Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.

[expletives deleted]

Q-reeus:

Just this last Friday, a local public lecture by a Prof. Elisabetta Barberio gave at the end what imo is so far the most convincing evidence favouring DM. Years of accumulated data showing consistent annual cyclic variations in scintillation counts at Gran Sasso DARMA underground particle detector facility. Pretty much everything within SM (standard model) is ruled out as explanation, leaving only some as yet unknown WIMP. A list of talks: https://people.roma2.infn.it/~dama/web/down.html
The first one: http://people.roma2.infn.it/~belli/belli_IDM2016.pdf
p2 outlines the idea. p7 provides the telling data. Numerous pages devoted to weeding out possible spurious sources. Looks good to me. Construction of a 'sister' facility in AU began this month. Hopefully will provide strong confirmation of Italian site's findings once up and running for a few years.

Thanks for that relevant new info post and link, Q-reeus.

I can see at least two main problems:

1) There is no real sense of what quantities and densities of their 'event particles' may represent overall. The (alleged event particles) hit rate is just what it is, but no correlation between event number/rate and assumed total population of such which makes up the global mass of 'dark' material necessary for the hypotheses to be validated. Until they can translate such hit rates to actual global density and total mass, it is just random hits of some unknown events which have still to be sifted through and identified exclusively as one or other particular particle event.

2) There is also the increasing astronomical discovery of huge quantities of quite Ordinary (previously 'dark') Matter which is quickly adding up to the quantities needed to explain the galactic motions etc. So the need for huge quantities of Extra-Ordinary DM is quickly being obviated altogether; with the rest of the fine tuning of motions attributable to the penetrative Neutrino accumulation and distributions in deep space everywhere, over Eons of production and radiation into space untrammeled by Ordinary Matter motions and collisions and interactions.

I also have at least one other point, but will leave it at that for now as that is more than enough to be going on with.

That is my own observation on that for your and others' consideration if it interests you. Thanks again for the info. Best.

 

[Q-reeus]

I can see two main problems with their claim that the DM loses energy as it goes through the Earth:

I must interject right there expletives deleted. They assume there is negligible attenuation of WIMP count in passing through the earth - similar to how it is with neutrinos.
And that shows in the data - the sinusoidal modulation is an annual cycle, not daily one owing to Earth's rotation. A daily cycle would imply a strongly directional flux of WIMPS, again not a postulate within the DARMA experiment which assumes a diffuse gas of WIMPS. The annual modulation was predicted ahead of discovery and is a quite ingenious and somewhat subtle consequence of modulated sampling rates, fortuitously detectable owing to order-of-magnitude similarities of orbital speeds of earth around the sun and of sun around the galactic centre.

1) There is no real sense of what quantities and densities of their 'event particles' may represent overall. The (alleged event particles) hit rate is just what it is, but no correlation between event number/rate and assumed total population of such which makes up the global mass of 'dark' material necessary for the hypotheses to be validated. Until they can translate such hit rates to actual global density and total mass, it is just random hits of some unknown events which have still to be sifted through and identified exclusively as one or other particular particle event.

Some of that is valid criticism, but just highlights how difficult is the task when there are numerous contenders for DM particle(s), and various possible matter/DM interaction mechanisms for each such candidate. The most significant finding is that the counts cannot be accounted for by any known particles.

2) There is also the increasing astronomical discovery of huge quantities of quite Ordinary (previously 'dark') Matter which is quickly adding up to the quantities needed to explain the galactic motions etc. So the need for huge quantities of Extra-Ordinary DM is quickly being obviated altogether; with the rest of the fine tuning of motions attributable to the penetrative Neutrino accumulation and distributions in deep space everywhere, over Eons of production and radiation into space untrammeled by Ordinary Matter motions and collisions and interactions.

I'm unaware of discoveries of large extra quantities of 'very dull' ordinary matter, but details of that would be interesting to look through.
One of the strongest arguments for WIMPS is the balance of particle interaction type and particle mass required to account for both galactic rotation curves and larger scale 'voids' and 'strands'. Ordinary matter clumps too much, while neutrinos, owing to their tiny mass and weak interactions are too 'hot' thus too diffuse to form galactic halos etc.
Cheers, Q-reeus.

 

[paddoboy]

And appeals to authority which is itself in question in the discussion, is also inadmissible unless argued properly after it addresses those questions which brought it into question in the first instance.

Appeals to authority will always be valid and admissable as long as that authority is the expert on that particular discipline.

