back to article Dark matter: Good news, everyone! We've found ... NOTHING AT ALL

The most sensitive dark-matter detector ever built has failed to detect any dark matter. It's not yet a problem for the instrument, the LUX Dark Matter Collaboration that The Register described here and here. What it might mean is, in an echo of the kind of iterative narrowing-down that characterised the hunt for the Higgs- …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

              1. t.est

                Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                "Random? What is random about it? It isnt a spontaneous adjustment but a gradual adjustment over time. Viruses and bacteria are pretty good to see this because they have to modify (significantly for them) to survive."

                Based on random mutations in the genes. First to have life you need genes to be coded, by non intelligence.

                So its based on random events. Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other. So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent.

                If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes. If you do that, you actually refer to evolution as the god. Or you realise that it has to be based on random events. This is though what many true evolutionists claim.

                1. cyborg
                  FAIL

                  Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                  "Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other."

                  So when water's structure becomes ordered when its temperature is reduced that is intelligent freezing?

                  "So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent."

                  False dichtonomy. Also leaves huge questions around what "intelligence" is.

                  "If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes."

                  I don't recognise what these "godly attributes" are.

                  "Or you realise that it has to be based on random events."

                  Why not try reading what I said? Randomness provides entropy for selection. The nature of randomness is entirely irrelevant. That's why deterministic genetic algorithms (as they must be if purely computed) are still effective. The worse the entropy - the apparent randomness - the harder it is for such an algorithm to efficiently naviagate a large solution space since the inherent bias will exclude options.

                  "This is though what many true evolutionists claim."

                  Oh, "true evolutionists".

                  "True evolutionists" understand that natural selection is the important point, not how the differences arise. The mere fact that there is differentation means certain things are *naturally* going to be more successful than other things. The statistical properties of the events that cause those differentations are not as important. It'd still work in an entirely deterministic universe - like the one a genetic algorithm would operate in.

                2. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                  @t.est

                  "Based on random mutations in the genes. First to have life you need genes to be coded, by non intelligence."

                  You seem stuck to the word random. What is random? Random is a possibility happening. If you have 99% you have 1% chance of something else. So a small possibility is unlikely at face value. But what about time? How long is there for this unlikely (in an instance) event to occur? Over enough time a 1 in 100 chance becomes highly likely. We dont breath in the correct quantities of oxygen and hydrogen to drink do we? Instead we use the combination which exists as water. But without water we do not exist. But who is making this water? Someone isnt, its a process of physics and chemistry. The majority of existence isnt intelligent (that we know of), so why would you jump to assume intelligence made things when things are needed to sustain the intelligence?

                  "So its based on random events. Everything else implies intelligence, or a plan to go from one state to the other. So it's all random, with a few positive results, or it's intelligent."

                  What is the probability you will be hit by a london bus in new york? At this second probably very little. The possibility requires you to be in new york, the bus to be there, at the same time, in very similar space, with the physics of a collision. Now add time to the equation. Will you ever be in new york? Will a london bus ever be in new york? So on it goes. In your lifetime it is very unlikely but it is a possibility.

                  Expand that to infinite time. You dont age, you dont die, you continue. Even if the bus is phased out of service in 100yrs that is still 100 yrs of a single minute possibility. Now apply to a massive universe (lots of you's and buses). Its a crude explanation but I hope it helps.

                  "If you claim anything else you don't understand it or you give the Evolution godly attributes."

                  What is a godly attribute? Success? Creation? Creation of what level? Error? Mistake? Probability? Chance?

                  The word godly is made up by people. Gods have been made up by people. Many gods have been made up by people. Because how can the moon go up or down without a being pushing it up and pushing it down?

          1. cyborg
            FAIL

            Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

            "Science is physics. Religion is metaphysics. You can't use science to disprove metaphysics, which is what non-theists do."

            Ummm, no. Religious claim about entirely testable phenomena do not get a metaphysical shielding I'm afraid just because you have proclaimed it is in a separate domain.

            Although please, do feel free to just argue that "god" is just some ontological preference you have. Fine, whatever. But t.est is not pleading that one should not use science to disprove "god" so don't pretend he is. He's making some bad strawmen out of evolution and some debunked population mathematics to fit a Judeo-Christian mythos. That is entirely disprovable I'm afraid regardless of whether or not the god of the Jews exists as a metaphysical concept or a real entity that chooses to only look metaphysical.

