Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

X Particle Might Explain Dark Matter & Antimatter

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the have-I-got-a-particle-for-you dept.

Space 285

cold fjord writes "Wired Science has a story on a new theory that tries to explain dark matter, and the balance of regular matter with antimatter. This theory may even be testable. From the article: 'A new hypothetical particle could solve two cosmic mysteries at once: what dark matter is made of, and why there's enough matter for us to exist at all."

cancel ×

285 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's also (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496522)

What gives the X-Men their powers.

Re:It's also (3, Informative)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496560)

You beat me.

I was about to post:

It can solve two great outstanding problems in physics simultaneously? I nominate that we start calling it "the uncanny x-particle."

MUTANT ROIGHTS NAAOOww! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497952)

X Chromosome
X-Men
X Window System (brought to you by, Professor Xavier)

...
...arriving to 1980's
...
niggers
Xing Remote Services
DirectX
XDirectFB
XBox
XBox 360

Re:It's also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496620)

thought it was the 'X-gene'. I admit I'm not a rabid fan, so go easy on me if I"m wrong..

Re:It's also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496638)

It is, but having slightly different genetics alone doesn't really explain the wide variety of powers.

Re:It's also (0)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496716)

What gives the X-Men their powers.

Right... but this doesn't quite explain "why there's enough matter for us to exist at all" ("us" ... the rest of humanity).
Well... methinks that physicists are relying to much on Apple technology and – as any monoculture does – this is obviously impeding the progress in sciences... otherwise I can't explain why they are taking so long to discover the triple-X particles.

Re:It's also (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497468)

What gives the X-Men their powers.

Nah, that's post-production and CG :)

testable? (-1)

MichaelKristopeit174 (1940418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496554)

i'm pretty sure that testing that there is enough matter for us to exist at all was already very testable. i'm here. hello. there is enough matter.

Re:testable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496574)

Sure, you think you exist. Right.

Sincerely,
The Ether

Re:testable? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496598)

The statement is "WHY" there is enough matter for us to exist.

You're an idiot. Your mom has more matter than everyone else combined.

Why do you use your made up name? Are you a COWARD?

You are NOTHING

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit174 (1940418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496700)

there is enough matter because there is enough matter.

WHY is irrelevant. HOW is the question.

you're an idiot.

Re:testable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496890)

Moron. You original question wasn't even "how" it was that there was. You fail. Please get the jizz off of your mom's ugly face.

Re:testable? (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit150 (1947012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496960)

my point is and was that the question was NEVER "how?" until i suggested it be... so i'm a moron because it wasn't???

your comprehension skills are very telling.

ur mum's face fail.

you're an idiot.

Re:testable? (1)

DocHoncho (1198543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497904)

Hey look, the bot's come out to play.

ur mum's face fail.

That the best you got?

ur mums you're an idiot. Look, I can do it too!

Re:testable? (1)

MichaelKristopeit194 (1942470) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498062)

mindless mimic is the tool of the idiot.

you think that is the best i have?

mimic me some more. do anything relative to me. don't do anything for yourself. don't take responsibility for your actions.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:testable? (3, Funny)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496612)

You'll need to come with me. Room 101 is waiting.

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit178 (1940424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496728)

ur mum's face'll need to come with me.

you're an idiot.

Re:testable? (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496868)

Oh! I'm so hurt by those mean words, Michael Kristopeit!

Get over yourself kid. It was a joke.

Re:testable? (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit182 (1940902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496896)

ur mum's face was a joke.

you're an idiot.

Re:testable? (3, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496916)

I like you, you got moxie.

Here's a quarter, kid. Go buy a nicer shirt.

Re:testable? (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit152 (1947018) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496970)

ur mum's face got moxie.

why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:testable? (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497008)

I'm afraid of being exposed by an amazing human being like you. You shine as a the sun in a dark room full of children who have been fucked hard in every hole by your dad.

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit210 (1946192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497080)

i live at 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701.

present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i will bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:testable? (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497150)

You're clearly jacking off while you do this. Have fun!

Re:testable? (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit215 (1947006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497258)

ur mum's face're clearly jacking off while you do this.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:testable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497900)

"your mom" jokes are olllld.

Netcraft confirms it
Michael Kristopeit = stagnated.

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit197 (1942480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498054)

"ur mum" jokes are mine.

why do you cower? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:testable? (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497986)

This thread seems to have uncovered the secret behind the copious presence of Dark Matter.

It appears to be fecal matter.

Re:testable? (2)

DocHoncho (1198543) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497928)

I nominate Michael Krisotpeit as the 2010 /. Troll of the Year. We can send the award to all the fake addresses he keeps posting.

