So what has been eliminated? And more important, what remains?
The goal of the LUX detector is to clearly detect (or exclude) WIMPS with a spin independent cross section per nucleon of 2×10^−46 cm2
Does anyone know if this is significantly below the neutrino/nucleon cross-section?Looks to be comparable but don't quote me – the Ultimate Neutrino Page has for the neutrino-nucleon elastic c.s.:
2×10^−46 cm2Wow, that's like 8 orders of magnitude smaller than a neutrino.
Looks to be comparable but don't quote me – the Ultimate Neutrino Page has for the neutrino-nucleon elastic c.s.:Hmmmm. OK. Maybe not so much smaller.
σ_νn→νn(E) ≈ 9.3E-48 m² (E_ν / 1 MeV)² = 9.3E-44 cm² (E_ν / 1 MeV)², and
σ_νρ→νρ(E) ≈ 6.0E-50 m² (E_ν / 1 MeV)² = 6.0E-46 cm² (E_ν / 1 MeV)².
How would one calibrate such a machine sans a priori knowledge of the signal that they were looking for?
They successfully discovered nothing! I can easily do that at a much lower cost.
The first helps to rule out some, not all, candidate explanations for dark matter effects seen in cosmological observations.
That's what this article is about. Physicists are looking. They haven't found answers yet.
LUX's sensitivity far exceeded the goals for the project, collaboration scientists said, but yielded no trace of a dark matter particle. LUX's extreme sensitivity makes the team confident that if dark matter particles had interacted with the LUX's xenon target, the detector would almost certainly have seen it.
antialias_physorg
Jul 21, 2016OK, time to teach you how to read (yet again *sigh*). You didn't even get to the third paragraph before making another one of your ultra-stupid posts.
Did you notice this sentence in the article?
or this
(emphasis mine)
or this
DM isn't one theory. It is a category for a whole host of theories. The label DM just descibes "that effect which we observe but cannot yet explain" (it doesn't even say the effect is necessarily cause by matter).
So unless you disagree with actual observation of the nigh sky you, too, are "DM advocate"