Re: Which Mysteries Might MACHOs and PLANCHOs Solve?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> The recent discovery of an estimated 400 billion unbound
> planetary-mass objects in the Galaxy, and previous evidence
> for stellar-mass microlenses, prompt the following comments.
What previous evidence for stellar mass microlenses? You keep bringing
this up but lack literature references.
> If the Galaxy has huge populations of unbound ultracompact objects
> with masses in the 0.1 to 1.0 solar mass range (MACHOs) and
> Neptune/Jupiter mass range (PLANCHOs), then several key
> astrophysical enigmas might be solved by their existence.
> A partial list of those mysteries that MACHOs and
> PLANCHOs might explain would include the following.
> The composition of the galactic dark matter
Which brings up more questions than it solves, if you think about it
for a moment.
1) How can baryonic dark matter leave an imprint on the CMB, and take
place in large scale structure formation _as_ the first stars are
forming?
2) How can this kind of baryonic dark matter completely escape the
SuperMACHO survey which was specifically designed to look for these
events?
3) How can all these objects escape detection by infrared surveys?
4) How did all these objects form?
> The ubiquitous 1-100 day variability of quasars
Uh, no. The variability is not due to lensing.
> The factor of 6 excess in the ARCADE 2 radio background observations
Factor of 6 relative to what?
> The origin of cosmic rays
Which cosmic rays? There's a spectrum that spans about 23 orders of
magnitude.
> The composition of the recently discovered infrared-faint radio
> transients
> A significant unidentified component of the X-ray background
> A significant unidentified component of the Gamma-ray background
> Ubiquitous Gamma-ray burst phenomena
> The origin of ubiquitous unidentified optical transients
So these objects are bright in the radio, IR, optical, X-ray, and
gamma portions of the spectrum?
Are you SURE you understand what 'dark matter' means?
> It would seem prudent at this point to put as much effort into the
> dark matter search for “primordial” Kerr-Newman ultracompact
> objects as has been expended in the unsuccessful 35-year effort
> to find any form of “WIMP” or exotic particle dark matter.
People have looked for primordial black holes, as a trivial literature
search would reveal. Nada.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> What previous evidence for stellar mass microlenses? You keep bringing
> this up but lack literature references.
There are so many incorrect statements in your post that I am not sure
that an answer is warranted. Anyone who has followed the
microlensing, dark matter and Discrete Scale Relativity literature
would readily realize your mistakes.
However, since there may be people out there who are not quite up-to-
date on the literature, but have an open mind and sincerely wish to
explore nature, I list the main errors in your post.
1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
"MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the years
2004 to 2011.
2. The MACHOs and PLANCHOs are NOT BARYONIC objects. I repeat NOT
BARYONIC. They do not run afoul of metals abundance constraints like
baryonic dark matter would.
3. These Kerr-Newman ultracompacts are extremely faint at all
wavelengths, unless actively accreting. Because of their huge numbers,
the faint emissions at various wavelengths add up to a faint
unidentified background. Why is this so hard to understand? It's basic
black hole physics.
4. You state that quasar variability is not due to lensing. There are
many published papers by astrophysicists disagreeing with you. What
have you published to counter their science? A summary dismissal of an
idea, without any evidence, is not scientific reasoning.
5. The ARCADE 2 results are a major discovery that needs to be
explained. This is fully accepted in the astrophysics community. You
need to study up on this major unexpected radio background excess. A
serious scientifc candidate for its origin, AS PREPOSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL I NVESTIGATOR OF THE RESEARCH, is a huge population of
primordial black holes.
6. The Kerr-Newman ultracompact objects would make excellent
candidates for the "dark accelerators" that can generate the full
spectrum of cosmic ray particles. Most importantly they are the only
candidate I know of that can generate the highest energy cosmic rays
and large abundances of Fe nuclei among the high-energy CRs.
7. You claim that people have looked for primordial black holes and
found none. I claim there is published evidence for trillions of them.
This issue will be definitively decided by various astrophysical
research efforts that are ongoing, and that I have listed in several
places. To claim that the issue has been settled, as you repeatedly
do, indicates unscientific reasoning and/or inadequate knowledge of
the subject matter.
8. The old paradigm definitively predicts that the dark matter is in
the form of subatomic particles. Discrete Scale Relativity
definitively predicts that the dark matter is in the form of
"primordial" Kerr-Newman ultracompacts, with major peaks in the mass
pectrum at 8 x 10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58 solar masses.
These highly contradictory and mutually exclusive predictions form the
basis of a perfect scientific test of the two paradigms. One will be
right; and one will be wrong.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology
Eric Gisse
wrote:
> On May 24, 8:21 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What previous evidence for stellar mass microlenses? You keep bringing
> > this up but lack literature references.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are so many incorrect statements in your post that I am not sure
> that an answer is warranted. Anyone who has followed the
> microlensing, dark matter and Discrete Scale Relativity literature
> would readily realize your mistakes.
>
> However, since there may be people out there who are not quite up-to-
> date on the literature, but have an open mind and sincerely wish to
> explore nature, I list the main errors in your post.
>
> 1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
> published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
> "MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the years
> 2004 to 2011.
Ok.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409167
SuperMACHO microlensing survey of the Large Magellanic Cloud. Did not
find such claimed stellar-mass microlenses.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2044
OGLE-II microlensing survey of the LMC again. Two microlensing events
found, neither are supportive of stellar mass microlenses.
Extrapolation implies ~6 +/-8 % of dark matter, at a 1 sigma result.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0607207
EROS-II microlensing survey of the LMC/SMC.
"More generally, machos in the mass range 0.6 в 10-7M_sun < M <
15M_sun are ruled out as the primary occupants of the Milky Way Halo."
This is the danger of asking me to do your research for you, Robert.
If you have specific evidence you think should be read, post it.
Rather than being cute with the 'do my research for you' attitude.
>
> 2. The MACHOs and PLANCHOs are NOT BARYONIC objects. I repeat NOT
> BARYONIC. They do not run afoul of metals abundance constraints like
> baryonic dark matter would.
You are now simultaneously claiming that free-roaming exoplanets are
not baryonic objects, but are still responsible for the Hot Jupiter
phenomena.
Pick an argument and stick with it. Don't make it up as you go along.
>
> 3. These Kerr-Newman ultracompacts are extremely faint at all
> wavelengths, unless actively accreting. Because of their huge numbers,
> the faint emissions at various wavelengths add up to a faint
> unidentified background. Why is this so hard to understand? It's basic
> black hole physics.
I'm quite familiar with 'basic black hole physics'. Save the
patronizing tone for those who deserve it.
A few things are implied by your claim. Accretion of matter by a black
hole has a radiative efficiency of ~10%, subject to spin of the black
hole. Black holes roaming the galaxy would make mincemeat out the
ambient hydrogen population, and convert it into a nice warm but
somewhat intermittent glow. Especially since the required mass content
is a significant fraction of the overall mass content of the galaxy.
If you, for example, take a look at the various X-ray and Gamma survey
maps of the galaxy you'll note a lack of discrete points outside the
plane of the galaxy that cannot be optically linked to known objects.
If what you said were true, there would be a substantial glow
_EVERYWHERE_ rather than just a low level background. Not just in the
gamma and X-ray, but in the radio too.
