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

On Jun 22, 9:50*am, "
wrote:
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.

Ah, ok. The exact performance characteristics of x-ray telescopes
don't interest me as much as they did before so I haven't spent much
time looking at how it performs at various energies..

I wonder what we'll see when it is pointed at the galactic center? I'm
unclear as to how much the dust and other sundry crap between us and
Sgr A* scatters x-rays...


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").

The 0.5-7 KeV band is very valuable to the black hole folks as there's
two Iron spectral lines smack in the middle of that range which are
used to determine the redshift and thus the orbit of accreting matter.
So NuSTAR won't really be able to help us get a better estimate of
black hole mass/spin unfortunately

I've had many discussions with Oldershaw about his various
"predictions", which you have seen. He has never addressed the so-far
invisible nature of his objects, which I found curious until I settled
on an opinion of him...


Craig

On Jun 22, 10:50*am, "
wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

An objective and informative contribution.

Thanks for straightening out that serious misunderstanding.

The X-ray luminosity of black holes depends on how much accretion is
occurring. Even if we can only detect a subpopulation undergoing
fairly high accretion rates, there is the possibility that the number
of black hole sources will increase with decreasing luminosity. From
this one might infer larger populations at lower luminosities, and
thereby justify the deeper searches that you mention.

RLO
DSR

On 6/23/2012 8:42 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 22, 10:50 am, "
...
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").

An objective and informative contribution.

Thanks for straightening out that serious misunderstanding.

The X-ray luminosity of black holes depends on how much accretion is
occurring. Even if we can only detect a subpopulation undergoing
fairly high accretion rates, there is the possibility that the number
of black hole sources will increase with decreasing luminosity.

But wouldn't there always be detection of a sub-population
because of varying distance? Even if they were standard
candles, we would see high apparent luminosity for the
nearby ones, so they should be detected!

From
this one might infer larger populations at lower luminosities, and
thereby justify the deeper searches that you mention.

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?

--
Jos

On Jun 23, 3:27*am, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

No.

RLO

On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 23, 3:27 am, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)

--
Jos

On Jun 23, 1:21*pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

On Jun 23, 3:27 am, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)

--
Jos

Zero. The only black holes that have been detected are ones that are
stellar mass or higher.

Further, you can't use accretion luminosity as a standard candle
because it varies so much. It is one of those "not even in principle"
things.

Please don't give Robert a comfortable environment to float his ideas.
He has used this newsgroup for that purpose for long enough.

On Jun 23, 2:21*pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

On Jun 23, 3:27 am, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the numbers of black holes exceeds by many orders of magnitude the
number estimated to have been produced in conventional SN events,
etc., then we would need a new and quite different explanation for
where this huge population of BHs came from. Discrete Scale
Relativity would provide a unique and testable explanation for the
population.

I do not like the term "primordial". We don't call protons
"primordial". Why should we call their Stellar Scale analogues
"primordial"? The term *fundamental* would be a more appropriate
adjective. If the population exists, then eventually no adjective
will be needed at all.

A discrete fractal paradigm for nature represents a far greater change
in thinking about the structure and dynamics of nature's unified
hierarchy of systems than is typically assumed.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
"Study nature, not books" [plaque at library of Marine Biological Lab,
Woods Hole, MA]

On 6/24/2012 9:36 AM, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:21 pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
..
But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)

Zero. The only black holes that have been detected are ones that are
stellar mass or higher.

Same question. How are we sure they are *not* primordial?

Further, you can't use accretion luminosity as a standard candle
because it varies so much. It is one of those "not even in principle"
things.

But could the accretion X-ray spectrum show something (e.g.
the mass?)

Please don't give Robert a comfortable environment to float his ideas.
He has used this newsgroup for that purpose for long enough.

Some have replied to his posts here quite a lot, Eric..

But back to the black holes: (of any offspring) would they
really behave differently from luminous matter? In particular
can they explain separation of dark matter from luminous
matter, as in:
http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressr...6/20060821.htm

--
Jos

On Jun 24, 12:10*pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/24/2012 9:36 AM, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 23, 1:21 pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
* ..
But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)

Zero. The only black holes that have been detected are ones that are
stellar mass or higher.

Same question. How are we sure they are *not* primordial?

Basically the size of the accretion disk is a rough indicator, and a
more quantitative notion is that iron gets ionized as it gets sucked
down and emits some lines in the ~5-6KeV range that allow you to get a
pretty good bead on the strength of the gravitational field there.

There's nothing out there that is known to be consistent with being
less than a solar mass. I am very comfortable with that statement and
would be seriously surprised if there was something that contradicted
it.


Further, you can't use accretion luminosity as a standard candle
because it varies so much. It is one of those "not even in principle"
things.

But could the accretion X-ray spectrum show something (e.g.
the mass?)

Yes, see above.


Please don't give Robert a comfortable environment to float his ideas.
He has used this newsgroup for that purpose for long enough.

Some have replied to his posts here quite a lot, Eric..

I said "comfortable" environment.


But back to the black holes: (of any offspring) would they
really behave differently from luminous matter? In particular
can they explain separation of dark matter from luminous
matter, as in:http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressr...6/20060821.htm

--
Jos

In principle black holes are the perfect dark matter candidate.
Especially in my favorite bullet cluster, and even down to the CMB.

In practice, we have had the better part of a half century of
integrated telescope time looking for them in microlensing surveys
(EROS, OGLE, etc). Nothing has been found, and nearly the entire mass
range has been exluded via direct observational or Hawking radiation
based grounds.

Further, the required amount of them (depending on what mass you would
like) requires a lot of them will spend some free time in star forming
regions and other such areas that are gas-heavy. If black holes were
the source, we would have a lot point sources distributed around the
sky that spew in the x-ray/gamma region. This has not been found.

All of this has been discussed to death with Robert. This is not new
information.

On Jun 24, 2:37*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jun 23, 2:21*pm, Jos Bergervoet wrote: On 6/23/2012 5:40 PM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

On Jun 23, 3:27 am, Jos Bergervoet wrote:

But haven't we already detected some nearby ones which can
serve this purpose? Shouldn't this be known already?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.

Great! How were they identified as primordial? (Likewise,
how can that be done for distant ones, if they are found?)

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

If the numbers of black holes exceeds by many orders of magnitude the
number estimated to have been produced in conventional SN events,
etc., then we would need a new and quite different explanation for
where this huge population of BHs came from. *Discrete Scale
Relativity would provide a unique and testable explanation for the
population.


Unfortunately your numerology makes many other 'unique and testable'
explanations that are falsified by observation.

I am unclear as to why you think you get yet another do-over.

[snip rest]