|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:36:26 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Note also that one of the main motivation for the MACHO and similar collaborations was to find a substantial fraction of the dark matter in compact objects in our galactic halo. After 25 years of data, no show. Astounding! Most of the dark matter research literature and the majority of the astrophysical community state that MACHOs have been detected and that they could contribute at least 10% of the dark matter. See the paper by B. Carr above. You say: "no show". How do you explain this? No other scientist known to me has made such a statement. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 2:36:26 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote: Note also that one of the main motivation for the MACHO and similar collaborations was to find a substantial fraction of the dark matter in compact objects in our galactic halo. After 25 years of data, no show. Astounding! Most of the dark matter research literature and the majority of the astrophysical community state that MACHOs have been detected and that they could contribute at least 10% of the dark matter. There is not only a lower limit ("at least 10%") but also a quite strict upper limit. Of course, one does observations and sees what Nature has to offer. As Robert Pirsig wrote, the television scientist who says "Our experiment is a failure; we didn't find what we were looking for" is suffereing mainly from a bad script writer. If you already KNOW what you will find, then there is no need to do the experiment. Nevertheless, such an observational programme costs money, and has to be justified somehow, and the "hope" was that MACHOs would turn out to be THE dark matter, i.e. essentially all dark matter in MACHOs. That is not how it turned out. People once thought that massive neutrinos could be dark matter. Now, that looks very improbable, though SOME fraction of non-baryonic matter is indeed composed of neutrinos. So, neutrinos are not THE dark matter, but they contribute to it. You say: "no show". How do you explain this? No other scientist known to me has made such a statement. "No show" refers to the fact that it didn't turn out that all of the dark matter is in MACHOs, which was conceivable when they started out. Also, all MACHOs could be baryonic, but we know that most of the dark matter can't be. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On 8/1/16 1:36 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Note also that one of the main motivation for the MACHO and similar collaborations was to find a substantial fraction of the dark matter in compact objects in our galactic halo. After 25 years of data, no show. Any reasonable Beer-Lambert law calculation of object number and size in galactic halo optical transparency below instrumental observation capability can account for dark matter fraction. Richard D Saam |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 4:08:24 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:
below instrumental observation capability Uh, oh! More bad news from the particle physics community. https://profmattstrassler.com/2016/0...-flickers-out/ Who would have guessed? [[Mod. note -- I fail to see how this qualifies as "bad news". In fact, I see no evidence in this blog entry that the blogger (Matt Strassler) sees this as "bad news" either. -- jt]] |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:29:11 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[[Mod. note -- I fail to see how this qualifies as "bad news". In fact, I see no evidence in this blog entry that the blogger (Matt Strassler) sees this as "bad news" either. -- jt]] You may add to the loss hyped 750 Gev boson (The Cheshire Cat particle?), the newest negative results regarding sterile neutrinos in what theoretical physicists thought was the most desired mass range. http://www.nature.com/news/icy-teles...theory-1.20382 Also, I note that my post answering your query about the 750 Gev bad news has failed to appear. Oversight or selective moderating? RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw [[Mod. note -- I haven't seen the post you ask about. Perhaps one of the other moderators has it? Another possibility: about a week ago (I don't recall the exact date) my university's main email servers were down for about 12 hours. I think/hope that all incoming email during that time was queued and later delivered, but it's possible that some misconfigured software didn't retry properly and some email was lost then. -- jt]] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 11:29:11 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[[Mod. note -- I fail to see how this qualifies as "bad news". In fact, I see no evidence in this blog entry that the blogger (Matt Strassler) sees this as "bad news" either. -- jt]] Well, one could take a "What Me Worry" attitude. The alternative view, and we do like alternative views in science, might go something like this: Since the first "hint" of a new 750 Gev particle, approximately 500 papers have been written explaining the meaning of this 2-sigma bump. Was there really sufficient cause for physicists to "go into a frenzy"? Does this tell us something about the state of particle physics? Steven Weinberg's "Nightmare Scenario", i.e., nothing discovered at the LHC beyond the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which has a number of problems signifying its provisional character, continues without letup. Physics has suffered through 45 years of failure to find a single "string", "sparticle" or "WIMP" despite heroic experimental efforts. You might not see this as bad news, but I can tell you that the particle physics community is embarrassed and getting very nervous about where this is headed. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 12:54:18 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[[Mod. note -- 23 excessively-quoted lines snipped here. -- jt]] ---------------------------------------------- Now yesterday's post seems to have "gone missing" too. Let me try again. On 8/9/16 the ATLAS Collaboration presented new results from the upgraded LHC (13 Tev) search for particle dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.02372 Bottom Line: particle dark matter still AWOL. RLO http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPs AWOL Yet Again
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 3:14:29 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Well, one could take a "What Me Worry" attitude. Yawn. Another No-Show for WIMPs and the "WIMP miracle". This time from the upgraded LUX experiment. http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07648 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WIMPS? | Richard D. Saam | Research | 78 | October 11th 13 08:32 AM |
Generic WIMPs Ruled Out | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 10 | November 27th 11 09:09 AM |
WIMPs AWOL Again? | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 91 | November 16th 11 09:28 AM |
Chris Lord (Brayebrook) gone AWOL? | Chris.B | UK Astronomy | 0 | November 18th 05 07:07 PM |
Did Galileo/Cassini anti-nuke crowd go AWOL? | dinges | Policy | 17 | October 1st 03 03:38 PM |