And the glow would have hot spots that are variable, subject to what
the black holes are currently eating. Instead we have a nice low level
background.
There are other considerations...where did all those black holes come
from? Plus a population of _that many_ black holes within the galaxy
[and without, you demand _lots_] would have a likely frequent amount
of inspiral events from black hole mergers, something LIGO has not
seen.
>
> 4. You state that quasar variability is not due to lensing. There are
> many published papers by astrophysicists disagreeing with you. What
> have you published to counter their science? A summary dismissal of an
> idea, without any evidence, is not scientific reasoning.
Because variability in quasars is a fairly common phenomena. Also,
because gravitational lensing leaves a very unique signature: multiple
images.
If you have research that indicates that the general phenomena of
variability in quasars is due to lensing by local objects, I'd love to
see it. Why don't you show the references that you claim I am
dismissing?
>
> 5. The ARCADE 2 results are a major discovery that needs to be
> explained. This is fully accepted in the astrophysics community. You
> need to study up on this major unexpected radio background excess. A
> serious scientifc candidate for its origin, AS PREPOSED BY THE
> PRINCIPAL I NVESTIGATOR OF THE RESEARCH, is a huge population of
> primordial black holes.
The top search on google for arcade 2 and primordial black holes is
your own goddamn comment on a physicsworld article. Your penchant for
self-referencing continues with wild abandon.
There is a curious lack of serious push for primordial black holes as
an explanation, which is baffling because you emphasize how strongly
you consider this to be a viable option BY YOUR USE OF CAPS LOCK.
Perhaps you have literature references that you just didn't feel like
sharing?
>
> 6. The Kerr-Newman ultracompact objects would make excellent
> candidates for the "dark accelerators" that can generate the full
> spectrum of cosmic ray particles.
If by "excellent" you mean "completely terrible", then I agree with
you.
Black holes in isolation are not responsible for a single thing. You
need an accretion disk and the associated GRMHD trickery to get jets,
which we do not even have an adequate handle on yet. Which, no matter
how you figure it, is not responsible for much - if any - of the
cosmic ray spectrum.
The strength of a black hole's effect is not inversely proportional to
its' mass. So considering Faraday rotation measurements of the average
field strength around Sgr A* are on the order of a tesla, what is your
mechanism for driving cosmic rays?
I'd love to see how you reconcile the requirement of the black holes
being quite silent, while being a cosmic ray factory.
> Most importantly they are the only
> candidate I know of that can generate the highest energy cosmic rays
> and large abundances of Fe nuclei among the high-energy CRs.
You would have been better served hoping I would forget recent
evidence suggests the cosmic ray nuclei are Iron as opposed to
Hydrogen. Iron makes the cosmic ray source more likely to be a
supernova and/or its' remnant.
Besides, you do not have a viable mechanism.
>
> 7. You claim that people have looked for primordial black holes and
> found none. I claim there is published evidence for trillions of them.
That would be news to a LOT of people.
Where is your evidence? I'm growing weary of you making dramatic and
extraordinary claims without any citations.
> This issue will be definitively decided by various astrophysical
> research efforts that are ongoing, and that I have listed in several
> places.
Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you
claim published evidence for 'trillions', but on the other you shrug
and say "research is ongoing".
I'll stick with what I've seen: no evidence of primordial black holes.
The position is subject to change with the appearance of evidence, but
not before.
>To claim that the issue has been settled, as you repeatedly
> do, indicates unscientific reasoning and/or inadequate knowledge of
> the subject matter.
I have seen no such evidence indicating primordial black holes. I have
seen result of surveys that specifically looked for them, and found
none. You do not have the virtue of being right nearly often enough to
justify this level of arrogance.
I crossposted my reply here because you were being childish in
sci.physics.relativity. You continue to be childish by insulting my
intelligence. You have yet to show a SINGLE piece of evidence for any
of your claims you have made here, and that is rather telling.
>
> 8. The old paradigm definitively predicts that the dark matter is in
> the form of subatomic particles. Discrete Scale Relativity
> definitively predicts that the dark matter is in the form of
> "primordial" Kerr-Newman ultracompacts, with major peaks in the mass
> pectrum at 8 x 10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58 solar masses.
All of which are excluded by the surveys I have previously cited in
this thread and others.
>
> These highly contradictory and mutually exclusive predictions form the
> basis of a perfect scientific test of the two paradigms. One will be
> right; and one will be wrong.
I'm sure you have a very good and not at all self-serving reason to
ignore the exclusion of your theory by observation. I wonder how much
of it will rest on arguing 'but microlensing is hard stuff'.
>
> Robert L. Oldershawhttp://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> There are so many incorrect statements in your post that I am not sure
> that an answer is warranted. Anyone who has followed the
> microlensing, dark matter and Discrete Scale Relativity literature
> would readily realize your mistakes.
Note that the only DSR literature which exists is that at your website.
> 1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
> published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
> "MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the years
> 2004 to 2011.
Yes, but also well known are upper limits on the total mass of such
objects, which are too low for them to be the main component of dark
matter.
> 2. The MACHOs and PLANCHOs are NOT BARYONIC objects. I repeat NOT
> BARYONIC. They do not run afoul of metals abundance constraints like
> baryonic dark matter would.
There is absolutely no observational evidence for their composition.
Yes, if we believe BBNS then we know that most of the dark matter is not
baryons, but that is a different issue.
> 3. These Kerr-Newman ultracompacts
That makes it sound like they are well known objects. As far as I know,
you are the only person in the universe contemplating these things.
> 4. You state that quasar variability is not due to lensing. There are
> many published papers by astrophysicists disagreeing with you.
References please. Note that the claims by Hawkins have been thorougly
disproven in the literature.
> 8. The old paradigm definitively predicts that the dark matter is in
> the form of subatomic particles.
Wrong. It says NOTHING about the form it is in. There are
observational limits on some forms of it, though.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<jow...@gmail.com> writes:
> Because variability in quasars is a fairly common phenomena. Also,
> because gravitational lensing leaves a very unique signature: multiple
> images.
Not always. Weak lensing (by definition) doesn't produce multiple
images. Also, it is possible that multiple images are not resolved. At
first glance, microlensing can explain many features of much of the
long-term variability of QSOs (the original claim by Hawkins). However,
as I've pointed out (with references) here many times, it doesn't stand
up to a quantitative analysis.
eric gisse
wrote in news:mt2.0-14419...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
This is one of those times where I dialed back being correct to make a
point. I'm aware of the effects lensing has on an object.
Strong lensing makes multiple (5, iirc) images, which is a feat of
observation on a good day. But has overall a rather unique signature.
Weak lensing puts some shear into the image, which is rather much harder
to detect. I'm actually uncertain how you would detect weak lensing on a
single object in isolation. Given the inheritly statistical nature of
discerning weak lensing, the object would have to be big enough that you
could detect the shear (eg, not a point) you aren't going to be able to
discern weak lensing.
But weak lensing will distort the image, because it is weak. I have a
hard time reconciling the ability of weak lensing to merely distort an
image, and pull off lensing of enough strength to be confused as
intrinsic variability.
My argument is basically that chalking up quasar variability completely
(I do not disregard the possibility that *SOME* variability is by
lensing of passing objects) is a very large hurdle given the overall
quasar population and the required number of very massive objects that
would require. That number, of course, does not exactly mesh tightly
with various microlensing surveys.