What I have posted reflects known science based E-M arguments and mainstream astronomical recent discoveries.

What you have posted is totally unsupported and although you have been asked for references and/or links you are unwilling or unable to comply.
The two claims in recent times are that E/M radiation was the cause of the observed orbital decay in the Hulse-Taylor Pulsar system, and that DM is now not needed.
Keep up your unevidenced and unsupported claims on the science sections, and you will be reported.

My post content and inherent arguments trump your contrary personal opinion and unargued beliefs and appeals to authority anytime, paddoboy.

You must play a strange game of cards where you come from expletive deleted.
All my claims, all of them, are referenced and all are accepted mainstream theories.
Yours are simply just your own personal opinions, probably agenda driven but most certainly wrong according to today's cosmological sciences.

 

[PhysBang]

PhysBang:
What is "fantasy"? Are you calling the current astronomers and their newest telescopes "fantasy merchants"?

I'm saying that you have a fantasy. I've seen it in many threads. It is why I said that I wouldn't be responding to any of your posts. I'm regretting breaking that rule.

There is no way that baryonic matter can account for the phenomena we identify with dark matter unless there is some radical nes physics involved for which we currently have no evidence.

Did you miss the last few years of (and ongoing) astronomical discoveries now slowly filtering into the literature and the theorists reviews of past theories which were formulated in total ignorance of what was really out there?

I am indeed totally ignorant of the scientific results that you imagine.

You must have missed my post where I pointed out

I don't care how much you say the same thing that you make up. I am extremely well versed on this subject. Extremely. There is no way that ordinary matter can account for the dark matter at the cosmological level For one thing, it is completely incompatible with the relative abundance of the light elements.

 

[paddoboy]

In actual fact the real "off topic" nonsense that the mods need to attend to, is the pseudoscience nonsense yourself and expletive deleted are flooding the science forums with:
We have the fringes for that nonsense, and which in time most of your own threads are removed to anyway.

Note: My above post at 56 was not in reference to Dave and his quote I referenced within: Obviously the references were expletive deleted and the god...yourself being the god.

 

[paddoboy]

Planckian Interacting Massive Particles as Dark Matter
here..................

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.101302

ABSTRACT:
The standard model could be self-consistent up to the Planck scale according to the present measurements of the Higgs boson mass and top quark Yukawa coupling. It is therefore possible that new physics is only coupled to the standard model through Planck suppressed higher dimensional operators. In this case the weakly interacting massive particle miracle is a mirage, and instead minimality as dictated by Occam’s razor would indicate that dark matter is related to the Planck scale, where quantum gravity is anyway expected to manifest itself. Assuming within this framework that dark matter is a Planckian interacting massive particle, we show that the most natural mass larger than 0.01Mp is already ruled out by the absence of tensor modes in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This also indicates that we expect tensor modes in the CMB to be observed soon for this type of minimal dark matter model. Finally, we touch upon the Kaluza-Klein graviton mode as a possible realization of this scenario within UV complete models, as well as further potential signatures and peculiar properties of this type of dark matter candidate. This paradigm therefore leads to a subtle connection between quantum gravity, the physics of primordial inflation, and the nature of dark matter.

• 

SYNOPSIS

The Heavy Limit of Dark Matter
Published 10 March 2016


A theoretical investigation of super-heavy dark matter particles finds that their existence might be discerned in the cosmic microwave background.

 

[expletives deleted]

Q-reeus:

I must interject right there expletives deleted. They assume there is negligible attenuation of WIMP count in passing through the earth - similar to how it is with neutrinos.
And that shows in the data - the sinusoidal modulation is an annual cycle, not daily one owing to Earth's rotation. A daily cycle would imply a strongly directional flux of WIMPS, again not a postulate within the DARMA experiment which assumes a diffuse gas of WIMPS. The annual modulation was predicted ahead of discovery and is a quite ingenious and somewhat subtle consequence of modulated sampling rates, fortuitously detectable owing to order-of-magnitude similarities of orbital speeds of earth around the sun and of sun around the galactic centre.

Yes, agreed. While you were compiling your reply I edited my post to remove that first item, precisely because it involves much complex and unknown factors etc which you touched upon there. I leave that item until more info is available in future regarding the actual properties and behavior of whatever DM particle(s) they claim to have zeroed in on (or not). Thanks for that info re annual modulation predicted etc. Future experiments will no doubt either confirm such or explain it one way or the other.

