Can Dark Matter Be Explained By a Link to a Fifth Dimension? (popularmechanics.com) 107
The standard model of physics can't accommodate some observed phenomena, notes Popular Mechanics. Yet "In a new study, scientists say they can explain dark matter by positing a particle that links to a fifth dimension."
While the "warped extra dimension" (WED) is a trademark of a popular physics model first introduced in 1999, this research, published in The European Physical Journal C, is the first to cohesively use the theory to explain the long-lasting dark matter problem within particle physics...
The scientists studied fermion masses, which they believe could be communicated into the fifth dimension through portals, creating dark matter relics and "fermionic dark matter" within the fifth dimension.
Could dimension-traveling fermions explain at least some of the dark matter scientists have so far not been able to observe? "We know that there is no viable [dark matter] candidate in the [standard model of physics]," the scientists say, "so already this fact asks for the presence of new physics...." This pocket "dark sector" is one possible way to explain the huge amount of dark matter that, so far, has eluded detection using any traditional measurements designed for the standard model of physics. Fermions jammed through a portal to a warped fifth dimension could be "acting as" dark matter...
All it would take to identify fermionic dark matter in a warped fifth dimension would be the right kind of gravitational wave detector, something growing in prevalence around the world. Indeed, the answer to the dark matter conundrum could be just around the corner.
The scientists studied fermion masses, which they believe could be communicated into the fifth dimension through portals, creating dark matter relics and "fermionic dark matter" within the fifth dimension.
Could dimension-traveling fermions explain at least some of the dark matter scientists have so far not been able to observe? "We know that there is no viable [dark matter] candidate in the [standard model of physics]," the scientists say, "so already this fact asks for the presence of new physics...." This pocket "dark sector" is one possible way to explain the huge amount of dark matter that, so far, has eluded detection using any traditional measurements designed for the standard model of physics. Fermions jammed through a portal to a warped fifth dimension could be "acting as" dark matter...
All it would take to identify fermionic dark matter in a warped fifth dimension would be the right kind of gravitational wave detector, something growing in prevalence around the world. Indeed, the answer to the dark matter conundrum could be just around the corner.
or they are just wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they
Who's they? Do "they" all work on exactly the same thing? Does one hypothesis from "them" means all off "them" are suddenly adherents of the new hypothesis?
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:3)
Yoi know exactly who he means. You know this is not one of those "they" cases. So quit being a dick.
Re: (Score:2)
So quit being a cunt.
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:3)
Re:or they are just wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Now if you follow the link and read one line past the headline you'll see the names Adrian Carmona, Javier Castellano Ruiz, and Matthias Neubert.
These three distinct people are the "they" in this particular case.
But I guess Slashdot wouldn't be Slashdot if people suddenly started reading the summary before heading to the comment section. Or even try to take a look at the summary when a question about the context comes up. In some cases at least, it might help.
Re:or they are just wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also: Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
The comment he was replying to gives the context away that they're both talking about the whole field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This theory only works when the Moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. . . .
(And you realize how old you are, when you remember when that song was a Top-40 hit . .. )
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:2)
You are very very stupid.
Peace will guide the planets, bro (Score:2)
and love will guide the stars.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right: the argument for dark matter was the motion of stars in galaxies, which we attributed to gravity. But all along the explanation was right in our faces: love steers those stars.
Re:or they are just wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you are missing the point.
The point is that there is nothing to fix. You started off in the wrong direction is what he suggests. Now he may be wrong with that. (Most likey he isn't. TFS sounds like Hollywood pseudoscience and can't even get the definition of "dimension" right.)
But, that implied, the solution would not be to course-correct, but to start over in a better direction. Important difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:or they are just wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The "earth centred solar system" required ever more convoluted ways to account for observations (epicycles and so on). And yet, by changing the frame of reference, everything became a lot more straightforward.
Then, there was an obvious candidate for changing the frame of reference - the sun. For making the mathematical models account for dark matter there doesn't seem to be an obvious candidate for changing the frame of reference, which means that it is possible that there is "something else" there. Or mayb
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of the scientific process. If the current model doesn't answer all the data(such as has always been the case), you start to hypothesize systems that might fill in the missing pieces. It's throwing ideas against the wall and seeing what sticks.
Also known as what every human does when they don't know, regardless of intelligence.
Despite what all the incredible arrogance of the armchair physicists have to say here, it's more than likely a problem with how it's being reported("Physicists have discovered a portal to the fifth dimension!") rather than degreed scientists being oh so much more stupid than the collective cynical genius of slashdot.
