Dark Matter: Canadian Astronomers Suggest It May Not Exist

[Michael Mozina]

Incorrect.

The conclusion that ordinary matter constitutes about 4% of the closure density of the Universe is derived from the standard BBN processes taking place in a universe that expands according to GR when it is dominated by radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Show me where in this article it predicts any specific quantity of dark matter that is created in this BBN process? I don't see a word about thee quantity of created dark matter in most BBN definitions.

In that case p = \frac{1}{3} \rho c^2 and the scale factor is given by R(t) \propto t^\frac{1}{2}.

This sets the limit on the time for nucleosynthesis to continue.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy have nothing to do with it.

Garth

Precisely. :)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here by the way is an interesting observation that was recently posted by BDOA in another thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=195486

It seems as though WIMP annihilation theories didn't seem to jive with the recent search for high energy neutrino point sources. In fact these high energy neutrinos do not seem to track to any known point source in our immediate vicinity. That revelation is yet one more damaging piece of data for WIMP oriented dark matter theories.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0053v1.pdf

8.1 WIMP searches

We have performed searches for WIMP annihilations in the center of the Earth,
Sun and Galactic Center using upward through-going muons [7]. Here we
repeat the same search using upward showering muons. The cone size which
contains most of the WIMP signal is inversely proportional to the WIMP
mass. Since only high-mass WIMPs produce upward showering muons, we
perform these searches in cones only up to 5◦. Such a cone contains 90% of
the signal for a WIMP of mass 1438 GeV from the Earth and 1000 GeV from
the Sun and Galactic Center [7]. The observed data and expected background
(evaluated in the same way as in Ref. [7]) are shown in Table 2. Since, there
is no statistically significant excess in any of the search cones, we do not see
any evidence for WIMP-induced upward showering muons in our dataset.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP

Indirect detection efforts rest upon the theoretical prediction that halo WIMPs may, as they pass through the Sun, interact with solar protons and helium nuclei. Such an interaction would cause a WIMP to lose energy and become "captured" by the Sun (see Solar WIMP capture). As more and more WIMPs thermalize inside the Sun, they begin to annihilate with each other, forming a variety of particles including high-energy neutrinos.[1] These neutrinos may then travel to the Earth to be detected in one of the many neutrino telescopes, such as the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan. The number of neutrino events detected per day at these detectors depends upon the properties of the WIMP, as well as on the mass of the Higgs boson. Similar experiments are underway to detect neutrinos from WIMP annihilations within the Earth and from within the galactic center.[2][3]

The results are in, and there were no WIMP point sources found in the earth, in the sun, or in the galactic core. When does a metaphysical theory become falsified, and how does one falsify it exactly? It seems to me that an important and key testable prediction of this theory has been falsified. There is no empirical data to support this metaphysical concept, and there may never be any empirical data to support this idea. How then can non baryonic dark matter hypothesis, and Lambda-CDM theory be any more scientifically viable than another other cosmology theory?

 

[Chronos]

Evidence favoring the existence of dark matter is abundant. It perturbs all cosmological structures and appears in gravitational lensing surveys. MOND sometimes works for structure, but is powerless to explain lensing, hence, the abiding preference for DM in the astrophysics community. It's form, however, is unknown. There could be a bestiary of 'dark' particles [my present favorite], or it could be dominated by a single entity. It is, however, devilishly difficult to detect. But, so was the neutrino for much the same reasons - the stuff does not play well with ordinary matter. Not knowing it's form does not diminish observational evidence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidence favoring the existence of dark matter is abundant. It perturbs all cosmological structures and appears in gravitational lensing surveys. MOND sometimes works for structure, but is powerless to explain lensing, hence, the abiding preference for DM in the astrophysics community.

Actually this thread started by Ivan posting a link to a modified gravity theory that did seem to explain the lensing aspects of the bullet cluster data.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071029-mm-mog-theory.html

It's form, however, is unknown. There could be a bestiary of 'dark' particles [my present favorite], or it could be dominated by a single entity.

The problem may even be muddier than first believed. One "entity" that seems to be out there in the plasmas of space, that hasn't really been accounted for, are electron streams.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152248.htm

It is, however, devilishly difficult to detect. But, so was the neutrino for much the same reasons - the stuff does not play well with ordinary matter. Not knowing it's form does not diminish observational evidence.

I think my primary complaint is that one of the few actual testable "predictions" that were made with non-baryonic dark matter theories has been shot down. There are no resolved point sources of WIMP annihilation in the Super-Kamiokande detector data. This is on top of the fact that no empirical data has ever detected non-baryonic "dark matter".

Most theories would be "falsified" by such key prediction failures. DM theories however are extremely nebulous, and they are therefore utterly unfalsifiable. It's a bit like a "whack-a-mole" exercise. We can whack down some key predictions of one type of DM theory, but another DM hypothesis emerges somewhere else and nobody seems to abandon the old falsified concept that we just whacked down.

 

[Garth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

Show me where in this article it predicts any specific quantity of dark matter that is created in this BBN process? I don't see a word about thee quantity of created dark matter in most BBN definitions.

BBN is not about the creation of DM, it is about the nucleosynthesis of baryonic matter.

Non-baryonic DM, if it exists, would have been produced at an earlier stage, which is unknown at present as non-baryonic DM is undiscovered and unknown at present.

So your statement

Well, let's look at the assumptions they begin with.

1. INTRODUCTION
Ordinary matter constitutes about 4% of the closure density of the Universe,

That is only true according to Lambda-CDM theory. If you don't subscribe to Lambda-CDM theory, (for instance you're a MOND theorist) this statement is false.

is incorrect.

A MOND theorist would conclude "Ordinary matter constitutes about 4% of the closure density of the Universe" as well.

To change the 4% closure density of baryonic matter and arrive at the correct amount of helium, you have to change the R(t) of the universe during those first three minutes.

This might be possible if a form of DE was dominant then, however that would change the other trace element abundances.

Garth

 

[eep]

This is on top of the fact that no empirical data has ever detected non-baryonic "dark matter".

Most theories would be "falsified" by such key prediction failures. DM theories however are extremely nebulous, and they are therefore utterly unfalsifiable. It's a bit like a "whack-a-mole" exercise. We can whack down some key predictions of one type of DM theory, but another DM hypothesis emerges somewhere else and nobody seems to abandon the old falsified concept that we just whacked down.

I don't see why you would expect to have seen empirical evidence of direct detection of non-baryonic "dark matter". CDMS and presumably Liquid Xenon are *just now* starting to get enough detector mass to perform a search in the heart of the WIMP parameter space. It's foolish to stop looking for something before you look where you expect to find it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

BBN is not about the creation of DM, it is about the nucleosynthesis of baryonic matter.

That was my whole point. The smiley at the end of my post was specifically intended to point out that BBN has nothing to do with dark anything.

Non-baryonic DM, if it exists, would have been produced at an earlier stage, which is unknown at present as non-baryonic DM is undiscovered and unknown at present.

It's a little odd (fishy actually) from my perspective that you believe that DM is something like 10 times more abundant that normal matter, it's larger than a proton, yet it's not even mentioned once in BBN? How come?

There's a core problem here form the very start. Baryonic and even non-baryonic forms of mass would have caused the whole mass body to collapse in on itself in the first few seconds. These calculations then cannot be directly related to testable physics without introducing a metaphysical force of nature to explain why the whole thing wouldn't implode during the BBN event. If you intend to toss inflation into that mix, where are those calculations? Where is your empirical evidence that inflation is a real force of nature and has some effect on controlled test of this nucleosynthesis of mass process?

So your statement is incorrect.

A MOND theorist would conclude "Ordinary matter constitutes about 4% of the closure density of the Universe" as well.

I don't believe that your 4% "ordinary" matter number is accurate, because that is all that BBN predicts. 100% of the matter that comes out of BBN theory is directly related to baryonic matter. To be honest however, I haven't really sat down to figure out the density of baryonic mass in a MOND theory probably because I'm not that attached to MOND theory. Do you have a published and peer reviewed reference that verifies that statement about a 4% figure?

To change the 4% closure density of baryonic matter and arrive at the correct amount of helium, you have to change the R(t) of the universe during those first three minutes.

Those first three minutes should have been pretty uneventful based on standard GR theory. The mass density of the singularity would have been enormous. Nothing should have escaped that gravitational well. It's is only when you begin by slapping inflation theories into this mix that any sort of "density' calculation might be possible. How did you arrive at an energy density of baryonic matter based on *standard* (non-metaphysical) physics without the whole thing imploding in the first second?

This might be possible if a form of DE was dominant then, however that would change the other trace element abundances.

Garth

Well Garth, I suppose anything is possible. I've never seen any evidence for DE either, so IMO that's just another gap filler to prop up an otherwise failed gravitational theory. GR theory as Einstein practiced it, and taught it, was really a theory about the *attraction* force of matter. Einstein himself regretted ever trying to "complicate" a GR theory of attraction with a constant. He called that introduction of a constant his greatest blunder. GR works perfectly to describe gravitational attraction. Any external force of nature that moves physical bodies would likely take on properties that are directly related to that specific force of nature, not that mass body. There is no indication that an attractive force of nature has anything at all to do with acceleration. EM fields can describe an acceleration processes in plasma bodies without resorting to any sort of metaphysics. IMO DE is just as "out there" in metaphysicsville as DM theory, perhaps even more so.

