digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Laser Could Create Dark-Matter

physicsweb.org — By the end of the year, physicists at the DESY laboratory in Germany may have caught a glimpse of an exotic dark-matter particle known as an axion. Andreas Ringwald and co-workers are planning an experiment at the lab ’s FLASH free-electron laser, a device that generates extremely bright beams of high-frequency light by accelerating electrons.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • NoahVail, on 10/12/2007, -29/+4Mmmm.... Dark Matter. Doh! Its not dark chocolate.
    • MajorMesses, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21quit being such a boson
    • scott1, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5No it's duck tape...It holds togther.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Duct. It is a tape meant for fixing ductwork. You don't tape ducks with it.
    • boo5000, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2@hobomaster

      Does scotch tape work on scotch?
    • CanadianAviator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"quit being such a boson"

      and don't be so quarky
    • wordsmythe, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2you can't use duct tape on ductwork. the adhesive melts. Works on just about everything else, though.
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"Does scotch tape work on scotch?"

      Scotch is the brand name. Duct tape is tape meant for taping ductwork, and is thus high-strength as well as generally the same silver color as ductwork. Duck tape just sounds silly.

      "you can't use duct tape on ductwork. the adhesive melts."

      It depends what the ductwork is for. Most ductwork isn't that high temperatures. I've seen many an A/C system held together by duct tape.
    • Fixxxer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Actually, you're both right. It was originally known as Duck Tape. It was developed during WWII to answer the need for a waterproof tape. U.S. soldiers nicknamed it "Duck Tape" because of the way it repelled water (like water off of a duck's back). Thank you, History Channel!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_tape
    • Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Who says you can't tape ducks with it?
    • Namco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Plus there's a brand of duct tape named "Duck Tape"
    • jjkurtz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The duck says, "Quark quark."
    • WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I thought it was originally called 100mph tape, because that's the speed that air moves through AC systems.
    • dickeytk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no it's called 100 mph tape since supposedly it can hold an airplane wing on up to 100 mph, although... i find that very hard to believe
    • maccam94, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Uh... Isn't water duct tape's worst enemy? Doesn't it ruin the adhesive?

      /me used to watch the Duct Tape Guys on Gimme Shelter, as well as buy their calendars :-P.
    • scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I just realize I spelled duct tape duck tape...Oh well I guess froce-senstive ducks can hold the universe together.
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Quit being so strange, try being more charming...
  • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3I may be totally off here, but wasn't there and article about synthetic compositions having a negative refractive index? In essence wouldn't that be dark matter? I just thought I saw that here a couple fo days ago.
  • SonOfLiberty, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Dark matter? Someone call Samus!
  • Atlantics, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3*WARNING* Submitter is a bot.
    • Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9and WHY would that matter? if the story got to the front page then it is worthy of being on the front page
    • Antagonist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Why do you say that? It's just a really osbscure name!
    • oGMo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12If so, it's a smart bot, because I believe I've seen it comment, too. ;)

      Stop discrimination! Bots are people too.
    • shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4thats not a bot you silly people.
    • p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15*WARNING* - Atlantics is an asshat who wouldn't recognize a bot if his life depended on it.

      Where's that Dark Matter Laser when you need it?
    • HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Yeah, submitter has a good track record, both in the comments and in submissions. At least do a little research first.
    • Atlantics, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Pfft at least I can admit that I am one.
    • sleazy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I know a bot, p9s50W5k4GUD2c6 is his name. I know a bot that no one can hit. He kicks out all of the spammers.
    • CanadianAviator, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Atlantics... +blocklist
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1You'll always be a bot to me. (That's from that crazy Boten Anna song on the front page a while ago in case you forgot...)
  • grah, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0nobots
  • eurocrisp, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0i like puppies!
  • dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I have a quesion. In physics, it is said that matter cannot be created, nor destroyed. Does the same hold true with dark matter?
    • digitalgreek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8it would hold true...you can transform matter into energy, we got that down, the other way around is a little harder for us. But we can try to transform particles into energy (usually light) and back again, which is what they are trying to do with this experiment. That's what I gather.

      What's kinda cool, which was explained to me by some physicist at Stanford, when they speed up a particle in the accelerator, they move it around the circle with magnetic fields, they have to calculate how much force to give to the particle using E=mc^2 ,because the as they accelerate the particle it increases in mass! Too much force it would hit the inner wall, too little and it would hit the outer wall. To me thats so amazing.
    • WMcMath, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4That's energy that can't be created or destroyed. Matter can be destroyed hence nuclear bombs
    • p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ McMath

      No, you're wrong, although it's more of a definition problem.
      Mass = Matter in a general sense.

      Matter is not destroyed, it is merely converted to energy, and, in theory, you could convert energy back into matter. E=MC^2 gives you the basic math to understand this.
    • technique, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3E=MC^2

      E => Energy obtained
      M => Mass destroyed
      C => speed of light

      So energy obtained equals mass destroyed times the square of the speed of light

      Matter can be destroyed (or more appropriately, converted), but this results in energy. Energy can theoretically be changed back into matter, but we haven't been able to do it in the lab yet.
    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2nuclear bombs doesn't destroy things, just reorganize its atoms - mainly into vapor.
      Matter can't be destroyed since it's equivalent to energy as: E=mc^2 > m = E/c^2

      Edit: I was beaten twice! :(
    • JoeKickass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are more than one type of reaction. A chemical reaction just involves shuffling around electrons and is where the law matter cannot be created, nor destroyed comes into play. In a nuclear reaction the nuclei of the atoms are changed and this is also where matter is "destroyed" in that it is converted into pure energy.
  • Nitro2985, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've always found it somewhat useful to analogize the energy/matter relationship with the relationship between gas and solid when explaining it to neophytes. If you take a lot of energy and "smash it together" you get matter much like when you smash lots of gas together you get a solid. One might think of matter as a crystalline form of energy.

