E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Super-Kamiokande
Technicians check the photomultiplier tubes that ring an underground cylindrical stainless steel tank known as the Super-Kamiokande detector. The detector is on watch for faint glimmers of radiation from exotic particles zipping through the earth.
Can one particle explain both dark matter and the mysterious origins of matter and antimatter? Some physicists think so. They're calling the as-yet-only-theoretical object the "X particle."
Physicists from Canada's TRIUMF particle-physics facility, the University of British Columbia and Brookhaven National Laboratory laid out their ideas on the X particle in a paper published last month by Physical Review Letters -- and since then, the ideas have been picked up by PhysicsWorld magazine as well as Discovery News. (You can read a full draft of the paper on the arxiv.org website.)
The concept addresses two of the deep mysteries in modern physics:
- Dark matter: Observations of distant galaxies and galaxy clusters suggest that the matter we can see accounts for about a fifth of their gravitational mass. The other four-fifths is thought to exist in the form of exotic matter than can be detected only by its gravitational effect. So what is that stuff?
- Matter vs. antimatter: Theory dictates that equal amounts of matter and antimatter must have existed at the beginning of the universe -- and yet, we see lots of matter and virtually no antimatter in the universe today. What happened to the antimatter, and why did matter win out?
The physicists suggest that X particles and anti-X particles -- each with about 1,000 times as much mass as a proton -- existed in the early universe. Such particles would show a "yin-yang" pattern of decay. Theoretically, the X particles would decay into detectable neutrons, or a pair of hidden particles called Y and Φ (the Greek letter phi). The anti-X particles would decay into antineutrons, or pairs of anti-Y and anti-Φ particles. But the X's would be more likely to decay into neutrons, while the anti-X's would be more likely to produce hidden anti-Y's and anti-Φ's.
"When almost all particles with an available antiparticle annihilated one another in the early universe, these discrepancies left a chunk of visible matter and a heavier chunk of dark antimatter to form the cosmos," PhysicsWorld's Kate McAlpine wrote.
The researchers suggest that the existence of the anti-Y and anti-Φ particles could be confirmed by their interactions with protons. Such interactions "could be on the boundary of detectability" at facilities such as the Super-Kamiokande underground particle detector in Japan, said UBC's Kris Sigurdson.
This is by no means the only hypothesis that's been offered to explain the nature of dark matter and the roots of the matter-antimatter balance. One of the main experiments at Europe's Large Hadron Collider, LHCb, is designed to study the decay of B-mesons and anti-B-mesons to see if additional data can help unravel the antimatter mystery. The LHC may also identify exotic particles (neutralinos, maybe?) that account for the dark matter.
I asked SLAC particle physicist Helen Quinn, co-author of the book "The Mystery of the Missing Antimatter," to take a quick look at the X particle concept. "It's very speculative," she told me, "and this is one of the things that particle physicists do all the time."
For now, the X factor is merely one of several hypotheses that might or might not explain one or both of the great mysteries. The truth is out there, and one day physicists will figure out which hypothesis serves as the best explanation for dark matter and/or antimatter. In the meantime, Quinn told me, "there's an awful lot of space out there in which to build models."
"Time will tell," she said.
That's a saying that could be applied to lots of the things that come up in physics -- or life in general.
More on dark matter and antimatter:
- Gallery: Dark matter revealed!
- Interactive: The darkest mystery of all
- Atoms of antimatter captured at last
- Weird antimatter particles detected deep down
In addition to Sigurdson, authors of the paper in Physical Review Letters, "Unified Origin for Baryonic Visible Matter and Antibaryonic Dark Matter," include Hooman Davoudiasi, David E. Morrissey and Sean Tulin.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Yippee - a brand new unobservable pseudo-particle
Unobservable fantasy particles indeed. They might as well claim that it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages which cause these galaxies to rotate so quickly.
Answer: Space dust and diffuse gases.
Perhaps it's not so "empty" as is apparently assumed.
Stupid
This is yet another tome that shows physicists and astronomers are too smart for their own good, but know how to waste the taxpayer's money.
The existence of dark matter is inferred mostly from the characteristics of galactic rotation: "most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. . . . These results suggest that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Galactic_rotation_curves )
No dark matter is needed, just an alternative conclusion: Stars in a galaxy do not "orbit" the central bulge. Their motion is NOT comparable to planetary orbits in a solar systems. This is a much different situation.
