|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
Title: A new look at microlensing limits on dark matter in the Galactic halo
Author: M.R.S. Hawkins Journal: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 575, pg. 107, 2015 ArXiv.org: so far not posted Relevant quotation from abstract: "The main result of this paper is that it is easy to find low mass halo models consistent with the observed Galactic rotation curve, which also imply an optical depth to microlensing similar to that found by the MACHO collaboration. This means that all-MACHO halos cannot be ruled out on the basis of their observations... Limits placed on the MACHO content of the Galactic halo from microlensing surveys in the Magellenic Clouds are inconsistent and model dependent, and do not provide a secure basis for rejecting an all-MACHO halo. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Title: A new look at microlensing limits on dark matter in the Galactic halo Author: M.R.S. Hawkins Journal: Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 575, pg. 107, 2015 ArXiv.org: so far not posted Relevant quotation from abstract: "The main result of this paper is that it is easy to find low mass halo models consistent with the observed Galactic rotation curve, which also imply an optical depth to microlensing similar to that found by the MACHO collaboration. This means that all-MACHO halos cannot be ruled out on the basis of their observations... Limits placed on the MACHO content of the Galactic halo from microlensing surveys in the Magellenic Clouds are inconsistent and model dependent, and do not provide a secure basis for rejecting an all-MACHO halo. Suppose some person has a random-number generator, generates 1000 numbers, and show that they are compatible with a uniform-probability distribution. If that's what he needs for his work, fine. However, someone else needs the numbers one at a time, and notices that sequential numbers (uniform probability between 0 and 1) are never more than 0.2 apart, and thus for his purpose not random at all. Then the first person says: I did the K-S test, and have proved that the numbers are random, so they are. Hawkins is like the first person. He made a claim which made some testable predictions and they were confirmed. Then others pointed out that his theory makes OTHER predictions which HAVE BEEN falsified. His problem is that he ignores these. He doesn't even disagree with them, he ignores them. Every few years, he trots out the same arguments and doesn't seem to know, or care, that even ONE falsified prediction dooms the theory (whether this prediction was noticed by himself or someone else is irrelevant), as his "proof" are his old, confirmed predictions. He cherry-picks data (emphasizing new data if it makes his ideas look good, ignoring it if it doesn't), pushes the error bars to the limit to make something agree with him, and, again, ignores criticism in the literature. Even if he doesn't agree with it, common courtesy and good science demand that one at least address it. I think it is fair to say that practically no-one believes Hawkins's claim that such compact objects make up a substantial fraction of dark matter. At one time, it was a viable idea, like massive neutrinos. But not anymore. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 4:35:22 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
I think it is fair to say that practically no-one believes Hawkins's claim that such compact objects make up a substantial fraction of dark matter. At one time, it was a viable idea, like massive neutrinos. But not anymore. Apparently the referee(s) for this paper and the editor(s) at Astronomy and Astrophysics see things quite differently. They must have determined that Hawkins has a valid scientific argument. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
On Monday, March 9, 2015 at 8:48:02 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Apparently the referee(s) for this paper and the editor(s) at Astronomy and Astrophysics see things quite differently. They must have determined that Hawkins has a valid scientific argument. Hawkins' paper is now posted to arXiv.org http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01935 The paper is well-written and has plenty of empirical support for its arguments. It is not strident, nor does it insist that the MACHO answer to the dark matter puzzle is the only possible answer. It presents the case for MACHO dark matter, and asks why there is so much resistance to a potential answer that has more empirical support than any other dark matter candidate. The discussion and conclusions sections are thought-provoking. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 4:35:22 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: I think it is fair to say that practically no-one believes Hawkins's claim that such compact objects make up a substantial fraction of dark matter. At one time, it was a viable idea, like massive neutrinos. But not anymore. Apparently the referee(s) for this paper and the editor(s) at Astronomy and Astrophysics see things quite differently. They must have determined that Hawkins has a valid scientific argument. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] Scientific literature is discussion. Editors and referees are there to guarantee a minimum of quality, but not to decide what is correct and what is not (except in the case of obviously crackpot papers, and sometimes not even then). Sort of like a moderated newsgroup, but a bit more strict. :-) Discussion can exist only if there are different points of view. Go back a few years and you will find many papers claiming that the Hubble constant was 50 or less. That doesn't mean that the editor and referees believed that this must be completely correct. Otherwise, you don't abide by the scheme "refereed journal paper is proof that the argument is correct". Anyone interested in this needs to take ALL work in this field into account, not just touting those papers which support a preconceived idea and ignoring those which don't. Certainly no-one can claim that Hawkins has not had the opportunity to plead his case. Also, even if it turns out that his claims about the Milky-Way halo are correct, there are still arguments against his claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 5:05:35 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Certainly no-one can claim that Hawkins has not had the opportunity to plead his case. Also, even if it turns out that his claims about the Milky-Way halo are correct, there are still arguments against his claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses. You forgot to mention that there are also other arguments FOR "his claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses". What we need to get a definitive answer to the dark matter problem are not beliefs based on prior assumptions and tentative empirical findings. What we need are new observations that are more diagnostic and less easily hand-waved away than past observations. Given the promise of forthcoming technical advances like SKA and future microlensing efforts, there is hope that strong empirical guidance will not be too long in coming. Until then it would behoove us not to marry any hypothetical class of dark matter candidates, nor to spurn others simply because they conflict with our expectations. It's ok to root for favorites, but let's have a level playing field. Hawkins' paper eloquently makes the case that this this scientific balance and objectivity has been missing in dark matter research for quite awhile. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Certainly no-one can claim that Hawkins has not had the opportunity to plead his case. Also, even if it turns out that his claims about the Milky-Way halo are correct, there are still arguments against his claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses. You forgot to mention that there are also other arguments FOR "his claim that most of the dark matter in the universe is in the form of compact objects with Jupiter-to-solar masses". Yes, of course there are, but science is asymmetric: even very many arguments in favour of a theory can't prove it, but just one argument against it, in the sense of a failed prediction, can disprove it. It's like the uniform-deviate--random-number generator: If the K-S test says the numbers are compatible with a uniform distribution, that is an argument for it. If someone notices that there is a maximum distance (less than 1) between successive numbers, then it has been proven not to be a good random-number generator. You can't say "It's 50-50; one argument for, one against". Until then it would behoove us not to marry any hypothetical class of dark matter candidates, nor to spurn others simply because they conflict with our expectations. It's ok to root for favorites, but let's have a level playing field. Hawkins' paper eloquently makes the case that this this scientific balance and objectivity has been missing in dark matter research for quite awhile. The reason most people think that dark matter is some sort of non-baryonic (and non-neutrino) elementary particle is because there are good arguments against other candidates, including Hawkins's. Even if some people root for particle dark matter, you can't criticize their experiments for looking for it any more than you can criticize Hawkins for not looking for it. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
If you look at a chart of star types versus fraction of stars in that
category, the less massive the star, the larger the fraction. About three-quarters of the stars in our galaxy are M-type stars and account for about 15% of the mass of all stars. Each star type larger than M accounts for a smaller fraction of mass. Does this relationship continue for smaller masses (to Jupiter-size and below)? Could it not be that interstellar space is full of this junk? Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 3:56:47 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
The reason most people think that dark matter is some sort of non-baryonic (and non-neutrino) elementary particle is because there are good arguments against other candidates, including Hawkins's. Even if some people root for particle dark matter, you can't criticize their experiments for looking for it any more than you can criticize Hawkins for not looking for it. Some interesting logic here, but I hope you can grasp the fact that I am most certainly not criticizing anyone for doing any experiments/observations. I do criticize 40 years of insisting that particle dark matter is the best candidate and ignoring the writing on the wall in hopes that the mythical particles are just around the next corner. In today's New York Times there is an article about reports of gamma-rays emitted from one dwarf galaxy and the possibility of a breakthrough in the particle dark matter search. The hype is laid on thick and the go-to band leader Neil Weiner leads the parade. Eventually the article gets around to mentioning the fact that another group failed to see gamma-rays coming from the same dwarf galaxy (Reticulum-2). Nowhere to be seen is mention of the fact that the FERMI-LAT and DES groups posted papers to arXiv.org reporting that no gamma-ray radiation was detected for larger samples of dwarf galaxies. What do you think the chances are that the paper of M.R.S. Hawkins would get proper coverage in the media? I'd say pretty darn low. Yet his reanalysis of the microlensing results is at least as newsworthy as the latest "hint" of wimps, if not considerably more. This is not solely the attitude/fault of the media, as Weiner's comments amply demonstrate. The particle physics community is driving it, and driving it hard. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
New A&A Paper On Astrophysical Dark Matter
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: The reason most people think that dark matter is some sort of non-baryonic (and non-neutrino) elementary particle is because there are good arguments against other candidates, including Hawkins's. Even if some people root for particle dark matter, you can't criticize their experiments for looking for it any more than you can criticize Hawkins for not looking for it. Some interesting logic here, but I hope you can grasp the fact that I am most certainly not criticizing anyone for doing any experiments/observations. The entire tone of the rest of your post indicates that you are. I do criticize 40 years of insisting that particle dark matter is the best candidate 40 years ago, it wasn't the leading candidate. By a process of elimination, it is left standing while essentially all other candidates have been ruled out. and ignoring the writing on the wall in hopes that the mythical particles are just around the next corner. Who ignores what? People have read Hawkins's papers, they have pointed out errors, and Hawkins ignores such work. Even if he doesn't agree, he should address criticism. Hopes? Wishes? Dreams? People do experiments and report what they see. In today's New York Times there is an article about reports of gamma-rays emitted from one dwarf galaxy and the possibility of a breakthrough in the particle dark matter search. The hype is laid on thick and the go-to band leader Neil Weiner leads the parade. Please distinguish scientific discussion from media hype. By the way, I recall some recent media hype about rogue planets. Please refrain from cherry picking. What do you think the chances are that the paper of M.R.S. Hawkins would get proper coverage in the media? I once invited Mike to give a talk in Hamburg, and he came and gave it. I saw several newspaper clippings. He has also written a popular book. Considering that I came across it by chance at a stall selling used books at a folk festival in Oxfordshire, my guess is that a fair number were published. His case has been heard. But anyway, why is MEDIA coverage important at all? On the one hand, you criticize media hype. On the other hand, you seem sad because Hawkins and you don't get enough. I'd say pretty darn low. Yet his reanalysis of the microlensing results is at least as newsworthy as the latest "hint" of wimps, if not considerably more. Maybe science writers notice that he repeats the same argument and ignores criticism and have better things to write about. This is not solely the attitude/fault of the media, as Weiner's comments amply demonstrate. The particle physics community is driving it, and driving it hard. Looking for things which are not ruled out is what experimentalists do. No-one is "driving anything hard". |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark matter is among the hottest topics of research in astrophysics.Dark matter is considered to be the greatest mystery in science today. Thisgroup, well, accredited scientists say they would never come to newsgroups,but it has wall, like old Moscow | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 7th 08 05:38 AM |
My theory of dark matter starts with: Only with kindness, the topscientific mystery today, dark matter is solved. | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 2nd 08 12:24 AM |
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 14th 08 03:03 AM |
Dark matter means ebergy (ebergy known since the 1930's to makeenergy from 'dark matter'). Dark matter is solved for the first time (100pages) | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 5th 08 05:24 PM |