No not a mass. Was just reading that they may have been found by the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector and it seemed that if they are so hard to detect here on Earth then they may be a candidate for Dark Matter.Orodruin said:This depends on the properties of said sterile neutrino. Sterile neutrinos have certainly been discussed as a dark matter candidate, typically with masses around the keV scale. Did you have a particular mass range in mind?
So implicitly you are assuming a mass scale, that of the hypothetical sterile suggested as a reason for the LSND anomaly. No, that sterile cannot be dark matter. It has several issues with cosmology. Also note that the LSND experiment is rather old and its results have been known for a long time. Its interpretation in terms of a sterile neutrino is doubtful based on the global experimental status. You may have been alerted by the latest results of MiniBooNE, which are discussed here.Simon Peach said:No not a mass. Was just reading that they may have been found by the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector and it seemed that if they are so hard to detect here on Earth then they may be a candidate for Dark Matter.
No it must not.sadovnik said:dark matter must consist of some kind of unseen particles
No he did not. You are confusing dark matter with the idea of a Dirac sea.Dirac called these unseen particles '' negative virtual particles''
Not necessarily. You need to go quite far beyond B-level to understand what is meant by "matter" in the context of cosmology and astrophysics.sadovnik said:Every matter consists of particles.
We do not know. Particle dark matter is a popular theory, but it has not been experimentally verified.sadovnik said:What does dark matter consist of ?
Chronos said:There is still plenty of evidence remains favoring sterile neutrinos as dark matter. Unexplained xray emission lines from galactic clusters are probably the best evidence to date for sterile neutrino DM. Factors which also favor sterile neutrino dark matter include pulsar kicks and galactic density profiles which suggest central DM cusps over DM core cusps. Astronomical data currently suggests warm DM may be preferred over cold DM models The best evidence may yet come from the LHC, once it reaches the !4 TEV range as planned in 2025 - re: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01934, Signatures of Dirac and Majorana Sterile Neutrinos in Trilepton Events at the LHC.
Chronos said:That argument argument originated when neutrinos were believed to be massless and simulations ruled out hot [relativistic] neutrinos as the principle form of DM. The argument has become more one of how much mass is necessary to rule out neutrinos as a viable DM candidate. The unidentified xray line in cluster spectrographs has pegs the prospective DM neutrino mass at around 7 Kev - more than enough to refute the hot DM objection. If the sterile neutrino is confirmed, it could be even more massive.
You are thinking of standard model neutrinos, not sterile neutrinos. Sterile neutrinos with a large mass remains a possible dark matter candidate although mixing would have to be very suppressed. However, it should be mentioned that models including sterile neutrino DM are typically rather fine-tuned and the 7 keV line is by no means necessarily from DM annihilation.Adrian59 said:I am still not convinced. I am aware that neutrinos have mass but this is very small and as I believe they still travel at close to the speed of light so they should still be considered as relativistic particles. You quoted an energy of 7 KeV but this is a composite of velocity and mass so are these proposed sterile neutrinos low mass and fast moving or high mass and slower which would make them singular neutrinos?
Orodruin said:You are thinking of standard model neutrinos, not sterile neutrinos. Sterile neutrinos with a large mass remains a possible dark matter candidate although mixing would have to be very suppressed. However, it should be mentioned that models including sterile neutrino DM are typically rather fine-tuned and the 7 keV line is by no means necessarily from DM annihilation.
I disagree, it is standard nomenclature to call a standard model singlet fermion "sterile neutrino". Also, please note that their introduction is not mainly as a dark matter candidate, but typically as a means of introducing neutrino mass - this is the reason to call them sterile or right-handed neutrinos. Once introduced, these fermions allow a Majorana mass term and its scale essentially determines the possible phenomenology.Adrian59 said:Having done a little searching as well as checking the two abstracts of the references Chronos gave, it appears a bit of a fudge to even call these particles neutrinos which apparently only act via gravity and not the weak force, which seems to make them only yet another hypothetical dark matter particle, sharing only a name with the known neutrinos. Maybe giving them half a familiar name was an attempt to gain quicker acceptance rather then just another DM particle.