Richard D. Saam
> On May 23, 9:47 am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"<rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> The composition of the galactic dark matter
>
> Which brings up more questions than it solves, if you think about it
> for a moment.
>
> 1) How can baryonic dark matter leave an imprint on the CMB, and take
> place in large scale structure formation _as_ the first stars are
> forming?
> 2) How can this kind of baryonic dark matter completely escape the
> SuperMACHO survey which was specifically designed to look for these
> events?
> 3) How can all these objects escape detection by infrared surveys?
> 4) How did all these objects form?
>
A recent report adds significance to the above questions
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4915
A Photometric Redshift of z ~ 9.4 for GRB 090429B
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Explosion_Helps_Researcher_Spot_Universe_Most_Distant_Object_999.html
The reported GRB 090429B object is at 13.14 Billion years
which is 13.72 - 13.14 = .58 billion years from the BB.
The first light CMBR is at .38 billion years
or .2 billion years earlier.
(13.14 billion years appears in the spacedaily report but not in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4915)
What is the relationship between 13.14 billion years and Red Shift 9.4
in the context that redshift of first light
is on the order of 3000/2.7 ~ 1100 ?
Richard D. Saam
Robert L. Oldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-29356-1306394...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
> Note that the only DSR literature which exists is that at your website.
At that website is a list of about 60 publications. Many of them are
directly or indirectly related to Discrete Scale Relativity. There is
also a recent paper entitled "Discrete Scale Relativity" published in
Astrophysics and Space Science.
So your statement is demonstrably false, and you know it.
> > 1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
> > published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
> > "MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the years
> > 2004 to 2011.
>
> Yes, but also well known are upper limits on the total mass of such
> objects, which are too low for them to be the main component of dark
> matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those limits are current inferences, not proven fact. If some of the
many assumptions that go into the the statistical limits are
wrong,then the number of MACHOs could be larger.
>
> > 2. The MACHOs and PLANCHOs are NOT BARYONIC objects. I repeat NOT
> > BARYONIC. They do not run afoul of metals abundance constraints like
> > baryonic dark matter would.
>
> There is absolutely no observational evidence for their composition.
> Yes, if we believe BBNS then we know that most of the dark matter is not
> baryons, but that is a different issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far all we know are the approximate masses of the objects. The
exact numbers and the physical states of the objects are still matters
of conjecture. DSR definitively predicts that they are primordial
ultracompacts, which are not baryonic.
> > 3. These Kerr-Newman ultracompacts
>
> That makes it sound like they are well known objects. As far as I know,
> you are the only person in the universe contemplating these things.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other astrophysicists have seriously considered primordial black holes
as a strong candidate population for the galactic dark matter. Just do
a search on "primordial black holes" at arxiv.org.
> > 4. You state that quasar variability is not due to lensing. There are
> > many published papers by astrophysicists disagreeing with you.
>
> References please. Note that the claims by Hawkins have been thorougly
> disproven in the literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing of the sort has been "disproven". You may strongly disagree
with the research of many authors who have discussed quasar
microlensing, but you cannot deny the existence of this research,
orscientifically that it has been disproven and can be summarily
dismissed.
Read Fractals 10(1) 27-38, 2002. In it I discuss and reference the
evidence you want to learn about. In that paper, there is also
numerous other forms of microlensing results that have been listed and
summarized in a very diagnostic graph.
> > 8. The old paradigm definitively predicts that the dark matter is in
> > the form of subatomic particles.
>
> Wrong. It says NOTHING about the form it is in. There are
> observational limits on some forms of it, though.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If what you say is true, then why does every formal and popular
article on standard cosmology and fundamental physics mention only
particle dark matter when the topic of dark matter comes up? Are
physicists suddenly thinking that it is time to start seriously
hedging their fully documented bets? Good luck on that.
eric gisse
news:mt2.0-27483...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
[...]
>> > 1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
>> > published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
>> > "MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the
>> > years 2004 to 2011.
>>
>> Yes, but also well known are upper limits on the total mass of such
>> objects, which are too low for them to be the main component of dark
>> matter.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Those limits are current inferences, not proven fact. If some of the
> many assumptions that go into the the statistical limits are
> wrong,then the number of MACHOs could be larger.
This is what is known as 'speaking out of both sides of your mouth', or
as you like to refer to it, 'hedging your bets'.
If you want to argue that the limits are mere 'inferences' rather than
anything in the neighborhood of reasonably conclusive given the
measurements have been multiply replicated, then you cannot argue that
they support you.
Your argument has to be used on all the relevant research, not just the
research that disproves your theory. For example, the Jupiter mass MACHO
population. I guess that is just a current inference and not a 'proven
fact' [you know that there is no such thing in science, right?] so it
doesn't support you all that much anyway.
Now, going back to the actual research we have the SuperMACHO and OGLE
I,II,III surveys. Plus the ones I've forgotten or just do not know about.
How many conclusive surveys does it take before you admit your theory
does not match observation? If the answer is anything other than 'this
many', you are not doing science.
[...]
>> > 3. These Kerr-Newman ultracompacts
>>
>> That makes it sound like they are well known objects. As far as I
>> know, you are the only person in the universe contemplating these
>> things.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Other astrophysicists have seriously considered primordial black holes
> as a strong candidate population for the galactic dark matter. Just do
> a search on "primordial black holes" at arxiv.org.
Yes, Robert, the theory has been considered. However primordial black
holes, at least on the mass scale you need, do not exist. How do I know?
Because of *multiple* microlensing surveys specifically intended to look
for them have not found them.
A search on arXiv found those surveys, so the 'Do my research for me'
gambit failed you pretty hard there. Perhaps you have specific literature
references in mind?
>
>
>> > 4. You state that quasar variability is not due to lensing. There
>> > are many published papers by astrophysicists disagreeing with you.
>>
>> References please. Note that the claims by Hawkins have been
>> thorougly disproven in the literature.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Nothing of the sort has been "disproven". You may strongly disagree
> with the research of many authors who have discussed quasar
> microlensing, but you cannot deny the existence of this research,
> orscientifically that it has been disproven and can be summarily
> dismissed.
Your conspiratorial attitude is both unwelcome and unhelpful. Hawkins'
articles on quasar variability have been cited many times over the past
20 years, and have been published in high impact journals such as Nature.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411348
Take a look.
>
> Read Fractals 10(1) 27-38, 2002. In it I discuss and reference the
> evidence you want to learn about. In that paper, there is also
> numerous other forms of microlensing results that have been listed and
> summarized in a very diagnostic graph.
Have there been any citations of your article in articles other than your
own?
>
>
>> > 8. The old paradigm definitively predicts that the dark matter is
>> > in the form of subatomic particles.
>>
>> Wrong. It says NOTHING about the form it is in. There are
>> observational limits on some forms of it, though.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> If what you say is true, then why does every formal and popular
> article on standard cosmology and fundamental physics mention only
> particle dark matter when the topic of dark matter comes up?
The microlensing observations rather conclusively exclude a composition
based upon highly massive objects. The surveys of which you like to
ignore but cannot find fault in.
None of this information is new to you.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<jowr.pi...@gmail.com> writes:
> This is one of those times where I dialed back being correct to make a
> point. I'm aware of the effects lensing has on an object.