            1. t.est

              Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

              I wasn't pleading to use science to prove god, nor disprove god.

              I was pleading to use science to prove or disprove our theories about life and how it became to be. Please do the second calculation I proposed. Let us then discuss what is plausible.

              I've done it and I do see huge problems with million years of evolution. There problems way of the top with just 100k years. It doesn't take 100k years to produce 7 billion (7 000 000 000) people. Just to give you a figure. If you start from just one family, and each generation produces 3 kids that are fertile and reproduce. ( I'm generalizing and simplifying it a lot to make it fit into this comment, and in a proper time frame) it takes only 57 generations. If one generation is 40 years. That is only 2440 years. If take 100 years for each generation to reproduce it takes only 5700 years.

              Now we know that not every child reproduced nor in the same uniform amount. But we also know that families generally has been much larger that that family over the history. So it compensates to a large amount for the lost children. Now if each generation would only reproduce at a age of 200, 3 kids that would reproduce at the age of 200 additional 3 kids. It would only take 11400 years to reach 7 billion people.

              That we are a result of neandertals etc that lived so long ago simply don't fit real science. It's mathematically impossible.

              And i did refer to legends of non Jewish myths, true enough the story is found in the abrahamic religions to. But its by far not unique to them. I doubt that the people in Hawai had anything to do with christians or jews at all, or those in australia or in canada, etc etc.

              1. cyborg
                FAIL

                Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

                "Please do the second calculation I proposed. Let us then discuss what is plausible."

                As explained if I did the second calculation you proposed then it would not be plausible that things on the planet would exists as they do by that mechanism.

                Fortunately I also explained why that is not like the mechanism that is actually proposed by evolution. Hence why I called it a strawman. Hence why I dismiss it. Because it's nonsense.

                "Now we know that not every child reproduced nor in the same uniform amount. But we also know that families generally has been much larger that that family over the history. So it compensates to a large amount for the lost children. Now if each generation would only reproduce at a age of 200, 3 kids that would reproduce at the age of 200 additional 3 kids. It would only take 11400 years to reach 7 billion people."

                So if we ignore all the things that tend to kill people before they breed and assume perfect exponential growth we can get to 7 billion people earlier. If we don't then we have to wait until medical technology and food resource technology improve enough to allow such growth. And if we look at population trends then what do you know? When these technologies improved the population growth exploded! It's almost as if there's some sort of, I don't know, causal link or something.

                I don't really understand why you expect me to just ignore important components of a calculation just so it'll fit your argument but it's not going to happen.

                "That we are a result of neandertals etc that lived so long ago simply don't fit real science. "

                No it doesn't but then I doubt you understand the point of "the tree of life". Not the one in the fictional garden mind.

                "And i did refer to legends of non Jewish myths, true enough the story is found in the abrahamic religions to. But its by far not unique to them. I doubt that the people in Hawai had anything to do with christians or jews at all, or those in australia or in canada, etc etc."

                Yeah, because when people who don't even know how to calculate the size of the Earth have a myth of a "great flood", where floods occur all over the world for a variety of reasons, we should just assume that they weren't actually ignorant of the things they were most likely ignorant and instead assume a global deluge and ignore what we have subsequently discovered. Sounds reasonable to me!

                You know many cultures also have myths about storms, lightning, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and so forth right? Am I supposed to conclude anything other than these people experienced things we know have happened and continue to happen to people living on this rock? No? I just take at face value their explanations that they'd angried up the volcano gods as well because they didn't sacrafice enough people or kill the left handers? Ok then: sounds perfectly reasonable.

    1. fandom

      Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

      Why must political nuts turn everything into political drivel?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Fox News/Daily Mail version headline

        "Why must political nuts turn everything into political drivel?"

        Like some particles they can only exist in conjunction with Sun/Mail/Faux.

        Both sides are necessary in a symbiotic relationship - without one the other cannot exist.

  1. Rustident Spaceniak
    Coat

    It would take quite an excited WIMP...

    to strike any of the particles in such an imposing object as a Xenon nucleus! And remember, being WIMPs they can't be excited. So there's your dilemma for you.

    Mine's the one with the Xenon flashlight in the pocket.

  2. sandman

    Don't be afraid of the dark

    With apologies to Pink Floyd...

    There is no dark matter really. Matter of fact it's all dark.

