New detector will aid dark matter search
December 10, 2008 by David Chandler
An inside view of a neutron detector in development at MIT's Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Pappalardo Fellow Jocelyn Monroe, is seen through the detector. Photo / Donna Coveney
(PhysOrg.com) -- Several research projects are underway to try to detect particles that may make up the mysterious “dark matter” believed to dominate the universe’s mass. But the existing detectors have a problem: They also pick up particles of ordinary matter — hurtling neutrons that masquerade as the elusive dark-matter particles the instruments are designed to find.
MIT physicist Jocelyn Monroe has a solution. A new detector she and her students have built just finished its initial testing last week at Los Alamos National Laboratory. When deployed in the next few months alongside one of the existing dark-matter detectors, the new device should identify all of the ordinary neutrons that come along, leaving anything else that the other detector picks up as a strong candidate for the elusive dark matter.
“Dark matter experiments are very hard,” explains Monroe, who worked on the project with undergraduates Dianna Cowern and Rick Eyers and with graduate students Shawn Henderson and Asher Kaboth. “They are looking for a tiny signal, from a phenomenon that happens very rarely,” namely the collision of a dark-matter particle with one of ordinary matter, producing a tiny, brief flash of light.
Such flashes can be detected by putting a tank of liquid deep underground to shield it from most stray particles, then lining the tank with photomultiplier tubes that can pick up even the faintest bursts of light.
The problem is, even buried a mile underground, calculations show such detectors will pick up far more collisions from particles of ordinary matter than from those made of the still-unknown particles of dark matter. To be precise, the ordinary collisions should happen about 10 billion billion times (19 orders of magnitude) more often than the dark-matter collisions. So learning how to rule out those ordinary collisions is the key to finding the unknown matter.
“We’re really trying to characterize the background,” Monroe explains. “We’re making a precise measurement of the energy spectrum of the neutron background.” By understanding the nature and intensity of this background, it will be possible to design more effective shielding material to keep them away from the detectors.
And by running the two detectors at the same time, anytime a signal is seen in the neutron detector, any signal seen simultaneously in the dark-matter detector can be safely ignored. Only when the dark matter detector sees something and the neutron detector doesn’t will there be a chance that one of the elusive dark-matter particles has been found.
Nobody knows what the dark matter is made of, but astronomers are sure it’s there because of the way its gravitational attraction pulls on other, visible matter in space. That allows them to determine just how much of the mystery matter is out there — more than five times as much as the amount of ordinary matter — but not what it’s made of.
Theorists have come up with a variety of candidates, but the leading contenders are a class of subatomic particles known as WIMPS — weakly-interacting massive particles. These are the types of particles, including one called the neutralino, which should be detectable by the deep underground experiments.
“I think probably in the next five years, someone will see a candidate” for a dark-matter particle, Monroe says. Although some experiments have already claimed to see possible evidence of dark matter, so far those claimed results “are surprising and unconfirmed,” Monroe says, and have not been accepted by most scientists.
To test the new detector, Monroe and her students took it to Los Alamos National Laboratory, where it was exposed to a neutron source so that its sensitivity could be precisely calibrated. Once the analysis of that test is completed, the device will be sent out to an underground laboratory, most likely at the planned Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory. This facility, though not funded yet, would be set up in the Homestake Mine, a very deep old gold mining complex in South Dakota, and one of its multidisciplinary goals is provide the world’s deepest location for the detection of cosmic dark matter.
The research is partly funded by the National Science Foundation.
Provided by MIT
-
Elusive matter found to be abundant far above Earth
Jan 24, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (12) |
15
-
'Spooky action at distance' in particle physics?
Jan 16, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (31) |
7
-
Pions don't want to decay into faster-than-light neutrinos, study finds
Dec 23, 2011 |
4.4 / 5 (35) |
170
-
Underwater neutrino detector will be second-largest structure ever built
Dec 21, 2011 |
4.9 / 5 (14) |
23
-
Curiosity and the solar storm
Dec 15, 2011 |
3.8 / 5 (4) |
2
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (33) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (4) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (2) |
0
-
Thermodynamics q
2 hours ago
-
what is electricity???
5 hours ago
-
Can Plasma Be Solid
6 hours ago
-
What is delta Δ ?
7 hours ago
-
Need some help understanding Hertz–Knudsen formula
7 hours ago
-
Anatomy of Fat man: implosion-critical bomb
9 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Explained: Sigma
It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...
Feb 09, 2012 |
5 / 5 (20) |
78
Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible
(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT researcher Scott Aaronson has certainly riled the physics community with his offer this past Friday, of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that scaled-up quantum computing is impossible. ...