>
> Strong lensing makes multiple (5, iirc) images, which is a feat of
> observation on a good day. But has overall a rather unique signature.
>
> Weak lensing puts some shear into the image, which is rather much harder
> to detect. I'm actually uncertain how you would detect weak lensing on a
> single object in isolation. Given the inheritly statistical nature of
> discerning weak lensing, the object would have to be big enough that you
> could detect the shear (eg, not a point) you aren't going to be able to
> discern weak lensing.
>
> But weak lensing will distort the image, because it is weak. I have a
> hard time reconciling the ability of weak lensing to merely distort an
> image, and pull off lensing of enough strength to be confused as
> intrinsic variability.
In general, quasar variability due to lensing (assuming it exists) is
due to microlensing. This is strong lensing, in that multiple images
exist, but they are not resolved. Quasars are essentially point sources
in the optical, so any distortion of the image is not relevant.
> My argument is basically that chalking up quasar variability completely
> (I do not disregard the possibility that *SOME* variability is by
> lensing of passing objects) is a very large hurdle given the overall
> quasar population and the required number of very massive objects that
> would require. That number, of course, does not exactly mesh tightly
> with various microlensing surveys.
Right.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > Note that the only DSR literature which exists is that at your website.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At that website is a list of about 60 publications. Many of them are
> directly or indirectly related to Discrete Scale Relativity. There is
> also a recent paper entitled "Discrete Scale Relativity" published in
> Astrophysics and Space Science.
By whom? Is it also about YOUR discrete-scale relativity? (Not that
A&SS doesn't have the best of reputations.)
> > > 1. The evidence for stellar-mass microlenses is well-known and
> > > published in scores of papers. Just do a search using the term
> > > "MACHOs" in the title, or "microlensing", at arxiv.org for the years
> > > 2004 to 2011.
> >
> > Yes, but also well known are upper limits on the total mass of such
> > objects, which are too low for them to be the main component of dark
> > matter.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Those limits are current inferences, not proven fact. If some of the
> many assumptions that go into the the statistical limits are
> wrong,then the number of MACHOs could be larger.
This is an argument which is worthless, since it could be applied to
ANYTHING. It is your job to show what assumptions are wrong. Below,
however, with DSR, you say it "definitely predicts". Same rules for
everyone, please.
> So far all we know are the approximate masses of the objects. The
> exact numbers and the physical states of the objects are still matters
> of conjecture.
We also have upper limits on the total mass of such objects.
> Other astrophysicists have seriously considered primordial black holes
> as a strong candidate population for the galactic dark matter. Just do
> a search on "primordial black holes" at arxiv.org.
Right, 30 years ago. They have abandoned hypotheses which are now ruled
out by observations.
> Nothing of the sort has been "disproven". You may strongly disagree
> with the research of many authors who have discussed quasar
> microlensing, but you cannot deny the existence of this research,
> orscientifically that it has been disproven and can be summarily
> dismissed.
First, I have never denied its existence. Second, if something is
disproven by a later paper, it is disproven. You can't continue to cite
the old paper, ignoring improvements since then.
> If what you say is true, then why does every formal and popular
> article on standard cosmology and fundamental physics mention only
> particle dark matter when the topic of dark matter comes up?
Maybe because, since many other candidates have been ruled out, it is a
more viable remaining candidate. But a) this doesn't mean there are no
others and b) the "paradigm" never "predicted only particle dark
matter".
Robert L. Oldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-27483-1306567...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that we are going round and round in the same circles
that we have set out long ago. So the circles are getting badly
rutted. What's the point in the exercise now? See below.
I make three final points.
1. The inferred observation of a large population of unbound planetary-
mass objects in the MWG is a major new finding. Exactly how this piece
of evidence fits into the dark matter puzzle remains to be seen.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicted such a population, and predicts
exactly how it fits into the dark matter puzzle. Nature will reveal
whether or not DSR is right about this.
2. If you substitute "WIMPs" for "MACHOs"in the same discussions, I
suspect that the arguments about what can be ruled out and when it is
reasonable to hold out hope for the relevant candidate would suddenly
be inverted. Very amusing, don't you think?
3. Direct quotation from Leonard Susskind: "One of the deepest lessons
we have learned over the past decade is that there is no fundamental
difference between elementary particles and black holes." Amen, but
DSR was there in 1985.
Robert L.Oldershaw
http://www3.amhesrt.edu/~rloldershaw
eric gisse
> On May 29, 9:02 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>> In article <mt2.0-27483-1306567...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Robert L.
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> It seems to me that we are going round and round in the same circles
> that we have set out long ago. So the circles are getting badly
> rutted. What's the point in the exercise now? See below.
>
> I make three final points.
>
> 1. The inferred observation of a large population of unbound
> planetary- mass objects in the MWG is a major new finding. Exactly how
> this piece of evidence fits into the dark matter puzzle remains to be
> seen.
Existing MACHO surveys (you've been given many, many references)
eliminate the possibility of dark matter being comprised of such objects
over a fairly large mass scale (10^-5 M_sun to 100 M_sun).
The actual research you refer to gives around 2 ~Jupiter mass planets per
star, which seems a bit high to me. But taking it at face value, that'd
be at most a few percent of the overall dark matter mass budget.
What "remains to be seen" ?
>Discrete Scale Relativity predicted such a population, and
> predicts exactly how it fits into the dark matter puzzle. Nature will
> reveal whether or not DSR is right about this.
Yeah, and DSR (I hate referring to numerology as if it were a proper
thing) has been shown to be incorrect. How many microlensing surveys does
it take?
>
> 2. If you substitute "WIMPs" for "MACHOs"in the same discussions, I
> suspect that the arguments about what can be ruled out and when it is
> reasonable to hold out hope for the relevant candidate would suddenly
> be inverted. Very amusing, don't you think?
A large amount of WIMP-based theories have already been ruled out, or at
least constrained down to 'unlikely', by dark matter searches.
And no, arguing about WIMPs does not make your theory more likely.
>
> 3. Direct quotation from Leonard Susskind: "One of the deepest lessons
> we have learned over the past decade is that there is no fundamental
> difference between elementary particles and black holes." Amen, but
> DSR was there in 1985.
In the past 25 years has there been a single scholarly citation of your
theories?
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> In the past 25 years has there been a single scholarly citation of your
> theories?
Yes.
I have never bothered to count but you can if you want to work hard
enough at it.
Use Sci. Cit., or Web of Science.
More importantly, no one cited Mendel's brilliant genetics research
until it was rediscoverd many decades after he had died. Does the fact
that his research was totally ignored reflect badly on Mendel, or on
his contemporaries?
Robert L.Oldershaw
http://www3.amhesrt.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity; Fractal Cosmology
[Mod. note: this branch of the thread is now closed. If you want to
discuss bibliometrics or to compare yourselves to great scientists of
the past, do so elsewhere -- mjh]
Robert L. Oldershaw
Here is a simple and very general test of Discrete Scale Relativity.
It will be tested in the forseeable future and the observations are
probably already in progress.
Sumi et al appear to have discovered a huge previously unknown
population of unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs*).
Their previous event detection efficiency was maximized for roughly
Jupiter's mass. The detection efficiencies for lower mass objects
falls off rapidly. However, the research team clearly is interested
in the abundance of lower mass UPMOs.
Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly what they will
find. Once the abundances for different mass UPMOs are sufficiently
well-sampled, i.e., the UPMO mass spectrum, then the following plot
can be made. On the y-axis you plot the % of total mass of the UPMO
population, and on the x-axis you plot reasonably narrow UPMO mass
bins.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the peak of that graph will be
at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses [about 17 Earth masses; about the mass of
Neptune].
Additionally, DSR definitively predicts that the same mass spectrum
analysis will also give the same results for exoplanets, when
observational biases have been accounted for and the sample is large
enough.
I do not think any other theory does, or can, make either of these
predictions, which are prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable
and unique to Discrete Scale Relativity.
Game on!
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
* In case anybody wonders why I switched from "PLANCHOs" to "UPMOs",
the reason is that we probably should not assume or even suggest that
the UPMOs might be planets until there is some physical evidence for
that.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Here is a simple and very general test of Discrete Scale Relativity.
> It will be tested in the forseeable future and the observations are
> probably already in progress.
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly what they will
> find. Once the abundances for different mass UPMOs are sufficiently
> well-sampled, i.e., the UPMO mass spectrum, then the following plot
> can be made. On the y-axis you plot the % of total mass of the UPMO
> population, and on the x-axis you plot reasonably narrow UPMO mass
> bins.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the peak of that graph will be
> at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses [about 17 Earth masses; about the mass of
> Neptune].
>
> Additionally, DSR definitively predicts that the same mass spectrum
> analysis will also give the same results for exoplanets, when
> observational biases have been accounted for and the sample is large
> enough.
What does DSR predict for the total mass (say, as a fraction or Omega)
in these objects?
eric gisse
> On May 30, 5:09 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What "remains to be seen" ?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Here is a simple and very general test of Discrete Scale Relativity.
> It will be tested in the forseeable future and the observations are
> probably already in progress.
Yes, simple/general tests such as microlensing surveys of dark matter
which have repeatedly and conclusively shown that dark matter is not
made of massive compact objects.
How many surveys must be shown before you acknowledge this simple
reality?
>
> Sumi et al appear to have discovered a huge previously unknown
> population of unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs*).
Which, if you take the numbers at face value, consitututes a maximum of
a few percent of the dark matter mass budget. Which is consistent with
the previous microlensing surveys I have cited in the past.
>
> Their previous event detection efficiency was maximized for roughly
> Jupiter's mass. The detection efficiencies for lower mass objects
> falls off rapidly. However, the research team clearly is interested
> in the abundance of lower mass UPMOs.
No, Robert, that's not how it works. The telescopes hunt for
microlensing events, not specific objects.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity definitively predicts exactly what they will
> find. Once the abundances for different mass UPMOs are sufficiently
> well-sampled, i.e., the UPMO mass spectrum, then the following plot
> can be made. On the y-axis you plot the % of total mass of the UPMO
> population, and on the x-axis you plot reasonably narrow UPMO mass
> bins.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the peak of that graph will be
> at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses [about 17 Earth masses; about the mass of
> Neptune].
Read your own literature reference. Figure 3.
The planetary mass function peaks at 10^-3 solar masses, not 10^-5. I'm
uncertain how many standard deviations away your answer is from
observation, but the contour graph suggests somewhere between 4 and 5
sigma.
>
> Additionally, DSR definitively predicts that the same mass spectrum
> analysis will also give the same results for exoplanets, when
> observational biases have been accounted for and the sample is large
> enough.
556 planets means 1/sqrt[556] is a gaussian uncertainty in measurement
of 4% or so.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> Yes, simple/general tests such as microlensing surveys of dark matter
> which have repeatedly and conclusively shown that dark matter is not
> made of massive compact objects.
Let's reduce the prediction to its most basic and unobfuscatable form.
I predict:
1. A huge population of unbound planetary-mass objects in the MWG
2. The numbers of these UPMOs should exceed the number of luminous
stars by at least a factor of 10.
3. The mass peak, as defined in my 6/8/11 post, should be at 8 x 10^-5
solar masses, which is about the mass of Neptune.
For now I think we should just focus on this very bold, specific and
definitive scientific prediction.
My question for Gisse and Helbig is: if this prediction is vindicated
by observations would you agree that Discrete Scale Relativity
deserves serious scientific consideration? I would like a serious
objective answer, please.
Extra points for discussing the above question withIn the context of:
no strings observed for 35 years, SUSY having recently come up short
in several tests at the LHC and Tevatron (not to mention the botched
prediction regarding the expected EDM of the electron), no "WIMPs"
observed for 35 years, Lorentz Invariance violations rejected again
and again, far too few CDM "halos", unexpected cored DM distributions,
Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
interpretations), etc., etc.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Let's reduce the prediction to its most basic and unobfuscatable form.
>
> I predict:
>
> 1. A huge population of unbound planetary-mass objects in the MWG
>
> 2. The numbers of these UPMOs should exceed the number of luminous
> stars by at least a factor of 10.
>
> 3. The mass peak, as defined in my 6/8/11 post, should be at 8 x 10^-5
> solar masses, which is about the mass of Neptune.
>
> For now I think we should just focus on this very bold, specific and
> definitive scientific prediction.
>
> My question for Gisse and Helbig is: if this prediction is vindicated
> by observations would you agree that Discrete Scale Relativity
> deserves serious scientific consideration? I would like a serious
> objective answer, please.
Yes. My question for you is: if it is NOT confirmed, will you admit
that the theory is a failure?
> Extra points for discussing the above question withIn the context of:
> no strings observed for 35 years, SUSY having recently come up short
> in several tests at the LHC and Tevatron (not to mention the botched
> prediction regarding the expected EDM of the electron), no "WIMPs"
> observed for 35 years, Lorentz Invariance violations rejected again
> and again, far too few CDM "halos", unexpected cored DM distributions,
> Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
> serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
> interpretations), etc., etc.
Note that it took a couple of decades to find the predicted neutrino.
Note that science progresses by making predictions, which are either
vindicated or not. There is nothing wrong with making a wrong
prediction. There is also nothing wrong with a prediction which takes a
while to verify.
Robert L. Oldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
>
> Yes. My question for you is: if it is NOT confirmed, will you admit
> that the theory is a failure?
Definitely, yes! Discrete Scale Relativity definitively mandates a
very large UPMO population. It would be a major and fundamental
falsification if that prediction is not verified. However, we should
agree that, while anyone with a stake in the bet can offer relevant
evidence, only fair and objective non-bettors can decide if the
prediction is vindicated or falsified. And actually, nature is the
final arbitrator.
>
> > Extra points for discussing the above question withIn the context of:
> > no strings observed for 35 years, SUSY having recently come up short
> > in several tests at the LHC and Tevatron (not to mention the botched
> > prediction regarding the expected EDM of the electron), no "WIMPs"
> > observed for 35 years, Lorentz Invariance violations rejected again
> > and again, far too few CDM "halos", unexpected cored DM distributions,
> > Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
> > serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
> > interpretations), etc., etc.
>
> Note that it took a couple of decades to find the predicted neutrino.
>
> Note that science progresses by making predictions, which are either
> vindicated or not. There is nothing wrong with making a wrong
> prediction. There is also nothing wrong with a prediction which takes a
> while to verify
-------------------------------------------------------
Agreed on neutrinos and there being nothing wrong with any definitive
prediction or with negative results, but one should make no effort to
dismiss or "overlook" negative results, and just say: "Well, the next
experiment will find a "WIMP". As with the MACHO situation, we should
be completely up front about both the positive and negative evidence.
This is how a scientist thinks. Most importantly the scientist does
not completely rule out an idea/theory/paradigm based on very limited
data. The scientist lets sufficient data accumulate before making a
tentative decision, and adjusts confidence in proportion to the amount
of evidence for something, or the amount of negative evidence against
it.
eric gisse
> On Jun 8, 8:06 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, simple/general tests such as microlensing surveys of dark matter
>> which have repeatedly and conclusively shown that dark matter is not
>> made of massive compact objects.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ------
>
> Let's reduce the prediction to its most basic and unobfuscatable form.
>
> I predict:
>
> 1. A huge population of unbound planetary-mass objects in the MWG
Not seen. I've cited papers that have shown this.
Oh sure you can claim huge number but the actual mass fraction is rather
small.
>
> 2. The numbers of these UPMOs should exceed the number of luminous
> stars by at least a factor of 10.
They don't. We've both cited papers have shown this.
>
> 3. The mass peak, as defined in my 6/8/11 post, should be at 8 x 10^-5
> solar masses, which is about the mass of Neptune.
It isn't. You cited the paper have shown this.
>
> For now I think we should just focus on this very bold, specific and
> definitive scientific prediction.
>
> My question for Gisse and Helbig is: if this prediction is vindicated
> by observations would you agree that Discrete Scale Relativity
> deserves serious scientific consideration? I would like a serious
> objective answer, please.
Implicit in the question is the assumption that the predictions have not
already been falsified.
You want a serious objective answer? I've given you plenty of references
to searches for MACHOs that cover a mass range of ~10^-5 < M/M_sun <
100, and a sweed load of 'hardly a goddamn thing' has been seen.
The only piece you have is the ~jupiter MACHOs which amounts to a few
percent - at most - of the dark matter mass budget. This information is
consistent with the surveys cited, OGLE-III comes to mind.
>
> Extra points for discussing the above question withIn the context of:
> no strings observed for 35 years, SUSY having recently come up short
> in several tests at the LHC and Tevatron (not to mention the botched
> prediction regarding the expected EDM of the electron),
And? String theory / SUSY / whatever are several theories of many that
wish to explain physics beyond the standard model energy range. So they
haven't panned out - what's your point?
> no "WIMPs" observed for 35 years,
What, exactly, is your explanation for the WMAP derived neutrino species
count of 4? Read Komatsu, et. al (2010) - I've cited it to you a time or
five.
I like to hammer on this because it amuses me to watch you ignore it.
While it is entirely possible that a few years of Planck data will
disregard it, or perhaps it is a systematic, or perhaps it is something
else, I consider that a possible clue as to the nature of dark matter.
> Lorentz Invariance violations rejected again
> and again,
Lorentz invariance is an underpinning of GR and quantum theory so I do
not believe there has been a serious expectation of Lorentz invariance
violations within my lifetime.
> far too few CDM "halos", unexpected cored DM distributions,
> Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
> serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
> interpretations), etc., etc.
What are you talking about?
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<jowr.pi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > far too few CDM "halos",
Traditional n-body simulations have predicted more halos than are
observed. It was thought by some to be a by-product of less than
satisfactory resolution, but it appears that the problem becomes WORSE
if the simulation gets better.
I heard a talk by Eva Grebel a few months ago which touched on this
subject. Everyone agrees it is a real problem, but it is too early to
say if it is bad observations, bad theory, bad simulations or new
physics. A similar state of affairs existed 15--20 years ago with
regard to the "missing" solar neutrinos. In this case, the answer
turned out to be "new physics". (I remember asking John Bahcall at a
conference in Stockholm in 1995 what he thought the answer would turn
out to be. His prediction: new physics.)
> > Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
> > serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
> > interpretations), etc., etc.
>
> What are you talking about?
Here, I don't know either.
Robert L. Oldershaw
On Jun 11, 2:58 am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-15072-1307632...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, eric gisse
>
>
> > > Platonic interpretations of QM under attack from several sides (e.g.,
> > > serious doubts raised about Bell's theorem; same for 2-slit experiment
> > > interpretations), etc., etc.
>
> > What are you talking about?
> Here, I don't know either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow me to explain.
1. Joy Christian has a series of papers (available on arxiv.org) that
strongly question the fundamental assumptions of Bell's Theorem and
the interpretation of experimental results based on accepting the
strict validity of BT. To my knowledge, no qualified physicist has
shown errors in Christian's arguments, although some heavy hitters and
some wannabes have tried.
2. There was a recent paper in Nature on "measuring" wavefunctions.
3. There was a recent paper in Science that discusses some remarkable
new results in the 2-slit experiment that may favor the de Broglie-
Bohm model with real trajectories and "pilot waves". This research
involves observations, not hand-waving.
4. Ken Wharton has a very exciting preprint:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.1254v1.pdf
that cogently argues that discretization in atomic scale systems might
emerge from more coniniuous underlying dynamics because of boundary
conditions ( and note that a discrete fractal paradigm would provide
such boundaries).
5. Recent papers published in Physics Review Letters by Hall, and by
Barrett and Gisin, also seriously question whether Bell's Theorem can
be used to rule out local realistic models of atomic scale phenomena.
They say: maybe not.
The list could go on. Suffice it to say that QM and the physics of
atomic scale systems in general is entering a period where fundamental
questions can be addressed experimentally, rather than philosophically
as was previously the case with the Copenhagen Interpretation and
related Platonic modeling.
Hope this helps.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Robert L. Oldershaw
reports a "cold, low-mass planet of about 10 Earth masses.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.2160v1.pdf
The relevance to the subject of this thread is the comment on page 24
that the new results support the previously reported results of Sumi
et al and also support the contention that there is a large and
previously undetected population of "failed Jupiter-cores". These
objects would have masses below the mass of Jupiter.
The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using microlensing
techniques in addition to more conventional methods.
We seem to be entering a remarkable scientific period wherein many
previous assumptions in atomic, stellar and galactic physics can
finally be checked empirically.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Major Thanks and Congrats to the Boston Bruins - Fantastic Series!
eric gisse
> A new preprint by the MOA, uFUN, RoboNet, OGLE, ... collaborations
> reports a "cold, low-mass planet of about 10 Earth masses.
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.2160v1.pdf
# wget http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.2160v1.pdf
--2011-06-17 12:20:28--
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.2160v1.pdf
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.119
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.119|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2011-06-17 12:20:28 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
Better link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2160
Direct linking makes arXiv cry.
Ok, another planet observed via gravitational microlensing.
http://exoplanet.eu/catalog.php
As of today that makes the 13th discovered via microlensing, going back
to 2004. So this isn't exactly breaking news.
>
> The relevance to the subject of this thread is the comment on page 24
> that the new results support the previously reported results of Sumi
> et al and also support the contention that there is a large and
> previously undetected population of "failed Jupiter-cores". These
> objects would have masses below the mass of Jupiter.
Far below. Ten Earth masses is ~0.01 M_jupiter. The results of Sumi, et.
al. report a population of ~10 Jupiter mass planets.
