#1
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
There are no (within 95% CL)
WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes: There are no (within 95% CL) WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:03:51 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote:
There are no (within 95% CL) WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 ---------------------------------------------------- In light of Helbig's reaction, I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized away in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole practitioner of this type of reasoning which typifies the theoretical branches of particle physics and cosmology these days. Can the "WIMP" conjecture make a definitive prediction and stand by it, or is it pure pseudo-science? Robert L. Oldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
Le 31/05/13 14:39, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :
In article , "Richard D. Saam" writes: There are no (within 95% CL) WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay. OK, they do not travel at high speeds, wimps go leisurely around, and the interaction between them and this universe is highly difficult, possible only in some specialized environment: living beings. Since this invisible matter is heavier than our matter, it can gravitationally influence a solution, guiding slowly dissolved components into more concentrated areas. If that kind of matter can control its density, it can acquire any gravitational field it wants, what allows it in principle, to guide atoms to specific places, where prepared reactions take place. A black hole the size of an atom, made of that kind of matter can guide accurately an atom to any place it wants. Using just CO2, some solution containing enough raw materials, it can start a self-sustaining living thing in a new planet. Those kind of interactions of dark matter with normal matter are maybe more interesting than just looking for a simple cross-section annihilation reaction. In any case it is a good sci-fi start isn't it? Because we are just like a group of blind people extending their arms and trying to figure out an elephant. That matter must be HERE. But where? :-) jacob at jacob punkt remcomp punkt fr |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/3/2013 7:10 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2013 2:03:51 AM UTC-4, Richard D. Saam wrote: There are no (within 95% CL) WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 In light of Helbig's reaction, NB: Philip commented: (why doesn't Robert quote this?) "Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay." I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized away ... You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS, which can of course not be falsified by not observing them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question! ... in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole practitioner of this type of reasoning Not surprising. As I said, it's pure logic. -- Jos |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/3/2013 3:11 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS, which can of course not be falsified by not observing them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question! simply by finding what it's made of????? would you care to break down your "pure logic" a bit further? [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple: practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: In light of Helbig's reaction, I am left wondering if "WIMPs" are completely unfalsifiable since it appears that any failed prediction can be rationalized away in the Helbig manner. Note that Helbig is hardly the sole practitioner of this type of reason Can the "WIMP" conjecture make a definitive prediction and stand by it, or is it pure pseudo-science? Lest anyone think I am dead, I have decided to stop replying to RLO's comments, especially since his own DSR is the prime example of a theory for which---as has been pointed out here and elsewhere many times---a definitive prediction has been falsified, hence ruling out the theory. RLO then claims that the theory has a backup prediction which hasn't been falsified, which of course is what he criticises elsewhere, even when---as here---it is not the case (there has never been a definitive prediction such as "if dark matter consists of WIMPs, then they must annihilate or decay at a rate detectable with current technology"). So, RLO has not convinced me, but rather---especially when name-calling is brought into it---I see no point in investing any more time in this; even for bystanders but not participants, enough has been said for all to make up their minds. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
In article , Jos Bergervoet
writes: In light of Helbig's reaction, NB: Philip commented: (why doesn't Robert quote this?) Surely a rhetorical question. "Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On Monday, June 3, 2013 4:11:54 AM UTC-4, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
You have to discern between (1) the *existence* of WIMPS, which can of course not be falsified by not observing them and (2) WIMPS being the main components of dark matter, which *can* be falsified simply by finding what it is made of instead. Pure logic answers your question! ------------------------------------------------ Unless it is pretzel logic! (1) We have been searching fruitlessly for "WIMPs" for 40 years! If this can go on forever, with a "maybe the next experiment, maybe the next experiment, maybe..." mentality, then the ad hoc hypothesis is not falsifiable. Do you get it? If your dogma is "search until you find, and not finding is not considered a possibility" then you do not have falsifiable science. You have effectively unfalsifiable pseudo-science. (2) If there is strong observational evidence for another dark matter candidate, then it is possible that "WIMP" adherents might give up, but I strongly doubt it. Rather they would peck the competing empirical evidence to death, modify the "WIMP" properties, and claim it was still the "leading candidate". No my friend. If you want real dark matter science you must say exactly what the dark matter is! Saying it is some weakly interacting particle does not cut it because the parameter space is effectively infinite. If you cannot say what the exact masses of the individual DM objects are, then you know nothing about the DM and have no scientific prediction. Beware glib answers. Science requires much more thought and skepticism. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 5/31/13 7:39 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
In article , "Richard D. Saam" writes: There are no (within 95% CL) WIMP annihilation cross sections and decay lifetimes as measured by FERMI LAT that could contribute to dark matter. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 Note that this says nothing about the viability of WIMPs as dark matter. It could be that they neither annihilate nor decay. It must also be noted that reported FERMI LAT energy detection range is 5 - 300 GeV. It is conceivable that WIMP annihilation and decay energies could be outside that range. What energies are the underground (old mine shafts etc) large volumetric fluid detection systems tuned to? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DarkAttack2012 Conference: NO "WIMPs"! | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 1 | July 20th 12 07:04 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 |
Constraints on WIMPs as Dark Matter. | dlzc | Astronomy Misc | 4 | August 24th 11 03:21 PM |
Xenon100: No "WIMPs" | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | April 14th 11 09:39 AM |