Image of the Day: 'Festival of Lights' --The Oldest Objects of the Milky Way
Sally Ride --NASA Pioneer Dies: 1st American Woman in Space

New CERN Tests Attack the Existence of Dark Matter




New results have come in from the Xenon100 experiment, a tub of cryogenically cooled liquid xenon buried 1400 metres down a mine at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory near L'Aquila, Italy that show no sign of WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, the still-theoretical particles thought to make up the invisible majority of the universe's mass, a direct challenge to physicists who believe dark matter is made up of WIMPs, particles that carry mass but, as their name suggests, rarely interact with other particles. The project's previous results, presented over a year ago and based on just 100 days of data, came up empty.

The latest results, presented at the Dark Attack 2012 conference in Ascona, Switzerland, on 18 July, were based on 225 days of new data. The team used a detector that was 3.5 times as sensitive to the skittish particles as before. But the result still came up empty handed, producing zero WIMPS, suggesting that WIMPs are much lighter than theories originally predicted, or they're even more shy of ordinary matter than previosly thought.

"We have essentially set the most stringent limits of any other experiment" for WIMPs with masses heavier than 8 gigaelectronvolts (GeV), said Antonio Melgarejo of the Xenon team, which will keep looking. The next generation of the experiment, called XENON1T, should start construction this year.

The standard model was confirmed by the discovery of the Higgs boson this month, but it still doesn't explain dark matter. In supersymmetry extensions of the Standard Model, every standard particle has a heavier "superpartner" particle, one of which could be a WIMP.

"We are starting to explore the region of supersymmetry," Melgarejo says. "It definitely imposes a big problem."* . Elsewhere, detector called LUX (Large Underground Xenon) will start operation at a mine in South Dakota, and promises to be 10 times as sensitive as previous searches.

The Daily Galaxy via CERN and

Image credits: The Horsehead Nebula via


I've said it before and will continue to say it.
There is no such thing as dark matter.

This new finding would seem to exonerate Christian Moni Bidin (Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Concepción, Chile).

There is no ‘dark matter’ because the Universe isn’t expanding; the fundamental flaws in redshift theory -other wise known as Hubble’s Law- will have to be addressed, but who’s brave enough within the current paradigm to remove their blinkers?

So called dark energy is behind expansion, not dark matter. Dark matter is inferred based on gravity lensing, galactic rotations and such. Different animals...

Recently, scientists from Durham University announced that the theories of dark matter and dark energy are most likely based on incorrect assumptions about WMAP observational analysis. Professor Tom Shanks noted: “If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a ‘Dark Side’ will weaken.”

The Big Bang theory requires three completely hypothetical entities [the inflation field, dark matter and dark energy] to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities.

I've always said that if there were really such thing as dark matter, and if it really made up 90% of the universe, then we would be swimming in the stuff. Yet, oddly, it's nowhere to be found. Hmmmmm...


I have always felt the redshifting was more due to gravity stretching the light as it slowed it ever so slightly and sped it up the same. But none of the really cool evil scientist agree with me.

"I have always felt the redshifting was more due to gravity stretching the light as it slowed it ever so slightly and sped it up the same. But none of the really cool evil scientist agree with me."

except there is absolutely zero evidence that gravity effects light frequencies.

"I've always said that if there were really such thing as dark matter, and if it really made up 90% of the universe, then we would be swimming in the stuff. Yet, oddly, it's nowhere to be found. "
we're also swimming in neutrino's, but we didn't know that until very recently.

"There is no ‘dark matter’ because the Universe isn’t expanding"

then why dont galaxies fly apart?
and why are we detecting gravitational lensing around a galaxy far stronger then they should be given the viable matter. and why can we detect gravitational lensing BETWEEN galaxies, where there is absolutely no visible matter (these are the dark matter filaments BTW).

the dark matter theory fixed all of those perfectly, all with highly simular amounts of it to fix the observed problems.
that is not a coincidence.

dark matter wasn't just cooked up and accepted on a whim, it has pretty much become observable fact in the last 3 years.

and what fundamental flaws in the red shift theory? it holds up beautifully on every test thrown at it.
so far you just sound desperate to prove the universe isn't expanding. why?

dark matter, dark energy...words to describe the unknown.
lets get to know it before we start using it like a tool or else we'll end up under more layers of innacurate and misleading theory.