Orodruin said:I disagree, it is standard nomenclature to call a standard model singlet fermion "sterile neutrino". Also, please note that their introduction is not mainly as a dark matter candidate, but typically as a means of introducing neutrino mass - this is the reason to call them sterile or right-handed neutrinos. Once introduced, these fermions allow a Majorana mass term and its scale essentially determines the possible phenomenology.
Yes and no. It would be more accurate to say that standard model anti-neutrinos are right-handed. Typically, when we talk about right-handed neutrinos we do mean right-handed neutrinos, which is a hypothetical standard model singlet, not right-handed anti-neutrinos.Adrian59 said:I might be getting this wrong but aren't right handed neutrinos, anti-neutrinos.
Orodruin said:Yes and no. It would be more accurate to say that standard model anti-neutrinos are right-handed. Typically, when we talk about right-handed neutrinos we do mean right-handed neutrinos, which is a hypothetical standard model singlet, not right-handed anti-neutrinos.
Please specify, with references. You cannot just throw a statement like this out into the blue. What issues have been solved without dark matter that it is supposed to solve?Adrian59 said:have been solved better without it, and I do not mean by modified theories of gravity.
Orodruin said:Please specify, with references. You cannot just throw a statement like this out into the blue. What issues have been solved without dark matter that it is supposed to solve?
You do realize that that is one 7 year old paper that is not very well connected to the rest of the literature? (The papers citing it are peripheral with only one of the citing papers having a large number of citations itself. In that paper, the reference you have provided is not quoted for showing that you can get rid of dark matter.) It also discusses one issue that is solved by dark matter, galaxy rotation curves, and there is a large amount of other evidence.Adrian59 said:I did mention these in a thread last year 'Is there an alternative theory to dark matter?'. The main reference for galaxy rotation curves was J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock. ‘General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies.’ (2012). Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 337, Issue 1, pp 321–329.
Orodruin said:You do realize that that is one 7 year old paper that is not very well connected to the rest of the literature? (The papers citing it are peripheral with only one of the citing papers having a large number of citations itself. In that paper, the reference you have provided is not quoted for showing that you can get rid of dark matter.) It also discusses one issue that is solved by dark matter, galaxy rotation curves, and there is a large amount of other evidence.
I never claimed that! You are making a strawman argument here.Adrian59 said:I don't consider the age of a paper relevant to its correctness
It is the original issue, I would not call it the major issue. To seriously challenge the DM paradigm you would have to show that it really is inconsistent (I have not read the paper in detail so I cannot speak to how much it does that, but if it really did I believe people would have picked up on it more) or offer good and consistent alternatives that deal with all of the observations that currently support DM.Adrian59 said:Finally, if it is correct then it is a serious challenge to the dark matter paradigm. Granted it is only one issue but I would suggest it is a major issue
And has thousands of references, building upon it.Adrian59 said:after all general relativity in 103 yrs old!
Exactly. So what do we learn from the fact that it was not more widely appreciated? It is probably flawed. And even if not: That would just create more questions than answers, because it wouldn't do anything about the independent ways to measure dark matter, but it would lead to the question where is dark matter if it is not in galaxies.Adrian59 said:If this paper does describe galaxy rotation without additional mass or modifying gravity, should it not be more widely appreciated?
The problem is that, for the model parameters necessary for a sterile neutrino to be dark matter, none of the other problems associated to the neutrino sector are solved, such as neutrino masses. To me, the canonical idea of a sterile neutrino (i.e., the one introduced in order to provide neutrino masses) is not one that leads to a viable dark matter candidate and you need to somewhat tune the mixing with the active neutrinos to both ensure that it is produced in the early universe and that it does not decay too fast. For example, axion dark matter would be a more natural solution in my opinion, as was the idea of a supersymmetric neutralino although it may be doubtful today.Chronos said:The sterile neutrino is an imminently logical DM candidate. Ir checks all the big boxes; gravitationally attractive, EM non-interactive, and sufficiently abundant (in theory) to be plausible.