You making assumptions about the collective intelligence of Slashdot, is no more accurate than assuming about the accuracy of unproven scientific sticky shit thrown against a wall. You may, be talking to the same people.
Of course it's possible the relevant people are indeed fishing for public exposure and grants, I don't know, but keep in mind pretty much all of the major breakthroughs in scientific history started with a what-if that the general scientific community found nonsensical. Earth not the centre of the universe, Kepler physics, Newtonian physics, how disease is transmitted, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics...
Thank you for at least recognizing that science isn't above Greed, or Clickbait. Perhaps you are smarter than you assume most are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
An additional point to consider - whether the Universe owes us a way to test its structure in every respect. I'm saying it doesn't.
I fully understand Popper's emphasis on falsifiability - if a "theory" cannot be tested then this opens the door to unending fantasies which offer nothing to advance human knowledge being just that, fantasies. And testing theories against evidence has gotten us very far. But suppose that string theory, or multidimensional brane theory actually did accurately describe h
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, does chaotica hate hippies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: or they are just wrong. (Score:1)
Re:or they are just wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
All of that said, there have also been many proposals for things that turned out not to exist. But the proposal of something is *currently undetectable* is not by itself a reason to throw out the theory it is coming from when that theory has otherwise good evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
However it is also quite possible for "scientists" to "explain" one thing that they can't understand with other things they can barely understand.
You gave an example of discovery of Uranus. I can give you an example of trying to explain consciousness or intellect with quantum mechanics.
Re: (Score:3)
You gave an example of discovery of Uranus. I can give you an example of trying to explain consciousness or intellect with quantum mechanics.
And that would be in most forms an example of bad science because it isn't precise enough to make any sort of testable claim. That said, some specific versions of the idea behind such a connection, such as some versions of Orch OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction [wikipedia.org] do seem to make testable predictions in some forms. But the upshot here should be clear: testability by *current technology* cannot be the only criterion used.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to throw in another example of "currently undetectable": in the early 1800s, the philosopher Auguste Comte proclaimed that we could never know what substances distant stars or even planets were made of, because they were far too distant for us to ever travel to them.
Then scientists discovered spectroscopy (in particular, the dark lines in spectrograms, and what they meant).
That's not how we do Science (Score:2)
I always consider when a theory requires you to create extra dimensions to explain the math then perhaps it is time to question the theory
Clearly, you have not understood the model at all. The extra dimension is not invoked to explain any maths but to explain observed facts like the low mass of the Higgs compared to the scale of gravity which is a real problem with the Standard Model.
There are two broad classes of solution to the problem. You can add a symmetry which causes the problem to cancel out and ties the Higgs mass to the scale where the symmetry turns on - this is the approach of Supersymmetry models which also explain Dark Matte
Re: (Score:2)
Also, when someone makes obviously false claims to support their theory, it's time to question the theory.
"We know that there is no viable [dark matter] candidate in the [standard model of physics]," the scientists say, "so already this fact asks for the presence of new physics...."
No viable candidate? Seriously? In other news, primordial black holes [slashdot.org] could explain all the dark matter in the universe. That's a speculative idea, but it's definitely a viable candidate, and it doesn't require any new physics.
Re: (Score:2)
The article said specifically that the theory can be tested, or will be able to be tested very shortly. And the theory was invented to explain facts, not "to explain math," whatever that means. If the theory is wrong - which it might be - then you need some other theory. The facts are still there.
Re: (Score:2)
I always consider when a theory requires you to create extra dimensions to explain the math then perhaps it is time to question the theory rather than invent things that can't be tested for as existing.
One dimensional - hard to express in perceived reality, but yes.
Two, three , four - Sure we can see those, math agrees.
Fifth? - Nope
What if your math couldn't even remotely translate the fifth? What if the fifth tricked your math into thinking it knew what the fifth was all about?
What if your math was completely broken in the fifth?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you didn't have the slightest clue you were talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
What if you didn't have the slightest clue you were talking about?
/sigh
Individual particles will still create an interference pattern in the double slit experiment. Superposition?
Or the influent of dark matter in the 5th dimension?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Relativity can be explained via a fourth dimension (gravity warping 3D space), and it seems pretty solid. I'm not saying it has absolutely no flaws whatsoever and is perfect, but it is obviously less wrong than Newtonian physics and seems to explain everything we see on a smaller scale.
