Fermi and dark matter

[Davidlpf]

But I stand on what I was saying that the scientists are just saying there is evidence pointing to a source of dark matter by the production of the excess gamma rays.

 

[Dancing David]

You cannot demonstrate that a new form of matter exists based on evidence you collected from a telescope.

Helium any one?

 

[Dancing David]

I used exactly the same logic you did! I took an ordinary observation and turned it into "evidence" of whatever I want.

Well you haven't provided much information on the framework for how God creates the gamma rays on positrons, now have you?

And why they would occur where they occur?

 

[sol invictus]

The gamma rays "might be" caused by any KNOWN force of nature.

Only if those known forces have been misunderstood. As has been explained to you repeatedly, the point is precisely is that known sources cannot account for the spectrum observed by these experiments.

It's not possible however for these wavelengths of light to have been created by dark matter because dark matter has never been shown to emit such wavelengths.

Something isn't possible because it hasn't been shown? That literally makes no sense.

My "God did it" theory is at least as "scientific" as any "dark matter did it" theory in that respect.

You could have a theory that says "there is a god and he makes this particular spectrum of gamma rays". Go ahead and construct it. If the spectrum god makes according to that theory agrees with Fermi, that's evidence for it - so yes, you're right, Fermi is evidence for a specific theory of god. Of course we also have a theory of dark matter that agrees with Fermi. So how to we compare the two? Answer: by counting the number of parameters, or alternatively by another measure of the complexity of the theory.

To be a contender, the theory has to be able to predict the results of all the experiments we might do. That means your theory about god also has to say how many neutrinos he makes, and how many CMB photons, what spectrum of galaxies, etc. etc. Once you put that all in you'll have an enormously complex theory, because you'll have to specify each of those independently. On the other hand I can write down this dark matter theory in a single line, using only a few parameters.

In a nutshell, that's the reason the DM theory is vastly preferred - it has far fewer parameters, it's coherent and much simpler, and it explains the available data just as well. (It's also falsifiable, but your god theory would be too if you specified it precisely enough.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is a theory that dark matter may be made of particles that annihilates to electrons and positrons and that this produces gamma rays. There is no "demonstration" of this except a possibility that Fermi has detected these gamma rays.

And since ordinary suns release these same exact gamma rays on a regular basis you have absolutely nothing to support your claim.

My logic is that you do not know what the authors of the paper acually said in their conclusion.
Their conclusion was not that dark matter emitted the gamma rays.

So what? Based on what evidence? Point at the sky claims?

Their conclusion was that new physics (e.g. the decay or annihilation of dark matter) or new astrophysics is the mechanism producing the excess gamma rays.

So your original logic was wrong and there is no fallacy.

The fact that these authors make exactly the same mistake you're making doesn't justify the error.

It is the Sun.

So suns are a perfectly "natural" source for such emissions and we have no need for anything exotic.

Did you know that the Sun is a bit closer to us than other stars?
Have you heard of the inverse square rule for the intensity of radiation?

Uh, yes, but what does that have to do with anything? You asked for evidence that Fermi could see a sun. I provided that evidence. Gamma rays are definitely coming from our sun and likely all suns in the galaxy. It's hardly a surprise then when we can observe the galaxy in gamma rays in a Fermi image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Only if those known forces have been misunderstood.

That's pretty much a given. You seem to find it to be quite the revelation that stars even emitted annihilation signatures. The whole industry still *IGNORES* the role of electricity in space.

As has been explained to you repeatedly, the point is precisely is that known sources cannot account for the spectrum observed by these experiments.

How do you know that? Even assuming that was true, that is absolutely no excuse or justification for "making up" a mythical source of gamma rays.

Something isn't possible because it hasn't been shown? That literally makes no sense.

So "God did it" is perfectly acceptable to you as it relates to gamma ray emissions?

You could have a theory that says "there is a god and he makes this particular spectrum of gamma rays". Go ahead and construct it. If the spectrum god makes according to that theory agrees with Fermi, that's evidence for it - so yes, you're right, Fermi is evidence for a specific theory of god. Of course we also have a theory of dark matter that agrees with Fermi. So how to we compare the two? Answer: by counting the number of parameters, or alternatively by another measure of the complexity of the theory.

