Zombie physics: Baffling results that won't die
nature.com
nature.com
> Concerning the variability of beta-decay measurements
> (Submitted on 20 Oct 2015)
> Many experiments have been carried out to study the beta-decay rates of a variety of nuclides, and many - but not all - of these experiments yield evidence of variability of these rates. While there is as yet no accepted theory to explain patterns in the results, a number of conjectures have been proposed. We discuss three prominent conjectures (which are not mutually exclusive) - that variability of beta-decay rates may be due to (a) environmental influences, (b) solar neutrinos, and (c) cosmic neutrinos. We find evidence in support of each of these conjectures.
Don't worry though, this isn't just an artifact of the colormap. There's been work done to show that the hot and cold spots are statistically anomalous, thus this Nature article.
That sounds a bit more than a different colormap :)
Also, can't we explain the dipolar variation with some motion in some direction we haven't accounted for (in our local cluster for instance)? I imagine that quadrupole and octopole variations are harder to explain through motion.
As far as I know that shouldn't be the case. There's no standard frame of reference with respect to which you can move, so for nearly all intents and purposes the earth might as well be standing still. There's also not really any way to 'move' with respect to the CMB; it's always the same time (i.e. distance) away. And at the time of it's creation particles were (presumably) moving in random directions at random speed, with no specific average (or if you want to be precise, with a Lorentz invariant speed distribution).
Searching for 'CMB Lorentz violation' does turn up a few results, but most of those seem to be pure conjecture, I couldn't find any experimental evidence either way.
But a Doppler shift from the Earth's motion would create a dipolar pattern in the CMB wavelengths. I mean there is an obvious dipole in the CMB due to the solar system's motion (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March05/Scott/Scott2.html). I just wondered if we're neglecting the motion of some local cluster.
Realistically, without the interaction of electromagnetism to create enough drag for gravity to be able to cause large clumps, it seems as unlikely that dark matter formed a black hole as light did.
Most physicists believe dark matter is just a type of particle, and if that turns out to be correct, its interaction with black holes will be exactly like with any other particle.
The dark-matter-critters would see literally none of that; they'd only realize anything was amiss if they saw gravitational lensing of their stars (if they even have light) or felt tides when someone happened to pass near one.
^1 I am ignoring charged black holes here, because astronomical black holes should be basically uncharged and my intuition is, that if there is some kind of dark charge, then the black hole could also be charged under that force.
Where does that energy go? Normal particles get hot and make blackbody radiation, i.e. photons.
Dark matter can't. Does it have a temperature? Can temperature flow between the particles? Without blackbody radiation you are going to have some violations of the laws of thermodynamics.
Unless dark matter has some other particle to act as an equivalent. So you are hypothesizing an entire family of dark matter particles, and a whole set of new forces.
Two entire universes each with entire sets of particles, that only interact via gravity. We could have a second sun and a second earth, that overlap us and never know it, we would just think that the gravitational constant is different (because our perceived mass is higher).
Sounds like a wonderful setting for a science fiction/horror story.
And yup, my friends and I have been brainstorming story ideas all morning!
http://www.space.com/9302-dark-matter-stars-solve-cosmic-mys...
There is no ability to see gravity directionally, and if all the gravity causes you to accelerate you don't see anything at all.
Normal particles can see the influence of gravity only particles, but gravity only particles in free fall can not, the experience nothing at all.
This is a surprisingly interesting question. Can a dark particle 'feel' gravity? Most physicists think that any local experiment in a freely falling lab is independent of the velocity and position of the lab in spacetime (the strong equivalence principle). Here local means confined to the lab, but also small compared to variations in the gravitational field. However, you can setup nonlocal gravitational observatories in a number of ways that preserve the equivalence principle:
1) If the DM critters have a way to do non-local measurements, like measuring tidal forces, then they could measure gravity gradients over time. If they can communicate, they can set up gravity gradient sensors in freefall around stars and infer both the spatial distribution and time evolution of gravitational masses.
2) If the DM critters have clocks, they can measure the gravitational redshift around stars and discover stars. This should work even in a freely falling lab.
3) The DM critters could see gravitational waves passing their freely falling lab and infer changes in gravitational fields. This assumes gravitational waves exist (not a bad assumption).
1: They can't measure gradients because they can not "feel" another particle except via gravity. You can only measure a gravity gradient by comparing it to another force, but they have no second force to compare to.
2: They can't see redshift because they can't see photons at all.
3: They can't see gravitational waves for the same reason as #1, to see a wave you compare two particles (distance in current experiments), but they can't do that, any comparison would be via gravity and would be affected identically, so there is nothing to compare with.
Interestingly pure energy only experiences gravity (I don't means photons, I mean simply energy, that "thing" which is conserved).
Which is why I personally think dark matter is simply energy, there is no extra particle. The only question is what form does this energy take.
The thought experiment of whether you can measure directional gravity from freely falling reference frames using only gravitation is more interesting.
>> You can only measure a gravity gradient by comparing it to another force
This is inaccurate. A measurement of tidal forces only requires the ability to measure space and time between events/particles.
>> They can't see redshift because they can't see photons at all.
Gravitational redshifts affect all clocks, not just photons: it's a statement about spacetime, not literal redshifts. All pieces of matter are clocks ticking at the Compton frequency, so DM particles can be used as clocks to measure redshift.
>> dark matter is simply energy, there is no extra particle
I feel that 'simply energy' would be something like dark energy, causing spacetime expansion. You really do need mass for gravitational attraction, and what we measure is gravitational attraction.
But aren't mass and energy interchangeable? And what about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz_(astrophysics)
If you say that, then all bets are off. I was talking about a gravity only particle.
> A measurement of tidal forces only requires the ability to measure space and time between events/particles.
Except gravity only particles are not able to measure space, they have no ability to measure distance.
> so DM particles can be used as clocks to measure redshift.
Without some "distance" forces other than gravity, they have no ability to compare clocks. How would you use gravity to compare clocks?
> You really do need mass for gravitational attraction
No you don't. That's inaccurate. Gravity is caused by energy, not mass. (And obviously mass has energy.) So an object moving fast has more gravity than one moving slow.
This opens up a wild but entertaining hypothesis. Assume we have two universes, one of which is ours, and both are located very "close" to one another (whatever that means, maybe it's the next Brane over or something). Our dark matter could just be gravitation leaking out from that other universe. It would certainly explain why there is no other interaction. It would also explain why gravity is such a weak force (because it's leaking out). And our gravitational hotspots would in turn have the same effect on their matter.
One could argue that the particular reason we're here is because Jupiter swept the Solar System of most of its dangerous asteroids.
You can't. Particles that interact only via gravity can't "do" anything. Unless you theorize there is some other force that only affects dark matter.
If the only force is gravity then dark matter particles can "overlap" without interacting, so you would have huge clouds of particles orbiting and passing through each other for eternity since they have no friction they have no ability to transform velocity into other forms of energy.
Since they are eternally in free fall they can detect nothing whatsoever.
Occasionally some ordinary mass would go by and move their orbits and they would not be able to tell since you can not feel gravity when in free fall.
> would they just see inexplicable gravitational point-masses with absolutely nothing there to cause them?
You can not see gravity directionally, so you can not see points with more, or less, gravity. You can't even detect the sum total of gravity affecting you since it will just make you accelerate, which you can not detect if over things nearby are also accelerating.
You can only detect gravity that is countered by some other force.
All the gravitational detection we do is by detecting particles via light, not via gravity.
There was a story here not too long ago about the possibility of a Dark QCD - meaning that it's possible that Dark Matter interacts among itself just fine, in ways similar to the way that we do. (Meaning that it's not just one type of invisible garbage mass out there.)
> All the gravitational detection we do is by detecting particles via light, not via gravity.
Yup; I meant that if there is a Dark QCD, which means some sort of Dark Matter chemistry (and probably a Dark Matter light), they'd be able to observe the effects of gravity in the same ways that we do - by seeing gravitational lensing (of Dark Light), or by observing orbits, or by observing tides from fly-bys.
That is just humbling.
My intuition tells me that what makes it hard is that if you are part of the system trying to understand the full system, you must change the system in order to observe it. In effect, you can never have a perfect model of the system because the system will always be affected by the model you build.
A lot of people maybe read too much into it, but it's a very interesting and profound theorem. Among other things it more or less proved that attempts to logically deduce all possible theorems of mathematics from axioms -- which were popular at the time -- are futile because this is impossible. It's related in some ways to the Church-Turing thesis, which also proved such efforts impossible by showing that the halting problem is not solvable... you could never enumerate all the theorems of mathematics because it's impossible to tell if you're done.