Some of that is valid criticism, but just highlights how difficult is the task when there are numerous contenders for DM particle(s), and various possible matter/DM interaction mechanisms for each such candidate. The most significant finding is that the counts cannot be accounted for by any known particles.

Again, agreed. Complexity and large uncertainties in nature and number of 'candidates' make it a very difficult search effort if no 'clean' signal and identity etc is able to be teased out as 'the' DM particle interaction (if any) that is easily differentiated from the other Ordinary Matter particle interactions which may also be as yet unknown and unidentified in their 'hits' results.

I'm unaware of discoveries of large extra quantities of 'very dull' ordinary matter, but details of that would be interesting to look through.

As are many here, it seems. If you read up any of the astronomical discoveries over the last few years you will come across references to previously undetected (because 'dark') matter, in the form of:

1) Enormous Streams and Nebulae of dust and gas/plasma within galaxies.

2) Enormous expanses of dust and gas 'halos' which extend the effective radius of galaxies to many times their previous 'visible' estimated radius.

3) Enormous Interstellar, intergalactic and inter gal-cluster dust and gas 'medium' previously invisible.

4) Now that all this newly discovered, previously 'dark', material, plus that yet to be found by even more sensitive and appropriately equipped telescopes, is fast adding up to many times the previous estimates of ordinary matter based on previous 'visibility' status (now much improved and extended). It will take some time to filter through the consciousness and theoretical estimation review processes now under way, but is is headed to the point that so much 'newly discovered' Ordinary Matter now 'visible' and obviously not extra-ordinary DM can explain much of the observations previously made when most of that vast amount of Ordinary Matter was still 'invisible'. For example, those interpretations that "extra-ordinary DM is 'evidenced' during galaxy cluster collisions which allegedly separated the Extra-ordinary DM from Ordinary matter of the galaxies, can now be seen for what they were: Expansive extents and quantities of gas and dust within, surrounding and between all the galaxies which are now increasingly confirmed by recent astronomical discoveries of same at all scales from solar systems to galaxies to superclusters of galaxies.

Basically, just because the awareness f all this new 'ordinary stuff' has not yet filtered into the POP-Sci writers' consciousness and knowledge (explains why they still treat DM etc as 'givens' without proper 'disclaimers'), it doesn't mean that things aren't changing for the worse for all 'extra-ordinary DM' hypotheses and searches.

One of the strongest arguments for WIMPS is the balance of particle interaction type and particle mass required to account for both galactic rotation curves and larger scale 'voids' and 'strands'. Ordinary matter clumps too much, while neutrinos, owing to their tiny mass and weak interactions are too 'hot' thus too diffuse to form galactic halos etc.
Cheers, Q-reeus.

For the 'extra-ordinary DM' angle, please see previous item response.

For the 'Neutrino' behavior etc, I will point out that most of the Neutrinos from galaxies would be outgoing spherically, and so would be slowed a little by gravitation of galaxies; plus the incoming Neutrinos from global field would 'passing' those outgoing Neutrinos such that the 'halo density' of Neutrino energy would be at highest instantaneous density in those halos. Althugh, as I said before, such effects as gravity from Neutrino density distributions would be only in the 'fine tuning' category, after the effects from the enormous ordinary matter which was previously 'dark' (as already explained).

Thankyou Q-reeus for the stimulating and interesting threads, posts and info from you. I leave you and others to catch up with the astronomical literature for all the matters I have alluded to re newly discovered enormous quantities of previously 'dark' ordinary matter quantities which are cumulatively fast approaching much of the values needed to explain much of observed motions, so making them perfectly consistent with GR overall and obviating the need for 'extra-ordinary DM' of much mass at all. Best.


ON EDIT:

I forgot to include discoveries of thousands of previously undetected galaxies where only 70 or so were thought to be. This also increases, by many times, the ordinary matter count in regions where previous estimates based on the then-visible meagre amount of matter were obviously very wrong and so needed the extraordinary DM 'fix' which is now increasingly no longer needed. Best.

 

[expletives deleted]

PhysBang:

paddoboy:

Regarding the matter of DM, I am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely alluding to new astronomical discoveries regarding enormous quantities of ordinary matter, as I explained. I invite you to read up on the last few years' astronomical reports re gas, dust in various forms and distributions which extend the effective galactic parameters and inhabit the intervening internal and external deep space expanses with many times the previous estimated mass based on older and now obsolete and incomplete 'previous visible' quantification methods. Please also see my post to Q-reeus above re ordinary versus extraordinary DM aspect. Thanks.

Regarding the GR GWs interpretations initially started by Hulse-Taylor Binary interpretations, I also am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely pointing out that I cannot find anywhere in the literature, then or now, which has taken into account the now known extreme Electro-Magnetic field energies involved in interactions above and beyond the usual balanced gravitational dynamics of binaries. If once these now known extreme Magnetic fields and friction decelerative action is taken into account, it may be that most of the observed energy loss that causes orbital decay as observed may be due to EM radiation from inter-binary magnetic field interaction (just as magnetic interactions on the sun produce EM radiation we can see because we are close enough; but which we may not be close enough to actually see the radiation from Hulse-Taylor system as I described Extreme Magnetic interactions must produce according to known physics of Magnetic energy systems in general, as in heat energy from electric motors etc).

Thankyou for your own future efforts to update yourselves in these areas. Best.

ON EDIT:

I forgot to include discoveries of thousands of previously undetected galaxies where only 70 or so were thought to be. This also increases, by many times, the ordinary matter count in regions where previous estimates based on the then-visible meagre amount of matter were obviously very wrong and so needed the extraordinary DM 'fix' which is now increasingly no longer needed. Best.

 

[The God]

Why DM is required, wiki itself is ok.

The first issue as reported by Oort long back can be resolved by massive mass at the canter of any Galaxy. So no need for such DM.

Second issue, that is Galaxy Speed Distribution curves being flat, not as per Keplerian, I have few pointers..

1. We cannot see the individual star of any other Galaxy, except our MW. So this problem could not have been observed by Vers Rubin in other Galaxies.

2. Just last year only the span of our Galaxy was found to be much more than what we knew.. (Rubin work was in 1960s). There are hidden clusters hitherto unknown. I just want to know if there is any dynamic update on the need of DM or at least did someone say look initially we thought of x% DM around or in our Milky Way, now due to finding of new baryonic mass this x has become much lesser at y%. The day is not far off when DM vanishes.

 

[paddoboy]

PhysBang:

paddoboy:

Regarding the matter of DM, I am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely alluding to new astronomical discoveries regarding enormous quantities of ordinary matter, as I explained. I invite you to read up on the last few years' astronomical reports

I have seen no reports anywhere of your suggestion that enough baryonic matter has been found to eliminate the need for DM.
DM is certainly still necessary according to latest findings, and for the umpteenth time, if you have reports to show differently, then present them.
And read the papers that I have presented.

Regarding the GR GWs interpretations initially started by Hulse-Taylor Binary interpretations, I also am not presenting a treatise or new theory, merely pointing out that I cannot find anywhere in the literature, then or now, which has taken into account the now known extreme Electro-Magnetic field energies involved in interactions above and beyond the usual balanced gravitational dynamics of binaries. If once these now known extreme Magnetic fields and friction decelerative action is taken into account, it may be that most of the observed energy loss that causes orbital decay as observed may be due to EM radiation from inter-binary magnetic field interaction (just as magnetic interactions on the sun produce EM radiation we can see because we are close enough; but which we may not be close enough to actually see the radiation from Hulse-Taylor system as I described Extreme Magnetic interactions must produce according to known physics of Magnetic energy systems in general, as in heat energy from electric motors etc).

You have been previously asked to stop making up tales.
Extreme magnetic fields have been known to be associated with Pulsar systems for yonks, and it certainly does not effect any known outcome in orbital degradation attributed to gravitational waves, for which the Nobel prize was given.
Do you really believe that the professional scientists involved in this work, with the amount of state of the art equipment available, that they would somehow neglect or conspire to ignore and/or neglect magnetic fields for the sake of promoting gravitational waves?

Thankyou for your own future efforts to update yourselves in these areas. Best.

Speaking for myself, and echoing PhysBang's previous remark, I suggest that you need to link to these dramatic findings if you truly are aware of them. Otherwise I suggest, that they just do not exist.

I forgot to include discoveries of thousands of previously undetected galaxies where only 70 or so were thought to be. This also increases, by many times, the ordinary matter count in regions where previous estimates based on the then-visible meagre amount of matter were obviously very wrong and so needed the extraordinary DM 'fix' which is now increasingly no longer needed. Best.

Thousands of galaxies where 70 or so were thought to exist, is always on the cards the further we look into the universe and the further back in time.
Perhaps you need to make yourself aware of the "Hubble deep field"
The need for DM in the first instant was to simply hold galaxies together.
So far despite many requests, you are yet unable to present any reputable link to support your claim.
I suggest you do so if you want to maintain any credibility at all.