Diamond light, brighter than the sun
Its the size of five football pitches and generates light 10 billion times brighter than the sun. As the Diamond Light Source celebrates its tenth anniversary this year, Penny Bailey visits one of the ...
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.1 / 5 (10) |
18
|
Physicists 'record' magnetic breakthrough
An international team of scientists has demonstrated a revolutionary new way of magnetic recording which will allow information to be processed hundreds of times faster than by current hard drive technology.
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (43) |
15
|
Hints of the Higgs - papers are submitted
Back in December 2011, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN presented some exciting results that provided tantalising hints of the Higgs boson.
Feb 08, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (8) |
10
Scientists discover molecular secrets of 2,000-year-old Chinese herbal remedy
For roughly two thousand years, Chinese herbalists have treated Malaria using a root extract, commonly known as Chang Shan, from a type of hydrangea that grows in Tibet and Nepal. More recent studies suggest that halofuginone, ...
New method to examine batteries -- MRI from the inside
There is an ever-increasing need for advanced batteries for portable electronics, such as phones, cameras, and music players, but also to power electric vehicles and to facilitate the distribution and storage of energy derived ...
A mitosis mystery solved: How chromosomes align perfectly in a dividing cell
Although the process of mitotic cell division has been studied intensely for more than 50 years, Whitehead Institute researchers have only now solved the mystery of how cells correctly align their chromosomes during symmetric ...
Google might launch Drive for cloud storage soon
(PhysOrg.com) -- Google's next big move, according to the Wall Street Journal, is a cloud storage service called Drive. Hardly first to the plate, Google is simply catching up to introducing its cloud reposi ...
Lab study raises questions over nano-particle impact
Tests involving chickens have raised questions about the impact on health from engineered nano-particles, the ultra-fine grains commonly used in drugs and processed foods, scientists said on Sunday.
Starve a virus, feed a cure? Findings show how some cells protect themselves against HIV
A protein that protects some of our immune cells from the most common and virulent form of HIV works by starving the virus of the molecular building blocks that it needs to replicate, according to research published online ...
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
No, the universe is electrically neutral on large scales so you wouldn't expect electric forces to be of any relevance.
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
On an individual particle basis, yes, electromagnitism is much much stronger than gravity. Magnatism, however, does not build up in the same way that gravity does. If you have a bunch of particles of the same mass, the overall gravity of the system is that of the combined masses. Magnatism does not stack like this. A thousand magnets of a certain strength combine to formone giant magnet of the same strength.
Plus Soylent is right,
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (3)
http://www.thunde...sume.htm
Plasma cosmology resolves the need for dark matter or dark energy by examining forces that are already there, but presumed to be insignificant.
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
You're comments indicate a clear lack of understanding of plasma physics. By definition if the universe is 99.99% plasma (fact), than it IS conductive. As for charges building up, I don't know where you came up with a silly notion like that. Charges build up because of charge separation and in plasmas, charges self separate into double layers. This is known fact. In Space, these double layers twist among each other like braided wires and are called Bikeland Currents. Several of these have already been observed in recent headlines, choosing to call them "magnetic ropes". However, modern theory presumes that magnetic field can be 'frozen into' plasmas, which Hans Alfven warned against in his Nobel acceptance speech which brought the field into existence. You cann't have magnetic fields without electric currents, so these magnetic ropes are Birkeland Currents. they are also responsible for the 'hot spots' seen on so many solar bodies which currently defy explanation. It is presumed to be some form of vulanism, yet they fail to mention this violates their models for solar system formation.
Current theory has failed to prove anything, and its predictive ability is even weaker. Rather than accept that current theory may be wrong, it is patched until it is inconsistent even with itself.
Try reading the hundreds of other examples where current theory fails, yet finds answers in Plasma Cosmology, which is testable in the lab at smaller scales. The beauty of plasma is that effects scale. If you can produce effects at small scale in the lab, there is no reason to believe it cannot happen at much larger scale in the Cosmos.
Look at Peratt's plasma simulations showing that spiral galaxies form naturally through charge separation, without utilizing "dark matter" to explain it.
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I'm gonna have to say ballux. It's true, there is a lot of plasma out there, but that doesn't mean the universe is conductive. Besides, the universe has far more empty space than it does plasma. And we all know that the number one insulator is empty space. Yeah, there's a lot of electricity out there. But it is all local.
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (6)
http://www.thunde...sume.htm
Plasma cosmology resolves the need for dark matter or dark energy by examining forces that are already there, but presumed to be insignificant."
