A heavyweight candidate for dark matter

astro-marwil
astro-marwil
Joined: 28 May 05
Posts: 427
Credit: 149,185,114
RAC: 4,978
Topic 219451

Hallo!

The search for particels of dark matter wasn´t successful until now. So scientists try to find new theories , to explain findings. New is also, that they propose a methode for verification for this new particle, called Gravitino.

You´ll find there als a german translation of this article.

 

Kind regards an happy crunching

Martin

Jim1348
Jim1348
Joined: 19 Jan 06
Posts: 345
Credit: 186,757,929
RAC: 430,075

Nice.  It should change the

Nice.  It should change the direction of search for some projects.  I don't see any application for the searches here, but maybe the experts do.

JStateson
JStateson
Joined: 7 May 07
Posts: 69
Credit: 543,161,107
RAC: 1,111,107

astro-marwil

astro-marwil wrote:

Hallo!

The search for particels of dark matter wasn´t successful until now. So scientists try to find new theories , to explain findings. New is also, that they propose a methode for verification for this new particle, called Gravitino.

You´ll find there als a german translation of this article.

 

Kind regards an happy crunching

Martin


If indeed these particles exist


1.  Assume created at time of big bang and spread over the universe during inflation they would have quickly been condensed by virtual of their larger gravitational attraction.


2.  Assuming on-going creation via some unknown stellar mechanism the mass is so large it seems unlikely to escape from the star and if indeed it did escape it would quickly be attracted gravitationally to other nearby bodies.


The only thing this theory has going for it is a possible confirmation, the "paleo-detection" mentioned.  Also implied is a "send more grant money".  At least there is a way to prove or disprove the theory.  the theory can be falsified if there is no evidence of ionization tracks.  This is unlike the global warming theory where less snow means proves global warming and so does more snow.


 



I hope no one takes offense at this.
Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,049
Credit: 108,482,498
RAC: 69,835

JStateson wrote:At least

JStateson wrote:
At least there is a way to prove or disprove the theory.  the theory can be falsified if there is no evidence of ionization tracks.

Indeed this is the traditional scientific method.

As an aside I have just read "Lost in Math : How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" by Sabine Hossenfelder, this being a good savaging of the current state of theoretical particle physics. Ideas like supersymmetry, a fourth family of leptons, extra dimensions, string theory etc ... are clung on to despite increasing lack* of evidence at the Large Hadron Coliider. As each observing run goes by it places greater and greater restraints upon what a theory must contain to agree with reality. Most of the 'beautiful' ideas are now getting quite implausible, requiring alot of fiddling to explain why we haven't seen anything at the LHC beyond the Higgs ( eg. the so-called 750 GeV diphoton excess ). It's a good insight into how groups of people can fool themselves, in this case because of pursuit of a flawed requirement that correct theories must be mathematically 'elegant'. Verification by experiment is almost optional.

The sociology of theoretical particle physics has gotten a bit toxic recently & groupthink rules. It's hard to remain literally solvent in an atmosphere where appointments, tenure, grants etc are all hard-wired to one mantra. Sabine was on the wrong end of this for many years and has decided to tell all. How do you deal with people who have nailed their colors to the wrong mast and thus spent decades up some cul de sac of irrelevance ? How might the next funding request for a brand spanking new & higher power collider be received ? They are not just Tev in energy but heading toward Tera-dollars too.

There are historical precedents for this. 'Vortex theory'** was quite in vogue about a century ago and it too had 'nice' mathematics. Observation wise it was a disaster. Both Dirac and Einstein pursued theoretical dead ends in the latter parts of their careers - one observer wryly noting that Einstein may just as well have taken up sailing after General Relativity - because they yearned for simplicity ( read : beauty ) in mathematical equations. It's strange how people of such obvious high intelligence can - I think due to pride etc - be so blind to the failings of the products of their work. Faced with failure they tend to redefine the measuring stick used to gauge success, instead of trying a new line of theory. Richard Feynman is an excellent counter-example of this, which is why he was so productive ( read : observationally correct ) even to his senior years.

{ Hence String Theory is a wonderful body of mathematics, full of symmetry & an abundance of elegance. Regardless, it utterly fails in any relevance to this physical universe. It has no testable predictions. }

As for dark matter, well, you need some abundance of very interaction shy material to make an observational fit here. This material would gravitationally clump long before the visible baryonic stuff. Either that or we are very wrong about the evolution of the universe. I remember a lecture by Rocky Kolb, a cosmologist, who railed against the Concordance Model ie. what the predominant number of cosmologists thought was correct. He said that one should go for observational agreement, not sociological agreement. But as you allude to there are many areas of 'science' which suffer these tensions of cognitive bias.

Cheers, Mike

* This risks a very profitable arm of publishing too, all the various popular books on one or another topic in vogue these days. 

** Never heard of it ? Neither had I. It was rightly placed in the dumpster of history.

( edit ) Another reviewer of Sabine's book states : "Perhaps the term ‘science’ has become uselessly broad as a description of method, and retains meaning only as a sociological term, to describe organized investigations of the world that are embedded in modern academic institutions." If so this gives an opportunity for the invention of new linguistic terms to clue readers as to which type of endeavour is being described. Try : trad-science, a shortening of 'traditional science' with the opposite being nouveau-science where voting amongst peers rather than physical references is the arbiter. That would reduce confusion & misrepresentation at least. Hence using the trad-science label implies that advocates/investigators throw out untestable theories, those that contradict physical findings plus those that contradict themselves eg. both more and less snow.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Jim1348
Jim1348
Joined: 19 Jan 06
Posts: 345
Credit: 186,757,929
RAC: 430,075

Mike Hewson wrote:As an aside

Mike Hewson wrote:
As an aside I have just read "Lost in Math : How Beauty Leads Physics Astray" by Sabine Hossenfelder, this being a good savaging of the current state of theoretical particle physics. Ideas like supersymmetry, a fourth family of leptons, extra dimensions, string theory etc ... are clung on to despite increasing lack* of evidence at the Large Hadron Coliider. As each observing run goes by it places greater and greater restraints upon what a theory must contain to agree with reality. Most of the 'beautiful' ideas are now getting quite implausible, requiring alot of fiddling to explain why we haven't seen anything at the LHC beyond the Higgs ( eg. the so-called 750 GeV diphoton excess ).

I do some LHC, and have been wondering about that.  On the one hand, you won't know until you look, but on the other hand, is it worth the expense of looking?  The opportunity cost for me is that I could be crunching other projects. 

Fortunately, I don't have to pay for the LHC itself.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,049
Credit: 108,482,498
RAC: 69,835

In such a mature area of

In such a mature area of study it is certainly cheaper to hire theorists than build a better collider. One barbed riposte has been that theorists should work harder on the data they have, rather than bemoan what they don't have. It sounds like it is becoming a bit cruel.

I think the Chinese are proposing a 100 Tev machine.

Cheers, Mike

( edit ) FWIW this is why I like LIGO and E@H : physical measurement to extreme degrees of accuracy is the norm, and analysis is replete with checks and balances to prevent any false discoveries. The outcome of such a hard-core approach has been some wonderful new insights into the universe.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Jim1348
Jim1348
Joined: 19 Jan 06
Posts: 345
Credit: 186,757,929
RAC: 430,075

Thanks, it is very useful to

Thanks, it is very useful to have a third-party expert opinion.

I may humor them for their current ring; they had to convince someone to spend the money on it.  But I expect the proposed bigger ring will be a lot harder to fund, for scientific as well as economic reasons.  Maybe the Chinese will do it instead. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.