Exotic Dark Matter Detector Deep in an Italian Mountainside Picks Up Unexplained New Signal

I will cast any aspersions by our British colleague aside and assume his comment is to the effect that multidiscplinary combinations of knowledge, combining widely diverse ideas to solve science problems (pure or applied) is how things are done these days. Thus there is 'relevance' to news outside the scope of amateur radio.

Preaching to the converted. A personal testament to that--

See for example:

Oncological ameliorization by irradiation and/or ensonification of tumor vascularization

Patent number: 10,639,096

73
Chip W1YW

 

OK... getting back to the discussion of the news article, I wonder on what frequency the signal (term as used in the article) was detected and at what signal strength? Obvoisuly the detector is VERY sensitive.... but how sensitive is that?

 

It detects visible light. And there are 'detectors'. As in many I will try to find one of their detection spectra and post it (if found). If someone else beats me to it, feel free!

I imagine it can 'count' individual photons.

 

Interesting. So are these photons gathered up by a large mirror?

 

I apologize that I haven't, in recent years, reviewed the Xenon system. I was aware of it when built.

My recollection--parts of which may be wrong--is that the particle causes an excitation of xenon, which in turn produces a resonant spectral line in the visible part of the spectrum. The detectors are used not to gather the light, but to trace its path: the path tells you about the energy and direction of the particle. Basically it is using light to trace the particle.

Parts of this could be wrong--feel free to correct. I will check later myself.

Update--here's a link.

http://www.xenon1t.org/

73
Chip W1YW

 

The difference between signal and noise is like the difference between ordinary plants and weeds. My neighbor, a horticulturist, is fond of saying that "a weed is any plant growing where you don't want it to grow". Similarly, noise is stuff that interferes with the signal you're trying to receive. The thing you consider to be noise may be considered to be a signal by someone else.

On that, we agree. (Though I'll point out that, until we identify the nature of the phenomenon, we can't quite be completely sure it's not a product of some intelligent processes, terrestrial or not. I don't think it is, but...)

On the other hand, a lot of noise is indeed intelligent messages that I don't want to hear. Whether it's my neighbor's stereo blasting thumping sounds late at night, or a commercial broadcast transmitter causing desense or other interference with my ham radio, or switching power supplies producing broad-spectrum electromagnetic radiation as a side-effect of their intended function, the fact that it's produced by intelligence, even if it's a signal that some people want to hear, doesn't change the fact that it's noise to me.

All the world's astronomical telescopes detect natural phenomena, unless they happen to be aimed at a human-built spaceship. Whether they're looking in visible light, IR, radio, or somewhere else in the electromagnetic spectrum, they're designed to register the presence of stars, galaxies, planets, nebulae, and similar objects. The spectral lines help astronomers determine the chemical composition of stars and other bodies, their positions, and velocities, and a host of other information that has filled many books and added to humanity's knowledge of the universe.

I wouldn't call all of that "noise".

 

It's not really a specific frequency but more like a type of broadband noise and is exceptionally weak. We shouldn't call it a signal based on how we define that word today. The neat thing is this particular kind of noise causes the xenon to emit light and that is what is being measured and recorded.

 

CHIP, DO YOU KNOW THIS OLE RASCAL.

https://aeroastro.mit.edu/edward-crawley

73 - K1LKP

 

Appreciate your thoughts but this discussion isn't about whether the Xenon project is receiving signals or noise. The scientific community has already answered that question. Nor is it about (what we believe to be) a dark matter detector being ham related or not. It's simply that many hams find this kind of scientific exploration interesting and want to know more about it.

 

I just saw the data. It is very MUCH about noise vs signals...

Yes, I remember Ed from when I was working at MIT 40 years ago. Can't say I knew him well. Smart fellow.

I was in the Earth and Planetary Science Dept. in the Green Bldg. Ed was in Aero Mech.

73
Chip W1YW

 

The 'detection' is questionable and of marginal statistical significance, IMO. Here is the key spectrum reporting the 'detection', from the archiv.org preprint.

The red baseline essentially is what we would call the 'noise floor'. The 'error bars' are not indicating an unambiguois detection compared to the baseline. An independent confirmation is essential in these case where the 'signal to noise' is around the 3 sigma (or less level) for an individual data point.

 

I KNEW HIS DAD REAL WELL AND IN FACT HIS DAD WAS AN INSTRUCTOR AT OUR HIGH SCHOOL

IN CAMBRIDGE. BACK THEN IT WAS CALLED THE RINDGE TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL.

I GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL BACK IN 1961.

BESIDES KNOWING HIS DAD, WE WERE GOOD FRIENDS WITH ALL OF HIS RELATIVES.

I AM NOW 76 AND PRAISE THE LORD FOR RETIREMENT AND POWER NAPS.

I WAS SO SURPRISED WHEN I CAME ACROSS HIS MIT PAGE AND SAW HIS PICTURE.

PROFESSOR ED CRAWLEY IS A DOUBLE OF HIS FATHER.

PROFESSOR ED WAS ALWAYS A VERY BRILLIANT PERSON.

STAY SAFE WITH THIS DARNED CORONA VIRUS GOING AROUND.

73 - K1LKP

HERE IS A SNAPSHOT OF MY LOG REGARDING OUR PAST QSO'S.

 

No doubt the definition of 'signal' differs amongst science tribes. In astronomy , 'noise' is not a pejorative, and the term 'signal' only comes up in the context of SETI (none 'detected' to date).

The term 'SNR' is loosely used to indicate ratios of a sought after noise process compared to systemic noise, such as thermal noise in the equipment. RF folks (as you likely know) talk about 'SINR' and 'G/T' .

73
Chip W1YW

 

FYI,

I am not trying to marginalize this important work, only pointing out that the data do not support 'new physics'-- yet. Essentially we would say the results are 'just at/barely above the noise level'. That would not qualify, by analogy, as a QSO for DXCC.

 

Whatever it is it will generate great interest among the Scientific Community and a fair number of Hams.
G3SEA/KH6