 

[paddoboy]

Second issue, that is Galaxy Speed Distribution curves being flat, not as per Keplerian, I have few pointers..

1. We cannot see the individual star of any other Galaxy, except our MW. So this problem could not have been observed by Vers Rubin in other Galaxies.

It certainly was resolved in other galaxies, through a few acceptable well used astronomical means and estimations.

2. Just last year only the span of our Galaxy was found to be much more than what we knew.. (Rubin work was in 1960s). There are hidden clusters hitherto unknown. I just want to know if there is any dynamic update on the need of DM or at least did someone say look initially we thought of x% DM around or in our Milky Way, now due to finding of new baryonic mass this x has become much lesser at y%. The day is not far off when DM vanishes.

I have presented a number of recent papers on the makeup etc of DM and the fact that it is most certainly necessitated.
Again as was asked of expletive deleted, please reference this common claim between both of you, and yet both unable to or refuse to present any reputable article/paper, supporting your claim/s.
If you want to maintain any semblance of credibility, please support your claims with professional, reputable links.

 

[paddoboy]

To illustrate the fabricated scenarios that some are imagining, I see it mention by one in particular about not being able to distinguish individual stars in distant galaxies and inferring that we are unable to have any information about anything in such places.
Yet we are able to observe that Pulsars have extremely accurate rotational periods, that compare highly favourable with Earth based atmic clocks.
Ceipheid Variables and our knowledge of other exotic stellar objects also seems to make a mockery of such claims......or are we again claiming some form of conspiracy? The mind boggles!

 

[The God]

It certainly was resolved in other galaxies, through a few acceptable well used astronomical means and estimations.

How ? Can you support your claim ?
To me it appears as usual that you have bitten more than you can chew...

 

[paddoboy]

How ? Can you support your claim ?
To me it appears as usual that you have bitten more than you can chew...

Huh? Are you serious? You are making the claim...Please support it with reputable links and/or papers.
This is the science section, not for your unsupported fairy tale claims.....so perhaps you need to chew on that.

 

[The God]

Paddoboy,

it was certainly resoved in other galaxies by some astronomical means.....is your claim.

So please explain how it was certainly resolved.

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy,

it was certainly resoved in other galaxies by some astronomical means.....is your claim.

So please explain how it was certainly resolved.

I don't need to. You are claiming DM is not required.
You support it or as per James instructions pseudoscience on the science forum, will be removed.

 

[PhysBang]

I forgot to include discoveries of thousands of previously undetected galaxies where only 70 or so were thought to be. This also increases, by many times, the ordinary matter count in regions where previous estimates based on the then-visible meagre amount of matter were obviously very wrong and so needed the extraordinary DM 'fix' which is now increasingly no longer needed. Best.

This, like pretty much everything else you cite, is an example of you half-reading or half-understanding an article and filling in the rest with your fantasy of physics. I'm sorry that this is the case.

 

[paddoboy]

This, like pretty much everything else you cite, is an example of you half-reading or half-understanding an article and filling in the rest with your fantasy of physics. I'm sorry that this is the case.

Certainly seems that way, since he and one other have been continually asked for reputable references/links to support what they suggest, and have failed to deliver.
I think we can all safely construe as to why.

 

[paddoboy]

Here is the link to the Lux DM search........
http://luxdarkmatter.org/


Summary and next steps•
New world-leading result from LUX’s 332 live-day search, cutting into un-probed parameter space. Excluding SI WIMPs down to 0.22 zepto barns

•Publication to be submitted soon; more details on this analysis available today at luxdarkmatter.org •More analyses forthcoming (SD, axion, ALPs, etc.)

•LUX is currently performing a series of end-of-run calibration campaigns.

•Onwards and downwards: LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment under construction, 7 tonne active mass (2020).

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Dark_Matter_Particle_Remains_Elusive_999.html

The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) dark matter experiment has yielded no trace of a dark matter particle after completing its final 20-month long search of the universe, according to LUX collaboration scientists including UCL researchers.

This finding enables scientists to confidently eliminate many potential models for dark matter particles, offering critical guidance for the next generation of experiments.

"The discovery of the nature of the elusive dark matter that accounts for more than four-fifths of the mass of the universe is internationally recognised as one of the highest priorities in science, and the LUX experiment is the world-leading experiment in the direct search of it," explained UCL LUX collaboration scientist Dr Cham Ghag (UCL Physics and Astronomy).