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

Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no-
shows for so-called "WIMPs".

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753

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

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology

On 6/7/2012 10:55 AM, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no-
shows for so-called "WIMPs".

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753

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

As soon as it is conclusively proven, I would
expect! If, for instance, some exotic form of
matter is found (which is *not* made up of
subatomic particles) and in addition this exotic
stuff is shown to be present in the right
amount to account for the gravity effects we
observe..

But until then, a good attitude would be to
allow the possibility of dark matter consisting
of subatomic particles, like all the other
matter we know. (BTW: where exactly did nature
indicate otherwise?)

--
Jos

On Thu, 07 Jun 12 09:56:45 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
But until then, a good attitude would be to allow the possibility
of dark matter consisting of subatomic particles, like all the
other matter we know.

And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter",
because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between
model and observation.

On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 12 09:56:45 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
But until then, a good attitude would be to allow the possibility
of dark matter consisting of subatomic particles, like all the
other matter we know.

And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter",
because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between
model and observation.

Which way?

Does the cosmological model have more
matter than is astronomically observed?

Or does the nucleosynthesis model give
less matter than cosmologically observed?

And do you know a better name? Would "dark
mass" (together with "dark energy") give
more clarity?

--
Jos

On Thu, 07 Jun 12 15:15:51 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote:
And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter",
because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between
model and observation.

Does the cosmological model have more
matter than is astronomically observed?

Yes, nominally the observed is 0.27 of budget.

And do you know a better name? Would "dark mass" (together with
"dark energy") give more clarity?

No, just as bad. Maybe they should throw a competition to find better
words for these.

Eric

"Eric Flesch" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jun 12 15:15:51 GMT, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/7/2012 2:41 PM, Eric Flesch wrote:
And this is why I have complained about the term "dark matter",
because people then think it's matter, when it's just the gap between
model and observation.

Does the cosmological model have more
matter than is astronomically observed?

Yes, nominally the observed is 0.27 of budget.

And do you know a better name? Would "dark mass" (together with
"dark energy") give more clarity?

No, just as bad. Maybe they should throw a competition to find better
words for these.

Eric

"it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any science
without at the same time improving the science itself; neither can we, on
the other hand, improve a science, without improving the language or
nomenclature which belongs to it."


From Lavoisier's preface to "Elements of Chemistry"

On Jun 7, 3:55*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
Latest results from CMS at the LHC continue the 40-year record of no-
shows for so-called "WIMPs".

http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.0753

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

Since we don't have a solid theory of baryogenesis and since the
standard model is expected to break down at the ~TeV range and since
CMB fits have consistently had an extra neutrino species as a one
standard deviation result, I believe there's some room to maneuver
when it comes to explaining dark matter with particle physics. I'm
curious to see whether that result will carry through the Planck data
analysis...

On the other hand, the bulk of dark matter is rather conclusively not
in the form of black holes.

The fact of the matter is that you aren't going to convince anyone of
your position by ranting about WIMPs. It is one possibility among
many, and even the temr itself covers a large set of possibilities.
Perhaps there's a reason you are finding difficulties in regards to
getting anyone to take you and your simplistic rants seriously?

By the way, have you yet managed to show that stellar masses are
quantized using the data sets I gave you nearly a year ago? Or are you
still in the "ignore data that I don't like" phase?


Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology

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 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.

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.

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity

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.

Note that it is not enough to find some black holes. The numbers and
masses have to add up to enough to account for at least a substantial
fraction of the dark matter.

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

So what? The LHC does many things. It is not there primarily to find
WIMPs or whatever.

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

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.