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

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" wrote
in message ...
Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of
stellar-mass black holes. It would be a surprise if this tells us
something different.

I think this is what Robert was saying, and again I quote Lavoisier:
"We must trust to nothing but facts: These are presented to us by Nature,
and cannot deceive. We ought, in every instance, to submit our reasoning to
the test of experiment, and never to search for truth but by the natural
road of experiment and observation."

Science is anvanced more often by suprises than by confirmations.


[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

On Jun 14, 8:01*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of
stellar-mass black holes. *It would be a surprise if this tells us
something different.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Microlensing results have considerable uncertainty [for example
degeneracies and assumptions about galaxy models, lens distributions,
and velocity distributions]. Moreover, the observational results have
been somewhat contradictory.

It would be a most pleasant "surprise" if NuSTAR gave us a more direct
empirical handle on the issue.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology

On Thursday, June 14, 2012 2:41:41 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:55�am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Oldershaw" writes:
When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the
dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles?

When someone identifies something else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched.

It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do
so.

If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black
holes, then this telescope should detect them.

Unlikely. NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes.

Craig Markwardt

On Jun 14, 1:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jun 13, 6:55 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Oldershaw" writes:
When will we accept what nature has been indicating for decades - the
dark matter is NOT in the form of subatomic particles?

When someone identifies something else.

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

On 6/13/12 the NuSTAR x-ray telescope was launched.

It is designed to study black holes and has unique properties to do
so.

If the dark matter is in the form of ubiquitous "primordial" black
holes, then this telescope should detect them.

No.

Primordial black holes, should they exist, would be invisible to
NuSTAR for the simple reason that no other telescope has seen them.

The telescope's ability to study black holes is actually its' ability
to study x-ray emissions from accretion disks. No accretion disk, no
imagery.


It cost about 100 times less than the LHC. [$174 million?]

Scientific observations are scheduled to start in about 30 days.

I, for one, look forward to what it tells us about the the abundance
and mass spectrum of stellar-mass black holes.

You have no interest in such research, as evidenced by your dismissal
of equivalent research.


RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

On Jun 14, 9:43*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jun 14, 8:01 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Microlensing tells us about the abundance and mass spectrum of
stellar-mass black holes. It would be a surprise if this tells us
something different.

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

Microlensing results have considerable uncertainty [for example
degeneracies and assumptions about galaxy models, lens distributions,
and velocity distributions].

No, Robert, they do not have "considerable uncertainty". This claim is
borne out of you simply not reading the material and not attempting to
understand it. I feel safe in saying this as folks, including myself,
have tried to get you to read the relevant literature multiple times
to no avail.

But since you consider yourself enough of a domain expert to ignore
20+ years of literature, could you please post your published works on
the subject? Saying "20 years" isn't an understatement either, because
just the OGLE research constitutes 20 years of work.

Or how about a simple explanation as to why you feel you are free to
ignore microlensing observations that conclusively falsify your
numerology while constantly citing the MOA group results which are
based on the same fundamental methodology?

*Moreover, the observational results have
been somewhat contradictory.

No, they are not.

The bounds on what the microlensing surveys say are rather clear to
those who have actually read the literature. For example, your oft-
cited MOA group results do not in any way contradict OGLE/EROS
results. You don't discuss them because they completely and undeniably
disprove your numerology.

Read: http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl/cont/4_ma..._smc/text.html

I'm sure you have some examples of the "contradictions" that aren't
misunderstanding-based.


It would be a most pleasant "surprise" if NuSTAR gave us a more direct
empirical handle on the issue.

It would be a huge surprise considering the telescope has no ability
to detect such objects.


RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology

Say, have you taken a look at those Kepler results yet?

I remember when you were talking about Kepler and how it would prove
you right. Is there a reason you have not taken a look at the Kepler
planetary mass results yet?

On Jun 15, 2:58*am, "
wrote:

Unlikely. *NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes.

Craig Markwardt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and
its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass
black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass
black holes.

Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology
revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? Many!

Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes
well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about
their implications.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 7:46:52 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:58�am, "
wrote:

Unlikely. �NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes.

Craig Markwardt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and
its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass
black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass
black holes.

I don't dispute the NuSTAR press release, but the objects being discussed there are stellar mass black holes in our galaxy, accreting in X-ray binary systems. They are not "primordial." (Binary star systems go through a very specific evolutionary sequence to produce a black-hole+star system.)

It's not like this is a mystery. There are several observatories capable of detecting and imaging in the same hard X-ray band as NuSTAR. I helped build one that's still operating today. NuSTAR's unique capabilities are to be more sensitive and to resolve blended (confused) images, not to be magically able to detect primordial black holes.

Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology
revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? Many!

I don't disagree with this statement, but it doesn't support the claim that primordial black holes will be discovered by NuSTAR.

Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes
well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about
their implications.

We were having a discussion now, starting with a claim by *you*, that NuSTAR would be able to detect primordial black holes. There is no evidence to support that claim.

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and
its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass
black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass
black holes.

It is an X-ray telescope. It can observe anything which is sufficiently
bright in the wavelengths it is sensitive to.

[Mod. note: and so the question is: how would isolated primordial
black holes produce X-rays? -- mjh]

On Jun 17, 9:04*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Oldershaw" writes:
It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and
its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass
black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass
black holes.

It is an X-ray telescope. *It can observe anything which is sufficiently
bright in the wavelengths it is sensitive to.

[Mod. note: and so the question is: how would isolated primordial
black holes produce X-rays? -- mjh]

They don't, which is the point.

[Mod. note: yes, I was kind of hoping to lead Robert to that
realization too -- mjh]

On Jun 17, 6:46*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Jun 15, 2:58 am, ...@gmail. com wrote:

Unlikely. NuSTAR will detect accreting supermassive black holes within galaxies, not isolated "primordial" black holes.

Craig Markwardt

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

It is my understanding, from reading NASA's description of NuSTAR and
its mission, that the telescope will be able to observe stellar-mass
black holes [and other ultracompact objects] as well as galactic-mass
black holes.

It has been mentioned to you - several times now - that what the
telescope will observe is in reality the accretion disk of the object
which is the actual reason they are x-ray luminious.

Please don't try to do "science by press release". It doesn't work
because press releases are for people with minimal scientific training
and certain subtleties are left out. The result is that you don't
notice the missing subtlety and here we are.


Moreover, how many times in the history of science has new technology
revealed new and unexpected properties of nature? *Many!

Just because a new telescope is launched does not mean that all
previous science is wiped clean.

There is literally no reason to expect what you are expecting, whic
his what we are trying to tell you.

How do we know this? Because we have been searching for primordial
black holes for /years/. I have personally given you many papers on
the searches that you were apparently unable to find for yourself in
which all but a very small mass range have been excluded by various
types of observation. I seem to recall you soundly rejected the
observations which explains your current wishing and hoping that a new
x-ray telescope will find what everything else has excluded to high
confidence.


Let's see the observational results, due in 1-6 months if all goes
well, and then have an intelligent and objective discussion about
their implications.

RLOhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Sorry Robert, you have tried that game before which is why folks don't
play it with you anymore.

Back in September or there-abouts you were posting a ton about how
stellar and planetary masses were quantized. Using actual
observational data from various surveys, your numerology was falsified
(again). But you were claiming that you were indeed interested in what
the data had to say, but as of yet we have seen absolutely nothing
from you! Have you looked at the Kepler data that falsifies your
quantized planetary mass claims? How about the eclipsing binary data
that falsifies your quantized stellar mass claims?

So why should we punt the discussion ahead 6 months when we realize
that it is merely another one of your delaying tactics you use when
the argument has not gone in your favor?