It's a push then because you have two unverified parameter (DM exists & DM emits gamma rays) as do I. So my God theory is evidently a "scientific solution" to this observation too?

To be a contender, the theory has to be able to predict the results of all the experiments we might do.

As long as I can "make it up" as I go and I never have to physically demonstrate it, it's no problem.

In a nutshell, that's the reason the DM theory is vastly preferred - it has far fewer parameters, it's coherent and much simpler, and it explains the available data just as well. (It's also falsifiable, but your god theory would be too if you specified it precisely enough.)

Assuming I ascribe "God" with every single parameter that you assign to 'dark matter', how exactly did you intend to falsify my God theory?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But I stand on what I was saying that the scientists are just saying there is evidence pointing to a source of dark matter by the production of the excess gamma rays.

*If* you could demonstrate that "dark matter" actually exists *and* you could demonstrate it emits gamma rays *THEN* (and only then) is it a viable possibility. Since nobody can show that DM exists or emits gamma rays, it's simply an ad hoc construct.

 

[sol invictus]

That's pretty much a given. You seem to find it to be quite the revelation that stars even emitted annihilation signatures. The whole industry still *IGNORES* the role of electricity in space.

That statement is simply incomprehensible. Nearly everything done in astrophysics directly concerns the role of "electricity" in space.

How do you know that?

If you'd read any of the relevant literature, you'd know. Are you saying you haven't?

Even assuming that was true, that is absolutely no excuse or justification for "making up" a mythical source of gamma rays.

Something has to explain the discrepancy. We've been over this - it's either something new, or it's something known but misunderstood. Both approaches are being pursued by many people.

It's a push then because you have two unverified parameter (DM exists & DM emits gamma rays) as do I. So my God theory is evidently a "scientific solution" to this observation too?

OK, you don't know what "parameter" means. Try looking at one of the models you find so hard to accept and you'll see what they are.

Assuming I ascribe "God" with every single parameter that you assign to 'dark matter', how exactly did you intend to falsify my God theory?

See above.

 

[Tubbythin]

*If* you could demonstrate that "dark matter" actually exists *and* you could demonstrate it emits gamma rays *THEN* (and only then) is it a viable possibility. Since nobody can show that DM exists or emits gamma rays, it's simply an ad hoc construct.

Er no. 20 years ago we couldn't show the top quark existed. It doesn't mean that 20 years ago the top quarks existence wasn't a viable possibility.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That statement is simply incomprehensible. Nearly everything done in astrophysics directly concerns the role of "electricity" in space.

So how about showing us a half dozen papers published in the APJ (or another mainstream publication) over the last few years that use the term "electricity" and "electrical discharge" in it. Electricity is the "evil" word in your industry. It's the forbidden topic. "Magnetic reconnection" is "ok". "Circuit reconnection" is *FORBIDDEN* lest thou be cast out of your religion. Go over and read the rules at Bad Astronomy about EU theory and tell me that "electricity" isn't the forbidden topic of astronomy today. Let's see those recent papers in some mainstream publications too.

If you'd read any of the relevant literature, you'd know. Are you saying you haven't?

All the literature I read uses stupid terms like "magnetic reconnection" and "dark yada yada yada". Never once do the mainstream publications print material related to electrical discharge theory as it relates to solar physics even though it's clear that discharges are occurring in the atmospheres of every major planet and body in the solar system.

Last time I saw nature create gamma rays here on Earth it was done with "electricity", not "magnetic reconnection". Now tell me what "caused" those annihilation signatures and where did those positrons come from?

Something has to explain the discrepancy. We've been over this - it's either something new, or it's something known but misunderstood. Both approaches are being pursued by many people.

Sure, *something* has to explain it, but we know for a fact that "electricity" already does that. Dark matter has *NEVER* been shown to emit gamma rays, whereas discharges in the Earth's atmosphere do it every single day. From an Occum's razor perspective, your "dark matter" deity thingy hasn't got a prayer's chance in hell.