I swear, there hasn't been a troll this amusing since twitter. WHatever happened to him anyway?

Re:testable? (2)

mmell (832646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497808)

Rachel cut you off again, huh? Sorry, dude - I didn't mean to spoil her.

I'll be at the Tomohawk room in Chippewa tomorrow night if you want to discuss it.

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit197 (1942480) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497866)

i have never been cut off.

your location is irrelevant.

you are NOTHING.

Re:testable? (4, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496614)

Yes, but why?

That's the question that needs answering. We see that there is matter, obviously, but common sense (assuming the big bang is accurate, and it has held up pretty well over the years) says their shouldn't be.

So why does matter exist? Why didn't matter and anti-matter annihilate each other evenly? They've tested it in the colliders, and sure enough, matter and anti-matter are not created equally given the conditions necessary to create them.

This is a theory to explain why what is, is. This is how science works. You take an observable fact, create a hypothesis for why it might be so, and test the hypothesis. If it works as the hypothesis describes, you're closer to knowing why the observable fact is an observable fact. When you know a bunch of reasons why observable facts exist, you start to be able to predict new things that you haven't observed yet, and you can start looking for them. If you don't find them, your theory is bunk. If you do, your theory may still be bunk, but you at least know it is pretty good.

Re:testable? (1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit179 (1940426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496724)

why is there enough matter for me to exist? because i exist, that is why.

the question i assume you seek an answer to is "how?"

Re:testable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496792)

because you exists isn't why there is enough matter for you to exist.

that's like saying "why does the car have tires? because cars come with tires".

why and how can be answered in the same way in this context, so i think your just splitting hairs.

Re:testable? (0)

MichaelKristopeit180 (1940428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496870)

why am i splitting hairs? is it not because you're wrong?

Re:testable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497024)

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:testable? (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497252)

We see that there is matter, obviously, but common sense (assuming the big bang is accurate, and it has held up pretty well over the years) says their shouldn't be.

Not to be a nit-pick, but in order for common sense to say there shouldn't be matter, you have to rely on both big bang theory AND dark matter theory. The fact that there is matter may not speak to big bang theory at all... it may speak to primarilly dark matter theory and the validity of that. There are other theories explaining gravitational discrepencies that don't rely on dark matter, and it could be that one of them is correct. In which case you could still have the bing bang theory be valid and have the existence of matter, with no issues.

I know a lot of scientists really believe the dark matter theory to be correct, but we are starting to get to the point (IMO) where the rubber needs to meet the road. We've had dozens of tests designed to detect dark matter, and every one of them has failed. At some point, maybe we need to take a step back and ask whether the problems were really with the tests, or the validity of the theory itself. I'm starting to think dark matter theory has something in common with ether.

just put a crowbar by the testing lab (5, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496798)

just put a crowbar by the testing lab

There used to be a website... (1)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496558)

about Star Trek Voyager's particle of the week. Seems every week they invented/found a new particle to pull themselves out of some jam.

Re:There used to be a website... (1)

hrimhari (1241292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496606)

So Voyager is now sending scientific papers to 2010's Earth? Cool!

Re:There used to be a website... (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497582)

Yeah, someone inverted the tetrion field and sent a tachyon pulse through the main deflector dish, and now we have particle of the week papers leaking from the fictional universe into the real one. If the dilithium matrix can hold out just a little longer, we have high hopes of getting an in-tact honest politician through the rift.

Re:There used to be a website... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497890)

Ya dinna know what you're talkin' aboot, Kiptin.

Spooky, my captcha was "magneto", heavily related to the earlier X-Men comments.

Everything important has an X in the name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496576)

X11
X Particle
X-Men
X-ray vision

Who cares (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496578)

Scientists haven't grasped anything new in physics since Einstein. They still think the speed of light is the fastest speed in the Universe. And the wave-particle is the only force in the Universe.

I'm getting tired of them naming things after their ignorance. "Dark Matter". "Black Hole". "X Particle". Maybe they can call the next theory "WTF" to top it all off.

Re:Who cares (3, Insightful)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496634)

Wow, haven't been following physics much, eh?

Re:Who cares (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496660)

Why are we always in such a hurry to mod vague nerd cynicism as 'Interesting'?

Re:Who cares (3, Insightful)

ChrisMP1 (1130781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496662)

Yes, because as we all know, the 'black' in 'black hole' is a reference to ignorance, not a reference to its light-capturing property.