When I took physics classes in college, we talked about various forces on objects and the effect that these forces of nature had on objects. I never once heard any of professors claim that: "There was no direct force involved in that acceleration process between two objects, the space between the objects is simply expanding and accelerating". While pure expansion can be achieved by "coasting", some physical force would be required to cause the objects to accelerate away from one another and some physical force would need to keep them from attracting one another and causing the expansion rate to decrease over time.

You would have been laughed out of class for claiming that there was no actual force that relates to GR, and thereby limits the speed of objects to light speed, the "space (however that relates to real physics) between" the objects simply expands at unbelievable speeds! You would have flunked any test on such a topic had you attempted to use that kind of explanation to describe the acceleration of objects.

Ever since Guth's inflation theory became 'all the rage' in astronomy, it has become more and more acceptable to stuff metaphysics into math formulas. Prior to Guth's metaphysical inflation theory, metaphysics was frowned upon. IMO it should still be frowned upon. I have no faith in inflation, I think Guth made it up in his imagination. I also have no faith in DE or DM, and I'm certainly not alone in that skepticism of the growing reliance upon metaphysics in modern astronomy:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

I think that the older generation tends to be a bit more skeptical about these types of theoretical approaches to science. Plasma physics branches of science tend to be far more interesting to me, and far more useful IMO because the ideas that come from these branches of science can be tested in controlled conditions. I've never seen anyone come up with a 'controlled' non-baryonic matter test. I've never seen anyone come up with a controlled DE test. I've never seen anyone come up with a controlled inflation test. These are all mathematical constructs that do not seem to have any relationship to anything that actually exists in nature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't see why you would expect to have seen empirical evidence of direct detection of non-baryonic "dark matter".

I expect to see empirical evidence of every claim eep. That's what separates science from pure faith.

CDMS and presumably Liquid Xenon are *just now* starting to get enough detector mass to perform a search in the heart of the WIMP parameter space. It's foolish to stop looking for something before you look where you expect to find it.

While I absolutely agree with you that it would be foolish for us to stop looking for something before we look where we expect to find it, but we have already looked for it and we didn't find it.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0053v1.pdf

8.1 WIMP searches

We have performed searches for WIMP annihilations in the center of the Earth,
Sun and Galactic Center using upward through-going muons [7]. Here we
repeat the same search using upward showering muons. The cone size which
contains most of the WIMP signal is inversely proportional to the WIMP
mass. Since only high-mass WIMPs produce upward showering muons, we
perform these searches in cones only up to 5◦. Such a cone contains 90% of
the signal for a WIMP of mass 1438 GeV from the Earth and 1000 GeV from
the Sun and Galactic Center [7]. The observed data and expected background
(evaluated in the same way as in Ref. [7]) are shown in Table 2. Since, there
is no statistically significant excess in any of the search cones, we do not see
any evidence for WIMP-induced upward showering muons in our dataset.

They didn't find any point sources in the high energy neutrino data. What do we do now? How long do we keep looking for something that may not even exist? Why am I personally obligated to put faith in WIMP theory when it has already failed at least one critical observationally oriented "test", and there is no empirical evidence to support SUSY particle theory in general? I guess that is the real dilemma for me. I simply can't find it in me to put faith in any idea that sounds remarkably like 'dogma' and lacks empirical support. The skeptic in me just cringes.

 

[EL]

M.M., our discussion is leading nowhere. It seems you cannot differ between a suggestion (hypothesis) and a claim. As soon as anyone suggests that WIMPs may solve the dark matter problem you say something in line with: "How can you suggest that when we don't know that they exist". Once again, no one claims that WIMPs is the solution. WIMPs is a suggestion, just like MOND is. What we are discussing here is which one we find being the best suggestion.

I'll try to do a (last) summary:

There are astronomical observations which cannot be explained by known physics (GR + Standard Model).

There are two suggestions that (at least at first sight) makes some sense:
* Adding more parameters to our model of matter (i.e. extending the Standard Model)
or
* Adding more parameters to our model of gravity (i.e. extending General Relativity)

At this stage both attempts are on pretty equal footing. We could just try a number of ad hoc particle models, or a number of ad hoc MOND models, just with the intention of fitting the cosmological data. However, if we cannot find any other reasons for those extensions, they are both pretty much curve fitting.

Now, there are hints completely unrelated to cosmology whispering about the need to extend the Standard Model, namely the so called "hierarchy problem". In order to solve this "hierarchy problem" there need to exist new particles with certain properties not far above the electroweak scale. Now, by a coincidence, it turns out the kind of model needed for the solution of the hiearchy problem, also provides a good dark matter candidate. (I.e. when doing the calculations one sees that this particle automatically would leave a relic density of the order needed to explain the dark matter.)

Even if you do not agree with that such a "unification" is a good motivation for WIMPs (although I actually cannot see how one don't find such a "unification" appealing), that does not mean that WIMPs are less motivated than MOND; instead they are simply back on the same footing (i.e. more or less just a curve fitting).

Let's for a while pretend that WIMPs were not motivated by any particle physics arguments. How could we then determine wheter WIMPs or MOND is the best attempt?
Well, we simply have to construct models of both kind and try to fit the cosmological data.
As it has turned out, WIMPs are much more succesfull in fitting the data than MOND.
So, even if based only on its "curve fitting ability", WIMPs defeats MOND.

Add to that the "unification" argument and the WIMPs gets an even bigger lead.

With this I am not saying that WIMPs is the solution. I am neither saying that modified gravity cannot be the solution. All I am saying is that I find WIMPs a much more promising solution than modified gravity. (So don't try to make any more straw-men out of this.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

So what do you make of the fact that the Super-K group found no point sources in the search for WIMP annihilations?

 

[Count Iblis]

So what do you make of the fact that the Super-K group found no point sources in the search for WIMP annihilations?

Who says that dark matter must be WIMPS that will lead to an anihilation signal? It could just as well be Axions, Simps, Mirror matter, Elko matter, Sterile neutrinos, Scalar field dark matter, Axinos, Gravitinos, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Who says that dark matter must be WIMPS that will lead to an anihilation signal? It could just as well be Axions, Simps, Mirror matter, Elko matter, Sterile neutrinos, Scalar field dark matter, Axinos, Gravitinos, etc. etc. etc.

The WIKI "bible" said it. That's why DM is a 'whack-a-mole' metaphysical theory. Nobody is sure what it's made of or what it looks like, and nobody can demonstrate that it actually exists in nature. It's a fishing expedition. No matter how many times we whack down one idea, another idea pops up. The hypothesis of DM is therefore completely unfalsifiable.

 

[eep]

So what do you make of the fact that the Super-K group found no point sources in the search for WIMP annihilations?

I'm young and not too familiar with Super-K but from reading the paper I don't quite see what the problem is. The cutoff masses they are using (2000 GeV for the sun and 1500 GeV for the Earth and Galactic center) seem to be around an order of magnitude too high for the theoretical WIMP mass.

Furthermore, isn't this just saying that they didn't see any evidence of high-mass WIMP annihilations in the center of earth, Sun, and galactic center? How does this rule out dark matter?

I don't understand how you expect science to be done. You want the experimental results to verify the theory before the theory has even been proposed. Dirac proposed the existence of the positron in 1928 and it wasn't detected until 1932. You're saying that they shouldn't have been looking for it since there was no empirical evidence to back it up?

 

[EL]

So what do you make of the fact that the Super-K group found no point sources in the search for WIMP annihilations?

Could you please provide a link? I am not familiar with this specific search. Probably it puts some limits on WIMPs, but I am sure I would have known if it had constituted any bigger threat.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Could you please provide a link? I am not familiar with this specific search. Probably it puts some limits on WIMPs, but I am sure I would have known if it had constituted any bigger threat.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0053v1.pdf

 

[EL]

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.0053v1.pdf

Thanks.

So what do you make of the fact that the Super-K group found no point sources in the search for WIMP annihilations?

I do not get what you mean. What I find about point sources is that...

...We look for signatures of neutrinos from 62 suspected point sources.<...>Most of these sources are either supernova remnants, pulsars, magnetars or different
types of active galactic nuclei.

Then they also look for unexpected point sources. (Section 8.3)

What the paper does is that it marginally lowers the upper limit on neutrino fluxes from heavy WIMPs (>1500 GeV) from the Earth, Sun and Galactic centre (solid line in figs 9,10,11), compared to the already existing limits (dashed line in figs 9,10,11) from 2004 (see ref [7]).

 

[Michael Mozina]

What the paper does is that it marginally lowers the upper limit on neutrino fluxes from heavy WIMPs (>1500 GeV) from the Earth, Sun and Galactic centre (solid line in figs 9,10,11), compared to the already existing limits (dashed line in figs 9,10,11) from 2004 (see ref [7]).

