|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no-
shows for so-called "WIMPs". http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753 When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? Robert L. Oldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Discrete Scale Relativity Fractal Cosmology |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On 6/7/2012 10:55 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no- shows for so-called "WIMPs". http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753 When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? As soon as it is conclusively proven, I would expect! If, for instance, some exotic form of matter is found (which is *not* made up of subatomic particles) and in addition this exotic stuff is shown to be present in the right amount to account for the gravity effects we observe.. But until then, a good attitude would be to allow the possibility of dark matter consisting of subatomic particles, like all the other matter we know. (BTW: where exactly did nature indicate otherwise?) -- Jos |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Thu, 07 Jun 12 09:56:45 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
But until then, a good attitude would be to allow the possibility of dark matter consisting of subatomic particles, like all the other matter we know. And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter", because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between model and observation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 12 09:56:45 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote: But until then, a good attitude would be to allow the possibility of dark matter consisting of subatomic particles, like all the other matter we know. And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter", because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between model and observation. Which way? Does the cosmological model have more matter than is astronomically observed? Or does the nucleosynthesis model give less matter than cosmologically observed? And do you know a better name? Would "dark mass" (together with "dark energy") give more clarity? -- Jos |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Thu, 07 Jun 12 15:15:51 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote: And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter", because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between model and observation. Does the cosmological model have more matter than is astronomically observed? Yes, nominally the observed is 0.27 of budget. And do you know a better name? Would "dark mass" (together with "dark energy") give more clarity? No, just as bad. Maybe they should throw a competition to find better words for these. Eric |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
"Eric Flesch" wrote in message
... On Thu, 07 Jun 12 15:15:51 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote: On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote: And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter", because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between model and observation. Does the cosmological model have more matter than is astronomically observed? Yes, nominally the observed is 0.27 of budget. And do you know a better name? Would "dark mass" (together with "dark energy") give more clarity? No, just as bad. Maybe they should throw a competition to find better words for these. Eric "it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or nomenclature which belongs to it." From Lavoisier's preface to "Elements of Chemistry" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 7, 3:55*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote: Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no- shows for so-called "WIMPs". http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753 When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? Since we don't have a solid theory of baryogenesis and since the standard model is expected to break down at the ~TeV range and since CMB fits have consistently had an extra neutrino species as a one standard deviation result, I believe there's some room to maneuver when it comes to explaining dark matter with particle physics. I'm curious to see whether that result will carry through the Planck data analysis... On the other hand, the bulk of dark matter is rather conclusively not in the form of black holes. The fact of the matter is that you aren't going to convince anyone of your position by ranting about WIMPs. It is one possibility among many, and even the temr itself covers a large set of possibilities. Perhaps there's a reason you are finding difficulties in regards to getting anyone to take you and your simplistic rants seriously? By the way, have you yet managed to show that stellar masses are quantized using the data sets I gave you nearly a year ago? Or are you still in the "ignore data that I don't like" phase? Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Discrete Scale Relativity Fractal Cosmology |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? When someone identifies something else. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
On Jun 13, 6:55*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote: In article , "Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? When someone identifies something else. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched. It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do so. If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black holes, then this telescope should detect them. It cost about 100 times less than the LHC. [$174 million?] Scientific observations are scheduled to start in about 30 days. I, for one, look forward to what it tells us about the the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. RLO Discrete Scale Relativity |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles? When someone identifies something else. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched. It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do so. If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black holes, then this telescope should detect them. Note that it is not enough to find some black holes. The numbers and masses have to add up to enough to account for at least a substantial fraction of the dark matter. It cost about 100 times less than the LHC. [$174 million?] So what? The LHC does many things. It is not there primarily to find WIMPs or whatever. I, for one, look forward to what it tells us about the the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes. It would be a surprise if this tells us something different. |
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 |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |