I ask questions concerning the topic without expertise on the are. Yet, you are just yelling that everything is a lie and a scam in your first post.
MarsBars
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2017
Thank you aa_p and DS for managing to get back to the subject despite the boisterous behavior all around you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
@ZergSurfer.
"PPS: After you confirm I have no 'police record',"
I would not be able to to that unless I had access to all the relevant records. My interest is now piqued though, gonna do some digging later.

"go check out Stumpy's/Ira's "police records" involving domestic violence, paedophilia, demanding money with (armed) menaces etc etc. Ok?"

They don't have any. And making accusations like that can lead to legal action. I'd advise you not to repeat it, and retract that statement in this thread. Just because they're US and you're AUS does not render you immune.
There you have it: @ZergSurfer giving a 'free pass' to Captain Stumpy's LYING; but not giving the same 'license' to his VICTIM when the latter 'retaliate in kind'.

@Zerg, stop! And realize: you are 'enabling/encouraging' CS's lying malice; just like you did with DS when he was going 'troppo' while being wrong-and-nasty on the real/unreal maths issues; on which latter a recent PO article agrees with me! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
@cortezz.
You claim to write with short-cuts? For real? How is it shorter to use many words instead of one. If you can't make up your mind about what word to use in a sentence, it only tells that you lack writing skills or something else. For example "forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic". You could've used just one word instead on two words and everybody would have understood your point.

You say I risk being irrelevant because I ask questions concerning the topic without expertise on the are. Yet, you are just yelling that everything is a lie and a scam in your first post.
Complex/Subtle concepts/insights need whole tracts to explain. Whereas trolling 'one-liners' from bot-voting ignoramuses and personality-fixated nitwits are 'easy nasty drivel' posted in a few words, hey? If you wanted just short idiotic posts, in lieu of real complexity/subtlety of comprehension, then just do the "TL;DR" 'science method' invented by Stumpy; and good luck! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
@MarsBars.
Thank you aa_p and DS for managing to get back to the subject despite the boisterous behavior all around you.
Seconded! You and the forum will note how it was Stumpy posted blatant personal lie about me and so derailed (again) with his off topic/insults rants. I even asked CS to apologize so I could forgive and forget and we could all get back to science. But you and the forum will also have noted that CS just repeated his off-topic personal lies and derailing posting! I trust this will be the end of this latest Stumpy Mess and I don't have to keep posting in self-defense against such anti-science trolling/lying by Stumpy et al. Good luck and good thinking/discussing on the science, @MarsBars, everyone! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
PS @cortezz.

Specifically:

1)
Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).
You say I risk being irrelevant because I ask questions concerning the topic without expertise on the are. Yet, you are just yelling that everything is a lie and a scam in your first post.
Not so, mate; I made allusions in context to previous instances of failure, and the various areas/flaws/causes involved which led to said past/continuing failure. You haven't 'background info' required for pertinent/informed opinion on this one (yet). :)

2)
For example "forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic". You could've used just one word instead on two words and everybody would have understood your point.
I used "issues/topic" ADVISEDLY; encompassing BOTH above topic AND related issues. Ok? :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
it wouldn't be a DM-DM collision. It would be a massive particle exiting that would unbalance the momentum

Yes, but it would have to be produced by a DM/DM collision within the detector cavity (because the detection algorithms only work for stuff travelling from the inside out - not the other way).

So the only way to really detect this stuff at the LHC would be to turn the LHC off and let the detectors run - since this stuff happens (if at all) exceedingly rarely.

I still think all the other DM experiments are better suited to capture this kind of even (also adding that tDM experiments are set up by experts in the field. I think if the LHC could play a role in DM detection one of the few thousand scientists working there might have come up with the idea ;) )
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
@antialias, I think there is a thing about particle physics you don't quite get.

If a particle with mass X exists, then that particle will be produced in interactions with energy greater than the mass-energy equivalent of X with non-zero probability. A DM particle is nothing special in this regard.

If the mass-energy of collision is much greater than X then that particle should be produced with greater than minimal probability.

In this case X = 80 Gev and mass-energy of collision is 13 TeV, .08 << 13 and Q.E.D.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2017
@Da Schneib and @antialias_physorg.

@DS, I gather that @anti's point essentially subsists (and please correct me if I have misunderstood you there, @antialias) in the logical premise that the only way to 'distinguish' any 'product' or 'missing momentum' from an actual DM-DM collision (as distinct from any equally energetic ordinary matter collision during an LHC 'run' when 'on') is for the LHC to be switched 'off' and THEN wait to see if the detectors produce the looked-for 'signal events/absences' which only an 'unseen' DM collision within the detectors could produce.

Do you see his point now, @DS? :)

PS: Again, if I misunderstood your point please correct me, @antialias. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 19, 2017
If the mass-energy of collision is much greater than X then that particle should be produced with greater than minimal probability.