This article is a joke, right? Please say yes...
I nearly passed out from lack of oxygen within the first 60 lines or so... Whoever wrote this is, for lack of a better word, a moron. Not only because he doesn't have the SLIGHTEST idea what he's talking about, but also because he tries to make up for it by using words like "Consilience" and "tautologies" to confuse the reader.
So let's break down some of his statements:
"Until the space age, human experience was almost exclusively that of neutral earth, air, fire, and water."
Uh oh... Earth, Air, Fire, and Water? I was under the impression that generally the grouping is: Solid, Liquid, Gas. (Seeing the old EAFW group instantly activated my dumbass alert system)
"Several astrophysicists have told me that, although plasma cosmology appears interesting, they won't consider it until proponents can prove that some mechanism can produce charge separation in space from neutral matter on an astronomically significant scale."
That's a perfectly reasonable statement. But watch what comes next:
"Investigations of plasma phenomena in the past century now confront us with another possibility. We've become aware that most of the observable universe is composed of plasma. The starting condition could just as well be separated charges, and what we observe is the consequential charge combination (not recombination)."
Oh dear. He's just exposed his ignorance to us all. Astronomers do indeed agree that the universe is mostly plasma, but this man seems to think that that somehow proves his "theory" (although the word theory implies something like math, which he clearly doesn't understand). The thing is, plasma is made up of both positive and negative particles, which tend to stay together, so things remain neutral.
Let's continue, shall we?
"Awareness of the bias of familiarity then provokes a second thought. The bias arises not from where we live but from the peculiar limits of our senses. Plasma activity proclaims itself largely in frequencies such as radio and x-ray that lie outside the sensitivities of our senses. We are unfamiliar with plasma because we are blind to it. Modern astrophysicists are in this sense correct to claim that 90% of the universe is undetectable dark substances. Their error is to fill in the blank with mathematical extrapolations from familiar theories and to leave their thinking blind to plasma."
Oh wow. See? He doesn't like math. And we are NOT blind to plasma, astrophysicists have been able to detect it with incredible precision for a very long time now. Please, sir, don't try to argue that we are stupider than you. That's just insulting.
I think it's fair to assume at this point that this man is a QUACK.
That assumption is reinforced by this statement (which he repeats several times, just to hammer it into our skulls).
"Consilience with the already known is a circular argument because our other physical theories are also based on this presumption. After removing tautologies, reasonableness reduces to familiarity and parochialism."
Uh oh... The typical, "think outside the box" argument. One used by all quacks.
To understand more about identifying quacks, read the article linked below. It will amuse you greatly.
http://insti.phys...ack.html
Dec 10, 2008
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
Googling this question provides many arguments that a universal charge imbalance would impede the Universe from forming and operating as it has today... However, such approaches assume that gravity is in the driver's seat, applying conventional wisdom to the question at hand.
Can we all not agree that current "conventional wisdom" is at least misguided, if not flat out wrong, simply as evidence by the numerous mysteries that lay before us?
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
Well, it seems to me that the driving force behind the "conventional wisdon" in modern science is what we call logic. So, no. I can't agree. Unless of course you can show me evidense that current scientific methods do not work.
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
LOGICALLY, it was concluded that galactic rotation should fit a specific rotation curve. This was determined to not be the case, casting doubt on the current scientific method and understanding of gravity. As in, IT DID NOT WORK to explain galactic rotation.
So, theo, are you just trying to be obnoxiously inflammatory, or are you just stupid?
Do you need me to troll this site collecting links to all of the other articles about the "mysteries" and "problems" currently facing astronomy and cosmology due to the ignorance that a problem exists in the theory itself?!
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
As for trolling the site, you may attack astronomy and cosmology all you want, but I doubt you can come up with better theories.
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: not rated yet
And that's all fine and good, I happily await the results of the proposed experiments. However, when it returns null results will the scientists be as hasty to dismiss dark matter as they were the aether?
Just how far down the rabbit hole do we go until "enough is enough" to say, "HEY! Let's try something else."
Dec 11, 2008
Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
That would be why I assumed you had a problem with the scientific method. As for when is enough enough, there are a couple factors that tell us when to stop.
Un) the theory is proved to be so wrong that using it as a model does more harm than good.
Deux) When a new theory that fits observation better and has more predictive power comes along
or Tois) When our sun besomes a red giant, enveloping our planet in a firey death.
And the aether hasn't been given up comepletely. Every decade or so, some nut gets up a following of stupid nuts and they bark about how foolish we are to ignore the aether for a year or so and then settle down for a nap.
Dec 12, 2008
Rank: not rated yet