I guess my primary complaints with the WIMP hypothesis is that it failed a key prediction, and it lacks empirical support. The expected energy releases from WIMPS inside of heavy mass objects did not seem to materialize. These high energy neutrino releases did not trace to any particular point source that this team looked at, including the earth, the sun, and the galactic core. Heavy mass bodies were expected to emit high energy neutrinos that were directly related to WIMP annihilation. This international team found nothing in the data to indicate that WIMPS were being annihilated in any of these mass bodies as predicted. Compare and contrast that now with high energy cosmic rays, which can be traced to point sources, specific galactic cores.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23994

As I see it, non-baryonic DM hypothesis are so poorly defined and so poorly constrained (nobody can even be sure what kind of hypothetical SUSY particle it might be), that such theories are completely unfalsifiable by any specific test in science. That unfalsifiable aspect of the non-baryonic DM hypothesis puts that particular hypothesis (and therefore Lambda-CDM theory) *outside* of the realm of standard science. Believing in non-baryonic forms of DM is an act of faith at this point in time because there is no evidence that any SUSY particle actually exists in nature, and there are other ways to explain galaxy movements and lensing patterns without resorting to any DM hypothesis. There is no controlled scientific test that has ever demonstrated that non-baryonic forms of DM exist at all. IMO that makes MOND theories more attractive (to me personally) than Lambda-CDM theory or non-baryonic dark matter theories. I also tend to prefer plasma cosmology theories over Lambda-CDM theory for the very same reason, although I recognize that plasma cosmology theory is far less developed in some areas. The way I see it, the difference between science and pure faith is empirical data. At the moment I would have to call any belief in non-baryonic DM (and Lambda-CDM theory) an act of faith, not scientific fact, whereas the testable parts of plasma cosmology theory (like Birkeland currents), can be considered scientific fact at this point in time. I can see from our conversations that there is a very strong subjective component in deciding what is the "best" scientific theory, and I would personally not rank WIMP theories of Lambda-CDM theory very highly as it relates to enjoying much in the way of direct empirical support.

FYI, though we have talked past each other at times in this thread, I have very much enjoyed the opportunity to present my opinions in such a professional atmosphere. I appreciate your efforts and your style of communication, even if I don't share your faith in non-baryonic forms of dark matter. Thanks for a really great conversation.

 

[Chronos]

The TeVeS hypothesis is the only MOND variant that reasonably accommodates gravitational lensing. But, it is sorely tested by the Bullet Cluster and this paper by Massey et. al.:

Dark matter maps reveal cosmic scaffolding
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701594

This of course 'proves' nothing. But in science, nothing is ever 'proven', merely elevated to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. The DM hypothesis, in the minds of cosmological jurists, has met this standard. MOND has not. The jury is, however, still out [as always] and new observational evidence could swing the pendulem the other way. Perhaps the most serious objection to MOND is that it is an effective theory, not one derived from fundamental physics. It attempts to reverse engineer the laws of gravity and relativity. This approach is not invalid, merely distasteful to most scientists. Adding new quanties [like DM] to well established theories is always preferred to rewriting the textbooks. This is human nature and the 'main' in mainstream. The logic is if existing theories are incorrect, they will eventually collapse under their own weight. To date, the LCDM model has proven robust despite an incredible number of disparate tests.

 

[EL]

I guess my primary complaints with the WIMP hypothesis is that it failed a key prediction

Which key prediciton?

The expected energy releases from WIMPS inside of heavy mass objects did not seem to materialize.

I don't think you understood this correctly. The paper put limits on the neutrino flux from WIMP annihilations (or really it only slightly improves the since 2004 already existing limits).
The flux basically depends on two things: 1) The density of WIMPs inside these objects. 2) The cross section for WIMP annihilation into neutrinos.
"1)" is actually quite uncertain since computer simulations of structure formation have not reached enough accuracy on such small scales. (I.e. the local density of dark matter is quite uncertain.)
"2)" depends on which WIMP model you are considering.
We can only start to rule out models in this way after (more or less) "assuming" a density of WIMPs in the sun/earth/galactic centre. Using the standard density profiles the part of e.g. outruled SUSY models is quite tiny.
To summarize: One did not expect to see any WIMP signal (although one of course hoped for that).

These high energy neutrino releases did not trace to any particular point source that this team looked at, including the earth, the sun, and the galactic core.

The Earth, Sun and Galactic center are definitely not point sources.

This international team found nothing in the data to indicate that WIMPS were being annihilated in any of these mass bodies as predicted.

No, there was no such prediction.

There is no controlled scientific test that has ever demonstrated that non-baryonic forms of DM exist at all.

Of course there is: Neutrinos. (Although it has been shown they can only make up a fraction of the total mass needed.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which key prediciton?

This one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIMP

Indirect detection efforts rest upon the theoretical prediction that halo WIMPs may, as they pass through the Sun, interact with solar protons and helium nuclei. Such an interaction would cause a WIMP to lose energy and become "captured" by the Sun (see Solar WIMP capture). As more and more WIMPs thermalize inside the Sun, they begin to annihilate with each other, forming a variety of particles including high-energy neutrinos.[1] These neutrinos may then travel to the Earth to be detected in one of the many neutrino telescopes, such as the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan. The number of neutrino events detected per day at these detectors depends upon the properties of the WIMP, as well as on the mass of the Higgs boson. Similar experiments are underway to detect neutrinos from WIMP annihilations within the Earth and from within the galactic center.[2][3]

To summarize: One did not expect to see any WIMP signal (although one of course hoped for that).

According to WIKI, someone someone expected to see point source WIMP signals. I would certainly expect that a relatively heavy particle would in fact be drawn by gravity toward large gravity wells. The expectation of seeing high energy neutrino emissions was logical, and falsifiable, unlike a lot of dark matter "traits". Unfortunately there isn't even evidence to support that position.

Of course there is: Neutrinos. (Although it has been shown they can only make up a fraction of the total mass needed.)

Well, in the sense that neutrinos are not baryons, and they are thought to contain mass, I will agree that there are non-baryonic forms of mass that have been identified. These identified particles of mass however are not "dark matter". They are known particles that are not dependent upon the reliability of SUSY theory or the hypothetical particles that are typically associated with "dark matter" theory. I don't have any problem with an attempt to use MACHOS or neutrinos to explain "missing mass", but I see no evidence that any of the "missing mass" is contained in WIMPS or axions or any other theoretical particle.

 

[EL]

According to WIKI, someone someone expected to see point source WIMP signals. I would certainly expect that a relatively heavy particle would in fact be drawn by gravity toward large gravity wells. The expectation of seeing high energy neutrino emissions was logical, and falsifiable, unlike a lot of dark matter "traits". Unfortunately there isn't even evidence to support that position.

If WIMPs exist it is certainly true that there should be an enhancement of them in massive objects (such as the Sun or Earth). A higher WIMP density would of course increase the flux of neutrinos produced in WIMP annihilations (since there will simply be more annihilation processes taking place compared to in regions of lower WIMP density).
However, one does not expect to see a certain flux of neutrinos, since these fluxes vary dramatically depending on the specific WIMP model. The upper limit on the neutrino flux set by the super kamiokande only rules out a small part of the WIMP models. Actually, in order to rule out any specific models one must first estimate the density of WIMPs inside the Sun/Earth, something which actually is not very easy.
(I tried to say all this in my last post.)

To summarize: The today existing limits on neutrino fluxes from the Sun and Earth are to high to rule out anything but a fraction of WIMP models. Your claim that one expected to see neutrino fluxes higher than the limits put by super kamiokande is simply false, and there's nothing more to discuss here.

Also, I do not get why you keep talking about "point sources". A "point source" is just a source which is to small to be spatially resolved by the instrument. (And this is certainly not the case for the Sun and the Earth.)

I will agree that there are non-baryonic forms of mass that have been identified. These identified particles of mass however are not "dark matter".

Of course they are "dark matter". They do not interact through the electromagnetic force (i.e. they do not interact with photons) and hence are certainly "dark". However, they are just making up a fraction of the total amount of dark matter needed to explain observations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If WIMPs exist it is certainly true that there should be an enhancement of them in massive objects (such as the Sun or Earth). A higher WIMP density would of course increase the flux of neutrinos produced in WIMP annihilations (since there will simply be more annihilation processes taking place compared to in regions of lower WIMP density).

But that is not what they found. They found no evidence of any annihilation process taking place in the earth, in the sun, or in the galactic core.

To summarize: The today existing limits on neutrino fluxes from the Sun and Earth are to high to rule out anything but a fraction of WIMP models.

IMO, this statement simply demonstrates that WIMPs are unfalsifiable, and therefore they are outside the realm of science.

Your claim that one expected to see neutrino fluxes higher than the limits put by super kamiokande is simply false, and there's nothing more to discuss here.

I simply quoted WIKI, and it's claim that SuperK would likely detect annihilation signatures. It wasn't my claim that we should expect to see point sources in the neutrinos emissions in the SuperK data. I posted the link from Wiki that made the claim that SuperK might detect these annihilation signatures.

Also, I do not get why you keep talking about "point sources". A "point source" is just a source which is to small to be spatially resolved by the instrument. (And this is certainly not the case for the Sun and the Earth.

Actually, SuperK does observe neutrino emissions that can be resolved to the sun. It is a "point source" that can be easily picked out in the basic neutrino data. Granted, the resolution is quite limited, but there is no doubt that they can see neutrino emissions coming from the sun. They see no high energy neutrino point sources however.

Of course they are "dark matter". They do not interact through the electromagnetic force (i.e. they do not interact with photons) and hence are certainly "dark". However, they are just making up a fraction of the total amount of dark matter needed to explain observations.

