#1
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
Analyses of Fermi gamma-ray observations of eight Milky Way Galaxy
dwarf galaxies may "exculde generic WIMP candidates with mass less than 27 GeV..." . Reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.2914 Time to re-evaluate the conventional WIMP hypothesis? Time to think about those hundreds of billions of unbound planetary- mass objects indicated by the microlensing observations of Sumi et al? See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3544 . Time to give a fair hearing to M.R.S. Hawkins' excellent discussion "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter"? See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3875 . Time to think about what might be generating the huge ARCADE-2 excess in the radio background? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
On Aug 16, 7:42*am, eric gisse wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0- : One theory among several - one down, infinity minus one to go. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This my main worry. Currently fashionable theoretical speculations like string/brane notions, supersymmetry, quintessence, WIMPs, and so on, are so "adjustable" that they are effectively untestable in any definitive manner. If WIMPs are complete no-shows in the canonical mass range, then one can merely posit that the WIMPs are more exotic than expected and have a much larger mass. This dodge has been used in so many theoretical physics contexts in recent decades that its radical departure from proper scientific norms is hardly noticed anymore. But the fact is that it makes these "scenarios" effectively incapable of being falsified. If one can arbitrarily change the predictions of a "scenario", and/or tack on ad hoc adjustable parameters, then is this good science? Is it science at all? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Analyses of Fermi gamma-ray observations of eight Milky Way Galaxy dwarf galaxies may "exculde generic WIMP candidates with mass less than 27 GeV..." . They are weakly interacting MASSIVE particles---maybe more than 27 GeV. For decades, neutrino masses kept being excluded from more and more mass ranges, but today we know they have a mass. Time to re-evaluate the conventional WIMP hypothesis? Why? We don't know what dark matter is. That's why we look for it. When we find it, we'll know. There might be more than one kind. That is real science, i.e. when one doesn't know the result beforehand. Time to think about those hundreds of billions of unbound planetary- mass objects indicated by the microlensing observations of Sumi et al? See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3544 . Not in the context of dark matter, no. Yes, they might be dark matter, but not an appreciable fraction of the dark matter. Time to give a fair hearing to M.R.S. Hawkins' excellent discussion "The case for primordial black holes as dark matter"? See: http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3875 . Hawkins's claim has been proved wrong in the refereed literature, and no-one has contested this in the refereed literature. That's enough for most people. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
On Aug 17, 3:45*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: In article , "Robert L. They are weakly interacting MASSIVE particles---maybe more than 27 GeV. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or not? Could you please tell us what that mass might be, or offer any sort of predicted mass range by which the WIMP hypothesis might be unambiguously falsified? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Aug 17, 3:45*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote: In article , "Robert L. They are weakly interacting MASSIVE particles---maybe more than 27 GeV. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Or not? Could you please tell us what that mass might be, or offer any sort of predicted mass range by which the WIMP hypothesis might be unambiguously falsified? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw It depends on the theory, Robert. You'll note that "weakly interacting massive particle" applies to a lot of different things, including neutrinos. There's no particular theory here, which is something people, including myself, have been trying to tell you. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
On Aug 18, 3:33*am, eric gisse wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote : Could you please tell us what that mass might be, or offer any sort of predicted mass range by which the WIMP hypothesis might be unambiguously falsified? It depends on the theory, Robert. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, the bottom line is that you cannot make a definitive prediction regarding the galactic dark matter. You have a huge number of poorly constrained "theories" that offer you a huge number of pseudo-predictions, any one of which can adopted or explained away (if need be). RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
: On Aug 18, 3:33*am, eric gisse wrote: "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote : Could you please tell us what that mass might be, or offer any sort of predicted mass range by which the WIMP hypothesis might be unambiguously falsified? It depends on the theory, Robert. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------- So, the bottom line is that you cannot make a definitive prediction regarding the galactic dark matter. Plenty of _definitive_ predictions can be made in terms of interaction, halo size, effects on lensing profiles, stellar orbits, etc. Why isn't that good enough? You have a huge number of poorly constrained "theories" that offer you a huge number of pseudo-predictions, any one of which can adopted or explained away (if need be). Well, that's how science works. Scientists make some theories, and as more evidence comes in the bad ones are excluded. I note you have a different level of increduility for your theory (factor of 15 wide prediction of neutron star masses) versus other theories. RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
On Aug 18, 5:21*pm, eric gisse wrote:
"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote : Well, that's how science works. Scientists make some theories, and as more evidence comes in the bad ones are excluded. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's how things have been going for decades, except that nothing actually gets excluded, just "adjusted". Strings, branes, WIMPs, SUSY, extra dimensions, and so on, have been around for decades and are "adjusted" in an ad hoc manner when observations or theoretical constraints do not support them. Has anything been "exluded"? Hardly! There are even super-optimists who hold out hope for magnetic monopoles and proton decay after many, many falsifications. String theory: 43 years and still not one definitive prediction! The best science is science based on principles that can lead to definitive predictions. See the development and evolution of relativity theory for an archetypal example of this best science. Even heuristic, model-building science is legitimate so long as it can use its empirically-derived order, constraints and patterns to generate definitive predictions. But if a theory cannot make a definitive prediction then it is pure speculation (to put it politely), and should be explicitly treated as such by scientists and the media. RLO Fractal Cosmology |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Again?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: They are weakly interacting MASSIVE particles---maybe more than 27 GeV. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or not? Could you please tell us what that mass might be, or offer any sort of predicted mass range by which the WIMP hypothesis might be unambiguously falsified? No, because my science is based on observation. What is the mass of the Earth? No way to find out except to measure it. Same idea. Yes, it might be conceivably possible for a theory to predict everything, but one shouldn't criticise observations in the absence of such a theory. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Xenon100: No "WIMPs" | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | April 14th 11 09:39 AM |
Chris Lord (Brayebrook) gone AWOL? | Chris.B | UK Astronomy | 0 | November 18th 05 08:07 PM |
Did Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd go AWOL? | dinges | Policy | 17 | October 1st 03 03:38 PM |