Picture two small galaxies approaching each other. The chances are good that the approach will be off-center (not co-linear). Two effects will become apparent immediately. The differential effects of gravitation will cause the galactic blobs to "string out" into a line of stars. The off-center approach will cause the system to rotate around its barycenter (forming a spiral). The barycenter core is intially formed from the stars on the leading edge of each galaxy which experience a stronger gravitational pull and form a central nucleus of stars, usually accompanied by a visible "bar" of stars connecting the leading edges of the strung-out stars. Graviation changes the DIRECTION of the stellar motion far more than the speed. The result is that, as quoted above, "most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed". And they do so because their original SPEED of approach remains mostly unchanged.
There is nothing hard about this! A highschool student could figure this out!
Now, why don't we have equal amounts of matter and antimatter? My answer is that we do. Matter is localized in three-dimensional space, and antimatter is localized in three-dimensional time. Matter gravitates in space and forms spatially localized stars and planets. Antimatter gravitates in time and forms temporally localized stars and planets. We cannot see temporal structures in a spatial reference system because they are "non-local" as physicists would say. They are structures located in a "when" that we are trying to view from a "where" reference system. The two concepts are orthogonal. The only thing we will be able to see is a uniform background of diffuse particles that are homogeneous and isotropic, and moving at the seed of light. Cosmic rays and the cosmic background radiation have these very characteristics.
Both mysteries are solved. What we need is COMMON SENSE in physics and astronomy, not more new particles!
I think you mean "taxpayers' money," not "taxpayer's money."
lol
I wonder, if Einstein was around today, what would he be working on.
Just a slight correction:
Personally, I find the topic enthralling and enjoyed the article very much but, in regards to the original amount of matter and antimatter in the universe:
- If there had been equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, they would have equally annihilated each other, potentially bringing the creation of the universe to a halt.
- Popular theory suggests that there were NEAR equal amounts of matter / antimatter, with slightly more matter, thus allowing matter to "win out," and create the universe as we know it. Thus, the question pondered by most scientists isn't "why is there so much matter in the universe now," but rather, "why was there slightly more matter then (near the inception of the universe)?"
The way the problem is usually stated is that equal amounts did indeed come into existence:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38849720/ns/politics/
But there must have been something about the way that matter and antimatter decayed to ensure that matter won out, at least in terms of what we see out there in the universe. The clever twist in this new proposal, as I see it, is that the exotic but "missing" dark matter is actually the same as the exotic but "missing" antimatter.
Yes, I did make misuse of the word "original." Indeed, equal amounts were made at the instant of the Big Bang.
What I was trying to draw attention to was essentially what you just stated: the theory that that primordial anti-matter decayed at a faster rate than matter (and that those "equal amounts" weren't static).
The potential for a unification theory here is extremely exciting, and I can't wait to hear more. Thanks so much for the reply!
Rick asks: "If Einstein were around today, what would he be working on."
Here's the list: Fractal geometry, Nonlinear Dynamics, Chaos, Kerr-Newman Black Holes and Singularities.
He would he laughing his butt off at the string theorists, and postmodern pseudo-physics in general
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Actually... He would probably still be doing what he spent the last years of his life on, a unified theory.
And he laughed his butt off at Quantum mechanics , hence the reason he worked on the unified theory so much, and Einstein was wrong. His blunder was not the Cosmological Constant, it was his unwillingness to accept QM; God DOES play dice...
boy, you surely are stuck on "postmodern" and "pseudo-physics" aren't you?
Mmm, yet another "particle" into the mix?
I think we could make faster progess if we focus on fully defining (with experimental measurements) the Wave–particle Duality.
We still do not have any clue what this duality consists of at the most fundamental (lowest quanta) level. String theory seems to be a fruitless effort in defining the thing, brought about through frustration from not being able to achieve any progress through the laborous and tedious process of experimental physics.
I believe that if we focus on the common factors (conservation of energy (and momentum), constant parameters and recurring terms, (Planck's h, speed of light c ..., including the infinities, (quantum entanglement through the bosonic effects), we could converge faster.
Higgs field is a good example of a good path but I believe it will fall short due to the lack of a good definition in the quantum containment mechanism. I think when we finally get it, the simplicity of the of the mechanism will strikes us with disbelieve on how we have missed it thus far.
In the end when we (or a super neural network processor(s)) finally figures it out, I am willing to wager that one question will remain, who put all this energy (fire) into such an elegant masterpiece of our universe?
To: Oaktree-1217860
Actually, there is a good explanation of the wave/particle duality. It centers on answering the question:
"How does an inherently rotational entity appear to an observer in a linear, extensional reference system?"
For more details see:
http://scripturalphysics.org/qm/inverseness.html
Brian,
Once again thank you for some very interesting papers.