Note I say th
Re: (Score:2)
There are many different leptons [wikipedia.org] and they have different masses. Even the most common ones we deal with, electrons, have a mass greater than the value you quoted (0.510998910 (±13)) and it still doesn't solve the dark matter problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I see I misread your 9s. It's marginally smaller in the sixth digit after the decmal point but since your number is outside the margin of error that's certain so even if your statement meant anything it would be ruled out.
Dunno (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no gravity, it's Her [wikipedia.org] moving particles with Her horn, and Her color is r:FF,g:C0,b:CB,a:00 !
Re:Dunno (Score:5, Interesting)
The yappity-yap isn't really the meat of any physics theory or hypothesis, the mathematical model behind it is. But it's kind of hard to think about things in terms of abstract mathematics, so you need some more intuitive way to think about things, so you think up thought experiments and analogues in hopes to convey some sort of meaning to the mathematics. Sometimes it doesn't work so well, because there just is nothing analogous in everyday experience to what you are trying to explain, for example like with quantum physics.
Just accept that physics news you get in media will always be simplified and dumbed down to the point of skipping lots of important details, that's the only way to present them in news. If you are capable of wrapping your head around the math just read the the actual paper the news is about https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s... [doi.org] frankly my math and physics understanding isn't really up to snuff to do that.
Re: (Score:1)
Fermions jammed through a portal to a warped fifth dimension
That sounded a little like what it is to travel in Coach.
Sometimes We Find Our Unicorn (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a physicist but this explanation sounds to me a lot like like "dark matter could be explained by a link to unicorns".
Just 10 years ago people said the same thing about the Higgs-field: an invisible, scalar field that fills the entire universe and gives fundamental particles mass. Of course, that derision stopped when we found the Higgs boson and showed it exists. The universe is a wonderful place and sometimes, just sometimes, we do find our unicorns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a bunch of "Age of Aquarius" [youtube.com] stuff to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a physicist but this explanation sounds to me a lot like like "dark matter could be explained by a link to unicorns".
Dark Matter itself is an explanation that may as well be unicorns. There is a decent explanation for spiral galaxy rotation curves [youtube.com] that does not need Dark Matter, or unicorns or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you don't distribute your research via youtube then what kind of scientist are you? Wikipedia lists 11 classes [wikipedia.org] of evidence for dark matter. Good luck to you and Alex in your quest to address all of them and set the world straight in regards to this ahem weighty matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't clear on the concept of strawman either. For the layman (me, and you too, let's not pretend) the scientific concensus is clear: the existence of dark matter is widely accepted. There is abundant evidence for it. There is an absence of contraindicating evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence whatsoever of Dark Matter.
You're an idiot and a crank. Bye.
Cat's Cradle? (Score:2)
Re: Cat's Cradle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Strimg "theory" still has to pass the qualification of being science though. With it making only two kinds of prediction: Untestable ones, and wrong ones. :)
So I'd say this is in good company. ^^
Hard to Test != Impossible to Test (Score:2)
Strimg "theory" still has to pass the qualification of being science though.
String theory is science and its predictions are in principle testable. The problem is that those of us on the experimental side lack the technology to test them but that's not the string theorists' fault. Experimental testing is often much, much harder than coming up with the theory in the first place. Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves took over a century before we had the technology to verify it but I've yet to meet anyone who thinks it was not science because of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that is 10 dimensions (9 space, 1 time). M-theory is 11 dimensions. And curled up means those dimensions are very, very small. A string in that sense cannot uncurl.
String theory also requires supersymmetry to cut the dimensions from 27 down to 10. After the Higgs particle was found by the scientists at the LHC, there were some hopes the supersymmetic particles would soon follow...think the standard model with super symmetric buddies for the standard model's particles. So far the verdict is: damn,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure those curled up dimensions are only very, very small? Not actually very, very, very small?
I can prove your (Score:2)
WTF Hollywood definition of "dimension" (Score:2)
TFS seems to use "dimension" not like any physicist would, but like a Hollywood writer, where it means a different universe that is "connected" to ours is some way, like being "parallel", whatever that means, or "out of phase", lol, or in this case "connected via worm holes".
But it also says "fifth dimension". Does that imply that time and the three dimensions of space are also different universes, "connected via worm holes"? *implied facepalm death stare*
I can't take this nonsense seriously, I'm sorry.
Re: WTF Hollywood definition of "dimension" (Score:3)
No. This is what happens when the moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is what happens when the moon is in the Seventh House, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars.
Sounds like a recipe for degenerate stellar material.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 came to say just this. I'll have to remember your analogy about our time and three dimensions next time this comes up in a conversation.
