WIMPS?

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT
that could contribute to dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT
that could contribute to dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter.
It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay.

Le 31/05/13 14:39, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :
In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT
that could contribute to dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter.
It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay.


OK, they do not travel at high speeds, wimps go leisurely around,
and the interaction between them and this universe is highly difficult,
possible only in some specialized environment: living beings.

Since this invisible matter is heavier than our matter, it can
gravitationally influence a solution, guiding slowly dissolved
components into more concentrated areas.

If that kind of matter can control its density, it can acquire any
gravitational field it wants, what allows it in principle, to guide
atoms to specific places, where prepared reactions take place.

A black hole the size of an atom, made of that kind of matter can guide
accurately an atom to any place it wants.

Using just CO2, some solution containing enough raw materials, it can
start a self-sustaining living thing in a new planet.

Those kind of interactions of dark matter with normal matter are
maybe more interesting than just looking for a simple cross-section
annihilation reaction.

In any case it is a good sci-fi start isn't it?

Because we are just like a group of blind people extending their arms
and trying to figure out an elephant.

That matter must be HERE.

But where?

:-)

jacob at jacob punkt remcomp punkt fr

On 6/3/13 2:54 AM, jacob navia wrote:

That matter must be HERE.

But where?

Maybe chemistry an help.
There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Den...light_999.html

"the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times
normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least
3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit."

While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition,
this work indicates the possibility
of varied hydrogen phases at that time
one of which may presently exist as dark matter.

Richard D. Saam

In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

Maybe chemistry an help.
There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Den...light_999.html

"the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times
normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least
3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit."

While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition,
this work indicates the possibility
of varied hydrogen phases at that time
one of which may presently exist as dark matter.

Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in.

On 6/7/13 7:38 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in.

Yes, all hydrogen phases are baryonic
But let there be three phases A, B & C
with A and B in equilibrium with C
with incremental increase in A and B
with that incremental increase reflecting
in incremental increase in C.
A and B along with their ratio remain constant.

It is like pouring calcium hydroxide and sodium carbonate solutions
together in a beaker.
A = calcium soluble ion
B = carbonate soluble ion
C = calcium carbonate solid phase

Addition of A and B will not increase their concentration or ratio A/B
but only increase C.

In a nucleosynthetic hydrogen context,
A, B & C are all baryonic but,
is C missing in Big Bang nucleosynthetic analysis
and extant as dark matter?

Richard D Saam

On 5/31/13 7:39 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes:

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT
that could contribute to dark matter.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter.
It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay.

It must also be noted that reported FERMI LAT energy detection range
is 5 - 300 GeV.
It is conceivable that WIMP annihilation and decay energies
could be outside that range.
What energies are the underground (old mine shafts etc)
large volumetric fluid detection systems tuned to?

On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:03:51 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:
There are no (within 95% CL)

WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes

as measured by FERMI LAT

that could contribute to dark matter.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

----------------------------------------------------

In light of Helbig's reaction, I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized away in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole practitioner of this type of reasoning which typifies the theoretical branches of particle physics and cosmology these days.

Can the "WIMP" conjecture make a definitive prediction and stand by it, or is it pure pseudo-science?

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

On 6/3/2013 7:10 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:03:51 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:

There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes
as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597

In light of Helbig's reaction,

NB: Philip commented: (why doesn't Robert quote this?)
"Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark
matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay."

I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable
since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized
away ...

You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS,
which can of course not be falsified by not observing
them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark
matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what
it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question!

... in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole
practitioner of this type of reasoning

Not surprising. As I said, it's pure logic.

--
Jos

On 6/3/2013 3:11 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS,
which can of course not be falsified by not observing
them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark
matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what
it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question!

simply by finding what it's made of?????

would you care to break down your "pure logic" a bit further?

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple:
practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh]