Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Generic WIMPs Ruled Out
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert L. Oldershaw
Nov 24, 2011, 9:51:31 PM11/24/11
to
Slated for publication in the Dec.1, 2011 issue of Physical review
Letters.
Authors state" "This is the first time that we can exclude generic
WIMP particles that could account for the abundance of dark matter in
the universe," Koushiappas said.
Research indicates that putative WIMP particles must have mass > 40
GeV.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123133626.htm
Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
Especially ones that have empirical support already.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
eric gisse
Nov 27, 2011, 3:35:00 AM11/27/11
to
"Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:19c80279-
d838-4257-847...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> Especially ones that have empirical support already.
Such as?
Your numerology has been conclusively ruled out by observation, and "black
holes as dark matter" nearly completely so as the surviving allowed mass
range is very tiny now.
Neutrinos? Toast for years.
MOND / other modified gravity theories? Don't work at the large scale.
Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
[...]
d838-4257-847...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> Especially ones that have empirical support already.
Your numerology has been conclusively ruled out by observation, and "black
holes as dark matter" nearly completely so as the surviving allowed mass
range is very tiny now.
Neutrinos? Toast for years.
MOND / other modified gravity theories? Don't work at the large scale.
Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
[...]
Anon E. Mouse
Nov 29, 2011, 6:44:17 AM11/29/11
to
On Nov 27, 4:35=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:19c80279-
> d838-4257-8477-368c14c04...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
of the universe, why do we continue to expect to feel its mass
attraction?
If gravitation propagates in the same manner as light then it is
reasonable to suppose that we have simply left quite a bit of mass/
energy and its associated gravitation field strength in our wake.
Doesn't mean its actually missing, just left behind.
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:19c80279-
> d838-4257-8477-368c14c04...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> [...]
>
> > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> Such as?
>
> Your numerology has been conclusively ruled out by observation, and "blac=
> [...]
>
> > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> Such as?
>
k
> holes as dark matter" nearly completely so as the surviving allowed mass
> range is very tiny now.
>
> Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
> MOND / other modified gravity theories? Don't work at the large scale.
>
> Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
>
> [...]
If we can no longer observe any of the original light from the origins
> holes as dark matter" nearly completely so as the surviving allowed mass
> range is very tiny now.
>
> Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
> MOND / other modified gravity theories? Don't work at the large scale.
>
> Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
>
> [...]
of the universe, why do we continue to expect to feel its mass
attraction?
If gravitation propagates in the same manner as light then it is
reasonable to suppose that we have simply left quite a bit of mass/
energy and its associated gravitation field strength in our wake.
Doesn't mean its actually missing, just left behind.
ANS
Dec 1, 2011, 9:46:46 PM12/1/11
to
I think that while you are raising an interesting point, it does not
address the "missing mass" problem.The problem is that there is more
mass than can be accounted for by visible means. Presumably, the same
mass "left behind" gravitationally would also not be visible to us, so
the ratio of visible mass to "invisible" mass should be unaffected by
this (and even if it were affected, the mechanism suggests to me the
opposite effect). Apart from that, this seems like a cosmological
mechanism whereas the "missing mass" is more a "local" phenomenon in
that it pertains to individual galaxies and galaxy clusters, not so
much to the Universe as a whole.
Armin
Anon E. Mouse
Dec 16, 2011, 9:03:56 AM12/16/11
to
On Dec 1, 10:46=A0pm, ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 6:44 am, "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 4:35=3DA0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 6:44 am, "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:19c8027=
9-
> > > d838-4257-8477-368c14c04...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > > > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > > Your numerology has been conclusively ruled out by observation, and "=
> > > d838-4257-8477-368c14c04...@w15g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > > > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> > > Such as?
>
blac=3D
> > k
> > > holes as dark matter" nearly completely so as the surviving allowed m=
ass
> > > range is very tiny now.
>
> > > Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
> > > MOND / other modified gravity theories? Don't work at the large scale=
> > > range is very tiny now.
>
> > > Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
>
> > > Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
>
> > > [...]
>
> > If we can no longer observe any of the original light from the origins
> > of the universe, why do we continue to expect to feel its mass
> > attraction?
>
> > If gravitation propagates in the same manner as light then it is
> > reasonable to suppose that we have simply left quite a bit of mass/
> > energy and its associated gravitation field strength in our wake.
> > Doesn't mean its actually missing, just left behind.
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that while you are raising an interesting point, it does not
> address the "missing mass" problem.The problem is that there is more
> mass than can be accounted for by visible means. Presumably, the same
> mass "left behind" gravitationally would also not be visible to us, so
> the ratio of visible mass to "invisible" mass should be unaffected by
> this (and even if it were affected, the mechanism suggests to me the
> opposite effect). Apart from that, this seems like a cosmological
> mechanism whereas the "missing mass" is more a "local" phenomenon in
> that it pertains to individual galaxies and galaxy clusters, not so
> much to the Universe as a whole.
>
> Armin
I think your critique is on point.
> > > Please, what do you think has a shot at the title?
>
> > > [...]
>
> > If we can no longer observe any of the original light from the origins
> > of the universe, why do we continue to expect to feel its mass
> > attraction?
>
> > If gravitation propagates in the same manner as light then it is
> > reasonable to suppose that we have simply left quite a bit of mass/
> > energy and its associated gravitation field strength in our wake.
> > Doesn't mean its actually missing, just left behind.
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that while you are raising an interesting point, it does not
> address the "missing mass" problem.The problem is that there is more
> mass than can be accounted for by visible means. Presumably, the same
> mass "left behind" gravitationally would also not be visible to us, so
> the ratio of visible mass to "invisible" mass should be unaffected by
> this (and even if it were affected, the mechanism suggests to me the
> opposite effect). Apart from that, this seems like a cosmological
> mechanism whereas the "missing mass" is more a "local" phenomenon in
> that it pertains to individual galaxies and galaxy clusters, not so
> much to the Universe as a whole.
>
> Armin
The virial theorem appears to be based on classical mechanics Clausis
(1870) and assumes an independent and thus a non-cummulative and non-
disappative action which is inconsistent with either field theory
where action at a near distance accumulates or relativity where action
at a far distance dissipates.
In Zawicky(1933) an excess of mass attraction was inferred using
classical mechanics. The same calculation based on a field theory
model like relativity should show that the field deformation of
several masses is greater that the field deformation of each
individual mass due the self action of the masses upon the field (Same
for Maxwell).
On the other hand, the limitations upon the action of gravitation
implied by either Einstien (1905) or Lorentz should account for the
dissipation of effectiveness in mass attraction now modeled as a
cosmological constant or a dark energy.
The robust successes of the curved field models such as relativity and
electro-dynamics to me clearly demonstrates that forced flat models
like Lamda CMD or Zawicky's virial assumption will in an of themselves
create distortions that cause misunderstandings.
In my preceding post I did incorrectly attribute a proposed effect of
dark energy to dark matter and I was wrong. Your critic was valid and
very helpful.
Thank you
AAG
raymond
Jan 11, 2012, 3:12:03 AM1/11/12
to
On Nov 27 2011, 3:35=A0am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote
> > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> Such as?
>
> Neutrinos? Toast for years.
> > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> Such as?
>
>
oh yeah?
so what is your explanation on the effects of hot dark matter
going through the extremely cold dark vacuums of space?
r.y
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jan 13, 2012, 5:39:55 PM1/13/12
to
In article
<6709376f-7357-443d...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
I'm not really sure what raymond is referring to here. The "toast for
years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
<6709376f-7357-443d...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
raymond
Jan 15, 2012, 4:14:18 AM1/15/12
to
On Jan 13, 5:39 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <6709376f-7357-443d-ba8c-6a5b63e4f...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> raymond <b...@birdband.net> writes:
> > On Nov 27 2011, 3:35 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrot=
I wonder if there is any chance that neutrinos can slow down
In extreme cold temperatures. Non relativistic neutrinos
do have a better shut for dark matter than many other proposed
particles.
r.y
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <6709376f-7357-443d-ba8c-6a5b63e4f...@t13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> raymond <b...@birdband.net> writes:
> > On Nov 27 2011, 3:35 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> > > "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote
> > > > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > > > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > > Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
> > oh yeah?
> > so what is your explanation on the effects of hot dark matter
> > going through the extremely cold dark vacuums of space?
>
> I'm not really sure what raymond is referring to here. The "toast for
> years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
> narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
> of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
The Bose Einstein condensates effects but over hot dark matter.
> > > "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote
> > > > Perhaps it is time to consider alternative dark matter candidates.
> > > > Especially ones that have empirical support already.
>
> > > Such as?
>
> > > Neutrinos? Toast for years.
>
> > oh yeah?
> > so what is your explanation on the effects of hot dark matter
> > going through the extremely cold dark vacuums of space?
>
> I'm not really sure what raymond is referring to here. The "toast for
> years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
> narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
> of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
I wonder if there is any chance that neutrinos can slow down
In extreme cold temperatures. Non relativistic neutrinos
do have a better shut for dark matter than many other proposed
particles.
r.y
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Jan 15, 2012, 7:03:31 AM1/15/12
to
In article
<a245285c-4eaf-4541...@n30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
are too small to enable them to make up a substantial portion of dark
matter, what properties of neutrinos make them better dark-matter
candidates?
<a245285c-4eaf-4541...@n30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
raymond <b...@birdband.net> writes:
> > I'm not really sure what raymond is referring to here. The "toast for
> > years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
> > narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
> > of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
>
> The Bose Einstein condensates effects but over hot dark matter.
> I wonder if there is any chance that neutrinos can slow down
> In extreme cold temperatures. Non relativistic neutrinos
> do have a better shut for dark matter than many other proposed
> particles.
Ignoring for now the fact that, as mentioned above, the neutrino masses
> > I'm not really sure what raymond is referring to here. The "toast for
> > years" refers to the fact that now that the neutrino masses have been
> > narrowed down, we know that they cannot make up a substantial fraction
> > of dark matter (hot, cold, whatever).
>
> The Bose Einstein condensates effects but over hot dark matter.
> I wonder if there is any chance that neutrinos can slow down
> In extreme cold temperatures. Non relativistic neutrinos
> do have a better shut for dark matter than many other proposed
> particles.
are too small to enable them to make up a substantial portion of dark
matter, what properties of neutrinos make them better dark-matter
candidates?
0 new messages