Now we seem to be splitting hairs over definitions. I will accept that neutrinos exist and "could" be considered a form of "dark matter", just as I will accept that MACHOS are a valid scientific explanation for "missing mass". I assume that identified particles exist if they can be detected in standard scientific experiments. Neutrinos are know to exist, and they are *thought* to contain mass. In that sense, I have no problem with you proposing neutrino mass as "part" of the missing mass you are looking for. I see zero evidence however that WIMPS or axions or other theoretical forms of "missing mass" exist in nature. Your claim that these hypothetical SUSY theory related particles may account for missing mass is therefore an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see no evidence that WIMPS exist, or that their annihilation signatures can be detected in any major bodies that we are aware of.

FYI, I'm out of town on business this week, and I will only be able to post to this thread on an irregular basis this week.

 

[Count Iblis]

"[URL Dark Matter
[/URL]

Tatsuru Kikuchi, Nobuchika Okada
(Submitted on 9 Nov 2007)
Abstract: Once a parity is introduced in unparticle physics, under which unparticle provided in a hidden conformal sector is odd while all Standard Model particles are even, unparticle can be a suitable candidate for the cold dark matter (CDM) in the present universe through its coupling to the Standard Model Higgs doublet. We find that for Higgs boson mass in the range, 114.4 GeV < m_h < 250 GeV, the relic abundance of unparticle with mass 50 GeV < m_U < 80 GeV can be consistent with the currently observed CDM density. In this scenario, Higgs boson with mass m_h < 160 GeV dominantly decays into a pair of unparticles and such an invisible Higgs boson may be discovered in future collider experiments.
Comments: 5 pages, 3 figures
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Astrophysics (astro-ph); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th)
Report number: KEK-TH-1198
Cite as: arXiv:0711.1506v1 [hep-ph]

Submission history
From: Tatsuru Kikuchi [view email]
[v1] Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:21:49 GMT (140kb)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Extraordinary claims...

"[URL Dark Matter
[/URL]

Well, let's see what evidence they have to support this "unparticle" physics idea? It's certainly an extraordinary claim!

Existence of the dark matter (DM) is now strongly supported
by various observations of the present universe,

That not a promising start IMO. Mond theories would explain these various observations just as well as "missing mass". Even if unidentified mass is a "better" explanation for these various observations, there is absolutely no evidence that the missing mass in question has anything at all to do with any new forms of mass. For all I know your missing mass is simply due to a gross underestimation of the standard baryonic mass that is sitting inside solar systems. There is no evidence that any of this missing mass is contained in any exotic, or unknown forms of matter. They are essentially basing their unparticle physics idea on a very specific (and questionable) interpretation of a pure observation;
They are not basing their idea on controlled scientific experimentation. This is not a good way to start to support a particle physics theory IMO. I would expect a particle physics theory to be based on controlled experimentation from the realm of particle physics experimentation, not pure interpretation based on uncontrolled observations of distant objects.

in particular,theWilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite [1] have determined the various cosmological parameters with greater accuracy.

WMAP also records "cold spots" in the universe that turn out to be giant "holes" inside our physical universe that Lambda-CDM theory failed to predict! In fact the WMAP data, and the corresponding holes that were found in the galaxy rule out current Lambda-CDM theories because the universe is *not* homogeneous as Lambda-CDM theory and inflation theory predicted. This isn't going well IMO.

FYI, there is actually new scientific evidence that the WMAP anisotropy we observe is related to interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) rather than being directly related to the mass layout of the whole physical universe.

The relic abundance of cold dark matter (CDM) is estimated to be (in 2 range)

From a skeptics point of view, this whole opening paragraph is self serving, more than a little bit dated, and highly debatable. Lambda-CDM theory *failed* to predict a non homogeneous universe. It is therefore rather dubious from my skeptical perspective to be using a falsified cosmology theory to attempt to substantiate the existence of a new, and exotic form of matter.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I see no evidence to support this idea, nor do I see any evidence to support extraordinary claims such as these:

The most promising candidate of CDM is the so called
weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP).

WIMPS have never been shown to exist in nature. This is akin to me claiming that the most promising candidate to explain "missing mass" is iron sun theory.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html

Who gets to decide what is the most "promising" method to explain missing mass based on pure observations of objects that are light years away from us?

The notion of an iron sun is at least falsifiable by conventional science, whereas these exotic forms of matter theories are completely and utterly unfalsifiable.

If and when LHC finds controlled scientific evidence of WIMPS or some other form of exotic mass, then it would be appropriate to suggest that this missing mass might be caused by some new and exotic form of mass. Without any such corroboration from controlled experimentation, this "unparticle" theory looks to be unsupported, and therefore unimpressive.

 

[EL]

But that is not what they found. They found no evidence of any annihilation process taking place in the earth, in the sun, or in the galactic core.

And, as I said, no one expected they would find anything. (I cannot see why you have such a hard time of getting that?) The main bulk of WIMP models would not produce a strong enough signal of neutrinos from these places to be detectable with the super kamiokande. This is the last time I am saying this. If you don't believe me its up to you. I just cannot be more clear on this.

In fact, I can't see that this whole discussion is leading anywhere at the moment. For example, you just can't let go of you mantra "since we don't know that WIMPs really exist we cannot suggest them as an explanation for dark matter". But of course we can do that! It's no more worse than suggesting new parameters in the laws of gravity: we don't know wheter these really "exist" or not either...
It seems like known physics cannot solve the dark matter problem, and hence there is no other way to go then trying to make sophisticated speculations about new physics (like e.g. WIMPs or MOND), and then just "shut up and calculate" its concequencies.

All your counterarguments against WIMPs simply works equally well on MOND theories.

 

[Nereid]

In this thread, it seems that MM presents ideas that are similar to those presented by members of other internet discussion fora (sometimes under the name MichaelMozina (or similar), sometimes under other names).

As has been stated, by several folk here, several times, much of the case presented by MM is based on strawmen statements, misunderstandings of relevant papers, and so on.

However, there are two aspects of 'the MM case' which has not been commented on much: 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology), and "EU theory".

The latter ("EU theory") is easy to address: there are no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, which provide even an OOM (order of magnitude) account of any of the key sets of cosmologically relevant observations*, so even by MM's own 'falsifiable' standard, there's no theory to even test. In terms of astronomical observations of more 'local' objects (of direct relevance to dark matter), AFAIK, this so-called theory has produced just one set of papers, on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Strangely, despite there being (apparently) thousands of energetic supporters of this idea, many of whom claim to have a scientific training more than adequate to take freely available, high quality astronomical observations, analyse them within the framework of this idea, and write papers, none have done so (apparently)**. Even more strange is the lack of anything on the match between the multiple sets of independent astronomical observations of rich clusters and this so-called theory.

So, until someone actually writes a paper or three addressing these weaknesses, "EU theory" is a non-starter, as a scientific theory which can claim to address the relevant astronomical and cosmological observations (i.e. those pertaining to dark matter).

The former (falsification) is, I think, a much deeper problem, with the case presented by MM.

It goes to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scientific process, and the way modern science is actually done.

The part which is, perhaps, easiest to show (falsify!) is the 'lab experiments' part, by looking one level deeper into demarcation as it applies to 'astronomy beyond the solar system'.

Start with [OIII]: in which lab has it been observed? (A: none; no lab can create a sufficiently hard vacuum, of sufficiently large volume, for a sufficiently long time). Move on to EeV protons, gigatesla magnetic fields, stable nucleon degenerate matter, black holes, ... and you have a cline. The demarcation issue becomes severe: either [OIII] is out (never mind dark, non-baryonic matter!), or it is in (and so is dark, non-baryonic matter); any other demarcation is entirely arbitrary.

The most interesting, and most OT, aspect is '(naive) falsification is the touchstone of science'^. This is a discussion that should move to https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=95". Briefly, however, this Popperian view of how science works is easily falsified (and I think you'll find that Popper himself only used it as a foil - he was far too well-read to seriously entertain such a manifestly false idea).

*A brief summary (those with direct pertinence to DM highlighted):
+ Olbers' paradox, generalised to all wavebands
+ the primordial abundance of the light nuclides, H, D, ³He, ⁴He, and ⁶Li
+ the SED of the CMB
+ the angular power spectrum of the CMB
+ large-scale structure.

I am excluding papers which do present at least OOM estimates, but which are quite inconsistent with the relevant observations; for example, there's one by Alfvén which contains comments on large-scale structure; modern observations of this rule out Alfvén's distribution.[/size]

**This has always seemed particularly odd to me, given the tens of thousands of hours proponents of this idea seem to devote to posting in internet discussion fora and mounting vitriolic attacks on mainstream astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists via websites of their own.[/size]

^To be fair, I don't think MM actually used this phrase; however, the logic of many of his posts (or parts of them), in this thread, seems to rely heavily on it.[/size]

 

[Michael Mozina]

In this thread, it seems that MM presents ideas that are similar to those presented by members of other internet discussion fora (sometimes under the name MichaelMozina (or similar), sometimes under other names).

Yep. I've been busy challenging the mainstream position on several different forums. :) The only other handle I've personally used was ManInTheMirror at the Baut, but then you already knew that. :)

As has been stated, by several folk here, several times, much of the case presented by MM is based on strawmen statements, misunderstandings of relevant papers, and so on.

That is simply not true. I've used papers provided by the mainstream and I've shown where the arguments that are presented in these papers is invalid based on current research, where it is based on pure pseudo-science, or where it is simply unfalsifiable by any controlled scientific test.