Re:Who cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496730)

"Yes, because as we all know, the 'black' in 'black hole' is a reference to ignorance, not a reference to its light-capturing property."

Yes, it's because it doesn't emit (except for the Hawking radiation) but it's still a name of ignorance: the existance of the singularity proofs Einstein's general relativity as wrong but we still lack a better theory to substitute it.

Re:Who cares (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497610)

Yes, it's because it doesn't emit (except for the Hawking radiation) but it's still a name of ignorance: the existance of the singularity proofs Einstein's general relativity as wrong but we still lack a better theory to substitute it.

Actually it's the opposite.

The existence of singularities was a major prediction of General Relativity, and the source of much skepticism towards the theory. People didn't believe a thing like that could exist in our universe. The discovery of Black Holes with many of the predicted properties was (more) proof that GR was a damn good theory.

Not that we don't need a better theory to address known flaws, or that you couldn't in some way say Black Hole is a 'name of ignorance'. Certainly, there is a lot we don't know about them. If there is any problem with relativity wrt black holes, it's that since we can't look past the event horizon, we can't tell if there really exists a mathematical discontinuity in the universe or if something else is happening.

Re:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497188)

You have no idea [foxnews.com] .

ArXiv link (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496616)

The paper is also available at the arXiv [arxiv.org] if you don't have a subscription to Phys. Rev. Lett.

Re:ArXiv link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497162)

The reference material cited is BORING!

Summary: Give yourself to the Dark Side.

the paper (4, Informative)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496618)

Why, oh why can't people posting science stories on slashdot post links to the actual papers when they're publicly available? http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.2399 [arxiv.org]

Re:the paper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496736)

If people don't RTFA, would they RTFP?

Re:the paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497198)

Why, oh why can't people posting science stories on slashdot post links to the actual papers when they're publicly available?

Why do you think [slashdot.org] ?

Don't get into the science pool if you can't float (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496654)

"This theory may even be testable."

To be a theory it must be testable.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (-1, Flamebait)

MichaelKristopeit178 (1940424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496756)

eat your own medicine, moron.

many existential theories will always remain untestable...

you're an idiot

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (4, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496812)

Which ones specifically? In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable. And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

MichaelKristopeit181 (1940430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496876)

the theory that no such theory exists.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496884)

Except, we can test that one.

You're an idiot.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (-1, Troll)

MichaelKristopeit182 (1940902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496942)

who is "we"?

you are NOTHING.

you have provided no test and no proof with your hypocritically ignorant claims.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496944)

I can't tell if he meant the theory that "no finite and complete set of axioms exists" or he just made something up. Either way I guess, the former case has been proven. Goedels Incompleteness Theorem.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497180)

In fact, I challenge you to name even one theory that isn't testable.

P = NP.

Your move.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497224)

Well are we necessarily talking about scientific theories or any theory at all? There are certainly theories which can't be tested.

Even in the scientific process, you come up with a theory first and from that devise a hypothesis that can be tested. Scientific theories where nobody can think of a way to test it won't generally get a lot of credence and don't become accepted, but they happen. But devising a theory and figuring out whether it can be proven are really two different steps.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497448)

The theory of evolution
You cannot come up with a test to confirm or disprove evolution. The theory relies on the human interpretation of archeological evidence. If something is found that doesn't fit the existing evolution model, the model is changed, not disproven.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (4, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497528)

And String theory doesn't count. It's about as scientific as Astrology.

A Slashdotter or hundreds of physicists... who's a fellow to believe?

String theory (variants thereof) conforms to observations as well as any other theory. What's lacking is an observation where the predictions diverge.

Until such time as such an observation becomes possible, if you want to knock string theory you should argue on the basis of Ockham's Razor, not on perceived parallels with astrology.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (5, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496788)

There's a difference between "testable in theory" and "testable in practice". Science proceeds from both ends towards the middle, where theoreticians and experimenters meet.

Theoreticians work on things that may not be testable in practice, now. They may be testable one day, and that actually happens: particle physicists build bigger colliders, astronomers get to see the views they couldn't before, paleontologists dig up the fossil they expected but didn't have.

It leaves the realm of science utterly when it's not testable even in theory. Between the two there's a gray area, where something may not be practical in the forseeable future, or may require so much time and space and energy that it's absurd to think it would ever become practical. Theoreticians run a minefield here, but it would be invalid to forbid them from going there. They might well find a way to take something absurd and make it realistic; it happens.