OK, you don't know what "parameter" means. Try looking at one of the models you find so hard to accept and you'll see what they are.

Right, I write software for a living, but haven't a clue what a "parameter" might be.....

You cannot demonstrate "dark matter" exists anymore than I can demonstrate "God matter" exists or emits anything inside physical reality. Slapping math onto either term isn't going to justify the term via empirical physics. If I simply substitute the term "God matter" where you are using "Dark matter", it becomes a "religion" based purely on faith.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Er no. 20 years ago we couldn't show the top quark existed. It doesn't mean that 20 years ago the top quarks existence wasn't a viable possibility.

Anything and everything is a "possibility", but "probability" (I used the term "viable" in that sentence) is equally important. *Many* of the particles of the standard model had already been identified and confirmed 20 years ago. A few key pieces remained to be seen, and even today the Higgs Boson has yet to be observed in empirical experimentation. 20 years ago it was pretty clear the that the standard model did an excellent job "explaining" all the key elements of particle physics theory. (Note that SUSY particles aren't even a part of standard theory).

Whereas there was a "probability" that someone would eventually find the top quark 20 years ago, there's still no "probability' that any SUSY particle will EVER be found.

We point Rhessi at the Earth and we see gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point Rhessi at the sun and see annihilation wavelengths during flares. There are at least a half dozen possible "sources' of gamma rays in just this one solar system. No doubt when we look out at *hundreds of billions of solar systems in a galaxy* we will likely observe a lot of gamma rays. If we need more of them, all we have to do is turn up the "electricity" and a known source of gamma rays in nature will produce more gamma rays.

The "odds" of "dark matter" being responsible for gamma rays is one in a million at best. It's never been seen on Earth in a real experiment, not one single time. Gamma rays occur naturally here on Earth every single day due to "electricity". I don't need no stinking "dark matter" to explain gamma rays of any quantity.

If we take an Occum's razor to your argument, I'm afraid it's toast. There is a plentiful and abundant source of gamma rays to be found in simple "electricity".

 

[Tubbythin]

Anything and everything is a "possibility", but "probability" (I used the term "viable" in that sentence) is equally important. *Many* of the particles of the standard model had already been identified and confirmed 20 years ago. A few key pieces remained to be seen, and even today the Higgs Boson has yet to be observed in empirical experimentation. 20 years ago it was pretty clear the that the standard model did an excellent job "explaining" all the key elements of particle physics theory. (Note that SUSY particles aren't even a part of standard theory).

It certainly doesn't explain all of particle physics. It does a very good job explaining a lot, but by no means everything.

Whereas there was a "probability" that someone would eventually find the top quark 20 years ago, there's still no "probability' that any SUSY particle will EVER be found.

Unless you have definitive evidence of the non-existance of SUSY particles, the above is quite simply a baseless assertion.

We point Rhessi at the Earth and we see gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point Rhessi at the sun and see annihilation wavelengths during flares. There are at least a half dozen possible "sources' of gamma rays in just this one solar system. No doubt when we look out at *hundreds of billions of solar systems in a galaxy* we will likely observe a lot of gamma rays. If we need more of them, all we have to do is turn up the "electricity" and a known source of gamma rays in nature will produce more gamma rays.

What the hell does "all we have to do is turn up the "electricity"" mean?

The "odds" of "dark matter" being responsible for gamma rays is one in a million at best.

Yet another assertion with nothing to back it up. Unless of course you can show us a calculation of this probability.

It's never been seen on Earth in a real experiment, not one single time.

The same could be said of the top quark 20 years ago. The main reason being that our colliders weren't energetic enough. We got a higher energy collider and whadaya know. We found the top quark.
We have the successor to this coming online soon (hopefully). I wouldn't be counting my chickens if I were you.

Gamma rays occur naturally here on Earth every single day due to "electricity".

Please define "electricity".

I don't need no stinking "dark matter" to explain gamma rays of any quantity.