However, there are two aspects of 'the MM case' which has not been commented on much: 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology), and "EU theory".

That's because mainstream theory can't be falsified and that's what makes it fall into the realm of pseudoscience rather than testable physical science. Most mainstreamers don't like to publicly discuss the weaknesses of current theory. When one mentions the fact that inflation is unlike any known scalar or vector field found in nature, most mainstreamers run for cover. Watch what happens for instance when I ask you to identify another vector or scalar field in nature that retains near constant density over several exponential increases in volume...

The latter ("EU theory") is easy to address: there are no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, which provide even an OOM (order of magnitude) account of any of the key sets of cosmologically relevant observations*, so even by MM's own 'falsifiable' standard, there's no theory to even test.

That is simply a false statement. Alfven and Peratt have published many papers on plasma cosmology theory, and I've personally handed you links to many EU oriented papers that have been published this year alone. Would you like me to post the links again for you here Nereid? Did you ever get around to reading Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" yet? If not, you aren't really qualified to make such comments IMO.

In terms of astronomical observations of more 'local' objects (of direct relevance to dark matter), AFAIK, this so-called theory has produced just one set of papers, on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Strangely, despite there being (apparently) thousands of energetic supporters of this idea, many of whom claim to have a scientific training more than adequate to take freely available, high quality astronomical observations, analyse them within the framework of this idea, and write papers, none have done so (apparently)**.

Apparently you never read any of the links I handed you on any of the forums that we've participated in.

Even more strange is the lack of anything on the match between the multiple sets of independent astronomical observations of rich clusters and this so-called theory.

You're now trying to insist that EU theory be proposed and developed in exactly the same way as mainstream theories. You insist that it "speculate" on how *everything* works all at once. That isn't how theories develop Nereid, and you can't force new theories to address all astronomical concepts simultaneously. That is a particularly weak argument consider the fact that most astronomy teachers refuse to even teach the basics of EU theory in college classrooms and to allow for open dialog of EU theories on mainstream astronomy websites. In fact you personally spend a lot of time and effort attempting to discredit plasma cosmology theory and to intimidate anyone who supports the idea. When EU theory has no arbitrary "30 day" rule, and it's given equal footing in the classroom, right along side of Lambda-CDM theory, you'll see much more rapid progress in EU theory and EU publications.

So, until someone actually writes a paper or three addressing these weaknesses, "EU theory" is a non-starter, as a scientific theory which can claim to address the relevant astronomical and cosmological observations.

That is simply a silly statement from a skeptics perspective. EU theory can explain many cosmological phenomenon. It may not be able to explain them all. Then again mainstream theories like Lambda-CDM theory have already been falsified by recent observations, like that giant hole they recently found in the universe. You personally simply ignore that data because it doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. EU theory however "predicts" a non homogeneous universe and a "hole" in the universe is not really much of a surprise to an EU proponent.

The former (falsification) is, I think, a much deeper problem, with the case presented by MM.

Ya, it's the Achilles heal of current theory, particularly theories related to Guth's mythological inflation theory, dark energy and non-baryonic forms of "dark matter". In other words, anything related to Lambda-CDM theory. Never mind that no other vector or scalar field in nature will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. Never mind the fact that inflation has never been shown to actually exist in nature in any controlled experiment. You'll still slap it into a cosmology theory and claim that theory is "superior" to theories that do not rely upon metaphysical and unproven concepts.

It goes to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scientific process, and the way modern science is actually done.

Modern scientific progress begins and ends with empirical evidence. Have you got any empirical evidence that inflation actually exists in nature and has some effect on nature from any controlled scientific test? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

The part which is, perhaps, easiest to show (falsify!) is the 'lab experiments' part, by looking one level deeper into demarcation as it applies to 'astronomy beyond the solar system'.

Current astronomical theory cannot even explain coronal loop activity Nereid. It can't explain why the solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. Perhaps you should look a little closer to home if you're looking for weaknesses in current theory. You certainly don't have to venture outside of the solar system to find examples of observations that current theory cannot even begin to explain. If we used your definition of what a theory *must* explain to be taken seriously, then I have every right to reject current solar theory because it cannot explain the heat source of the corona or even the solar wind activity. I can do both of those things with EU theory.

Start with [OIII]: in which lab has it been observed? (A: none; no lab can create a sufficiently hard vacuum, of sufficiently large volume, for a sufficiently long time). Move on to EeV protons, gigatesla magnetic fields, stable nucleon degenerate matter, black holes, ... and you have a cline. The demarcation issue becomes severe: either [OIII] is out (never mind dark, non-baryonic matter!), or it is in (and so is dark, non-baryonic matter); any other demarcation is entirely arbitrary.

Why start with something we both agree probably exists? How about showing me that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination before you create a whole Lambda-CMD theory about a power spectrum you think you see in the universe?

+ the angular power spectrum of the CMB

You can't begin a serious scientific discussion by trying to explain a power spectrum with invisible and unfalsifiable entities. From a skeptics perspective, using inflation and DE to "explain" a power curve is no better than me trying to use invisible potatoes and pixie dust to explain the same power curve. The basic problem with current theory is that it relies upon fictional entities and forces that have never been shown to actually exist in nature. There's nothing wrong with the math as long as one is willing to let you do math on invisible potatoes and pixie dust. If one balks at the idea of trying to use pixie dust and invisible potatoes in math formulas to explain a power spectrum, the math that uses such entities to explain a power curve is utterly and completely pointless. From a skeptics perspective it is utterly irrelevant that you can explain a power spectrum with invisible and unfalsifiable ideas and concepts. If you could show me a controlled experiment where DE was shown to have an effect on matter, or where inflation was shown to exist and have an effect on reality, I'd be happy to let you use these things to explain a power curve. My resistance to the idea of explaining a power curve with DE and inflation is the same resistance I have to letting you explain the same power curve with dragon's breath and magic. The math is irrelevant as it relates to my resistance to the idea. I simply don't believe that inflation even exists in nature or that DE exists in nature.

+ large-scale structure.

That large scale "structure" your talking about, like that large hole they recently found in the universe, tends to falsify current theory. What now?

I am excluding papers which do present at least OOM estimates, but which are quite inconsistent with the relevant observations; for example, there's one by Alfvén which contains comments on large-scale structure; modern observations of this rule out Alfvén's distribution.[/size]

That is simply untrue. Did you ever even read his book "Cosmic Plasma" yet Nereid or are you just guessing here?

**This has always seemed particularly odd to me, given the tens of thousands of hours proponents of this idea seem to devote to posting in internet discussion fora and mounting vitriolic attacks on mainstream astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists via websites of their own.[/size]

I tend to mount my attacks on public message boards like the Livescience and Thunderbolt forums. I've limited my attacks on this particular website. What would be the point of attacking the mainstream position here?

^To be fair, I don't think MM actually used this phrase; however, the logic of many of his posts (or parts of them), in this thread, seems to rely heavily on it.[/size]

Whereas you rely heavily on "banning" people who's opinions are dissimilar to your own and who are vocal in their dissent. Shall I prepare to be publicly burned at the stake here too now that you've engaged me on this forum? I've noticed that heretics aren't very welcome, particularly once you personally get involved in the discussion.

 

[Nereid]

Plan of attack

In this thread, it seems that MM presents ideas that are similar to those presented by members of other internet discussion fora (sometimes under the name MichaelMozina (or similar), sometimes under other names).

Yep. I've been busy challenging the mainstream position on several different forums. :) The only other handle I've personally used was ManInTheMirror at the Baut, but then you already knew that. :)

As has been stated, by several folk here, several times, much of the case presented by MM is based on strawmen statements, misunderstandings of relevant papers, and so on.

That is simply not true. I've used papers provided by the mainstream and I've shown where the arguments that are presented in these papers is invalid based on current research, where it is based on pure pseudo-science, or where it is simply unfalsifiable by any controlled scientific test.

However, there are two aspects of 'the MM case' which has not been commented on much: 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology), and "EU theory".

That's because mainstream theory can't be falsified and that's what makes it fall into the realm of pseudoscience rather than testable physical science. Most mainstreamers don't like to publicly discuss the weaknesses of current theory. When one mentions the fact that inflation is unlike any known scalar or vector field found in nature, most mainstreamers run for cover. Watch what happens for instance when I ask you to identify another vector or scalar field in nature that retains near constant density over several exponential increases in volume...

The latter ("EU theory") is easy to address: there are no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, which provide even an OOM (order of magnitude) account of any of the key sets of cosmologically relevant observations*, so even by MM's own 'falsifiable' standard, there's no theory to even test.

That is simply a false statement. Alfven and Peratt have published many papers on plasma cosmology theory, and I've personally handed you links to many EU oriented papers that have been published this year alone. Would you like me to post the links again for you here Nereid? Did you ever get around to reading Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma" yet? If not, you aren't really qualified to make such comments IMO.

In terms of astronomical observations of more 'local' objects (of direct relevance to dark matter), AFAIK, this so-called theory has produced just one set of papers, on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Strangely, despite there being (apparently) thousands of energetic supporters of this idea, many of whom claim to have a scientific training more than adequate to take freely available, high quality astronomical observations, analyse them within the framework of this idea, and write papers, none have done so (apparently)**.

Apparently you never read any of the links I handed you on any of the forums that we've participated in.