Yes, but we're talking

a) create two of these at the same time
b) These two must collide
c) and interact
d) create a particle that can be seen by the detectors

Now a) seems already unlikely. b) seems almost impossible given that they'll both be travelling radially away from the point of creation. The probability of c) is low and d) isn't going to work because of what I said in a previous post about the detector configuration.

I also don't know how the conservation of baryon and lepton numbers figures into this. Just providing enough energy doesn't guarantee that a particle with less energy can be created.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2017
If the mass-energy of collision is much greater than X then that particle should be produced with greater than minimal probability.

Yes, but we're talking

a) create two of these at the same time
I disagree. You just need one. It's not detectable (it's DM), so 80-some-odd GeV will disappear, leaving a momentum deficit in the interaction. It does what the dog did in the night time.

I also don't know how the conservation of baryon and lepton numbers figures into this. Just providing enough energy doesn't guarantee that a particle with less energy can be created.
That would depend on what conserved quantities, if any, DM particles carry, and that would be pure speculation.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2017
""PPS: After you confirm I have no 'police record',"
I would not be able to to that unless I had access to all the relevant records. My interest is now piqued though, gonna do some digging later."

Which I did. I found some financial misconduct, some interesting patent applications, a musician, all with what appears to be your surname. Must be a common name in NSW.
"@Zerg, stop!"
Nah, side projects can be fun :)
You said "Stumpy's/Ira's "police records"
I said "They don't have any"
If you have evidence that they do have records, post it, I'll retract my statement.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
It's not detectable (it's DM), so 80-some-odd GeV will disappear,

This will not be noticeable because there's a lot of radiation created that is not registered all the time. Some of it travels through the detectors without impacting (that's why the thing is built so far underground). Some is already absorbed by the walls of the vacuum channel or any number of walls that delineate the various detectors. And in any case: the detectors don't detect any radiation that is within a certain cone in line with the proton beam direction in any case. It's not a spherical setup.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2017
They're doing exactly the sort of thing I described right now: https://phys.org/...les.html

The analysis selected collision events containing two or three electrons and muons and large missing transverse momentum.
That's how they do it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2017
@ZergSurfer.

See how lax 'research' can be if not scrupulously objective/thorough; and how self-serving confirmation biases can betray 'results' and make 'interpretations/conclusions' so flawed/wrong (a-la-Bicep2 'exercise'), Zerg? :)

Ask yourself: Would every person in Wales sur named "Jones" be the SAME person? Obviously you havent been scrupulous enough to distinguish between ME and OTHER person of same surname. Why? You know my first name. So why allude to activities by OTHER similarly-surnamed people NOT having my FIRST name, Zerg? Either you are cavalier about 'due diligence' OR you intentionally mislead. Which is it, Zerg? :)

Re any patent applications under MY first-sur name: I did some while researching/testing Australian/International Treaty Patent System, using some of my ideas to 'work up' into formal applications for the purpose.
If you have evidence that they do have records,...
That was 'retaliation in kind'; and as 'exercise/test' for YOU, Zerg. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2017
PS @ZergSurfer.

Anyhow, Zerg, Stumpy has longstanding/bad record of MISTAKEN IDENTITY stalking/accusing/threatening on INTERNET; 'targeting' THE WRONG PERSON with his personal malice/mania having nothing at all to do with his purported 'support of science/science method'. If he (or the rest of his gang) had any objective respect for the science and humanity discourse, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, hey Zerg? So take the following advice as from a friend in both science and humanity: Whatever 'influence' you have been under from Stumpy's personal malice and the "TL;DR and insults" based 'stumpy method' he has 'infected you with to date, shake it off and START AGAIN; rethink everything you 'think' you 'know' about me or what I have been pointing out for your benefit over the years. Your impressions to date are flawed and outright wrong, due mostly to the mod-troll lies, sabotage and bullying/ganglike antics of internet trolls like stumpy, paddoboy, etc. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
PPS @ZergSurfer.

Regarding the science/maths issues I have been pointing out for your benefit over the years, and especially the reality/unreality problems affecting conventional maths axioms/results, did you catch the most recent PO article (and associated paper/link) from mainstream researchers who also recognize the problem I pointed out, and who are using techniques/fixes in order to get around the zero/infinities/singularities which conventional maths/equations produce? Have a read of the following and read where they have to "multiply a" in order to avoid the inbuilt maths flaws due to zero/infinity/singularity problem which arises in conventional maths/equations in QM/Cosmology theory/maths modeling:

https://arxiv.org...0543.pdf

Seealso Gigel's link (thanks Gigel), in thread:

https://phys.org/...rse.html

So, yet more confirmation I have been straight with you guys; and that my posts have been correct. :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2017
@RC
Sigh, re-read my post. This time without your inbuilt bias/assumptions.
I was reporting a negative and stating the need for more research.
As for your usual rubbish about lofty scientific ideals and vague claims of vindication, give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone, least of all me.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
@ZergSurfer.
Sigh, re-read my post. This time without your inbuilt bias/assumptions.
Is it possible that you don't even know you're 'doing it', mate? Here, I will highlight it for you by using your following comment/rationalization on/for what you did in your 'report'.
I was reporting a negative and stating the need for more research.
You did MORE than just report a 'negative', you included an irrelevant allusion to SOMEONE ELSE's "financial misconduct"! You could just have said:
"No record, based on research to date; but will continue looking"
But you chose deliberately to include an irrelevant allusion to someone else's 'record'! Why do that at all, Zerg? Did you even realize the biased/misleading effect of such irrelevant inclusion if purporting to "report a negative"?
As for your usual rubbish about lofty scientific ideals and vague claims of vindication, give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone, least of all me.
You fool yourself/selves, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
PS @ZergSurfer.

Anyhow, re the reality/unreality problems affecting conventional maths axioms/results I mentioned above: did you catch the paper from mainstream researchers who also recognize the problem I pointed out; and who are using techniques/fixes in order to get around the zero/infinities/singularities which conventional maths/equations produce?

Read where they have to "multiply a" in order to avoid the inbuilt maths flaws due to zero/infinity/singularity problem which arises in conventional maths/equations in QM/Cosmology theory/maths modeling:

https://arxiv.org...0543.pdf

So, yet more confirmation/vindication etc, hey Zerg? See? I have been straight with you guys; and my posts have been correct, based on the highest scientific ideals, hey Zerg? It's about time you re-assessed your mistaken/antagonistic/dismissive etc 'attitude/behavior' to me, and my posts over the years, Zerg. :)
ZergSurfer
4 / 5 (4) May 20, 2017
"Is it possible that you don't even know you're 'doing it'"
Meh, you really want me data mining you. Ok, court records, local news sites, real estate info, ancestry sites, and anything else I can think of. I already have a vpn to aus, avoids any geoblocking due to DP regs. Could be interesting, hopefully will make me chuckle :) Oh, and please don't talk about numbers, it hurts :(
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2017
@RC is talking about numbers now? I thought it didn't "believe in" math.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
You've lost the plot, DS. I never said any such thing. You have mistaken identity/attribution.

As for the rest of your lies, you must really be desperate/sick/drunk (or all three) to lie and spam those lies like that, DS. I have been correct and you wrong, as mainstream is increasingly confirming....the latest instance of that confirmation is in the linked paper re the real/unreal maths issues I pointed out for you and Zerg.

So stop digging, DS. You haven't 'clue one' what's going on; yet you keep intruding/spamming your misconstruings and ego-tripping trolls/lies. How can you betray science and humanity ethics/principles like you have been for so long now and not realize that you are doing it, DS? Stop drink-posting and take your meds, DS. And get/be better/honest/objective soon, DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2017
@ZergSurfer.
Is it possible that you don't even know you're 'doing it'

Meh, you really want me data mining you. Ok, court records, local news sites, real estate info, ancestry sites, and anything else I can think of....
Who cares? Not me, mate. Since you will find a negative for "police record" or any other 'naughtiness' on your searches. And anyway, that's what Stumpy et al (and now you) have been doing already; and making a pig's breakfast of the search 'results'; due to mistaken identity errors or confirmation biased 'reporting' and just plain misleading innuendos and lies. How can anyone who is so cavalier towards true facts/objectivity, pretend to care about science and humanity principles/ethics, Zerg? Stop fooling yourself/selves you are anything other than internet stalkers/troll(s), Zerg.

please don't talk about numbers
Not just "numbers" (look what you did!-----triggered Da Schneib spam!). It's about real/unreality axioms/maths (as per link). :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2017
The analysis selected collision events containing two or three electrons and muons and large missing transverse momentum.


That's how they do it.


Yes. Electrons and muons can be reliably tracked as they interact strongly with the detectors. There's no detector for antiprotons (because they don't get that far). So I'm not sure in relation to what a missing amount of energy could be detected. It would have to be in relation to some other detectable thing that is created at that energy (not a gamma, because the antiproton will create that as soon as it annihilates on its way). I'm not sure what particle that would be (the W and Z bosons would be in that energy range, but AFAIK the generation numbers are as expected...unless some other conservation law is pereventing this it doesn't seem like DM is being generated.)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2017
The whole point is you don't go looking for missing energy; the accounting simply isn't good enough for that. What you look for is missing momentum. And not in the line of reaction; you look for missing *transverse* momentum. That indicates something came out that you didn't see.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2017
In that case you have to go looking for a combination product (DM and something else being created). That's tricky, because for the experiments where this is done you know (from theory) what kind of products can be created and then you can go hunting for the missing educt.

But as far as I know there's no theory that says what kind of combination of particle creations/decays also includes a DM particle.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2017
@antialias, missing transverse momentum is pretty clear. You don't need theory to detect it.

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.