This is highly doubtful to be honest, at least if you want the same steriles to be responsible for the dark matter as for the baryon asymmetry. Baryogenesis via leptogenesis is a well-known and theoretically viable mechanism to produce the baryon asymmetry. However, the steriles you need for dark matter are typically way too light and mix way too little to do that for you. Instead, you need a hierarchy of scales in the sterile sector where you essentially have one relatively light sterile that mixes very little and is the dark matter candidate and some heavier sterile states that are mainly responsible for neutrino masses and for leptogenesis. I do not find this very economical nor very convincing, even if the only ingredient you need is a set of standard model singlet fermions.Chronos said:the sterile neutrino also offers to solve another long standing mystery - the baryon asymmetry problem.
The small scale structure problems are not necessarily problems of CDM and could possibly also be attributed to feedback from processes in the baryon sector. Even if that is not the case, there are several possible ways out, one other such way being self-interactions among the dark matter particles.Chronos said:This, along with missing satellite galaxies, DM core profiles, and other outstanding CDM puzzles appear to imbue the sterile neutrino with some pretty remarkable explanatory potential.
mfb said:And has thousands of references, building upon it.Exactly. So what do we learn from the fact that it was not more widely appreciated? It is probably flawed. And even if not: That would just create more questions than answers, because it wouldn't do anything about the independent ways to measure dark matter, but it would lead to the question where is dark matter if it is not in galaxies.
You do realize that a galaxy without dark matter was recently found? (And that this was with standard assumptions) If what you are suggesting were true, then it would affect all galaxies equally. In fact, finding a galaxy without dark matter is one of the stroger indications for drk matter over an overlooked effect or alternative gravitational theories as you could not get rid of the physics but you could potentially strip a galaxy from its dark matter halo.Adrian59 said:Your first sentence is tending towards a circular argument. Since it is not widely appreciated, it is assumed flawed and therefore based on that assumption is not widely appreciated. I could ask what 'independent ways to measure dark matter' you know that have proved its existence, directly? Of course you final point is valid but it cuts both ways because if dark matter is not in galaxies where indeed is it, if indeed it does exist?
It was read. If it would have been valid people would probably have built upon that.Adrian59 said:Your first sentence is tending towards a circular argument. Since it is not widely appreciated, it is assumed flawed and therefore based on that assumption is not widely appreciated.
You could ask, but you can also read the Wikipedia article for an introduction and ask more specific questions here.Adrian59 said:I could ask what 'independent ways to measure dark matter' you know that have proved its existence, directly?
Orodruin said:You do realize that a galaxy without dark matter was recently found? (And that this was with standard assumptions) If what you are suggesting were true, then it would affect all galaxies equally. In fact, finding a galaxy without dark matter is one of the stroger indications for drk matter over an overlooked effect or alternative gravitational theories as you could not get rid of the physics but you could potentially strip a galaxy from its dark matter halo.
Of course, it does not directly prove dark matter, but you cannot reasonably suggest to discredit dark matter on the based on your favorite theory if that theory generally gives worse predictions.
mfb said:It was read. If it would have been valid people would probably have built upon that.
There are a few examples of papers that didn't get much attention that turned out to be good later, but the number is very small compared to the millions (!) of publications that have a low quality.You could ask, but you can also read the Wikipedia article for an introduction and ask more specific questions here.
Dark matter is in no way inconsistent with GR. In fact, in cosmology and structure formation you need dark matter in GR to obtain the correct predictions from GR.Adrian59 said:You make it sound like I have an exceptional theory but my favoured theory is general relativity.
Adrian59 said:You say "It was read" so do I take it you mean that you have read this paper.
This is a bit naive in my opinion. What he clearly means is that the appropriate community read the paper and its reaction was to not pick up on it. There can be several reasons for this, but the most likely being that the community did not find it very relevant. There is no circular argument here, claiming there is does not make it true.Adrian59 said:If there are more specific technical criticisms of the paper then now might be a good time to make these known, otherwise the derivation, surely, stands.
Orodruin said:Dark matter is in no way inconsistent with GR. In fact, in cosmology and structure formation you need dark matter in GR to obtain the correct predictions from GR.