I'm glossing over a lot of epistemic niceties here, but the point is that a theory does not have to be testable at the moment to be science. If this one happens to be testable now or in the near future, yay; that lets us exclude a lot of territory that's currently in the mine field. But it likely would not have happened without other theoreticians having explored that space.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

MichaelKristopeit210 (1946192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497102)

in other words, gp is wrong.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (2)

IICV (652597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497648)

That's actually one of the major problems with many of the current formulations of string theory; they're testable in theory, but in practice by the time we can throw that much energy around we probably won't care about the answer any more, one way or the other.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (5, Insightful)

stuckinarut (891702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497968)

Well said sir! As an example, Frame-dragging was proposed as a theory in 1918 based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity but wasn't able to be tested until 1996 with a couple of special satellites and even then not accurately enough to be provable until 2006. Since we had barely left the ground let alone orbit the earth at that point I'm sure it must have seemed un-testable at the time.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496846)

That doesn't seem to have slowed String Theory down [columbia.edu] :-)
  1. Observe (the universe)
  2. Question (Where is the missing mass? Why is there more matter than anti-matter?)
  3. Hypothesize (X particles)
  4. Predict (X particles will do this thing which we have not yet observed)
  5. Test/experiment (Do they?)
  6. Analysis/Conclusion

At the moment, they are at #3. Unless they can get to both #4 and #5 then the 'theory' is and will remain idle speculation, suitable only for prompting bad jokes in ./

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497992)

What is this dotslash of which you speak? It's "/.", ya goose.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (2)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496918)

Axiom of Choice?

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (3, Informative)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497254)

The axiom of choice is an axiom, not a theory. Coincidentally, this is why it is not called the theory of choice.

My theory, which is mine (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496934)

To be a theory it must be testable.

Can I jut say here for one moment that I have a new theory about black holes? What is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine. What is my theory? This is it. My theory that belongs to me is as follows.

This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. My theory by MillionthMonkey Esq., Sir, brackets. This theory goes as follows and begins now. Black holes that swallow the earth can be made easily and for cheap in a laboratory. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.

Re:My theory, which is mine (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497530)

I can't believe I got suckered into reading that whole thing. I tip my hat to you sir...I tip my hat to you.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (4, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497172)

To be a theory it must be testable.

Prove it.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497562)

I think the phrase should probably technically "This theory may even be testable with current knowledge and technologies for an amount of money which exists."

You're right that all theories must be testable, but that doesn't mean we actually can test them.

"-able" as in plausably able (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497586)

They don't mean testable as in "the theory makes predictions that could hypothetically be distinguished via experiment" in this case. They mean in the sense of "we may be able to test it", like with existing technology.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497636)

There's testable in the sense of when I let go of this brick it will hit the ground in 1.3 seconds if my theory is correct and then there's testable in the sense of if we construct a 1000 mile high cylinder of neutronium and apply the entire industrial energy output of the earth to it for the next 10 years, this glass of water will boil if my theory is correct.

The latter is testable in the sense that there exists an experiment that would unambiguously falsify it. It's just that we don't have the technology and resources to do so. OTOH if the latter required a pegasus feather, it would not be testable.

Re:Don't get into the science pool if you can't fl (1)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497722)

Normally, but there is a lot of theories in Physics that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be true, but can't be tested YET, including most of String theory and its weird and wonderful offspring.

Thats not to say they CANT be, but we dont know how to yet, and have to , for now, suffice with looking for mathematical models of string theory that fit with what we CAN observe.

Custom-built universe (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34496688)

Wow, wouldn't it be convenient if you could solve problems A and B with the Standard Model by adding a new particle that has properties A and B. Amazing! It solves both problems. This is tantamount to solving the problem of how the Mona Lisa was painted by postulating the existence of a Mona-Lisa shaped brush and paint palette. When applied to a canvas, the Mona Lisa appears: amazing! The point of even having physics theories is to explain many phenomena by a few parsimonious theories, not to kludge it all in.

Kindof Summary (3, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496738)

Alright, so IANAPP, but, FTA:

Equal amounts of X and anti-X were created in the Big Bang, and then decayed to lighter particles. Each X decayed into either a neutron or two dark-matter particles, called Y and . Every anti-X converted to an anti-neutron or some anti-dark matter.

But the hypothetical X particle would rather decay into ordinary matter than dark matter, so it produced more neutrons than dark matter. Anti-X preferred decaying into anti-dark matter, and so produced more of it.

Bold emphasis added is mine. Does this theory explain why "particle X" would rather decay into ordinary matter? Isn't that begging the question? How is that any different than moving to the larger set of all mass, and just saying "Hypothetical universe X would rather form more ordinary matter than dark matter". I understand they may be foregoing the DiffyQ's that perhaps stand behind their assertions for the word "rather" to provide for the layman, but this premise kills the theory for me unless there exist math/science/evidence/a reason besides the word "rather for this article.