The universe may not be expanding, but merely flowing. From our perspective it absolutely appears to be expanding, but that may be because we are circling the drain of our own galaxy's supermassive black hole. From such a perspective, it only appears that the entire universe is both expanding and accelerating, but this may be and likely is an illusion.

You read it here first!

What is filling the universe? Light. Photons. Both wave and particle energy.

"If you could measure beam of light or any electromagnetic radiation, it will have weight.
Or...... E = mrestc2 MASS.

And it is this duality of light, that gives mass to the universe and it pushing on matter.

"There's a kind of a duality here. Photons are supposed to be massless, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach lightspeed (according to Newtons Law F=ma, if it applies, because to accelerate a photon to lightspeed would require imense forces).

On the other hand it's proven they have some kind of mass because scientist through several experiments have been able to see a photon transfer momentum to other particles (p = mv => momentum = mass * velocity).

Some other equations that have mass of a photon in them:

Since p = mv and p = h/λ, then h/λ = mv, where h is Plank's constant, and λ the wavelength of the photon. "

KE = 0.5mv2, where KE is kinetic energy.

@ The_Countess:

Actually, gravitational lensing is something that has been observed and is actually used to peer deeper into space. Would this lensing effect not be gravity effecting light frequencies?

This new test agreed with I proposed in order to unification between quantum and relativity. my solution regarded to the pioneer anomaly illustrates there is no dark matter or dark energy, but it is something like refractive index. Hubble's law and GR must modify according to my modified relativity theory

The_Countess - regarding redshift:

There Was No Big Bang: The Proof

The final irrefutable falsification of the “Redshift equals distance” assumption is the image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar BETWEEN the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

The Big Bang Theory is false – not because I or others claim it to be false – but because it has been scientifically falsified.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Where there is a negative, there will also a positive. This holds true even down to sub atomic particles.

If there is matter, there is also anti-matter. If there is light matter, there is also dark matter.

The problem is that we are trying to verify the existence of particles based on principles of anti-matter with particles that consist of matter.

In order to be able to "detect" dark matter, we must use anti-matter. But until we have a means of storing anti-matter in our dimension which consists of matter, properly identifying, and classifying dark matter will remain difficult.

“Dark matter” comes in two forms, 1 real and 1 unreal.

1) Very low activated molecular gas and particles - as in this article.

2) As a hypothetical force supposedly balancing the “galactic rotation anomaly” where stars don’t orbit the galactic centre accordingly to laws of celestial mechanics – this “dark matter force” doesn´t exist.

It is a speculative invention made of astrophysicists and cosmologists and theoretical mathematicians and it origin from the lack of natural observations of different natural dynamics as atmospheric dynamics; thermodynamics; electrodynamics; magnetodynamics and nuclear dynamics.

All these forces creates swirling circuits of both contracting and expanding movements – and the observed “galactic rotation anomaly” is only an anomaly when not looked at as a circuit in which the actual full force is imbedded in the full movement in the circuit.

The galactic anomaly rises only because the galactic centre is falsely connected to a great mass with at great gravity force in the galactic centre.

Looking at the galaxies as a 3D circuit of different kinds, it is not necessary to add “the dark matter force” to hold anything in galaxies - or elsewhere.

Ivar Nielsen
Natural Philosopher

I realize there is no evidence to support my theory. If in 2 days, some one that read my post and looked and found definite proof, the LAST thing they would ever admit the got the idea from smartypants. OOPss offtrack. BUT there is much evidence that gravity does affect light. Its more than possible our technology just is not quite there to see the light being slowed to redshift. How many tries did it take to find cosmic microwave background radiation had hot and cold spots? I dont remember the number but it was ongoing for a long time. Gravity pulling on light over billions of years is very hard to recreate in a lab. The very best we could simulate would be over maybe 1/1000 of a second maybe?
Hahahaha ok, I am sorry for the ramblings. I am a little tired so I will stop before I look like a total loony (even more so).