(I have no problem agreeing with the former point here. Not sure about the second. Simulations are no substitute for observation and as I believe there has to be initial assumptions for any simulation.)
This is a bit naive in my opinion. What he clearly means is that the appropriate community read the paper and its reaction was to not pick up on it. There can be several reasons for this, but the most likely being that the community did not find it very relevant. There is no circular argument here, claiming there is does not make it true.
I think this has been pointed out over and over in this thread already: Doing so is not very consistent with other observations. You "solve" a single problem whereas dark matter solves significantly more problems.Adrian59 said:what is not to like about it: it solves a astronomical problem without having to invent additional mass or alter accepted physical laws
This is pure conjecture and has absolutely nothing to do with what has been said in this thread. It is also directly counterfactual in my case, which you might realize by checking out the table of contents of my book.Adrian59 said:I know it requires at least some appreciation of a Bessel function which is more familiar to engineers than physicists and could be why most physicists shy away from it.
Is this not just what I said?Chronos said:In fact, some models require multiple sterile neutrino species to satisfy both dark matter and baryogenesis constraints, not to mention various other considerations.
This is the same type of argument that SUSY proponents use for keeping neutralino dark matter alive.Chronos said:Once again, it more constrains one fairly simple DM model than the entire parameter space allowed for DM decay.
I assume you are thinking of nuMSM? It needs to be quite fine-tuned in my experience even if it remains a theoretical possibility.Chronos said:In fact, some models require multiple sterile neutrino species to satisfy both dark matter and baryogenesis constraints, not to mention various other considerations.
That is not what I said. As Orodruin explained: It was read by the relevant experts.Adrian59 said:You say "It was read" so do I take it you mean that you have read this paper.
You can write 10 bad papers in the time you can properly refute one of them, and the number of people who can write bad papers is much larger than the number of experts. "No one took the time to refute my pet theory" is not a sign that it would have any merit.Adrian59 said:If there are more specific technical criticisms of the paper then now might be a good time to make these known, otherwise the derivation, surely, stands.
You misunderstand the situation. Everyone would be happy to find some new explanation because the current situation is the worst case - we know something is missing but we don't know what. But so far no one found a new explanation that looks good.Adrian59 said:I am sure you are aware of confirmation bias and could this be why papers disagreeing with the dark matter paradigm don't get the attention they should.
Orodruin said:I think this has been pointed out over and over in this thread already: Doing so is not very consistent with other observations. You "solve" a single problem whereas dark matter solves significantly more problems.
mfb said:That is not what I said. As Orodruin explained: It was read by the relevant experts.
Chronos said:@Adriqn59 IIRC, the op and every other poster in this thread has been centered on sterile neutrinos as a DM candidate, not the general feasibility of DM. Perhaps starting a thread centered around your own interests would be more constructive than hijacking this thread.
This does not really answer the question of whether it was what you were thinking about or the issue that it is rather fine-tuned. I somehow get the feeling from your posts that you think I do not know this already. Correct me if I am wrong.Chronos said:And ,yes, nuMSM is a model that includes multiple sterile neutrino species.
Orodruin said:All I am saying is that I do not see sterile dark matter as an outstanding candidate in relation to other possibilities. If you had me guess at this time, my money would be on axion or axion-like dark matter. Sterile neutrinos are natural components in an extended standard model, but the canonical seesaw implementation does not lead to them being dark matter.
Chronos said:The tightest constraints on axions that I know about are devived frrom laboratory results, not ast5ronomicl observations, as disussed here' https://phys.org/news/2018-02-dark-matteraxions-ever-fewer.html, It may be a liitel early to view this as ruling out axion DM, but, it does serously limit the energies at which may be hiding. I don't doubt there are astronomical observations as well, but, I don't believe any such data is as suffocating as this one.
If you had read the article properly you would have realized that experiments have not even begun to really touch the canonical QCD axion. And that does not even begin to be the entire axion-like particle dark matter parameter space.Adrian59 said:Thanks for the reference, though it would appear axions may be going the same way as WIMPs with an ever decreasing search area.