Even more strange is the lack of anything on the match between the multiple sets of independent astronomical observations of rich clusters and this so-called theory.

You're now trying to insist that EU theory be proposed and developed in exactly the same way as mainstream theories. You insist that it "speculate" on how *everything* works all at once. That isn't how theories develop Nereid, and you can't force new theories to address all astronomical concepts simultaneously. That is a particularly weak argument consider the fact that most astronomy teachers refuse to even teach the basics of EU theory in college classrooms and to allow for open dialog of EU theories on mainstream astronomy websites. In fact you personally spend a lot of time and effort attempting to discredit plasma cosmology theory and to intimidate anyone who supports the idea. When EU theory has no arbitrary "30 day" rule, and it's given equal footing in the classroom, right along side of Lambda-CDM theory, you'll see much more rapid progress in EU theory and EU publications.

So, until someone actually writes a paper or three addressing these weaknesses, "EU theory" is a non-starter, as a scientific theory which can claim to address the relevant astronomical and cosmological observations.

That is simply a silly statement from a skeptics perspective. EU theory can explain many cosmological phenomenon. It may not be able to explain them all. Then again mainstream theories like Lambda-CDM theory have already been falsified by recent observations, like that giant hole they recently found in the universe. You personally simply ignore that data because it doesn't jive with your preconceived ideas. EU theory however "predicts" a non homogeneous universe and a "hole" in the universe is not really much of a surprise to an EU proponent.

The former (falsification) is, I think, a much deeper problem, with the case presented by MM.

Ya, it's the Achilles heal of current theory, particularly theories related to Guth's mythological inflation theory, dark energy and non-baryonic forms of "dark matter". In other words, anything related to Lambda-CDM theory. Never mind that no other vector or scalar field in nature will maintain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. Never mind the fact that inflation has never been shown to actually exist in nature in any controlled experiment. You'll still slap it into a cosmology theory and claim that theory is "superior" to theories that do not rely upon metaphysical and unproven concepts.

It goes to a misunderstanding about the nature of the scientific process, and the way modern science is actually done.

Modern scientific progress begins and ends with empirical evidence. Have you got any empirical evidence that inflation actually exists in nature and has some effect on nature from any controlled scientific test? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

The part which is, perhaps, easiest to show (falsify!) is the 'lab experiments' part, by looking one level deeper into demarcation as it applies to 'astronomy beyond the solar system'.

Current astronomical theory cannot even explain coronal loop activity Nereid. It can't explain why the solar wind accelerates as it leaves the photosphere. Perhaps you should look a little closer to home if you're looking for weaknesses in current theory. You certainly don't have to venture outside of the solar system to find examples of observations that current theory cannot even begin to explain. If we used your definition of what a theory *must* explain to be taken seriously, then I have every right to reject current solar theory because it cannot explain the heat source of the corona or even the solar wind activity. I can do both of those things with EU theory.

Start with [OIII]: in which lab has it been observed? (A: none; no lab can create a sufficiently hard vacuum, of sufficiently large volume, for a sufficiently long time). Move on to EeV protons, gigatesla magnetic fields, stable nucleon degenerate matter, black holes, ... and you have a cline. The demarcation issue becomes severe: either [OIII] is out (never mind dark, non-baryonic matter!), or it is in (and so is dark, non-baryonic matter); any other demarcation is entirely arbitrary.

Why start with something we both agree probably exists? How about showing me that inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination before you create a whole Lambda-CMD theory about a power spectrum you think you see in the universe?

+ the angular power spectrum of the CMB

You can't begin a serious scientific discussion by trying to explain a power spectrum with invisible and unfalsifiable entities. From a skeptics perspective, using inflation and DE to "explain" a power curve is no better than me trying to use invisible potatoes and pixie dust to explain the same power curve. The basic problem with current theory is that it relies upon fictional entities and forces that have never been shown to actually exist in nature. There's nothing wrong with the math as long as one is willing to let you do math on invisible potatoes and pixie dust. If one balks at the idea of trying to use pixie dust and invisible potatoes in math formulas to explain a power spectrum, the math that uses such entities to explain a power curve is utterly and completely pointless. From a skeptics perspective it is utterly irrelevant that you can explain a power spectrum with invisible and unfalsifiable ideas and concepts. If you could show me a controlled experiment where DE was shown to have an effect on matter, or where inflation was shown to exist and have an effect on reality, I'd be happy to let you use these things to explain a power curve. My resistance to the idea of explaining a power curve with DE and inflation is the same resistance I have to letting you explain the same power curve with dragon's breath and magic. The math is irrelevant as it relates to my resistance to the idea. I simply don't believe that inflation even exists in nature or that DE exists in nature.

+ large-scale structure.

That large scale "structure" your talking about, like that large hole they recently found in the universe, tends to falsify current theory. What now?

I am excluding papers which do present at least OOM estimates, but which are quite inconsistent with the relevant observations; for example, there's one by Alfvén which contains comments on large-scale structure; modern observations of this rule out Alfvén's distribution.[/size]

That is simply untrue. Did you ever even read his book "Cosmic Plasma" yet Nereid or are you just guessing here?

**This has always seemed particularly odd to me, given the tens of thousands of hours proponents of this idea seem to devote to posting in internet discussion fora and mounting vitriolic attacks on mainstream astronomers, astrophysicists, and cosmologists via websites of their own.

I tend to mount my attacks on public message boards like the Livescience and Thunderbolt forums. I've limited my attacks on this particular website. What would be the point of attacking the mainstream position here?

^To be fair, I don't think MM actually used this phrase; however, the logic of many of his posts (or parts of them), in this thread, seems to rely heavily on it.

Whereas you rely heavily on "banning" people who's opinions are dissimilar to your own and who are vocal in their dissent. Shall I prepare to be publicly burned at the stake here too now that you've engaged me on this forum? I've noticed that heretics aren't very welcome, particularly once you personally get involved in the discussion.

On the one hand, that seems a quite extensive response, MM. On the other hand, it also seems to have little meat, in terms of the two comments I made on this thread ("EU theory", and 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology)) and the thread's ostensible scope (dark matter).

Perhaps it's worth going through these more slowly, in some detail?

Taking EL's concern about overly long posts to heart, here's how I intend to do so:

> first, recap what was said about "EU theory" earlier in this thread

> next, explore the extent to which "EU theory" addresses the key sets of astronomical observations that have lead to (and support) 'cold dark, non-baryonic matter' (CDM) as a component of the universe, comprising some ~5 times as much mass as baryonic matter

> then, recap what was said about falsification and its role in modern astrophysics and cosmology

> finally, explore the extent to which MM's critiques (involving 'falsification') are a) internally consistent, and b) consistent with how modern astrophysics and cosmology is actually done.

Each of the four steps may take more than one post to cover, so this could become a quite lengthy thread.

It may be that the third and fourth are better covered in a different thread in a different section of PF.

And perhaps someone will move this thread to the Astrophysics section ... it does seem out of place here in General Astronomy.

 

[Nereid]

Recap of "EU theory" in this thread

Prior to my post (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1510555&postcount=77"),"EU theory" seems to have been mentioned by MM four times (my bold, in all cases):

In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1491256&postcount=20" (extracts):

The point is that it has been shown that baryonic matter cannot explain what we observe.

While I'm am sure that you (in very good faith) believe that this statement is true, I do not believe that you can scientifically demonstrate it to be true. EU theory can explain galaxy rotation patterns without dark matter. MOND and modified gravity theories do so as well. Other than the known particles of particle physics, I don't have any evidence that other forms of matter exist. It's therefore not even logical to me to *assume* that there are absolutely no other ways to explain this seeming amount of "missing mass" without resorting to unproven forms of matter. For all I know, our current technology is simply 'primitive' when it comes to identifying various forms of standard matter at a distance, including electrons that flow though the plasmas of space/time. Before I can accept your statement as fact, I must know with great confidence that no other possible options remain, and I simply don't feel that all other theories can be disregarded so quickly.

[...]

We then need to make hypothesis' in both cases. Either we cook up some new form of matter, plug it into the existing equations, and see if it can explain the observations. Or we cook up some new laws of gravity, calculate the predictions, and see if it can explain the data.

We can also explore EU theories related to electron flows through the arms of the galaxies and through the solar systems. We can explore a lot of possible options here.

In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1494495&postcount=41" (extract):

When you write EU, do you mean Electric Universe or whatever it is called? That is a crackpot theory, right?

No, definitely not. Not unless you consider Hannes Alfven, a winner of the Nobel prize for MHD theory a "crackpot". Kristian Birkeland was certainly not a crackpot either. I'm not sure I even understand what you feel constitutes "crackpot" theory since none of Alfven's theories had any mention of metaphysical entities. IMO that puts EU theory head and shoulders above Lambda-CDM theories.

Your link about the "iron sun" is also "crackpot alert". (And I do not get what it had to do with matter not contained in the standard model.)

The standard model assumes that plasmas inside suns do no mass separate to any great degree. Instead, it assumes that plasmas stay pretty much mixed, even though magnetic fields and gravity wells are known to cause mass separation in plasmas here on earth. If you remove that single assumption from standard theory it's possible to explain "missing mass" in a variety of different ways, including the notion that sun's are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron and nickel.