Okay physics time.

1) you're right, smartypants, gravitational redshift is a real phenomenon. Think of it this way - the speed of light is a universal constant (as far as we know). This speed is equal to the wavelength times the frequency of the light. Frequency is 1/T, where T is the period of an oscillation, having units of time. Time gets dilated in a gravitational field - that's the general theory of relativity. Therefore the apparent frequency is reduced and light appears "redder". This has been measured; clocks these days can measure upto 10^(-13) seconds, so much smaller than the scale you described as barely attainable ;)

2) dr burke, radiation pressure is real too, but at this point measurements indicate the Universe is matter dominated, and the ratio of photon/matter pressure is much much less than one. It simply isn't enough to account for the gravitational effects we have ascribed to dark matter.

3) dark matter is not anti-matter. it may be a super-symmetric counterpart of matter, but that's not the same as anti-matter. A particle and its anti-particle annihilate upon collision. Similarly, a WIMP and it's *anti*particle (not supersymmetric counterpart, which would be a Standard Model particle) should annihilate and create energy. There are several successful limits on WIMP mass set by analysis of exactly these annihilation signals from space and underground detectors, such as this one.

4) orkneylad, that image is NOT how you read distances off a space image. You can't look at a star map and say which objects are closer to you depending on whether they look like they're in front of other things. They could simply be much brighter objects, behind the other object, with relatively few obstacles in front of it. Distance measurement is one of the biggest challenges in astronomy, and most of the time we really on what are known as Standard Candles - objects which always have the exact same brightness on their surface (and you can tell if it's that kind of object by spectroscopy). We can then measure their apparent brightness on Earth to figure out distance: L(surface)/L(Earth) = 4*pi*r^2, where L is the luminosity (brightness) and r the distance. Redshift is measured independently of distance. The correlation is experimental, not hypothetical.

5) Anyway, Just a Grunt is correct, and dark matter has little to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even dark energy isn't necessary for expansion per se, it only explains why this measured expansion is accelerating and not slowing down as it would have if the only force acting on a cosmological scale were gravity.

You've got to stop thinking physicists are out there to get you. Why would they do that? They're just trying to formulate models of the Universe based on real observations. Noone gets any perks from falsifying data or promoting theories they know to be false. This observation at Gran Sasso is still a good thing for physicists, because the theory of WIMPs (and other dark matter candidates) still needs a lot of work, and every such limit on properties of particles helps.

Hurray for MILA. Good work, well said, many kudoz


"You can't look at a star map and say which objects are closer to you depending on whether they look like they're in front of other things. They could simply be much brighter objects, behind the other object, with relatively few obstacles in front of it."

Quite correct in most cases, however the image in question is a Seyfert-2 galaxy, and the these are completely opaque, shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure the active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. Unless there's a perfect hole in 'just' the right place, at 'just' the right size, it isn't going to wash.

(as far as we know) pretty much sums it up.

Since matter, according to relativity, "warps" space-time, and we perceive the warping as gravity, if there is such a thing as warped space-time in the absence of matter, we might very well perceive that "warping" as gravity too, and infer a mass which does not actually exist.

Why or how space-time might display warping in the absence of mass I don't know, but neither do I know why, as both the physicist and the child put it, there's all this something around us instead of nothing.

Such dynamic curvatures of space-time would perhaps be analogous to whirlpools in a waterflow--they would tend to collect and concentrate mass much as whirlpools collect flotsam. And in galactic clusters, there do appear to be threads of "dark matter" from the center of one galaxy to the center of another.

Ivar, dark matter may very well be mostly antimatter if the missing antimatter fell into primordial black holes along with the rest of the mass deficit.

(Sorry, I meant to address Mila, not Ivar)

Amateur question: If photons have no mass, why can't they escape black holes? What force captures them?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)