I do have another question which has been haunting me and I cannot find any material on.
Can 2 or more quarks occupy the same space?
In other words the up and down quarks seem to be of sufficient stability (with the "addition" of one electron) to "release" one hydrogen atom. However, when still in vacuum can multiple top quarks (or any of the others) merge or pass through an up and/or down quark?
In one of the papers your have referenced, only briefly mentions "boson" effect for 2 photons occupying the space but can this bosonic effect occur with quarks?o you have any references?
So are we saying that antimatter decayed into dark matter? Does that mean that the interaction of dark matter with matter, neutrinos for instance, creates dark energy?
I think you have that first part right: The primordial antimatter decayed into what we now detect gravitationally (but cannot see) as dark matter. The gravitational mass of an atom of antimatter would be the same as the mass of the equivalent matter. The second part, I'm not so sure about. Dark energy appears to be a constant factor throughout the universe, and is not created by the interaction of antimatter and matter. But I'm sure there are more knowledgeable folks would could set me straight on this.
Modern-day theorists continue to treat the universe in a rigid, formulaic manner ... Take this pill (or, in this case, this invisible, theoretical particle), and call me in the morning (with the new model).
There is no philosophy in this approach that anybody can point to.
Any approach devoid of a philosophy will ultimately fail.
You guys should be trying harder to solve problems in a divergent manner.
And yet, anybody who goes off on their own in the physics discipline, and tries to come up with novel new models are generally called cranks and ridiculed.
Many very good ideas are being ignored simply because they cast doubt upon the prior work of peer reviewers.
Meanwhile, the approach of the "thought experiment" continues to trump the more empirical cosmology -- plasma cosmology.
Meanwhile, Gerrit Verschuur -- one of the world's premier radio astronomers -- observes flows of electricity in interstellar space. And everybody ignores the implications of it, while pretending that it never happened.
The science reporters will one day look back on this era as the end of a very long thought experiment gone awry. People will struggle to actually account for the amount of wasted taxpayer money. These numbers will one day astonish our children and grandchildren ...
... If we are lucky.
Getting theoretical physics back on track is a simple matter.
Just insist that any theory that is taken seriously and given media attention must make definitive predictions that are prior, feasible, quantitative, NON-ADJUSTABLE, and unique to the theory being tested.
Then you experimentally and observationally separate the wheat from the chaff.
All of Einstein's major ideas were tested in this way. It used to be the way science was done. It could be insisted upon again.
String theory would fail this criterion (no formal theory, no definitive predictions, no significant results). So would many other Platonic pseudo-theories.
Science journalists and editors, especially, must stop being intimidated into dispensing with the traditional scientific evaluation criteria, and they must stop being co-dependents regarding the untestable pseudo-physics of the Platonist crowd.
It's really quite simple: start demanding scientific and personal integrity again. Ask what the theories' definitive predictions are, and do not accept hand-waving, evasive or misleading answers. Be journalists!
What better time to start than right now?
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
To Robert Oldershaw:
I also like NASA's criteria of "credibly constructed" theories as stated in their Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program:
"Another challenge of seeking breakthroughs is ensuring credibility without sacrificing openness to new perspectives. This is particularly challenging since genuinely new ideas often extend beyond the established knowledge base, or worse, can appear to contradict this base. In other words, a genuinely new, credible idea is very likely to appear non-credible. Also, it is common when soliciting new ideas to receive a large number of "fringe" submissions that are certainly non-credible. To address this challenge, it is recommended to: (1) concentrate on credible empirical data (how nature is observed to work) rather than depending on current theories or paradigms (how nature is interpreted to work), (2) compare the new idea’s value to existing approaches, (3) ensure that the new idea can be put to a test, and (4) look for the characteristic signs of non-credible science [34]. It should be noted that these credibility criteria do not check if an idea is correct, but rather check to see if the idea is credibly constructed and is leading to a correctness test."
Those who want some practice with some non-mainstream ideas can start with my website. See http://scripturalphysics.org/do_review.html for starters.
I may just be a simple Iowa boy, but I like it. It's a great concept, and it addresses normal-matter particles and anti-matter particles not only as mutually-destructive opponents, but as authenticly different. It's obvious and genius on the level of Azimov's "The Gods Themselves".
I have to laugh when any one bases there research or comments on a Wiki post!
Alan,
Excellent article. Please see my review and critique of the subject in my article, The "Boundary of Detectability" and the Time Particle, at http://accidentalblogger.typepad.com/accidental_blogger/2010/12/the-boundary-of-detectability.html
Thanks.