There was in fact a very interesting article that came out today that talked about the electrical properties of x-ray emissions and the over abundance of metals in the x-ray spectrum.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1102152248.htm

I personally find it rather disconcerting that you would label EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory from a Nobel prize winning scientist a "crackpot" theory, yet think nothing about the fact that you willingly accept a theory of the universe that evokes at least three metaphysical forces to work correctly. I find that truly fascinating behavior in fact. What makes something a "crackpot" theory exactly? What makes WIMP theory superior to an iron sun theory when it comes to explaining "missing mass" in objects that are light years away from us?

In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1495065&postcount=46" (extract):

and only interacts through the weak force, in order to be a good dark matter candidate (since such a particle automatically provides a relic density of the order needed to explain the dark matter). Note that any stable particle leaves a relic density (which can be calculated). It is just that WIMPs happen to leave a relic density of the right order to explain the dark matter. (The so called "WIMP miracle".)
And yes, we do not know wheter such particles exist or not, but if they do they could explain the dark matter.

The key point here is that Modified Gravity theory and MOND theories don't even require that DM exists at all. While anything remains "possible", what separates physics from metaphysics is empirical evidence. I see no compelling empirical evidence that WIMPS exist in nature. At present, Lambda-CDM theory relies upon no less than three different forms of metaphysics. It is therefore quite difficult for me to accept that this is the "best" cosmology theory available, or that it should be the only cosmology theory that is taught to astronomy students in college. IMO MOND theories, and EU theories (Birkland's/Alfven's work) deserve equal consideration.

And here's the comment I made, in post #77, re "EU theory" (the part in blue was added as a subsequent edit):

The latter ("EU theory") is easy to address: there are no papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, which provide even an OOM (order of magnitude) account of any of the key sets of cosmologically relevant observations*, so even by MM's own 'falsifiable' standard, there's no theory to even test. In terms of astronomical observations of more 'local' objects (of direct relevance to dark matter), AFAIK, this so-called theory has produced just one set of papers, on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Strangely, despite there being (apparently) thousands of energetic supporters of this idea, many of whom claim to have a scientific training more than adequate to take freely available, high quality astronomical observations, analyse them within the framework of this idea, and write papers, none have done so (apparently)**. Even more strange is the lack of anything on the match between the multiple sets of independent astronomical observations of rich clusters and this so-called theory.

So, until someone actually writes a paper or three addressing these weaknesses, "EU theory" is a non-starter, as a scientific theory which can claim to address the relevant astronomical and cosmological observations (i.e. those pertaining to dark matter).

That's the end of my first step (recap what was said about "EU theory" earlier in this thread) ... unless someone notes a significant mention of "EU theory", by MM, earlier in this thread, that I have missed.

Next: explore the extent to which "EU theory" addresses the key sets of astronomical observations that have lead to (and support) 'cold dark, non-baryonic matter' (CDM) as a component of the universe, comprising some ~5 times as much mass as baryonic matter.

 

[Nereid]

"EU theory" and key astronomical observations - plan of attack

[E]xplore the extent to which "EU theory" addresses the key sets of astronomical observations that have lead to (and support) 'cold dark, non-baryonic matter' (CDM) as a component of the universe, comprising some ~5 times as much mass as baryonic matter.
=====================================================================================================

As there are a very large number of relevant, very good astronomical observations, it may be worthwhile classifying them into a small(ish) number of boxes, and addressing each separately.

First, though, a re-statement of what this step is intended to achieve. Astronomers (astrophysicists, cosmologists) have, in thousands of papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, shown a detailed and consistent match between observations and 'CDM theory'¹; in a nutshell: the 'mass budget' of the universe comprises approx 15% 'baryonic matter' and ~85% CDM (there's also a very small hot DM component, in the form of neutrinos). This universal composition is (approximately) reflected in the largest-scale structures (sheets, filaments, voids), rich clusters of galaxies, and in galaxy groups. In galaxies, it ranges from almost entirely CDM (e.g. certain dwarf spheroids) to (possibly) approximate equality of baryonic matter and CDM².

So, here's a suggested categorisation of astronomical observations of direct relevance to the existence and amount of CDM:
+ rich clusters: dispersion of galaxy line-of-sight velocities ('Zwicky and the virial theorem')
+ rich clusters: gravitational lensing, both strong and weak
+ rich clusters: X-ray observations
+ rich clusters: the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
+ CMB angular power spectrum (and supporting observations)
+ P(k) (a.k.a. large-scale structure)
+ individual galaxies: gravitational lensing, both strong and weak
+ individual galaxies: rotation curves of spirals
+ (other categories to be added later).

My intention is to examine each of these, in turn (no more than one per post), and to ask "Which "EU theory" papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, demonstrate quantitative consistency between 'theory' and the astronomical observations?"

And to repeat my earlier comment, AFAIK, there are only a very few such papers, and all of them address just one of the above categories.

Finally, I do hope that this thread will, for at least the next little while, focus on these; after all, in astronomy (and cosmology), you don't get more empirical than thousands (or even millions) of high quality observations, all potentially independently verifiable.

¹A necessary short-hand; it's not really necessary to elaborate on it here, as it's been covered already in this thread, and in many others.[/size]
²Caveat: I've not researched this; there may be good observations which point to an even smaller proportion of CDM in some galaxies.[/size]

 

[Nereid]

rich clusters - Zwicky and the virial theorem

Sidney van den Bergh's 1999 Review (http://www.sr.bham.ac.uk/~lrj/obscos/vandenbergh.pdf").

Nevermind, in the 1937 paper Zwicky not only introduces an application of the virial theorem as a means of estimating the mass in a (rich) cluster, but also gravitational lensing (he also discusses rotation curves in spirals!).

So, what is the 'virial theorem' method?

Observationally, one obtains the redshifts of as many galaxies - in the cluster of one's desire - as possible. The dispersion of these redshifts (crudely, the value of the standard deviation of the distribution of redshifts) is related to the (total) mass of the cluster, via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem" .

The kicker is, as Zwicky found for the Coma cluster, that there's (apparently) far more mass in the cluster than you'd expect, simply by 'counting (optical) photons' - i.e. from the kinds of stars that we know and love, from our observations of our own Milky Way galaxy.

Since 1937 a great many (rich) clusters have been observed (= redshifts of component galaxies obtained), and the estimates of ordinary ('baryonic') mass in the clusters constrained in many, often quite ingenious, ways. Perhaps the biggest revision came with the advent of x-ray astronomy: the galaxies in rich clusters swim in a pool of hot, tenuous plasma (mostly H) whose mass exceeds that of the galaxies (including their CDM!) by a factor of several.

Nevertheless, the conclusion remains the same: rich clusters have masses (estimated by 'the Zwicky (virial theorem) method') that are ~5 times higher than estimates of their total baryonic matter content.

To telegraph the next four categories of (very good) astronomical observation: several sets of quite independent observations corroborate the estimates of cluster mass obtained by 'the Zwicky (virial theorem) method'.

Note that Alfvén wasn't even 30 when Zwicky published his Coma cluster paper, and that dozens (possibly hundreds) of 'Zwicky (virial theorem) method' papers, on hundreds of clusters, were published during his working lifetime. Even more have been published in Perrat's working lifetime.

So: Which "EU theory" papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, demonstrate quantitative consistency between 'theory' and 'Zwicky (virial theorem) method' astronomical observations of rich clusters of galaxies?

 

[EL]

Sorry, but I just have to ask M.M. one thing regarding his comment:

The standard model assumes that plasmas inside suns do no mass separate to any great degree. Instead, it assumes that plasmas stay pretty much mixed, even though magnetic fields and gravity wells are known to cause mass separation in plasmas here on earth. If you remove that single assumption from standard theory it's possible to explain "missing mass" in a variety of different ways, including the notion that sun's are not mostly made of hydrogen and helium, but rather they are mostly made of iron and nickel.

Let's (although it's absurd) assume the sun (and other stars) really conisists mainly of iron and nickel. Could you (in maximum 10 lines) explain how this would account for the "missing mass"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI...

I have about 4 hours of work to finish this morning before I can take off for the Thanksgiving Holiday.

This thread began as a thread related to dark matter theory, and then more or less skipped off into MOND theory (I won't even count how many times that was mentioned), WIMP theory, with a bit of mention of EU theory along the way as well. I have very much enjoyed and appreciated my conversation with EL on the subject of dark matter. From our conversation I have gained a great deal of respect for EL's style and EL's approach to science in general. I could see that in this thread, we had reached a place where we needed to agree to disagree on the topic of dark matter, SUSY theory, WIMPS, and MOND theory. Due to my respect for El's input over the course of that thread, I had elected to give EL the last word in that particular topic. I had moved on and I had begun to engage myself in some less controversial threads.

Nereid's last input in this thread was directly aimed at EU theory. Frankly I think that is a hijack of this particular thread. If you would like to discuss EU theory on this board, it would be an honor to discuss that topic here on this forum, particularly if EL will join the conversation to help that thread remain a highly professional conversation. I would however ask that you both be a bit patient with me this morning, and that you move your questions about EU theory to another thread. I would also ask that that the EU conversation not devolve into a "trial" sort of thread, it should remain a simple discussion on the topic of EU theory. I would prefer that we discuss the topic of EU theory/plasma cosmology theory as EL and I have discussed the topic of dark matter vs. MOND theory, and that it remain completely impersonal, and completely professional, just as EL and I have tried to do with our previous conversation.

