String theory suggests that dark matter is hiding in extra dimension

[pines-demon]

TL;DR Summary

Curum Vafa and co. calculation uses string theory to predict an extra dimension where dark matter could be lurking. He claims this can be tested and falsifiable

Here is the article titled "In a ‘Dark Dimension,’ Physicists Search for the Universe’s Missing Matter" by Quanta Magazine

https://www.quantamagazine.org/in-a-dark-dimension-physicists-search-for-missing-matter-20240201/

 

[Vanadium 50]

"Here is an article" is a terrible, terrible, terrible start to a thread. What do you want to discuss about that article"? <splat>...here it is, is not helpful. It is also helpful if you refer back to the real, journal article, and not some click-baity thing you found on the wen.

That said, not a single word of your title is correct.

"String theory suggest that dark matter is hiding in extra dimension

• "String theory" - not all string theory. This was done in the context of a particular kind, and arguably not even the most interesting kind
• "suggest" - accommodate might be a better word. This is not the first stringy model to do this anyway.
• "dark matter is hiding in extra dimension" - this is nonsense. Pure click bait. In this model, it is not hiding. It's neutrinos that emerge from Kaluza-Klein modes of a new field introducved into the theory. In shot, what they have done is put a new partiocle in, and get a new dark matter particle out. Hardly news.By the way, this idea goes back to 1926.
  
  The particles aren't "hiding" anywhere. They are real, albeit hard to detect.

 

[pines-demon]

"Here is an article" is a terrible, terrible, terrible start to a thread. What do you want to discuss about that article"? <splat>.

Noted. I am still trying to figure out the forum system here in SF. There are many threads that are just about sharing.

...here it is, is not helpful. It is also helpful if you refer back to the real, journal article, and not some click-baity thing you found on the wen.

This seems to the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12293

That said, not a single word of your title is correct.

I was trying to avoid the more clickbaity title of Quanta. Note that the title I chose was extracted from the abstract of the article. Quanta is indeed very reductionist so it makes a lot of simplifications to get to a larger audience.

"String theory" - not all string theory. This was done in the context of a particular kind, and arguably not even the most interesting kind

Could you explain what is the right terminology?

The particles aren't "hiding" anwhere. They are real, albeit hard to detect.

Assuming dark matter is composed of particle-like stuff right?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Could you explain what is the right terminology?

For what? You are the one who posted the thread; I can only assume you know what you want to discuss.

 

[pines-demon]

For what?

You say it is not string theory, what would be the right way to describe this kind of theory?

 

[Vanadium 50]

String theory is not a single theory. It is a framework around which theories can be developed. "String theory predicts" would mean that all theories developed in this framework have this property. For example, "String theory predicts the number of dimensions is 10 or 26."

But were two days and half a dozen messages in, and we still don't know what it is about this paper you want to talk about. All we have is a far-from-unique prediction, and some hoopla on a web site you agree is click-baity.

If you want to talk about this paper, you need to tell us what you want to talk about.

 

[pines-demon]

String theory is not a single theory. It is a framework around which theories can be developed. "String theory predicts" would mean that all theories developed in this framework have this property. For example, "String theory predicts the number of dimensions is 10 or 26."

Sure but what is the formalism that predicts this "dark dimension"?

But were two days and half a dozen messages in

Maybe you are confusing with another thread, this started yesterday and has a few messages.

and we still don't know what it is about this paper you want to talk about.

I posted the arxiv paper above (sorry for the grammar there).

If you want to talk about this paper, you need to tell us what you want to talk about.

As I said, I have seen threads that starts just like that and people just offer some opinions on it. If I am doing something very wrong please clarify what is the guideline. For the moment the discussion is on how this is or isn't string theory.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What they are talking about is described in the abstract of their paper.

 

[pines-demon]

What they are talking about is described in the abstract of their paper.

How is it different from string theory? It uses that term all over the paper.

 

[Vanadium 50]

At least now we have an answerable question. Unfortunately, it's a very heavy lift - you need a B-level explanation of this paper, plus a B-level explanation of string theory, plus probably a B-level explanation of KK towers (and probably a B-level explanation of the historical development). I'm afraid I am not skilled enough to do this, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.

 

[kered rettop]

At least now we have an answerable question. Unfortunately, it's a very heavy lift - you need a B-level explanation of this paper, plus a B-level explanation of string theory, plus probably a B-level explanation of KK towers (and probably a B-level explanation of the historical development). I'm afraid I am not skilled enough to do this, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.

Would that be true if it were elevated to I level? I'm guessing a rather qualitative description of what you're talking about would be possible without plunging into A-level details. Mind you, even in A-level threads there's a lot of discussion which is perfectly accessible to me as well as lot which might as well be AES encrypted for all the sense I can make of it. Perhaps I don't fit the B/I/A model :)