Re:Kindof Summary (1)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496800)

One step at a time. If it exists, then we can try to understand it more deeply.

Re:Kindof Summary (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496898)

CP violation has already been observed. This theory provides a mechanism whereby it can account for both dark matter and the matter-antimatter imbalance.

Re:Kindof Summary (5, Funny)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496912)

+1 Proper use of "begging the question"

Re:Kindof Summary (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496936)

Alright, so IANAPP, but, FTA:

[...]

Does this theory explain why "particle X" would rather decay into ordinary matter?

Does the quantum therory explains why fermions would (never/rather) not share the same quantum state with others?

So... (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496742)

The idea that a particle decays differently than its anti-particle is not something new ie Kaons so it is entirely possible from that end. And the Big Bang was dealing with energies much much higher than what we deal with even in the LHC so it is entirely possible to be made of quarks that are much much more massive than the ones we have currently discovered right?

Re:So... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496874)

I don't think this theory requires any new quarks.

First LHC, now... (2)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#34496984)

From TFA:

The signature of dark matter destroying protons “can be easily tested by the even bigger proposed underground detectors” planned to be built somewhere in Europe.

Should anyone interested in science just move to Europe now? Seems to be the place in the world where people actually care about science these days.

Re:First LHC, now... (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497016)

In my opinion, the US doesn't have a whole lot to offer these days for lower level academics or grad level research. I love my home country and all, but as far as science goes, its all supporting the military and DHS. Additionally, you get paid crappy for doing it unless your an administrator or professor of some kind. To top it off, you get over-priced or crappy health care and you get indebted to the government for most of your life if you choose to go to college and happen to be one of the people that don't have family money.

Re:First LHC, now... (0)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497302)

Or you could, you know, get a job and pay for it yourself like some of us did. I'm not saying there isn't something screwy with tuition prices that could use fixing but crying that it can't be done without being "indebted to the government for most of your life" or having family money does not pass the bullshit test. And that's completely discounting things like earning scholarships or spending a couple years in the military.

But, hey... I know the whole having to earn what you want idea is going out of fashion lately. Please carry on with the complaining.

Re:First LHC, now... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497690)

So... your solution to providing access to higher education without limiting it to the rich, or saddling people with massive debt, is to either a) put people through the military (translation, have the government pay for it, anyway), or b) limit it to the top few percent who can gain access to scholarships.

Uhuh. Screwy, indeed.

So, just OOC, which one did *you* do?

The Happy Fun Science Reporting Telephone Game (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497096)

God damnit, no, it doesn't explain all dark matter. It explains how some antimatter could appear in cosmological equations as dark matter.

There's a lot of "dark matter" which really isn't all that dark (in the sense of "unknown") anymore. In cosmology, dark matter is just anything with mass which isn't conventionally visible from here. We can ballpark how heavy the universe should be based on the equations we've figured out for how the universe works in our neighborhood. Then we can turn around and observe as much as possible in the way of galaxies and so forth and total up how much mass that should represent. The balance is dark matter - it is no more nor no less mysterious than that.

We already know what some types of dark matter are. For example, it is hard as hell to get neutrinos show up, but they are probably one of the most abundant things in the universe. As a rule, the only way we can see them is if there are enormous epic-scale bucketloads to the infinity power of them sweeping by us all at once (as there usually are!)...and at that point we catch maybe one neutrino that smacks into an easier-to-observe atomic particle exactly on target (on the scale of the infinitesimally small particles involved). By extrapolation, we reason that the rest of them must be there as well, because we can calculate what the exceedingly minute probability was for the one event that we actually saw.

Other types...who knows? Maybe the guys referenced in the article are on to something. But it would be a relief if we could actually report the contents of the research rather than making up a bunch of malarkey which just gives people silly ideas about how the universe works. The truth is far stranger, there's no need to make stuff up.

Re:The Happy Fun Science Reporting Telephone Game (2)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497446)

Didn't they also find more stars in galaxies recently, even lowing their dependence on "dark matter".

Re:The Happy Fun Science Reporting Telephone Game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34497480)

Yeah, the estimated star count went up by about a third. They were all low-mass, but even a low-mass star entails an awful lot of mass - particularly at those quantities.

More info here ... (1)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497434)

man 3 XInternAtom

Testable (4, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34497616)

This theory may even be testable.

Physicists going old-fashioned on us, eh?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?