I have very much enjoyed this forum, and it would be my great pleasure to discuss EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory on this forum. I believe that such a conversation should begin with a brief history that starts with the work of Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perrat etc. I will begin by posting a series of links to their work and I will try to show the history of how plasma cosmology theory has evolved into the 21st century, and where it has come in 2007. Obviously it has a long way to go to becoming a widely understood and widely researched field of science, but IMO it represents the future of modern cosmology theory. It would be my great pleasure to have that kind of conversation with EL and with you too Nereid, provided that it can remain a completely professional and impersonal conversation.

 

[Nereid]

FYI...

I have about 4 hours of work to finish this morning before I can take off for the Thanksgiving Holiday.

This thread began as a thread related to dark matter theory, and then more or less skipped off into MOND theory (I won't even count how many times that was mentioned), WIMP theory, with a bit of mention of EU theory along the way as well. I have very much enjoyed and appreciated my conversation with EL on the subject of dark matter. From our conversation I have gained a great deal of respect for EL's style and EL's approach to science in general. I could see that in this thread, we had reached a place where we needed to agree to disagree on the topic of dark matter, SUSY theory, WIMPS, and MOND theory. Due to my respect for El's input over the course of that thread, I had elected to give EL the last word in that particular topic. I had moved on and I had begun to engage myself in some less controversial threads.

Nereid's last input in this thread was directly aimed at EU theory. Frankly I think that is a hijack of this particular thread. If you would like to discuss EU theory on this board, it would be an honor to discuss that topic here on this forum, particularly if EL will join the conversation to help that thread remain a highly professional conversation. I would however ask that you both be a bit patient with me this morning, and that you move your questions about EU theory to another thread. I would also ask that that the EU conversation not devolve into a "trial" sort of thread, it should remain a simple discussion on the topic of EU theory. I would prefer that we discuss the topic of EU theory/plasma cosmology theory as EL and I have discussed the topic of dark matter vs. MOND theory, and that it remain completely impersonal, and completely professional, just as EL and I have tried to do with our previous conversation.

I have very much enjoyed this forum, and it would be my great pleasure to discuss EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory on this forum. I believe that such a conversation should begin with a brief history that starts with the work of Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, Anthony Perrat etc. I will begin by posting a series of links to their work and I will try to show the history of how plasma cosmology theory has evolved into the 21st century, and where it has come in 2007. Obviously it has a long way to go to becoming a widely understood and widely researched field of science, but IMO it represents the future of modern cosmology theory. It would be my great pleasure to have that kind of conversation with EL and with you too Nereid, provided that it can remain a completely professional and impersonal conversation.

Michael,

All the mentions of "EU theory", in this thread, prior to post #77, were by you (or responses to your posts).

In post #77, I wrote (my bold):

As has been stated, by several folk here, several times, much of the case presented by MM is based on strawmen statements, misunderstandings of relevant papers, and so on.

However, there are two aspects of 'the MM case' which has not been commented on much: 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology), and "EU theory".

In the rest of that post I sought to put the two into a context appropriate to this forum (i.e. mainstream, contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology).

In the following post (#78), you seem to disagree - quite strongly - with my tying up of two loose ends in this thread.

In particular, you stated (again, my bold):

In terms of astronomical observations of more 'local' objects (of direct relevance to dark matter), AFAIK, this so-called theory has produced just one set of papers, on the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Strangely, despite there being (apparently) thousands of energetic supporters of this idea, many of whom claim to have a scientific training more than adequate to take freely available, high quality astronomical observations, analyse them within the framework of this idea, and write papers, none have done so (apparently)**.

Apparently you never read any of the links I handed you on any of the forums that we've participated in.

Well, I have written two (of, potentially, a dozen or so) posts that seek to examine this, in as much detail as the "EU theory"-based papers, published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals (of direct relevance to astronomical observations pertaining to dark matter), that you may choose to provide, contain.

So, myself, I would much prefer to stick with dark matter, and the papers you can reference which pertain, directly, to the astronomical observations directly relevant to CDM. For avoidance of doubt, I myself have no interest in having this thread turn into yet another promotion for so-called theories which are not even wrong.

Oh, and you may wish to re-read what I actually wrote ... "Nereid's last input in this thread was directly aimed at EU theory" doesn't seem consistent with "However, there are two aspects of 'the MM case' which [have] not been commented on much: 'falsification' and its role in science (especially astrophysics and cosmology), ..." (emphasis added)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, but I just have to ask M.M. one thing regarding his comment:


Let's (although it's absurd) assume the sun (and other stars) really conisists mainly of iron and nickel. Could you (in maximum 10 lines) explain how this would account for the "missing mass"?

Hmmm. !0 lines eh? :) I doubt it, but I'll try to be very brief.

The currents that flow through the physical universe are the energy source that power the stars. The gravitational and EM fields around the stars cause the materials withiin the stars to mass separate by the element, with the outer most layers being composed of the lightest elements, namely hydrogen and helium. The outer most layers are the lightest and most electrically active layers of the solar atmosphere, and thus they also form the hottest layers of the sun and they emit the most photons. The electrical interactions between the sun and the universe generate a great deal of heat in the upper solar atmosphere, and generate fusion reactions in the upper atmosphere that can be observed by the Rhessi satellite.

Most of the mass of the universe is found within the stars and the solar system, and in the electron mass that flows between stars. The light plasmas between stars make up some of the mass as well, but these clouds are generally composed mostly of hydrogen and helium, and the lightest elements that can more easily escape the gravity well of stars. Most of the mass of stars is actually located in the iron and nickel within the star rather than hydrogen and helium. We therefore vastly underestimate the mass of stars, particularly the largest ones in the universe. IMO, the "missing mass" you seek is found within these large heavy element stars, and it is specifically located within the solar systems of galaxies, not in some form of exotic matter. IMO your missing mass is found inside of the solar systems, mostly inside the iron an nickel suns. Ironically, while I do consider a MOND type theory to also be scientifically viable and worthy of further research, I actually consider a MACHO oriented "dark matter" explanation (involving heavy element suns) of various observations to be more viable than MOND theories. :)

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html

FYI EL, if you're interested in Iron sun theory, IMO Dr. Manuel's work is your best bet. I can provide you with some interesting satellite images, and helioseismology data to support his ideas too. There is essentially evidence from the fields of nuclear chemistry, heliosiesmology and satellite image analysis to support a heavy sun theory. You can also visit my website if you're interested in a more verbose explanation, and links to supporting physical and observational evidence to support these ideas.

 

[Garth]

The masses of stars are determined from the periods of orbital interactions, this evaluation does not depend on the composition of a particular star.

If indeed a star were composed of heavier elements then the total mass determined in such a way would remain the same as if it were composed mainly of hydrogen/helium. The model would simply require a smaller number of atomic nucleii to make up that mass.

The energy of stars does not come from "the currents that flow through the physical universe" but rather the exothermic nuclear fusion reactions going on deep within the cores of each star. Such reactions in our Sun produce a flux of neutrinos that are detected on Earth.

Such a 'hypothesis' does nothing to explain the nature of the 'missing mass'.

Garth

 

[Nereid]

All other local astronomical observations - summary and shortcut?

[E]xplore the extent to which "EU theory" addresses the key sets of astronomical observations that have lead to (and support) 'cold dark, non-baryonic matter' (CDM) as a component of the universe, comprising some ~5 times as much mass as baryonic matter.
================================================== ==================================================

I think we can cover all these in one go:
+ rich clusters: gravitational lensing, both strong and weak
+ rich clusters: X-ray observations
+ rich clusters: the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
+ individual galaxies: gravitational lensing, both strong and weak
+ (other categories to be added later): every other class of non-cosmological observations with direct relevance to CDM¹.

... and leave the cosmological observations (P(k), CMB, etc) until later.

So, "Which "EU theory" papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, demonstrate quantitative consistency between 'theory' and relevant 'local CDM' astronomical observations¹?"

AFAIK, there are none. However, per MM's assertion in an earlier post, perhaps there are some?

Per that same post, I think we can also ask MM to provide us with page or chapter references, in Alfven's book "Cosmic Plasma", which demonstrate quantitative consistency between 'theory' and relevant 'local CDM' astronomical observations².

¹ Except for:+ individual galaxies: rotation curves of spirals. However, even here I think we can cover all spiral galaxy rotation curves, except for those with only two (symmetrical) arms AND no bar AND no bulge AND no nucleus. IIRC, the few (three?) "EU theory" papers (all with Peratt as an author) on galaxy rotation curves are limited to just a tiny subset of spiral galaxies.[/size]
²FWIW, if there are any, I think they will be quite difficult to find.[/size]

 

[EL]

Most of the mass of stars is actually located in the iron and nickel within the star rather than hydrogen and helium. We therefore vastly underestimate the mass of stars, particularly the largest ones in the universe.

Your answer was of the kind I both expected and at the same time was afraid of. I admit I set a trap, and it seems like Garth found you in it before I had time to check it.
My point is the same as Garth's one:
The mass determination of the Sun is independent of its composition! No matter if it is made up of hydrogen & helium, iron & nickel, or maybe even potatoes & WIMPs, its mass would still be measured same!

 

[Moonbear]

Since a superficial review of this thread indicates it has drifted off topic, I'm locking it until one of our A&C mentors can review it and determine if any further action needs to be taken.