Researchers remove gamma ray images pixel by pixel for first-ever peek at dark matter

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   



Scientists created what they say is the first image of dark matter by removing all explainable galactic phenomena from a photo recorded by a NASA telescope.


www.rawstory.com...

Well not much to say here except I thought it was pretty cool and thought some people here would like it.





posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
So it's an artists impression.

ok.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by alienjuggalo
 


No, not an artistic rendition. If this checks out it's a major find and image. thanks for bringing it here.

From your source:


A team from Harvard, the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studying gamma rays captured by the U.S. space agency’s Fermi telescope picked up a signal that couldn’t be explained by other alternatives.

So the researchers cleared away all the other gamma rays in the publicly available image, pixel by pixel, until they were left with an image they believe could be the elusive material.

“Our case is very much a process-of-elimination argument. We made a list, scratched off things that didn’t work, and ended up with dark matter,” said researcher Douglas Finkbeiner, of Harvard.


Here's a Scientific American story on this find and research:

www.scientificamerican.com...


Researchers have seen hints of a dark matter signal from Fermi before, but the new analysis provides the strongest case to date for a pattern that cannot be easily explained by other galactic activity. The signal, if it is from dark matter, would indicate a new type of subatomic particle, and possibly even a new force in the universe. “I would consider it currently the most exciting signal that we have that could actually be due to dark matter,” physicist Rafael Lang of Purdue University, who was not involved in the study, said Saturday at the American Physical Society April meeting here.

It is still possible, however, that the intriguing light has a more mundane origin, such as spinning stars called pulsars. “I think it’s a compelling possible signal of dark matter, but on its own it’s not going to convince us,” said Tracy Slatyer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the co-authors of the study, which has been submitted to Physical Review D.


edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-4-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Looks delicious.


-no clue what I am actually looking at-



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Cool.

It looks kinda bright.

I thought 'dark matter' would be dark. Hmmm....I guess I'm just silly.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Looks the the Eye of Horus........are you sure there were no ancient alienz?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
My grandson just graduated from Berkley with a 4.0 ( yes, I'm bragging
) and has an internship with a bunch of scientists this summer to look for dark matter.

I would love to have him explain it to me in laymen terms so I could understand it!



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
So it's a big mass of something they don't know what. So they call it dark matter. Just like in their equations they find a big mass of something they don't know what and can't explain. So they call it dark matter.

They could just as well call it a god (or a flying spaghetti monster, to be fair) because they really have no idea what it is and just use the concept as mathematical filler so their equations will work.

True story.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   

NthOther
So it's a big mass of something they don't know what. So they call it dark matter. Just like in their equations they find a big mass of something they don't know what and can't explain. So they call it dark matter.

They could just as well call it a god (or a flying spaghetti monster, to be fair) because they really have no idea what it is and just use the concept as mathematical filler so their equations will work.

True story.


Hence the scientific method.
The point is not what it's called, its about testing the theory to prove it.
The point of science is to find these things out.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

AzureSky
Hence the scientific method.
The point is not what it's called, its about testing the theory to prove it.
The point of science is to find these things out.

The problem is that they say it exists when they know they have no idea. Their equations "predict it". Gee, that's a great way of front-loading your research with a confirmation bias, is it not?

Science is NOT about proving anything. Are they teaching that these days? No wonder.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

NthOther

AzureSky
Hence the scientific method.
The point is not what it's called, its about testing the theory to prove it.
The point of science is to find these things out.

The problem is that they say it exists when they know they have no idea. Their equations "predict it". Gee, that's a great way of front-loading your research with a confirmation bias, is it not?

Science is NOT about proving anything. Are they teaching that these days? No wonder.


Alright so what do you recommend?
Do tell me what science is about.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

AzureSky
Do tell me what science is about.

The manipulation of natural and human resources in the pursuit of social and ecological control and dominance.

Ah crap, I got the wrong textbook. Hang on...



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

NthOther

AzureSky
Do tell me what science is about.

The manipulation of natural and human resources in the pursuit of social and ecological control and dominance.

Ah crap, I got the wrong textbook. Hang on...


Well stated. A root cause analysis on "why" we pursue science would lead to the same conclusion.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I hate the term Dark Matter, it wreaks of cluelessness.

Maybe they should call it the NATO particle.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   

strawburry
I hate the term Dark Matter, it wreaks of cluelessness.

Maybe they should call it the NATO particle.



I totally agree that it's a horrible description of the phenomena. Clear Matter, or Invisible Matter describe it better.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It is fascinating that these WIMPS are the cause of all this commotion. What I do not understand is how Dark Matter contributes to the expansion of the universe. I would like to know if anyone could explain? perhaps, redirect me to another post?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
How can you end up with a picture of something by removing pixels from an image? How exactly do you remove pixels anyway (apart from making them black or transparent)?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by alienjuggalo
 


From the article in the OP:

“This is a very exciting signal, and while the case is not yet closed, in the future we might well look back and say this was where we saw dark matter annihilation for the first time,” said Tracy Slatyer, of MIT.
If that turns out to be true, this could be significant. But since the case is not yet closed, it's hard to say for sure how significant it is.


Aleister

I totally agree that it's a horrible description of the phenomena. Clear Matter, or Invisible Matter describe it better.
That doesn't work because the Earth is made of dark matter, (the baryonic type), but there is also a non-baryonic type which is probably what you were thinking of. Here's a paper that goes into details about names and descriptions of various dark matter candidates:

Dark Matter -- Possible Candidates and Direct Detection

On the basis of the nature of the constituents, the dark matter can be divided into two types namely a) baryonic and b) non-baryonic.
If you read that paper, you will see each type of dark matter candidate already has a name, in that paper at least. The reason we don't use those names, is because we don't know which one of them accounts for observation. When we figure that out, we already have something else to call what we find, besides dark matter.

So yes the "dark matter" expression infers we don't know exactly what it is (which is true), and it would be premature to call it something else before we do.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The math doesn't work out....so cosmologists prescribe dark matter to fill the void in their calculations.....ahh that's so much better......
Perhaps there is more in heaven and earth than is accounted for in their philosophy......



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


You first stack three blocks of wood per row perpendicular to the direction of the lower row. Then you remove one wood piece from each row going up and place the wood on the top of the tower. When the tower is one parsec high you yell jenga and make the picture public.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join