Neither population accounts for dark matter.
>
> The race is on to discover the mass spectrum and distribution of
> planets and unbound planetary-mass objects (UPMOs) using microlensing
> techniques in addition to more conventional methods.
562 exoplanets isn't enough?
>
> We seem to be entering a remarkable scientific period wherein many
> previous assumptions in atomic, stellar and galactic physics can
> finally be checked empirically.
For what value of 'finally'? Your theory has been excluded by the
various microlensing collaborations.
Robert L. Oldershaw
>
> > We seem to be entering a remarkable scientific period wherein many
> > previous assumptions in atomic, stellar and galactic physics can
> > finally be checked empirically.
>
> For what value of 'finally'? Your theory has been excluded by the
> various microlensing collaborations.
Those who are following developments in the use of microlensing
experiments to search for MACHOs and UPMOs as dark matter constituents
will certainly want to carefully read:
arXiv:1106.3875v1 [astro-ph.CO] posted to arxiv.org on 20 Jun 2011
This updated paper by MRS Hawkins reassesses "The case for primordial
black holes as dark matter".
Notable points raised by the paper are:
1. Quasar microlensing is explained quite well by MACHO dark matter
models.
2. The leading candidate for the MACHOs is primordial stellar-mass
black holes.
3. "We have reworked the [MACHO Collaboration's] analysis using the
most recent values for the structure and dynamics of the halo, and
find that there is now no conflict between the observed microlensing
rate and a MACHO dominated halo."
Given Hawkins' arguments for stellar-mass primordial MACHOs and the
apparent discovery by Sumi et al of a huge population of unbound
planetary-mass objects in the Galaxy, it seems to me that primordial
ultracompact objects deserve at least equal status with WIMPs as
candidates for the constituents of the dark matter.
With the LHC and microlensing collaborations both ramping up their
research activitites, I think we have a classic scientific showdown in
the making. Are WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos and/or sparticles
"just around the next corner"? Or is something quite a bit more
substantial lurking throughout the cosmos?
Game on!
eric gisse
> On Jun 18, 3:54�am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We seem to be entering a remarkable scientific period wherein many
>> > previous assumptions in atomic, stellar and galactic physics can
>> > finally be checked empirically.
>>
>> For what value of 'finally'? Your theory has been excluded by the
>> various microlensing collaborations.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------------------
>
> Those who are following developments in the use of microlensing
> experiments to search for MACHOs and UPMOs as dark matter constituents
> will certainly want to carefully read:
>
> arXiv:1106.3875v1 [astro-ph.CO] posted to arxiv.org on 20 Jun 2011
Careful reading, ok.
This quote caught my eye:
"Perhaps the best known search for compact bodies
is for those in the halo of the Galaxy. By monitoring
several million stars in the LMC and SMC, bodies of
around a solar mass were detected by the MACHO project
(Alcock et al. 2000a)."
Since you told me to your research for you, I'm now marginally familiar
with the results and general existence of the OGLE collaboration and
its' publications.
arXiv:1012.1154
A continuation of the OGLE work now has an optical depth that is an
order of magnitude smaller. Improved data cut the legs out of the claim.
In section 2.3, it appears Hawkins is performing the same kind of
redshift binning (in 2011) and wavelength based arguments as he was as
cited by Baganoff below.
Section 4:
"The team estimated that the detections only accounted for 20% of
the mass of a typical halo model, and that a halo consisting
entirely of compact bodies could be ruled out at 95% confidence
level for all but their most extreme halo model. On the other
hand, the population of compact bodies implied by the microlensing
detections was substantially larger than all known
stellar populations (Alcock et al. 2000a)."
arXiv:1106.2925
MACHOs contribute 2% of the dark matter mass budget, largely consistent
with what I've been citing you since...March (?) and definitely in
conflict with Alcock's claims. Which even more definitely undercuts
Hawkins' argument.
>
> This updated paper by MRS Hawkins reassesses "The case for primordial
> black holes as dark matter".
>
> Notable points raised by the paper are:
>
> 1. Quasar microlensing is explained quite well by MACHO dark matter
> models.
Others disagree.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310336v1
The argument here is simply that the model doesn't check against a large
quasar sampling.
+
Baganoff, et. al, "Gravitational microlensing is not required to explain
quasar variability". ApJ Letters, vol. 444 no. 1 (1995).
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ApJ...444L..13B
The argument here is a bummer for Hawkins, as it is pointed out that
Hawkins is focusing on the same wavelength in different redshift bins.
Its' assuming your own argument.
>
> 2. The leading candidate for the MACHOs is primordial stellar-mass
> black holes.
Plus brown dwarfs. However, the MACHO theory isn't exactly holding up
its' own weight as of 2011.
>
> 3. "We have reworked the [MACHO Collaboration's] analysis using the
> most recent values for the structure and dynamics of the halo, and
> find that there is now no conflict between the observed microlensing
> rate and a MACHO dominated halo."
mmmm...
An interesting claim, for sure. Considering just Alcock's work in
isolation, MACHOs as dark matter was excluded. The situation does not
improve when you include the work done in the 11 years since Alcock's
publication, eg what I cited above and previously...
His preference of Model F does not stand up to scrutiny, which is
bizarre since the Earth-Galactic Center distance is currently set at 8.4
+/- 0.6 kpc (Reid, 2009) which uses a value that's 0.5 kpc (nearly a
full standard deviation) off from the currently accepted value.
What I find so odd is that he takes the time to point out that the
distance is highly sensitive to even small changes in R_0 but cites a
value that's a decade out of date.
>
> Given Hawkins' arguments for stellar-mass primordial MACHOs and the
> apparent discovery by Sumi et al of a huge population of unbound
> planetary-mass objects in the Galaxy, it seems to me that primordial
> ultracompact objects deserve at least equal status with WIMPs as
> candidates for the constituents of the dark matter.
Yes, it seems _to you_. But not the scientific community at large.
There's a reason for that.
1) Hawkins' arguments for stellar mass MACHOs does not stand up to
contemporary (much less current) scrutiny and his own damn references do
not agree with the claim.
2) Further observations marginalize the theory even further.
3) Even taking Sumi, et. al's discovery at face value the huge
population is just that. Huge. Not massive, as the extremal figure is a
few percent of the galactic dark matter mass budget.
What am I supposed to rationally conclude when a large series of
searches for MACHOs finds squat? Hawkins can reinterpret until the cows
come home, but he isn't doing himself any favors when it looks like he
is using discredited arguments or self-servingly old data.
>
> With the LHC and microlensing collaborations both ramping up their
> research activitites, I think we have a classic scientific showdown in
> the making. Are WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos and/or sparticles
> "just around the next corner"? Or is something quite a bit more
> substantial lurking throughout the cosmos?
Axions haven't been credible for a looooong time.
You'd have better luck pushing MOND.
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
Oldershaw" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Those who are following developments in the use of microlensing
> experiments to search for MACHOs and UPMOs as dark matter constituents
> will certainly want to carefully read:
>
> arXiv:1106.3875v1 [astro-ph.CO] posted to arxiv.org on 20 Jun 2011
Note: I haven't read the paper yet, but will tomorrow.
> This updated paper by MRS Hawkins reassesses "The case for primordial
> black holes as dark matter".
