I want to tell you a short story about #DarkMatter and how the search for it sometimes leads us to beautiful and surprising things. (thread)
One of the ways we look for (invisible) dark matter is through "self-annihilation." Idea is: when two dark matter particles love each other very much, they might (with some small probability) annihilate and create stuff we can see.
We haven't (yet) found conclusive evidence for dark matter annihilation. But we're searching! The main way to search is to try to find weird signals of light or cosmic rays that are hard to explain with what we know of astrophysics.
The AMS-02 experiment, a cosmic ray detector attached to the Space Station, is looking for cosmic rays from dark matter annihilation (or other things). (Image: NASA)
The AMS-02 experiment has seen some weird stuff. There seems to be more high-energy antimatter out there than we thought there should be. More positrons (antimatter-electrons) and more antiprotons! Maybe produced by dark matter annihilation??
But there are other things that can make positrons. Pulsars (rapidly spinning, highly magnetized neutron stars) can do it. So extra positrons aren't a smoking gun. (Animated pulsar beam gif: NASA)
As for antiprotons, pulsars can't make those. But, it turns out something else can: supernova remnants. Basically, the shredded remains of long-exploded stars leak antiprotons all over the place. (Image: NASA/STScI)
For a few years, it's been suggested that a supernova (or a few) about 3 million years ago, at a distance of about 350 light years, could explain the antiprotons.
BUT THERE'S MORE
We ALSO have evidence for a supernova about that time and distance from a totally different source: MUCK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN
Weird levels of a particular isotope of iron (60Fe) have been found in seafloor sediment in a way that suggests that there was a supernova a few million years ago, a few hundred light years away, that was powerful enough to drop stuff on Earth.
To sum up: searching for dark matter seems to have accidentally shown us evidence of an ancient supernova that ALSO seems to have dusted Earth with radiation a couple million years in the past, and we know this because we PUT DETECTORS IN SPACE AND ALSO DUG UP THE OCEAN FLOOR
SCIENCE IS REALLY COOL, PEOPLE.
That's all I wanted to say, thank you for listening.
(Somehow I accidentally broke the thread at this point, so here is the Twitter Moments version, for those stuck on the cliffhanger: twitter.com/i/moments/9948…)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to make you look up into the sky and comprehend, maybe for the first time, the darkness that lies beyond the evanescent wisp of the atmosphere, the endless depths of the cosmos, a desolation by degrees
I want the Earth to turn beneath you and knock your balance off, carry you eastward at a thousand miles an hour, into the light, and the dark, and the light again. I want you to watch the Earth rising you up to meet the rays of the morning sun
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams wrote that the trick to flying is to "throw yourself at the ground and miss." It turns out that from a physics viewpoint, this is very nearly correct.
The trick is to actually throw yourself really fast *sideways* such that when you fall, you miss, and keep falling, and keep missing.
Newton drew a picture of this in Principia. Imagine you fire a cannonball so fast that by the time it falls to the ground, it has gone so far that the curvature of the Earth means that the ground is farther away.
It is Friday night and I feel the need to tell you a thing about being stardust
Yes, you are made of stars. Yes, you, in particular.
Mostly.
All that carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc — that was all made in stars. Most of your body is made of that stuff: atoms that a star forged inside itself or at the moment of its unimaginably violent death.
So, yes, you are stardust. But only if you count by mass. If you count the number of atoms in you, most of those?
Hydrogen.
Never part of a star at all.
Most of your atoms have been in the Universe for 13.8 billion years.
Most of your atoms were forged in the Big Bang itself.
I was contacted by a journalist about this today because someone in Turkey with almost a million followers tweeted out a version of this meme that somehow manages to be even more wrong
The confusion evidently comes from a New Scientist article that makes somewhat misleading claims based on a 2007 study whose speculative results have been disputed in the literature several times since then. And then someone stuck an image of a dark nebula to it, for fun.
The more-wrong version includes the irrelevant dark nebula pic, but adds spooky dark tendrils to it. 🙄
Friends, we need to talk about The Future. It is no longer acceptable to complain about not having jetpacks and flying cars. Old TV shows have created a generation of people doing sci-fi-future envy wrong. Thread begins here.
JETPACKS exist. They’ve been around for decades. No one uses them because they are expensive, inefficient, extremely loud, and fantastically dangerous. Want to get somewhere fast? In many cities you can now walk down the street and rent an electric scooter with your phone. Enjoy.
FLYING CARS are a terrible idea. Traffic is chaotic enough in two dimensions. Being in an ordinary car is more likely to kill you than almost anything else you do. And you wanna put *rockets* on that thing?? Go get a helicopter license and stay away from the roads.
Just finished reading through this: arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702 — Stephen Hawking’s last paper, which explores some questions about the beginning of the Universe
Beware of the press coverage, though. Most of the articles I’ve seen claim the paper says things it definitely does not say. (It is, to be fair, extremely technical.)
REALLY short summary of the paper: Hawking & Hertog found, using some VERY preliminary calculations, that the rapid expansion in the early universe (inflation) might not always create a big mess of a multiverse, but might be more likely to make a cosmos like what we see.