Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

Particle Physics Anomaly Quietly Disappears

The particle physics anomaly which attracted the most attention in the past years was a slight violation of a symmetry known as “lepton universality” discovered in LHC data. It was also sometimes called the B-meson anomaly. This anomaly had been widely reported as a possible sign of physics beyond the standard model, for example here. In a recent analysis of data from the LHCb experiment, the anomaly is gone and the results are compatible with the standard model.

Astrophysicists Claim That Dark Matter Explains Milky-Way Satellite Alignment

A group of researchers from Durham University claims that the standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM), which works with cold dark matter particles, can properly explain why small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way are roughly aligned in a disk. This claim is perplexing because the results largely agree with those of earlier papers which have found that the alignment is possible but unlikely with dark matter, giving it a probability of 2-3% to temporarily appear.

The paper also ignores that the same alignments have been found in a number of other galaxies, which makes it vastly less probable to have happened with dark matter. Marcel Pawlowski has more information here.

Geoengineering Startup Goes Rogue

Climate scientists have warned of it for a long time and it’s now happened: A small startup pushes forward with injecting particles into the upper atmosphere in an attempt to block sunlight and reduce global warming. The company is called Make Sunsets and is launching balloons from a site in Mexico. There are currently no laws or treaties that regulate weather modification or climate engineering and I’m afraid we will in the future see more companies doing this.

Injecting large amounts of particles into the atmosphere would not undo the effects of increasing carbon dioxide levels, but rather create another climate scenario. It might bring down temperatures but would not, eg, reduce ocean acidification. The consequences for precipitation and wind patterns are unknown.

Comments

Aleksei Besogonov

LOL. Somebody has read Neal Stephenson's "Termination Shock"

Anonymous

The Durham U. team do make a strong claim in their paper about the alignment of the satellite galaxies. It looks like, according to Pawlowski, the Gaia data have some artifacts that need to be accounted for and also the gravitational potential of the Milky Way is not spherical. The Durham Python code should be run with a more realistic potential once the artifacts are accounted for. Still, the Durham group's claims are plausible. All of the other galaxies where we see anisotropy in their satellite galaxy distribution are all in the local universe, roughly 14 byr old just like us. If satellite alignment is transient, as they claim, it is possible that we are in the sweet spot, time-wise. Consider as an analogy planetary rings. Rings are transient features, lasting for upwards of a few 100 million years, yet we are alive at a time to observe well-developed ring systems around all 4 of the giant solar system planets. So we happen to be alive during the correct 4% of the history of the solar system to see this display. Yeah, planetary rings may have come and gone many times over the history of the solar system, but all 4 big planets now, that calls for a real statistical analysis which I am too tired to do now.

Anonymous

That we're able to see all of the planets +Pluto as well as features like rings and moons is a bit mind- blowing, thinking about it.

Anonymous

I agree Colleen. I was just out a couple nights ago to catch Mercury and Venus close to each other right after sunset -- this was the first time ever that I actually made an effort to find Mercury. Then, there was Jupiter over near the Moon and I could see with binoculars (big ass 20x80 binoculars) the Galilean satellites (just dots) cozied right up to their big daddy. I've used a Galileoscope to look at Jupiter before and it really sucked. I am in awe of the ancient astronomers who couldn't just download their data from the archive for their telescope.

Anonymous

Awesome analogy Tracey! I am happy we get to see it, even if it means we just got lucky. Any chance you may have seen this four point galaxy correlation anomaly paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03625? Anything worth getting excited about here or still too early to tell?

Anonymous

1. We've been geoengineering for the past few thousand years and look where it's gotten us. People need to understand that the only technology that will save us from the impending mass extinction will be those that reduce the human footprint on ecosystems, replacing our extractive economy with a closed-loop sustainable economy while humans stop having kids to drive our population to well below 2 billion. 2. Regarding "alignment is possible but unlikely with dark matter". If DM interacts via gravity, then why would it reduce the likelihood of alignment as found in the earlier paper? I can't pick that out of Marcel's discussion.

Anonymous

Hi Rad, I think the four point correlation is too early to tell. The 7 (or 4) sigma measurement is exciting, but even the authors urge caution because there may be systematics yet unaccounted for that could tank their work.

Anonymous

"The paper also ignores that the same alignments have been found in a number of other galaxies, which makes it vastly less probable to have happened with dark matter. " What does this argument mean? The Milky Way is not the only galaxy, which has dark matter.

Anonymous

Hi Jeffery, I had the exact same question as you about your 2nd point. What I could find is that DM halos are expected to have high dispersion, having formed from a very nearly homogeneous distribution in the very early universe. Since DM dominates the mass of the galaxy and any satellites in the halo, we would expect, and simulations show, that the satellites should be distributed randomly. The satellite galaxies are just "food coloring" telling us about the DM halo with minimal gravitational effect on the halo. In other writings from Powlowski, it looks like modeling of DM on short, less than a few 100 kpc, distance scales is quite young. But even so, existing short distance DM simulations are having trouble matching observations, not just with satellite galaxy alignments, but with the number of satellites expected and density profiles and a few other things. These newer simulations have been battering LambdaCDM but it looks like the Durham U. group has placed a band-aid on the situation with their new simulations. It'll be an interesting fight going forward.

Anonymous

OK, I'm a lowly electrical engineer, but from what I could pick up from Marcel's thread and from your take on the matter is that as we have NO idea as to what DM is, if it does in fact exist, nobody can model it accurately. At this moment, until Sabine pipes up, my take is that the reality is is that we see that the "small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way are roughly aligned in a disk": - If DM actually exists, then the "earlier papers which have found that the alignment is possible but unlikely with dark matter, giving it a probability of 2-3% to temporarily appear" are simply wrong. - Otherwise, if DM does not exist, then there is a lot of explaining to do with regards to lensing, at the very least.

Anonymous

Yeah, that's what it seems like to me too. Each modeling group pointing across at each other saying we have it right and you have it wrong -- and they're both equally right and wrong, just in different ways. The third option is something like superfluid DM that changes phase so that the correct large-scale behavior is observed and the small-scale, MOND-like behavior is also accommodated.

Anonymous

Hi Albrecht, LambdaCDM models predict that there should be no preferable alignment of satellite galaxies -- they could "accidentally" align, but there is no driving mechanism to make them align with their parent galaxy. However, the Milky Way, Andromeda, and a handful of other relatively nearby big galaxies all do have an alignment of their satellites. If it is improbable for one galaxy to have it's satellites aligned, it is even more improbable for a slew of galaxies to have their satellites all aligned at the same time. This might mean that LambdaCDM is wrong and perhaps all of DM needs to be scrapped. However, the Durham group have a new simulation that shows satellite alignment does occur with LambdaCDM at a higher probability than previously predicted, but the alignment is transient. As always, I could have my head up my ass, but I would think that the slew of nearby galaxies showing a preferential alignment of their satellites is still a problem for the Durham group. They ultimately have to argue that we are living at a preferential time in order to witness this highly improbable occurrence. It's plausible, just highly improbable.

Anonymous

Wondering who's buying... https://makesunsets.com/pages/buy-now

Anonymous

It seems to me that models are used in place of looking at the real world pretty often and I can't think of a good reason why. In my opinion, models are tools to aid in predictions and unless the knowledge underlying them is rock solid then they shouldn't be used in place of the real thing. For example, Solidworks' modeling tools are very good and so help designers and mechanical engineers design reliable parts but those models can't take the place of testing an actual part to verify a part's design. So why would a research paper be written on the basis of a model's results, especially when there is nothing known about a parameter, DM in this case in the model? It seems that results like this should simply be fed back to the model designers for rework, but even then the tweaks might not relate to reality.