|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675
This reference indicates dark matter cross-section and resultant drag characteristics for 72 studied galactic collisions ....47 cm^2/g The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are ....24 cm^2/g Is the near proximity of these two values an indication of a common drag mechanism? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
In article ,
"Richard D. Saam" writes: Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675 This reference indicates dark matter cross-section and resultant drag characteristics for 72 studied galactic collisions ...47 cm^2/g The reference places an _upper limit_ on the cross section of 0.47 cm^2/g. As far as these data are concerned, the actual cross section could be orders of magnitude smaller or even strictly zero. Note also the significance with which dark matter is detected. The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are ...24 cm^2/g Reference? Is this also an upper limit or a claimed detection? And where is the decimal point in the value? Is the near proximity of these two values an indication of a common drag mechanism? More likely it just indicates widely different techniques end up with similar sensitivities. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:46:32 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:
Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675 This reference indicates dark matter cross-section and resultant drag characteristics for 72 studied galactic collisions ...47 cm^2/g The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are ...24 cm^2/g There is no need to invoke dark matter for the Pioneer trajectory. Indeed, the trajectory can be explained by spacecraft thermal effects, within the measurement range. CM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
On 4/9/15 6:34 AM, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:46:32 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675 This reference indicates dark matter cross-section and resultant drag characteristics for 72 studied galactic collisions .47 cm^2/g The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are .24 cm^2/g There is no need to invoke dark matter for the Pioneer trajectory. Indeed, the trajectory can be explained by spacecraft thermal effects, within the measurement range. CM The JPL statement in regards to Pioneer spacecraft thermal effects "no statistically significant acceleration anomaly exists." http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507 is based on incomplete analysis of the data. This JPL paper assumes the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP daP/dt = -k*aP model one This fits the assumption that all aP components are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time. A better fit to trajectory data is: daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two Initially, the thermal emission overwhelms the anomalous acceleration (aPinfinity) but diminishes with time(model one) with aP decay approaching aPinfinity with time (model two). In as much as aPinfinity is a measure of interstellar intergalactic space viscosity as Pioneers exit the solar system, then all transiting object motion in interstellar intergalactic space would be affected including dark matter candidates with similar cross-section to Pioneers as per http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675. Richard D Saam |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
[Mod. note: This post arrived at my moderation mailbox with some garbled
character encodings (various occurences of "=3D0") and line wrappings. I have fixed these up by hand based on educated guesses as to the authors' meanings, and rewrapped over-long lines. I hope I haven't distorted anyone's meaning! -- jt] On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:57:22 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: On 4/9/15 6:34 AM, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:46:32 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: .... The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are .24 cm^2/g There is no need to invoke dark matter for the Pioneer trajectory. Indeed, the trajectory can be explained by spacecraft thermal effects, within the measurement range. .... The JPL statement in regards to Pioneer spacecraft thermal effects "no statistically significant acceleration anomaly exists." http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507 is based on incomplete analysis of the data. This JPL paper assumes the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP daP/dt = -k*aP model one This fits the assumption that all aP components are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time. And this model is statistically consistent with the data. A better fit to trajectory data is: daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two Since you didn't show how it is a "better fit" it's hard to comment in detail, but since model one is statistically consistent with the data, aPinfinity=0 is also statistically consistent with the data. I.e. there is no need to invoke dark matter to explain the Pioneer trajectory. CM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
