- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- becomeme
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- becomeme
You must log in or register to comment.
Literally nothing in the article positing that dark stars may indicate Supersymmetry, ugh! Dark stars are thought to be the annihilation of neutralinos. The gravity of these particles would be enough to draw hydrogen gas close together but the specific annihilation would generate heat preventing the hydrogen gas from coalescing to start nuclear fusion.
This is one of the purposed methods by which one would might observe a dark star. Some random cloud of hydrogen gas giving off way more heat in the form of gamma rays, neutrinos, and antimatter than a random cloud of hydrogen gas would be able to give off.
This is JADES-GS-z13-0, JADES-GS-z12-0, and JADES-GS-z11-0 which the light from has traveled 13.6 billion light-years, meaning that we’re looking at a very early universe here. Which that makes sense, dark stars would have only been able to form in the earliest days of the universe. Back then, the density of neutralinos would have been high enough to encourage dark star production, the proper distance of JADES-GS-z13-0 et al is 33.6 billion light years, so yeah MUCH HIGHER concentration. However, with the continued expansion of the universe, the density would have dropped low enough to prevent high enough neutralino concentration to produce dark stars.
However, there is probably a non-supersymmetry way to explain dark stars that match up with the purposed candidates here. I just don’t know it. The point being is that IF these are confirmed, there’s a new strong argument for spuersymmetry, though I won’t hold my breath. I know quite a few folk were disappointed with the lack of squarks in ATLAS at the LHC.
You use words like “squarks” and “neutralinos”, which sound very similar to quarks and neutrons. What’s the difference, if you don’t mind explaining? Also, since I know almost nothing about this, if the dark matter is weakly interacting, shouldn’t it pull itself into a really small area eventually? If there isn’t a negative repulsion between dark matter components, like there is with electrons and via the weak field, why doesn’t it all just collect itself in a giant clump?
Neutralinos and squarks are entirely theoretical counterparts as part of an extension to the standard model, which were expected to be observed at the LHC as ‘natural’ but weren’t and we have no concrete reason to think they exist; the Standard Model of normal matter still reigns supreme. However if there are really dark stars it does lend some actual support, and would be the first actual evidence.
Basically the idea is there might be a symmetry between bosons (spin 1) and fermions (spin 1/2), a ‘supersymmetry’, so that every known (fundamental) particle has a secret doppleganger. I vaguely recall one motivation was providing counter-terms, as if you add more matter it can blow up the Higgs, but the irony is the Higgs is fine if you just… Don’t add any dark matter, like the asymptotic safety program pointed out and actually garnered a prediction of the Higgs mass with before anyone measured it. And everyone argued it would be more ‘natural’ if the new particles showed up at LHC energies. They didn’t.
Personally I’m betting against it; supersymmetry has just actively had predictions working against it so far. The particles would end up introducing more parameters than they solve.Thank you. TIL! Appreciate you sharing knowledge.
Thanks. Is “if you add more matter it can blow up the Higgs”, because the Higgs only interacts via gravity, or something?
So, the Higgs is, if I recall right, sensitive to the masses of other particles, and I don’t think this has much to do with gravity per say (gravity just reacts to mass-energy to curve spacetime) but the fact that Higgs can decay to other particles and also feels the ‘Higgs’ effect/field of which the Higgs boson is kind of like a left over. The Higgs mass can thus ‘blow up’ from contributions from other particles, because in a quantum field a particle will potentially fluctuate to several particles and then back again, and of course, you can’t decay into something if you are less energetic than it. [edit: although that might not be important, if ‘virtual particles’ heavier than you vanish before anything can measure them. actually now that I recall I think it was mainly virtual particle contributions that mattered here.]
I very hazily recall that it is possible to have some mass from non-Higgs effect sources, for instance quarks binding to each other contributes most of a proton’s mass rather than the Higgs effect, so the Higgs boson could have /some/ mass even if we turned off all the Higgs bits except for the boson itself, but my impression was that it was majority from Higgs interactions, from which the Higgs boson is relatively ‘unprotected’ from being ballooned up. A counterpart particle can provide counterterms to help keep mass low, like a seesaw, but the standard model Higgs has no such counterpart unless you introduce something extra.
This is really cool. I hope they can study these and get some good data.