    1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      You have a problem with IQ? ;-)

    2. itzman
      Mushroom

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      The is no dark matter. In fact its all light.

      E = mc²

      1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        We'll see about that.

      2. Don Jefe

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        E = mc², sometimes. It's like the letter Y as a vowel, sometimes that is the case, sometimes it isn't.

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

          Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

          For those who are curious but as-yet-uneducated on this point, E=mc² is a special case of the general principle: E² = m²c⁴+p²c². (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation)

          For a massive particle at rest in your frame of reference, p=0 and so one term on the right drops out and you can take square roots.

          For a photon, which has no rest-mass but which is never at rest in any frame, the other term on the right-hand side drops out and you can again take square roots to obtain a second "special case".

          All of which, in passing, is why E=mc² cannot be applied to photons to "prove" that they have mass, as one of my friends once tried to tell me. I didn't have wikipedia to hand at the time and I don't suppose a quick lesson in 4-vectors would have made for a very interesting tea-time conversation, but it is nice to know that it is (now) there.

    3. jubtastic1

      Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

      I've often wondered how much energy has left the observable universe, where it went and what it's doing now. I mean the universe we see is defined by the energy coming at us, but assuming there was a Big Bang it stands to reason that a whole lot of energy went flying into the void where there was nothing to reflect it back at us, further, that's still happening, that there's still radiation blasting into the void across the universe.

      Is it simply lost forever? maybe it coalesces into a doughnut of energy that slowly contracts back in? or could it eventually swing back at us like solar flares on the surface of the sun? they all sound pretty bad, anyone know?

      1. Don Jefe
        Happy

        Re: Don't be afraid of the dark

        I really like the thought of an energy doughnut. Just sitting there, never going stale and waiting, just waiting for the 'chosen one' to come and eat it & take their seat on the Throne of Universal Dominion. Like the King Author story, but scaled up. And tastier.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "... a whole lot of energy went flying into the void "

        Google is your friend. Try "cosmic background radiation".

        1. jubtastic1
          Meh

          Re: cosmic background radiation

          That's not what I mean, imagine you're the most distant bit of matter from the center of the universe, you take your blaster and fire it directly away from the rest of the universe, into the void, there's nothing for that blast to hit, nothing to slow it down, it's not going to exit screen left and reenter screen right like pac man (I hope), so what happens to it? is the energy lost forever or could it loop back after an unimaginable length of time?

          Because It appears to me that the Universe has been blasting a shitload of energy out into the void ever since it got going, if it's lost forever then that doesn't sound sustainable*, whereas if 'space' turns out to be round then there's an awful big wave coming back at some point.

          * sustainable over iterations of universes, assuming the current universe is just the latest in a series of endless 'bounce' cycles, rather than just another ripple on the surface of a pond during a thunderstorm, I suppose all of the above is a possibility as well, a ripple in the ocean of a waterworld. This was so much easier when it was just turtles all the way down, maybe that's sort of true.

  3. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Seven tonnes of xenon?

    They should combine the LUX's future seven tonnes of xenon with the LHC's great big power supply to make the largest flash tube, like, ever.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seven tonnes of xenon?

      " to make the largest flash tube, like, ever."

      That's what quasars are. None of this black hole and mass accretion disc nonsense, just a bunch of puzzled alien primitves who've all stumbled on the same method of looking for dark matter, and the wondered how big a flash they could make.

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: Seven tonnes of xenon?

        Kids and their chemistry sets - eh?

        I dunno, in my day . . . .

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "The experiment's paper suggests that the LUX data eliminates low-mass WIMP models in the 33 GeV range."

    Just as I predicted.

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      I think you meant "Just as planned"

      (white fluffy cat stroke from a wheelchair-bound diminutive figure)

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

    ...That's a drag...

    1. Tom 7

      Re: So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

      +1 for waiting since 1877 for a chance to use that!

      1. an it guy

        Re: So, not a Michelson-Morley moment yet?

        I was thinking the same thing. Michelson Morley came to mind with the 'we need to build an even more sensitive sensor' and rinse and repeat again until they had to give up when it was in the 6th decimal place that they were looking for a significant result

  6. Nameless Faceless Computer User

    The universe...

    The universe is just simulation. Stop taking it so seriously.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The universe...

      Yes, but if they crack the code they can fuck up the entire universe, not just one planet!

      1. itzman
        Coat

        Re: The universe...