Even if this were the case, still doesn't explain galactic rotation curves. Oh and I'm expecting to see a full quantitative explanation of the data. SInce you are so sure you're right that must be pretty straightforward.

If we take an Occum's razor to your argument, I'm afraid it's toast.

What are you talking about? My argument was that your assertion that dark matter didn't exist because it hadn't been seen in a lab was, based on history and common sense, a ridiculous one. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Occam's razor.

There is a plentiful and abundant source of gamma rays to be found in simple "electricity".

Again, please define "electricity".

 

[blutoski]

So Fermi has observed "empirical" evidence of God?

Data is not evidence in its own right, but can be evidence when used to support an argument.

In terms of the argument you constructed, I will say yes. There is an enormous amount of empirical evidence that supports arguments put forward for the existence of God.

I think at this point, you've recognized that your dispute is not with the syllogisms that support scientific inquiry, but that it's concentrated on an unstated premise: that DM may exist, and a stated premise: that DM may emit gamma rays.

My impression is that you find these premises to be weak?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My impression is that you find these premises to be weak?

Weak in comparison to any theory related to electrical discharge theory, yes, absolutely. Nature has already demonstrated a very simple way to generate gamma rays and it puts on that show right here on Earth every single day. There are many bodies in any solar system, and the larger ones seem to have the largest discharges. Saturn's discharges are *enormous* compared to discharges here on Earth. The bigger the body, the larger the discharge.

The only variables required in any discharge theory will be related to the number and intensity of the discharge. Any theory that requires more than these variable, and has never been demonstrated to occur in nature is unjustified and unnecessary. It's that unnecessary part that kills your argument IMO. Occum's razor isn't kind to a DM source of gamma rays and there are a number of bodies inside our own solar system that experience discharges and annihilation in the atmosphere. DM theory is utterly unnecessary in terms of explaining gamma rays.

If you look at the Fermi image, the galaxy is the most obvious feature. The reason is obvious too. There are hundreds of billions of possible gamma ray sources in every sun and every planet in the galaxy. Over time we will observe a concentration of these emissions in and around the solar systems of the galaxy and distant galaxies as well. It's related to atmospheric discharges and they happen every day here on Earth.

 

[blutoski]

It's a push then because you have two unverified parameter (DM exists & DM emits gamma rays) as do I. So my God theory is evidently a "scientific solution" to this observation too?

'science' is often misused as a term. It literally means knowledge. (political science, christian science, computer science)

More commonly, though, people use it to represent knowledge about nature. That scientific investigation is trying to learn about natural processes. This excludes supernatural processes, so theories that incorporate 'God' are not considered scientific.

Assuming I ascribe "God" with every single parameter that you assign to 'dark matter', how exactly did you intend to falsify my God theory?

It looks falsifiable enough exactly as you originally wrote it.

If the results are negative, it's falsified.

 

[blutoski]

Weak in comparison to any theory related to electrical discharge theory, yes, absolutely. Nature has already demonstrated a very simple way to generate gamma rays and it puts on that show right here on Earth every single day. There are many bodies in any solar system, and the larger ones seem to have the largest discharges. Saturn's discharges are *enormous* compared to discharges here on Earth. The bigger the body, the larger the discharge.

The only variables required in any discharge theory will be related to the number and intensity of the discharge. Any theory that requires more than these variable, and has never been demonstrated to occur in nature is unjustified and unnecessary. It's that unnecessary part that kills your argument IMO. Occum's razor isn't kind to a DM source of gamma rays and there are a number of bodies inside our own solar system that experience discharges and annihilation in the atmosphere. DM theory is utterly unnecessary in terms of explaining gamma rays.

If you look at the Fermi image, the galaxy is the most obvious feature. The reason is obvious too. There are hundreds of billions of possible gamma ray sources in every sun and every planet in the galaxy. Over time we will observe a concentration of these emissions in and around the solar systems of the galaxy and distant galaxies as well. It's related to atmospheric discharges and they happen every day here on Earth.

Ah. This is the root of it. It's not so much that DM->gamma rays is obviously wrong, it's just that it competes with your pet theory.