    Of course, this misses many nuances of the relationship but it's helpful in describing the bear basics of the relationship.
  • oilcan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the thing that makes dark matter so hard to find is that it doesn't exist.

    the fact that cosmologists continue to assume this crap is actually there is mind boggling. empirical science is supposed to be that, empirical. you don't just make up and maintain some crap about 90% of the universe not being observable or measurable in any way. you may as well just say God did it. it would make as much scientific sense. (not dissing on religions, but we're talking science here not faith). what should be done is taking a look at this precious dogma of a theory called The Big Bang and start to think about how it may be flawed. at least that's what a truly empirical scientist should do.

    • JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If I am not mistaken, some scientists (I remember S. Hawking now) suggested that the universe could haven't started at any point - that the universe just IS. The Big Bang is not a dogma anymore.

      And talking about empirical science, see black holes, they were predicted before ther were detected or even imagined.
    • oilcan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The Big Bang is not a dogma anymore? I'm confused as to how your argument concludes this. but anyway, the following of big bang theory is very fanatical and don't want to hear any other interesting ideas that actually explain a lot more and don't require for the existence of dark matter (read: don't require saying 90% of the mass of the universe is undetectable) to explain things. if you don't believe big bang, you're just a quack. this makes big bang theory very dogmatic.

      as far as black holes, sure, they say they've proven the existence of black holes. just like they've proven the existence of dark matter. material is moving at a very fast rate in a spiral, so therefore it must be a black hole. there is no way to gather the kind of data to say that part in the middle is a phenomenon of physics that is described by our models. yet it is announced as unwavering proof.

      there is actually a much better explanation for the incredible speed of those objects that doesn't require the existence of a singularity. but of course, since this is straying from big bang dogma, it is fairly certain that most people don't want to know about it, because it's obviously just wrong. big bang not dogmatic? sorry, that's just incorrect.
    • koko775, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is actually an alternate theory to dark matter. Its name is MOND, or MOdified Newton Dynamics. It modifies F=ma where the acceleration is so small the relation breaks down into something like F=ma(some function)(a/a0) or something like that. Look it up on wikipedia, I'm not sure.

      It actually models the rotation of galaxy that previously was only modelable with dark matter; however, the problem is that it models and does not explain _why_ it should be what it is and not F=ma -- this is a significant barrier to its acceptance.

      There's also a relativistic interpretation of MOND, called TeVeS, or Tensor-Vector-Scalar (or something). Again, look it up on wikipedia.

      So yeah, parent is correct to think that dark matter is convenient and perhaps unsatisfactory, though he certainly is more abrasive about it than he needs to be.
    • Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Regardless of MOND and TeVeS, I think that there HAS to be a better explanation than Dark Matter. Filling the universe with arbitrary material makes NO sense. Every true scientist should be supportive of the search for a better answer, or they are not a true scientist.
    • kp3469, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the Dark Matter folks had better get on the ball and start proving their elegant equations with actual experiments (like the one in the link, i suppose). the Dark Matter supporters are currently equal parts philosopher and scientist these days because there is no physical evidence for Dark Matter. that said, if they can get experimental proof, i would buy the Dark Matter theory. there are a lot of spooky, non-intuitive things in science (i.e. quantum mechanics) that have been shown to be true with various experiments.
    • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If I am not mistaken, some scientists (I remember S. Hawking now) suggested that the universe could haven't started at any point - that the universe just IS. The Big Bang is not a dogma anymore."

      I'm really not sure what you're getting at, but Stephen Hawking is a a follower of the big bang theory, like most astronomists today. He actually gives a public lecture on it on his own web site here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

      The reason Big Bang has such a big following is that there aren't just one, but two, pieces of empirical evidence that the universe must have "begun" at a certain point in time: 1. the background radiation that can be proven to exist, and 2. that it can be shown the universe is expanding. Scientists would surely be interested in alternative theories -- they aren't shutting their eyes -- but that would need at least as much empirical signs as the big bang theory.
    • jcnewsome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What I believe to be possible explanations:

      Multiple big bang universes. Can't detect the other universes cause they are too far away. However the combined effects of their gravities would create a pull on our universe, accelerating the rate of our universe's expansion. Why does none of their matter randomly collide through our universe. At the outer reaches of each universe the matter would be travelling with the greatest velocity. At some speed the matter becomes energy. Eventually as the universes in an area expand and decay they leave an enormous wake of energy which spurs the beginning of new big bang, completing the cycle.

      The speed/frequency of light and/or gravity changes over time over great distances. Simple experiment (for light at least) could be conducted but any I have seen on testing the speed of light have always been based on a close proximity. Would probably result from MOND as Kagrog mentioned
  • Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Every true scientist should be supportive of the search for a better answer, or they are not a true scientist."

    As for dark matter, I'm sure they *are* open for this. Many scientists are very open to theories. If not, we wouldn't even have the dark matter theory. The problem is that they're clutching at straws. At least when it comes to gravity, we know that matter cause it, and that's where the dark matter theory comes from at its core. Sure, it may not be matter, especially if we don't understand details in how gravity works. We also haven't discovered the hypothetical graviton, which may be linked to this lack of knowledge?
  • masterkenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can I use this laser to torment my cat?
  • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One day, we really are going to open a portal to hell.

    I'm going to start stock piling flashlights to duct tape to my shotguns, just in case.
  • nars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and this is useful why?
  • Clemenceau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*groan* I remember back when I thought atoms were the smallest particles. Everything was so much simpler.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.