Dark Matter Discovered Near Solar System?

gpronger writes "The ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter) has potentially discovered the presence of dark matter close (only 3000 light-years) to our solar system. The system detected a large-amount of high energy cosmic rays which match the theoretical signature of dark matter annihilating itself. The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first." The paper was published in Nature , but it requires a subscription to see beyond the abstract.

In Soviet Russia

Dark Matter sees evidence of YOU.

zomg

ZOMG, Mom, is that you?

Re:zomg

see http://www.xkcd.com/502/ [xkcd.com] for the joke

close ?

This must be some meaning of 'close' that I was previously unaware of.

the next logical question...

where is the dark antimatter?

Re:

I eated it

Common doublespeak!

The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.

If this would be the first evidence how can we already have a little evidence of it?

Re:Common doublespeak!

It would be more correct to say we lack evidence for viable alternatives, assuming the current models used, for which we now lack evidence unless evidence has been lacking on the existence of dark matter. Which may be great for grant checks, but it's lousy science.

Re:Common doublespeak!

The things that are considered "evidence" of dark matter are things that match prediction models of things that would happen because of dark matter. Fancy stuff like high energy cosmic rays of certain types and the like. The trick is that there are also may be other models that predict similar types of events that are used as evidence of dark matter, but these models are models that exclude the possibility of dark matter

So, the evidence that points towards dark matter could also point towards other conflicting models of our universe, essentially being evidence for many different models at once. The reason discoveries of this kind of evidence is exciting is because it gives us something to look at and test so that we might select or eliminate from the groups of conflicting models.

Re:Common doublespeak!

No other theory works as well as dark matter (as part of LCDM) to explain obersavations. Other theories have to be changed to account for what we observe at pretty much every scale. Those that work for Galaxy rotation don't work for clusters, which don't work for lensing, which don't work for early structure formation, and so on. Sure, one or two pieces of evidence may favor one theory or another over dark matter, but LCDM fits in the vast majority of cases, far more than any other theory.

Heck, you don't think that we scientists got together one day and said "I know, lets make up some goofy theory and then fudge the data to fit it!" do you? You do realize multiple theories were purposed, predictions were created, new data was taken, and conclusions drawn about which theories were supported by the new evidence, right? And that LCDM is the one that survived all the vetting? And that this process is still on going, yet LCDM still remains as the best theory?

Just checking... See, that's sort of how science is supposed (and in this case does) work.

Bad summary.

The summary misinterprets the results.

The instrument detects high-energy electrons. They found an excess (only 70, but statistically significant) with a particular energy, which if they come from a galactic source (like a pulsar), that source must be within 3000 light years. However, the researchers can't find an appropriate source.

Alternatively, this could be due to annihilating dark matter---the energy spectrum matches some models---but that's not necessarily coming from a particular source.

Re:math hosers.

You have a background intensity that is a function of energy, B(E).

Signal intensity is also a function of energy, S(E).

The observed intensity I(E) is B(E) + S(E). The signal portion (observed intensity above background level) peaks at E = 650 GeV. At 800 GeV (and, one would assume, higher), the signal is small enough that the observed intensity is adequately explained only by background.

Re:

No.
They have an energy dependent signal.

Re:

...They have an energy dependent signal....

So there is a signal, but what produces it is still only a conjectural speculative interpretation of an observation. From experiments here at home, such radiation is ONLY and ALWAYS produced by charged particles. Instead of dark matter, the radiation could be produced by naturally occurring interstellar or intergalactic particle acceleration. It could even be some space alien's giant version of the LHC. All we observe is lots of radiation, but then they are guessin

Re:math hosers.

Dude, seriously, read up on electroweak theory. You're so 1960's.

Re:math hosers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m [wikipedia.org]

There are lots of reactions that produce EM radiation. This one is used in medical imaging. Positron-electron annihilation also creates gamma rays. Yes, those are charged particles, but the gammas are not produced by the charges moving. That reaction is also used every day in medical imaging.

All these resources available on the Internet and you can't even educate yourself. Such a waste.

Re:math hosers.

Did TFA just royally f**k up its math or something?

No, their math is just peachy.

A figure like 650 GeV is the energy of ONE cosmic ray. Think of a graph of the number of rays arriving per second versus the energy of the individual rays. You're getting this many 400 GeV rays per second, this many 500 GeV rays, and so on.

What TFA says is that LOTS of 650 GeV rays were arriving from the newly observed source, and hardly any 800 GeV rays except for the background rate that you get from everywhere in the sky.

rj

Re:Holy crap.

'fucking cookies' are unpleasantly ambiguous.

Re:Holy crap.

Over there, next to your regular one.

Re:Close to our Solar System

Compared to intergalactic space, 3,000 light years is practically next door. It's all relative, and when it comes to astronomy, anything inside the Milky Way is considered close.

Re:Close to our Solar System

Interestingly enough, the universe is almost certainly much bigger than you believe.

Honestly, we have no idea and probably no real way of determining how big the universe really is. Nonetheless, the observable universe seems to be at least 90 billion light years [wikipedia.org] in diameter. So, it'd be more like finding that random person in the same room.

Re:Close to our Solar System

Space can expand at any rate, including faster than light. The FTL restriction is on matter/energy moving through space. It is not a restriction on the geometry of space itself.

As for where the estimated age comes from, your own link answers that.

Re:

The current estimation is believed to be ~13.7 billion light years with a diameter of ~93Gly, (46 billion light years in any direction out from Earth).((Comoving distance, cosmologicaql time, et al.)) 3,000 LY would equate to roughly 17,635,876,119,550,800 miles. 46G LY would equate to roughly 270,416,767,166,418,000,000,000 miles.

While not very close, it is a heck of a lot closer than if we were able to see it nearer the \edge\ of the observable portion of our universe.

Re:Close to our Solar System

So shouldn't the longest distance to the far "edge" be 13.8 billion light years

No, because spacetime is curved and the expansion rate is neither constant nor equal to the speed of light.

The misconception is that the Big Bang was an explosion of matter into space, and there is some volume of space with matter in it and some volume outside of which no matter has yet reached.

In modern cosmology, the Big Bang is an expansion of space. There is no center or edge of the universe (although there is an edge of the universe we can see, because light hasn't yet reaches us from farther), and matter is distributed more or less uniformly everywhere in space. More details in this FAQ [ucla.edu].

Anyway, how can we go from that size to estimate how old it is? Because they expect it to expand at light speed?

They look at the relationship between how far away objects are and how fast they're moving (via Doppler shift). This gives them the expansion history of the universe. Farther objects are older. Also, the structure of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the early universe depends on how the universe has expanded between then and now. When combined with the general relativity theory of cosmology and how the universe expands, you can back out an age estimate.

Re:Kinda Reminds Me of the Face on Mars

Unless and until physicists can fully explain the true mechanism of movement in language that the layperson can understand, I'll remain highly skeptical of their more outlandish conclusions (black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, parallel universes, etc.), sorry.

How do you expect the explanations in layman's terms to be any different than what we use now (what goes up must come down, at equilibrium every action has an equal and opposite reaction, object at rest stays at rest until acted upon, etc. etc. etc.)? These are extremely complex phenomena that, if described in layman's terms, cannot be accurately portrayed.