Non-gravitational evidence for Dark Matter

[BaalChatzaf]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

When you joined this list that was all the proof I needed.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If it doesn't depend on GR doesn't that mean it's wrong?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If it doesn't depend on GR doesn't that mean it's wrong?

--Brant

No.

It means that Dark Matter which is thought to be a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) has other effects besides gravitation.

We know atoms gravitate but we see mostly their electro-magnetic effects in the form of radiation (photon emissions).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If it doesn't depend on GR doesn't that mean it's wrong?

--Brant

No.

It means that Dark Matter which is thought to be a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) has other effects besides gravitation.

We know atoms gravitate but we see mostly their electro-magnetic effects in the form of radiation (photon emissions).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Could this mean gravitation is possibly not the most under-rated and possibly not the most significant force in the known universe?

--Brant

[Guyau]

Progress on the Neuralino Candidate for Dark Matter

Neutralino Dark Matter? Nearby Clump?

Hooper, Stebbins, and Zurek

Sidebar: Sterile Neutrino Update

. . . . Beginning in 1968 experimental counts of neutrinos reaching the earth from the sun were found to be less than half the number expected according to our understanding of the nuclear-fusion process by which they are produced in the sun. There are three types of matter neutrinos (and three types of anti-matter neutrinos, and perhaps, a seventh neutrino, called “sterile” [which might constitute the negative-pressure sea we call “dark energy”]). These are the electron-, muon-, and tau-neutrinos.

Discussion of implications of new experimental results bearing on possible seventh neutrino:

http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2007/04/after-miniboone.html

Candidate for dark energy: sterile neutrino (above).

Candidate for dark matter: neutralino (below).

http://www.physorg.com/news134822510.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.2968v2.pdf

Alternative to dark energy as explanation for acceleration of cosmic expansion, along with possible tests:

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?

Clifton and Ferreira

Sci. Am. April 2009

Edited May 1, 2009 by Stephen Boydstun

[Guyau]

.

Another effect of dark matter to look for is reported here: Galactic Satellites.

[BaalChatzaf]

.

Another effect of dark matter to look for is reported here: Galactic Satellites.

That is excellent news. This means our main gravitational theories are still applicable.

Thank you for sharing this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Dark Matter, a type of matter that does not interact with any of the particles of the Standard Model has been inferred from the motion curves of stars at the outer portions of galaxies. The inference assumes the correctness of General Relativity at a galactic scale. Dark Matter has hither to be known only by its gravitational effects on normal matter.

Recently evidence not depending on General Relativity has been found indicating the presence of Dark Matter.

See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36919

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0713

Finally, we are getting more direct evidence for Dark Matter.

There is more in Heaven and Earth than was previously dreamed of in our philosophy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Articles from 2008?

[dennislmay]

Progress on the Neuralino Candidate for Dark Matter

<A href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.3202v1">Neutralino Dark Matter? Nearby Clump?<A/>

Hooper, Stebbins, and Zurek

Sidebar: Sterile Neutrino Update

. . . . Beginning in 1968 experimental counts of neutrinos reaching the earth from the sun were found to be less than half the number expected according to our understanding of the nuclear-fusion process by which they are produced in the sun. There are three types of matter neutrinos (and three types of anti-matter neutrinos, and perhaps, a seventh neutrino, called “sterile” [which might constitute the negative-pressure sea we call “dark energy”]). These are the electron-, muon-, and tau-neutrinos.

Discussion of implications of new experimental results bearing on possible seventh neutrino:

http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2007/04/after-miniboone.html

Candidate for dark energy: sterile neutrino (above).

Candidate for dark matter: neutralino (below).

http://www.physorg.com/news134822510.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.2968v2.pdf

Alternative to dark energy as explanation for acceleration of cosmic expansion, along with possible tests:

<A href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist">Does Dark Energy Really Exist?</A>

Clifton and Ferreira

Sci. Am. April 2009

Another 2008 Article and a 2009 article - if we are in a special place the CMBR evidence for the Big Bang goes out the window.

[Guyau]

. . .

Alternative to dark energy as explanation for acceleration of cosmic expansion, along with possible tests:

"Does Dark Energy Really Exist?"

Clifton and Ferreira

Sci. Am. April 2009

The proposal by Clifton and Ferreira that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe* could be accounted for by—instead of dark energy (such as the hypothetical sterile neutrino)—our galaxy being at the center of an enormous region whose average density is substantially lower than that of the universe beyond it, that proposal has now been ruled out by observation. The story is here.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[BaalChatzaf]

ote]

Another 2008 Article and a 2009 article - if we are in a special place the CMBR evidence for the Big Bang goes out the window.

Apparently we are not in a special place. Beware of theories that put us as the center of anything.

Nature may be simple (at its core) but it is not simple minded. We still need mathematics and experiment to understand her. Philosophical purity is an inadequate tool.

Ba'al Chatzaf