First fix gravity (Score:2, Insightful)
It does not work on the quantum scale and yet we expect our formulas to be valid on galaxies and the whole universe.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
> It does not work on the quantum scale and yet we expect our formulas to be valid on galaxies and the whole universe.
Dark matter is a substance into which funding flows.
It's a "professional science" scam like String Theory. Instead of doing useful (testable) things, people make whole careers out of pushing symbols around on paper.
I mean, it's neat that String Theory has discovered multiple possible universes that definitely aren't ours but those same people probably could have been winning Nobel Prizes
Experimental Testing is Hard (Score:2)
It's a "professional science" scam like String Theory. Instead of doing useful (testable) things, people make whole careers out of pushing symbols around on paper.
The people that "push symbols around on paper" are called theorists and include people like Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Higgs, etc. All of them came up with theoretical predictions and they became famous only when someone had figured out a way to test their prediction and the test showed they were right.
String Theory is, in principle, testable. The problem is that nobody has yet figured out how to test it. That's why we need the theorists to "push their symbols around" more to develop a clearer pictur
The DARK DIMENSION? (Score:1)
Maybe, why not? Fuckit why not just call it dark magic?
Everyone knows The Fifth Dimension are Black (Score:2)
https://www.bing.com/videos/se... [bing.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
All these so-called theories aren't worth the paper they're written on if they can't predict something in the real world. Just as Einstein proved Relativity with the light bending of a faraway star, so this theory should predict some phenomenon which can't be explained any other way. Over the last half a century there have been many theories which could be make to work somewhat on paper but never predicted anything substantial that could be tested in real life.
Einstein first suggested gravitational lensing around 1912. [einstein-online.info] Many, including Einstein himself, thought that the phenomenon was unobservable. Gravitational lensing was first observed in 1979.
It took almost 50 years to have observational confirmation of the Higgs mechanism. [wikipedia.org]
So it can take a while before a theory's predictions can be tested/observed. Just because a lot of time may pass before a theory's predictions are experimentally observed doesn't necessarily mean the theories are worthless.
Re: (Score:1)
A theorist will *NEVER* observe something that has not been predicted. That is why I choose to experiment.
I don't know but if we wait 3 more dimensions (Score:2)
Yes, the 8th dimension! (Score:1)
Fifth dimension? (Score:2)
Popular Mechanics is a leading scientific journal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, if you need to get your Delorean up to 88 MPH that's where you go.
Sure, what about other theories? (Score:2)
String theory always struck me as being something that looked valid if you were standing in a three-dimensional universe, but which was only really a snapshot of a portion of a real thing. Like, if you looked at a complex convolution of a flat plane in one less dimension, you'd have a string. Can you make string theory make sense by adding extra dimensions, too?
No, it's linked to the 5th Element (Score:2)
But alas, we need a Multipass for that.
Re: (Score:2)
From the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on dark matter: [wikipedia.org]
Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.
Interstellar planets and browns dwarfs do absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation. Sounds like you misunderstood the definition.
At least it's better then MOND... (Score:3)
MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) basically applies curve-fitting to map the action of gravity to the observed data, but provides no mechanism for why that fitting should or should not exist. At best, it serves as a useful stick with which to beat the other dark matter candidates. Useful, but not satisfying as an actual dark matter candidate itself.
This approach must be considered as a valid contender, as it proposes both a mechanism for the observed behavior, and a a means of testing the theory.
But now I have the entire catalog of the late-1960s / early-1970s group "The 5th Dimension" running through my mind. It's aged surprisingly well!
I'm confused (Score:2)
What's so special about this new particle?
Anything in N-th dimension is by definition also in the N+1-th dimension that encloses it. So does this new particle behave any differently than the rest so the only projection we see here only manifests itself as dark matter?
Dark Matter (Score:1)
Use Occam's Razor (Score:2)
What's the simplest explanation?
Or,
Math vs. physical universe (Score:2)
In math, it's possible to have any number of dimensions you want. You can have 1, 2, 3, 4, or any number.
In the physical universe, dimensions are only a concept useful for describing what we see. There is no such thing as "one dimension" or "two dimensions" in the universe. There are no actual planes or points. These are merely concepts used to help us measure the world.
Consider the concept of a single dimension. This is represented in math by a line. In the universe, lines don't exist. Some things approxim
Don't know about you but (Score:2)
The Fifth Dimension [wikipedia.org]
Maybe if I don't click it?