My impression is that you feel they will not be able to resolve between these two theories with the existing programme and apparatus - that positive results that should vindicate you will be incorrectly interpreted as support for another theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It certainly doesn't explain all of particle physics. It does a very good job explaining a lot, but by no means everything.

I intentionally used the term "key" by the way. What exactly does it not explain that you feel is somehow critically important to particle physics theory?

Unless you have definitive evidence of the non-existance of SUSY particles, the above is quite simply a baseless assertion.

The assertion that they exist is baseless. The assertion they emit gamma rays is a baseless assertion. No such particle has ever been confirmed to exist in any empirical experiment done to date. I have no evidence any such particle will ever be found, and no evidence that any such particle would emit gamma rays, positrons or anything else. I have no evidence they exist at all, so pointing at the sky and claiming "dark matter did it" is a baseless assertion.

At least the statement "electrical discharges did it" has empirical support here on Earth and throughout our solar system.

What the hell does "all we have to do is turn up the "electricity"" mean?

If we need more gamma rays, we need more discharge to occur. If we need larger discharges all we have to do is crank up the current flow. I think I'll go grab a beer before I finish the rest of your post. It's getting to be late afternoon here on a Friday and there are some perks to being self employed. BRB.....

 

[Michael Mozina]

'science' is often misused as a term. It literally means knowledge. (political science, christian science, computer science)

More commonly, though, people use it to represent knowledge about nature. That scientific investigation is trying to learn about natural processes. This excludes supernatural processes, so theories that incorporate 'God' are not considered scientific.

How very "unscientific" of you IMO.

How do you know that God is not "nature" itself? In other words, how do you know God isn't everything that we observe in the night sky and more than we can ever hope to see from this little mud ball in space? How do you know that the universe itself is not "aware"?

It looks falsifiable enough exactly as you originally wrote it.
If the results are negative, it's falsified.

Ok. What we're essentially suggesting is that any standard Lambda-CDM theory can instantly be converted to Lambda-God theory simply by renaming some of the variables. How then is Lambda-"Fill in the variable name" theory not a "religion" and what exactly makes it "scientific"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah. This is the root of it. It's not so much that DM->gamma rays is obviously wrong, it's just that it competes with your pet theory.

No, it's that electrical discharges are already a known and demonstrated source of gamma rays on Earth, and gamma rays around larger bodies in the solar system. What do we need dark energy for?

I'm not sure I quite understand your last paragraph. Maybe it's the beer?

 

[Tubbythin]

I intentionally used the term "key" by the way.

So you did. Feel free to pretend it was in my original response.

What exactly does it not explain that you feel is somehow critically important to particle physics theory?

Well it doesn't unify the three non-gravitational forces. It doesn't really explain the neutrino masses. And it does contain quite a few free parameters.

The assertion that they exist is baseless.

There are good theoretical reasons for thinking they might exist. Due to symmetry properties much like the existence of the top quark was inferred from symmetry principles. They could also help explain at least one of the shortcomings of the SM I mentioned above. And at least one I didn't mention. And that's before we even mention DM.

The assertion they emit gamma rays is a baseless assertion. No such particle has ever been confirmed to exist in any empirical experiment done to date.

Much like the top quark twenty years ago. The top quark didn't just suddenly come into existence for the first time when it was found at Fermilab though.

I have no evidence any such particle will ever be found, and no evidence that any such particle would emit gamma rays, positrons or anything else.

Maybe you should actually read up about what you're arguing against then.

I have no evidence they exist at all, so pointing at the sky and claiming "dark matter did it" is a baseless assertion.

I personally had no evidence for the existence of the top quark in the early 1990's. What's your point?

At least the statement "electrical discharges did it" has empirical support here on Earth and throughout our solar system.

And you think there is no evidence of gamma rays from high-energy particle interactions?

If we need more gamma rays, we need more discharge to occur. If we need larger discharges all we have to do is crank up the current flow.

Where? Either you have a quantitative model to defend or you have nothing. Which is it?