>
> Notable points raised by the paper are:
>
> 1. Quasar microlensing is explained quite well by MACHO dark matter
> models.
Well, a MACHO is a MAssive Compact Halo Object. The only question is
whether the microlensing objects are in galactic halos or not.
> 2. The leading candidate for the MACHOs is primordial stellar-mass
> black holes.
According to the paper by Hawkins (who has been sounding this horn for a
couple of decades now) or does he cite additional references for this
claim?
> Given Hawkins' arguments for stellar-mass primordial MACHOs and the
> apparent discovery by Sumi et al of a huge population of unbound
> planetary-mass objects in the Galaxy, it seems to me that primordial
> ultracompact objects deserve at least equal status with WIMPs as
> candidates for the constituents of the dark matter.
Status is determined by observations, not opinion.
> With the LHC and microlensing collaborations both ramping up their
> research activitites, I think we have a classic scientific showdown in
> the making. Are WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos and/or sparticles
> "just around the next corner"? Or is something quite a bit more
> substantial lurking throughout the cosmos?
Of course, there could be more than one type of dark matter.
eric gisse
[...]
re: Hawkins' arguments. He has been making the same arguments for nearly 25
years, and there's a nontrivial body of work that cites him and explains
why his model is wrong. Eg, Baganoff, et. al.
I expand on this a lot more in my response to Robert, but the basic problem
is that surveys specifically meant to find these object haven't found them
and he has not managed to convincingly explain why.
>> With the LHC and microlensing collaborations both ramping up their
>> research activitites, I think we have a classic scientific showdown in
>> the making. Are WIMPs, axions, sterile neutrinos and/or sparticles
>> "just around the next corner"? Or is something quite a bit more
>> substantial lurking throughout the cosmos?
>
> Of course, there could be more than one type of dark matter.
>
So far, there's no evidence that there are multiple dark matter species.
Some folks have suggested various things like dark-sector charges, fifth
forces, multiple uncharged species, etc.
As far as I have seen, none of it has passed serious observational muster.
Only the ones that suggest DM can decay have tangible observational support
from PAMELA/FERMI observations.
Eric Flesch
>arXiv:1106.3875v1 [astro-ph.CO] posted to arxiv.org on 20 Jun 2011
>This updated paper by MRS Hawkins reassesses "The case for primordial
>black holes as dark matter".
To model "dark matter" as being any form of matter at all, shows a
lack of imagination, in my view. "Dark matter" is just a placeholding
term for the gap between model and observation, which in this case is
about, what, 90% of the show? I prefer additional large dimension(s)
as an explanation, but whatever it may be, it's not likely to be
anything we know as "matter". What is more likely, quadrillions of
massive black holes, or just a lousy model.
..
Robert L. Oldershaw
In today's arxiv postings is the following new preprint:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.0982v1.pdf
Hainline et al (9 authors) report a new microlensing event in the
quasar Q 0957+561.
They employ a Bayesian analysis to determine a mean microlens mass of
about 0.1 solar mass.
The authors argue that the dominant microlens population must
therefore be in the form of stellar-mass rather than planetary-mass
objects.
An interesting issue is the fact that different research teams come up
with different mean microlens masses. Some, like the present study,
find that stellar-mass microlenses are dominant, while other groups
argue that planetary-mass microlenses fit their fluctuation data
better.
Discrete Scale Relativity offers a possible resolution to this
conflict. DSR predicts that the dark matter causing the microlensing
of quasars, and more locally in the MWG and Local Group, is comprised
of both stellar-mass and planetary-mass fundamental ultracompacts.
The stellar-mass black holes are predicted to have their dominant mass
peak at 0.145 solar masses. The planetary-mass ultracompact objects
are predicted to have a sharp peak at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses.
The stellar-mass microlenses would be much easier to detect, but rapid
fluctuations in the quasar light curves should also show evidence of a
planetary-mass population of microlenses.
The jury is still out on this issue, but evidence is accumulating
rapidly.
Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of major peaks at 8 x 10^-5,
0.145 and 0.580 solar masses is highly definitive, representing a
unique signature for DSR's predicted dark matter candidates.
eric gisse
> On Jun 24, 6:56 am, Eric Flesch <e...@flesch.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 11, "Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote:
>> >arXiv:1106.3875v1 [astro-ph.CO] posted to arxiv.org on 20 Jun 2011
>> >This updated paper by MRS Hawkins reassesses "The case for
>> >primordial black holes as dark matter".
>>
>> To model "dark matter" as being any form of matter at all, shows a
>> lack of imagination, in my view. "Dark matter" is just a
>> placeholding term for the gap between model and observation, which in
>> this case is about, what, 90% of the show? I prefer additional large
>> dimension(s) as an explanation, but whatever it may be, it's not
>> likely to be anything we know as "matter". What is more likely,
>> quadrillions of massive black holes, or just a lousy model.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> --------
>
> In today's arxiv postings is the following new preprint:
>
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.0982v1.pdf
--2011-07-08 21:00:20--
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.0982v1.pdf
Resolving arxiv.org... 128.84.158.119
Connecting to arxiv.org|128.84.158.119|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 403 Forbidden
2011-07-08 21:00:20 ERROR 403: Forbidden.
Lets try a little basic arXiv usage. Link to the abstract, not the pdf.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0982v1
>
> Hainline et al (9 authors) report a new microlensing event in the
> quasar Q 0957+561.
>
> They employ a Bayesian analysis to determine a mean microlens mass of
> about 0.1 solar mass.
Yes, microlens in the singular because this is one microlensing event
for one quasar.
>
> The authors argue that the dominant microlens population must
> therefore be in the form of stellar-mass rather than planetary-mass
> objects.
>
> An interesting issue is the fact that different research teams come up
> with different mean microlens masses. Some, like the present study,
> find that stellar-mass microlenses are dominant, while other groups
> argue that planetary-mass microlenses fit their fluctuation data
> better.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity offers a possible resolution to this
> conflict.
Do you disagree with the paper's explanation of the difference between
the two analyses?
>DSR predicts that the dark matter causing the microlensing
> of quasars, and more locally in the MWG and Local Group, is comprised
> of both stellar-mass and planetary-mass fundamental ultracompacts.
The ultracompacts you require to be nearby do not exist.
We've been over this.
>
> The stellar-mass black holes are predicted to have their dominant mass
> peak at 0.145 solar masses. The planetary-mass ultracompact objects
> are predicted to have a sharp peak at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses.
>
> The stellar-mass microlenses would be much easier to detect, but rapid
> fluctuations in the quasar light curves should also show evidence of a
> planetary-mass population of microlenses.
But they don't. Why is that?
Yes, I know you like to cite Hawkins' work but his work does not stand
up to scrutiny which we have also been over. Or more accurately, it has
been explained to you (with references) why it is wrong and you ignored
it.
>
> The jury is still out on this issue, but evidence is accumulating
> rapidly.
No it isn't, yes it is.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/88ab9a844d1cf4c0?
dmode=source
I highly doubt the 4'th OGLE survey will show anything different than
the 3 previous to it, or different than what the SuperMACHO survey has
shown. But you never know.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity's prediction of major peaks at 8 x 10^-5,
> 0.145 and 0.580 solar masses is highly definitive, representing a
> unique signature for DSR's predicted dark matter candidates.
The OGLE surveys can't find it.