LHC: "WIMPs" Not Observed (6/4/12)

On Jun 20, 2:15*am, "
wrote:

So are you still claiming that NuSTAR will detect "primordial" black holes?

How exactly will NuSTAR detect objects with luminosity 10^{29} erg/s? (if that indeed is your claimed luminosity for these objects)

Why didn't these objects show up in more sensitive surveys by other X-ray observatories like Chandra or XMM-Newton?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted in many places, including posts here, the sensitivity and
resolution of NuSTAR are expected to be factors of 100 and 10 times
better than any previous X-ray telescope, respectively.

[Mod. note: this is wrong. The resolution of NuSTAR is 10 arcsec FWHM:
Chandra's is 0.5 arcsec. They operate in different energy bands, but
they are both X-ray telescopes. NuSTAR will be much more sensitive and
have much better resolution than any previous X-ray telescope
operating above 10 keV or so, but that is not even slightly the same
thing - mjh]

It also is sensitive to a much broader X-ray energy range. See the
NuSTAR home page, "for astronomers" page.

Should I repeat that again? Do you copy?

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

The moderator wrote in message
...
[... NuSTAR will be much more sensitive and
have much better resolution than any previous X-ray telescope
operating above 10 keV or so, but that is not even slightly the same
thing - mjh]

What range was NuSTAR designed for?

If I'm not mistaken 10 KV is pretty near the low end of the X-ray portion of
the spectrum, making NuSTAR,by your admission, much more sensitive and have
better resolution over most of the X-Ray spectrum, no?

[Mod. note: NuSTAR operates in the range 5-80 keV. All previous
high-resolution imaging X-ray telescopes have operated in the range
0.1-10 keV. In order to show that NuSTAR is interesting for isolated
primordial BHs, one would need to show that they are much more
luminous in the 5-80 keV band than in the 0.1-10 keV band, since the
latter has already been very substantially explored with far better
resolution and sensitivity than NuSTAR will provide -- mjh]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:13:30 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:15*am, "
wrote:

So are you still claiming that NuSTAR will detect "primordial" black holes?

How exactly will NuSTAR detect objects with luminosity 10^{29} erg/s? (if that indeed is your claimed luminosity for these objects)

Why didn't these objects show up in more sensitive surveys by other X-ray observatories like Chandra or XMM-Newton?
.....
As noted in many places, including posts here, the sensitivity and
resolution of NuSTAR are expected to be factors of 100 and 10 times
better than any previous X-ray telescope, respectively.

[Mod. note: this is wrong. ... ]
.....
Should I repeat that again? Do you copy?

I agree with the moderator: your statement is incorrect. Chandra and XMM are far more sensitive than NuSTAR will be, for typical spectral shapes.

Why don't you try WebPIMMS for yourself?
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html
You would find that your 10^{29} erg/s sources are undetectable within a NuSTAR lifetime.

You appear to be relying on the NuSTAR "For astronomers" web page. What that web page doesn't show is that Chandra and XMM have several times more effective area below 6 keV off the chart on the left. Those lower photon energies are where the emission spectrum from accretion peaks (typically thermal kT~0.5-2 keV). Also, effective area does not tell the whole story for sensitivity, since detector background is higher for NuSTAR than Chandra or XMM.

NuSTAR will be excellent for certain tasks, just not yours.
CM

On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, "
wrote:

NuSTAR will be excellent for certain tasks, just not yours.
CM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If NuSTAR discovers a very large and previously unknown population of
stellar-mass black holes, what will you say?

That it must be dust on the lenses?

That it must be someone else's objects?

If DSR is correct we are looking for the combination of very high
energy and very faint luminosity. There is a significant percentage
of Fermi-detected Gamma-ray sources that remain unidentified and
unassociated with known sources at other wavelengths. There are
unknowns concerning the sources of the Gamma-ray background, the X-ray
background, IR transients, and a host of variability phenomena that
remain inadequately explained.

The RANGE of predicted X-ray luminosities in my ApJ paper is based on
accretion estimates of others from the mid-1980s. The mass spectum of
the putative black holes predicted by DSR is an unalterable and
definitive prediction. The X-ray luminosities for that population
involve uncertainties in basic astrophysical knowledge. If the
typical X-ray luminosity for these objects was 10^27 ergs/sec, i.e.,
100 times less than the one value you keep repeating, I would not be
the least bit surprised. Nor would I be surprised if the typical
luminosity is 10^31 ergs/sec because they tend to be found most
readily in gas/dust clouds.

It is the predicted existence of the population and its predicted mass
spectrum that are the critical issues.

Since this discussion is generating more heat than light, I am
inclined to end it until the NuSTAR results start to come in.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:12:06 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, "
wrote:

NuSTAR will be excellent for certain tasks, just not yours.
CM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If NuSTAR discovers a very large and previously unknown population of
stellar-mass black holes, what will you say? ...

What I say will be irrelevant, since I did not make a prediction about
what kinds of faint black holes NuSTAR would detect. (which I guess I
need to point out is different than saying NuSTAR won't detect any -
a claim I *DON'T* make)

The RANGE of predicted X-ray luminosities in my ApJ paper is based ...

The ApJ paper you cited does not estimate a range of luminosities,
only 10^{29} erg/s.

... If the
typical X-ray luminosity for these objects was 10^27 ergs/sec, i.e.,
100 times less than the one value you keep repeating, I would not be
the least bit surprised. Nor would I be surprised if the typical
luminosity is 10^31 ergs/sec because they tend to be found most
readily in gas/dust clouds.

10^{27} - 10^{31} erg/s - all luminosities that NuSTAR would not be
able to detect during its observational lifetime. I note that you did
not try to check this with a simple publicly available tool like
WebPIMMS.

I also note that you still have no explanation why these accretion
powered objects would not have been detected by Chandra or XMM, which
have several times higher collecting area, and lower background than
NuSTAR.

Also, how do you plan to differentiate your claimed "primordial" black
holes from ever other kind of source in the galaxy that might emit at
the same luminosity? (examples: cooling white dwarfs, cooling neutron
stars; quiescent X-ray binaries; faintly X-ray emitting stars)

CM

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

If NuSTAR discovers a very large and previously unknown population of
stellar-mass black holes, what will you say?

That it is surprising and that it must be understood. The same as if it
were to discover several interstellar teapots or pink elephants.

If DSR is correct

So this is the basis for the prediction.

we are looking for the combination of very high
energy and very faint luminosity. There is a significant percentage
of Fermi-detected Gamma-ray sources that remain unidentified and
unassociated with known sources at other wavelengths. There are
unknowns concerning the sources of the Gamma-ray background, the X-ray
background, IR transients, and a host of variability phenomena that
remain inadequately explained.

There are lots of unknown things; making unknown things known is what
scientists do. The fact that unknowns exist has no particular bearing
on any particular theory.

The RANGE of predicted X-ray luminosities in my ApJ paper is based on
accretion estimates of others from the mid-1980s. The mass spectum of
the putative black holes predicted by DSR is an unalterable and
definitive prediction.

The same paper mentions another "definitive prediction" (your words,
right there in the abstract) concerning the substructure of the
electron. A definitive prediction, by definition, means that if it is
ruled out then the theory is ruled out. Several accelerator experiments
routinely probe scales smaller than the one mentioned in your paper.
Comparison with theory is good---and that theory includes point-like
electrons. Any discrepancy would show up if it were there, but it isn't
so it doesn't. Thus the theory is ruled out and we don't have to worry
about any other predictions it makes.

This is how science works. You have criticized several times theories
which don't make definitive predictions, or "move the goalposts" once
their predictions have been falsified. Why does this not go for DSR as
well?

IF such a population of black holes is found, then it will need an
explanation, but DSR doesn't even have to be considered.

On Jun 21, 2:12*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, ...@gmail. com wrote:

NuSTAR will be excellent for certain tasks, just not yours.
CM

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

If NuSTAR discovers a very large and previously unknown population of
stellar-mass black holes, what will you say?

Would you listen to yourself for a second?

As previously mentioned, NuSTAR has less sensitivity than previous
generations of telescopes. Its' advantage lies in its' wider field of
view. What you are wishing and hoping for is next to impossible.


That it must be dust on the lenses?

That it must be someone else's objects?

If DSR is correct

.....it has been repeatedly established that your numerology is not
correct. Why do you still post here?

we are looking for the combination of very high
energy and very faint luminosity.

.....at luminosities too faint for NuSTAR to pick up. I do believe this
has been mentioned to you several times now.

*There is a significant percentage
of Fermi-detected Gamma-ray sources that remain unidentified and
unassociated with known sources at other wavelengths.

True but irrelevant.

There are
unknowns concerning the sources of the Gamma-ray background, the X-ray
background, IR transients, and a host of variability phenomena that
remain inadequately explained.

There is no x-ray background. You have already been given the
literature reference establishing this.

Why are you posting to a research newsgroup when you only intend to
use it as a soap box?


The RANGE of predicted X-ray luminosities in my ApJ paper is based on
accretion estimates of others from the mid-1980s.

You don't predict a range, you predict a specific number. Did you
forget what your own paper contains?

You also make other definitive predictions about electron substructure
and microlensing, both of which have been conclusively falsified. Why
should anyone pay attention to what you have to say at this point?

*The mass spectum of
the putative black holes predicted by DSR is an unalterable and
definitive prediction.

Which constitutes /yet another/ another falsification because
microlensing surveys have conclusively eliminated that mass spectrum.

*The X-ray luminosities for that population
involve uncertainties in basic astrophysical knowledge.

This is what you previously called 'moving the goal post'.

If the
typical X-ray luminosity for these objects was 10^27 ergs/sec, i.e.,
100 times less than the one value you keep repeating, I would not be
the least bit surprised. Nor would I be surprised if the typical
luminosity is 10^31 ergs/sec because they tend to be found most
readily in gas/dust clouds.

*FOOMP* Goalpost successfully moved.

I like how you pick up four orders of magnitude right out of the air
without even a hint of irony about how you previously railed against
such arbitrary arguments.

Can you explain why previous x-ray telescopes which were more
sensitive have not seen your imaginary objects?


It is the predicted existence of the population and its predicted mass
spectrum that are the critical issues.

Critical for whom? It has been established that your theory is wrong
in every imaginable way so I am quite unclear as to how anything
associated with it can be critical.


Since this discussion is generating more heat than light, I am
inclined to end it until the NuSTAR results start to come in.

Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert, please don't start dicussions if you don't intend to
participate honestly. Its' getting old.

On Jun 21, 1:18*pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

This is how science works.

IF such a population of black holes is found, then it will need an
explanation, but DSR doesn't even have to be considered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I see. And I mean I really see the implications of what you have
written.

I am happy, and quite relieved, to report that NuSTAR's mast was
successfully extended today. Failure to deploy this component would
have compromised the whole mission.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...242f9c12a089d#

First light and start of calibration are due to take place in 5 days.

Early results in 3 weeks or so.

Keep Calm and Carry On,
RLO

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

On Jun 21, 1:18 pm, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

This is how science works.

IF such a population of black holes is found, then it will need an
explanation, but DSR doesn't even have to be considered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I see. And I mean I really see the implications of what you have
written.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, but of course my remarks
above are to be seen in the context of previous text which you have not
quoted.

Keep Calm and Carry On,

"Desperate but not serious" might be more appropriate.

On Friday, June 22, 2012 1:33:53 AM UTC-4, Eric Gisse wrote:
As previously mentioned, NuSTAR has less sensitivity than previous
generations of telescopes. Its' advantage lies in its' wider field of
view. What you are wishing and hoping for is next to impossible.

Careful. NuSTAR has more sensitivity and imaging resolution in the
7-80 keV energy band; those are its strong points. It will be a great
telescope for measuring high energy processes.

In the 0.5-7 keV band, Chandra and XMM-Newton have far more
sensitivity. For thermal accretion spectra, which typically peak at a
few keV and have an exponential roll-off at higher energies, this
telescopes in this lower energy band should have been better able to
detect Oldershaw's "primordial" black holes. But I should point out
that 10^{29} erg/s is very faint even for the most sensitive X-ray
telescope and requires an extraordinarily dedicated observing program
(i.e. the "deep fields").

Craig