On 4/11/15 1:19 PM, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 3:57:22 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: On 4/9/15 6:34 AM, Craig Markwardt wrote: On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 12:46:32 PM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are .24 cm^2/g The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-section = (pi/4)*274^2/241,000 = .24 cm^2/g Pioneer antenna diameter 274 cm Pioneer mass 241,000 g There is no need to invoke dark matter for the Pioneer trajectory. Indeed, the trajectory can be explained by spacecraft thermal effects, within the measurement range. ... The JPL statement in regards to Pioneer spacecraft thermal effects "no statistically significant acceleration anomaly exists." http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507 is based on incomplete analysis of the data. This JPL paper assumes the decay for Pioneer acceleration aP daP/dt = -k*aP model one This fits the assumption that all aP components are tied to the RTG half life with aP decay approaching zero with time. And this model is statistically consistent with the data. A better fit to trajectory data is: daP/dt = -k*(aP - aPinfinity) model two Since you didn't show how it is a "better fit" it's hard to comment in detail, but since model one is statistically consistent with the data, aPinfinity=0 is also statistically consistent with the data. I.e. there is no need to invoke dark matter to explain the Pioneer trajectory. CM I did post on sci.astro.research the aPinfinity analysis 9/3/13, 11:14 PM under a discussion on WIMPS. the methodology is there with subsequent analysis indicating for Pioneer 10 aPinfinity = 6.1 x 10^-10 m/sec^2 vs 5.9 x 10^-10 m/sec^2 For Pioneer 11 subsequent analysis to posting aPinfinity = 7.1 x 10^-10 m/sec^2 Model two Data analysis with aPinfinity provide a better statistical correlation than aPinfinity = 0. Question 1: Why wasn't model two ever discussed or used by JPL? Why did I have to do the analysis, piecing together available published data? The logical need for Model two analysis seems so obvious and its simplicity is so compelling. Billions of dollars are being spent at CERN, satellites such as FERMI and multi underground facilities around the world to obtain some indication of Dark Matter. A comparatively simple model two analysis provides a hint or at least results that may fit some other phenomenon. Why is JPL so closed minded about this opportunity for scientific discovery? Question 2: Where is the original Pioneer trajectory data? NASA generally publishes its data. Why not in this case? Richard D Saam |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dark Matter Cross-Section
On 4/3/15 2:32 AM, Steve Willner wrote:
In article , "Richard D. Saam" writes: Ref: http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07675 This reference indicates dark matter cross-section and resultant drag characteristics for 72 studied galactic collisions .47 cm^2/g The reference places an _upper limit_ on the cross section of 0.47 cm^2/g. As far as these data are concerned, the actual cross section could be orders of magnitude smaller or even strictly zero. Note also the significance with which dark matter is detected. The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-sections are .24 cm^2/g Reference? Based on published NASA Pioneer dimensional data. The Pioneer 10 and 11 cross-section = (pi/4)*274^2/241,000 = .24 cm^2/g Pioneer antenna diameter 274 cm Pioneer mass 241,000 g Is the near proximity of these two values an indication of a common drag mechanism? More likely it just indicates widely different techniques end up with similar sensitivities. Further and more likely: If dark matter objects had similar dimensions to Pioneers as common cross-sections would imply, then the dark matter galactic density on the order of 10^-24 g composed of these Pioneer sized objects would have a mean free path or optical density such that they would not be optically visible under current methods. (An accepted dark matter characteristic) Also, the dark matter objects cannot be in thermal equilibrium with CMBR at 2.7K as they would radiate to a measurable level. (Another accepted dark matter characteristic) Since CMBR mass density CMBR density = Stefan_constant*2.7^4*(4/c^3) ~ 1E-34 g/cc is low relative to universe density Universe density ~ H^2/G ~ 1E-29 g/cc there is a possibility that dark objects are in thermal equilibrium with the much higher universe density at a much colder non measurably radiating temperature defining an extremely cold hydrogen state with Big Bang nucleosynthetic origin. Hydrogen Dark matter nucleosynthetic origin requires consideration of nuclear reaction rates modified by nucleosynthetic plasma colligative properties implied by Brookhaven National Laboratory high Z collision studies. These ideas are contrary to the WIMP dark matter hypothesis but since WIMPS have not been found in any of the underground scintillation projects, these ideas are open for further analysis. Richard D Saam [[Mod. note -- It has long been suggested (tongue-in-cheek) that dark matter might be composed of back issues of The Astrophysical Journal. [Yes, I know, I'm showing my age -- I'm using the phrase "back issues" to refer to actual black-marks-on-paper physical objects rather than just bits in a database somewhere...] However, I'm not sure if ApJ-sized lumps of baryons would be allowed by other observational constraints. -- jt]] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Headless Martian shows neck cross section. | Lin Liangtai | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 28th 08 09:09 AM |
Headless Martian shows neck cross section. | Lin Liangtai | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 28th 08 09:08 AM |
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 14th 08 03:03 AM |
Dark matter means ebergy (ebergy known since the 1930's to makeenergy from 'dark matter'). Dark matter is solved for the first time (100pages) | gb[_3_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 5th 08 05:24 PM |