Researchers have just found evidence of “dark electrons”—electrons you can’t see using spectroscopy—in solid materials.
By analyzing the electrons in palladium diselenide, the team was able to find states that functionally cancel each other out, blocking the electrons in those “dark states” from view.
The scientists believe this behavior is likely to be found across many other substances as well, and could help explain why some superconductors behave in unexpected ways.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 37 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Sometimes I wonder how much of our universe is sitting on the surface of a metaphorical lake; and the things we see are just the bits that poke up above the water. That there's an entirely separate world pressing up against ours, and normally they don't interact; except sometimes they do, leading to effects which (to my knowledge) seem to have no cause, such as dark matter, dark energy, quantum unpredictablility and so forth.

[–] rowrowrowyourboat@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

and normally they don’t interact

But dark energy and dark matter make up 95% of our universe. So they would be the "normal".

If anything, the 5% that we do know would be the "abnormal".

And anyway, it's only called dark energy and dark matter, not because it doesn't have a cause, but because it doesn't interact with light (photons don't interact with it).

Although I think you are right that they don't know what causes it. It does interact with gravity, though.

But all this is way beyond my tiny brain.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't know if the estimation of dark matter is still 95%. We keep taking chunks out of that number by discovering phenomena are more common than we thought. Black holes, rogue planets, random interstellar asteroids, ambient deep space hydrogen particles, none of these things can be seen from a distance, but we are discovering that there are a lot more of all of these than we originally thought. Together it all adds up, and I'm really not sure what the most up to date numbers look like.

[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm a lot more worried that we're actually just the little color patterns that float around the outside of a soap bubble. That we're just the error rate in a dynamic creation/annihilation event that happens everywhere.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 6 points 2 months ago

Well if we are, there isn't a thing anyone could ever do about it, so.... shrug

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

This is perfectly possible. But why worry about it? It wouldn't make things less fun!

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

Sounds like a very esoteric way of looking at things we don't fully understand yet. There have been countless of "invisible" things that we could not see before over the past few centuries alone. Hell, we cannot even really see other planets orbiting other stars themselves, but we can observe the effect they have on the parent star itself and thus know they're there. Just try to explain to someone from a few thousand years ago what germs are. A concept even many people today are struggling to understand, as we clearly saw within the last 4 years. Quantum science is complicated and seemingly weird, but it still follows rules that we have yet to fully learn, and I have no doubt that, if we had enough time, we'd figure that out just like we figured everything else out before.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Sometimes I wonder if consciousness is itself a force and the more we probe the larger consciousness grows.

[–] brrt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

Although it is very much on the Science Fantasy side of things your thoughts remind me of the “The Final Architecture” book series by Adrian Tchaikovsky. Really enjoyed reading the trilogy.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Magic

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I think that's a fantastic metaphor, and I've often wondered the same thing. I wonder if we have simply yet to see what's beneath the surface, or if we may not be capable of seeing what's beneath the surface.

I hope for the former.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

According to Bell's Theorem, there can't be any hidden variables causing quantum unpredictability, so there can be nothing "under the surface" controlling it.

[–] subignition@piefed.social 15 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Darkness in science often means mystery. But mysteries can be answers in and of themselves—at least, until you dig even deeper.

Dark, darker, yet darker...

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

You know what they say, the darker the mystery, the sweeter the… scientific paper that explains it.

[–] socialmedia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Questions are a burden and answers a prison for oneself.

Back in the village again!

[–] lastunusedusername2@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

☝️✋✌️👋

[–] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Science got that revitiligo.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago

destructive interference, and you get a darker signal. If the waves are perfectly ‘opposite,’ the destructive interference is at its most extreme, and you get no signal at all.

Btw, what happens with the energy in destructive interference? Heat?

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If there are indeed electrons impervious to spectroscopic analysis, and therefore to interaction with em radiation, then our model of physics is totally fucked (or, i suppose, very very incomplete).

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

then our model of physics is totally fucked

Aren't we discovering that all the time? We're just making the most of the best models we have, but we know for certain that they're very incomplete.

[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

They finally looked where the sun don't shine!

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That's cool. The implication is that electron interference would prevent photons interacting with them? It makes a little sense to explain dark matter, but with the massive amounts of dark matter we observe, I doubt this is that common.

Not to mention, photons would still interact in the photonuclear way, scattering etc. it also presumes that the atoms won't interact with anything else, causing the interference pattern to cease.