        The material realist explores the precautionary principle.

        Right, so all there is is stuff, and consciousness is just ripples in stuff, and therefore what we think is actually changing the universe because it changes the ripples in stuff, which is all the universe is.

        Oh my god! everybody must stop thinking, because its changing the whole universe One stray thought in the rain forest of Brazil could cause a quasar to explode in an adjoining galaxy.!

        I wish I hadn't thought that.

        But I suppose, in a deterministic universe ruled by causality, it was bound to happen...

      2. Elmer Phud

        Re: The universe...

        "Yes, but if they crack the code they can fuck up the entire universe, not just one planet!"

        Nah, that's not fucking it up - it's just a mod.

        You can always reboot.

        1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: The universe...

          I have some Downloadable Content for you. For a little fee. Just study this little pamphlet.

  7. MJI Silver badge

    I sort of wondered

    People mention multiple universes, could dark matter be that?

    My personal idea is that dark matter and dark energy are not actually there, but are the equivalents of an adjustment to make things fit. Basically that spacetime is not fully understood.

    But like most people I am waiting for the scientists to letus know.

    1. Rustident Spaceniak

      Re: I sort of wondered

      Yeah, but are we even sure we all live in the same universe?

      1. Elmer Phud

        Re: I sort of wondered

        "I-I-I-daho

        I-I-I-daho

        Whoa, oh, oh, oh

        Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah

        Get out of that state

        Get out of that state

        You're living in your own Private Idaho

        Livin' in your own Private Idaho"

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: I sort of wondered

      ISTR a hypothesis that gravity is weak because it's "leaking in" from neighbouring universes/branes. There's a conceptual diagram here:

      https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-M3Z7HBllZys/T5JT-dGobZI/AAAAAAAAFIE/I_XJUA3M0pI/randall_750.jpg

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Chemist

        Re: I sort of wondered

        "Just a few hundred years ago the earth was the center of GOD's universe & was flat"

        A VERY common misconception, but not true.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I sort of wondered @Chemist

          "A VERY common misconception, but not true."

          Do you mean the bit about center and flat? I think he was pointing out the fact that the idea's been superseded. Or the few hundred years ago bit? Just not sure how to interpret what you're saying.

      2. MJI Silver badge

        Re: Flat Earth

        People have known since they first saw the horizon that the Earth is rouund(ish).

        Even cavemen!

        1. Alien8n

          Re: Flat Earth

          There are some statues from Roman times where the Emperor is clearly standing with one foot on a globe representing the Earth. So yes, it has been known for a very long time.

          Although the true position is of course that the Earth is flat and it's elephants all the way down...

          1. Tom 13
            Windows

            Re: Flat Earth

            No it's not! It's Turtles you heathen!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Lots of un-plumbed physics which could imaginably explain this stuff

    The multiplication of entities which characterises dark matter & dark energy research makes me deeply suspicious.

    The general relativity version of the equivalence principle shows that acceleration and gravitational fields are equivalent only for points: in fact entanglement can create what amounts to a single entity which is spread over space.

    Tidal forces created by the curvature of space in the rotating galactic reference frame (a cousin of what you might have once called the "centrifugal force") will tend to collapse this entanglement by giving the particles different histories; going the other way in this equation therefore the entanglement will oppose the curvature of space.

    Therefore a perturbation of the gravitational interaction on a galactic scale, of the sort that people have been looking for.

    Please send my nobel prize by return of post, or an explanation of why this does not make sense.

    1. Tim Parker

      Re: Lots of un-plumbed physics which could imaginably explain this stuff

      "Please send my nobel prize by return of post, or an explanation of why this does not make sense."

      It's not even wrong.

  9. plrndl

    Stab in the dark

    The reason the detectors can't see the tiny flashes, is that they represent a new phenomenon that I name "dark light".

    Please send my nobel prize...

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Stab in the dark

      Not good enough. I do think someone used this for the magnetic photon /quid vid/. Experiments sadly proved the absence of this this kind of matter-penetrating light.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Stab in the dark

      William Gibson?

  10. itzman

    sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

    And if Obama can get a Nobel prize, why not you?

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

      Because he doesn't have armed drones. In today's world you absolutely must have armed drones to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

      1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Re: sounds as massively non intuitive as anything else in quantum cosmology.

        But Kissinger just had a pen and a couple of genocides under his wing.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.