Fermi and dark matter

[DazzaD]

We're back to the point that if he believes nothing in modern astronomy he's unconvinceable - if he doesn't believe in the BB, or BBN, we can't argue with him that elemental abundances began at H and He and trace Li and evolved from there in stars.

Indeed.... but then we can ask how "plasma cosmology" resolves the issue of seeing the universe to consist largely of H and He.

Would that not be a fair start to resolve this particular issue?

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK. I will bite again.

I don't know of a single 'expert' in plasma physics that advocates in plasma cosmology but I did know, say, 20 or so experts in plasma physics that were following CDM models.

So how many of those folks believe in "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source? How many of them ever bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven where the creator of MHD theory applies MHD theory to space?

I took a few courses in plasma physics so know the basics required but I have also seen the in depth detailed stuff that "explains" how the Sun works.

Really? What powers coronal loops and heats them to millions of degrees for hours on end? What generates the acceleration of solar wind particles? What creates those 'jets" that come from the sun?

In plasma cosmology I have not seen anything even remotely approaching that level of detail,

I take it you've never read Birkeland's work?

and most of the advocates of plasma cosmology that I have spoken to in the past do not even have the capability to pass an A Level maths exam (and therefore would be unable to comprehend the plasma physics required, either by Alfen or by modern cosmology).

Alfven certainly would pass such a test, as would Peratt, Bruce, Birkeland, etc. They all wrote about PC/EU theory rather extensively.

In addition, I wonder if those who still advocate plasma cosmology do so for reasons other than directly related to the scientific method and evidence (as I understand it Alfven originally didnt like the idea of the "big bang" for reasons other than it didnt explain the data, i.e. his "religious" beliefs if you will... I may well be wrong though).

I never had the opportunity to talk to Alfven personally but he actually did put forth a "bang" model. It was not a "creation event" per se, rather it was a cyclical event. Even still, it incorporated all the key components of a standard 'bang' theory.

I get the impression from his writings that he wasn't really very happy with the direction of where the standard BB theory was headed during his lifetime, but it doesn't seem like he'd made up his mind about whether or not there ever was a 'bang' event. He did seem to entertain the concept.

This is important to the thread as I believe the proposed mechanism by MM does not enjoy anywhere near enough "direct experimental verification here on Earth" as MM seems to prefer as does say a lambda-cdm model.

Quite the contrary IMO. The forces of nature that Alfven proposed were all things that show up here on Earth. He used electrical current, matter, antimatter and gravity. That's it. Never once did he rely upon stuff like "dark energy" or inflation or things that fail to show up here in any empirical test. The only thing he proposed that I haven't seen created in a lab is a double layer of matter/antimatter that he called 'ambiplasma'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfvén-Klein_model#Alfv.C3.A9n_and_Klein_cosmologies

Yes... I know Wikipedia isn't exactly a scientific bible but I believe the paragraph "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" neatly fits my understanding of Plasma Cosmology.

That particular explanation is rather "skewed" toward the notion that it is important or necessary that PC/EU theory make "predictions" that are congruent with BB theory. That is *never* how EU/PC theory has been approached by the way. It also includes some glaring errors like this one:

Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed.

That's simply false. We do see such signatures at the core of our own galaxy.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMKTX2MDAF_index_0.html

Yes... in the 90s I did read books such as "The Big Bang Never Happened" and "Plasma Cosmology" and in them I saw very little evidence or details that match the variety of observations (e.g. galaxy formation fits, homogeneity, nucleosynthesis, and, for me the most interesting, the existence of the cosmic microwave background - in detail, not a hand waving argument that "radiation will be emitted in annihilations").

How is "inflation did it" not a handwave of an argument? What empirical evidence demonstrates that inflation even exist in nature or ever existed in nature, let alone that it generates "homogenity" in some way? How was "dark energy" not a handwave, not to mention a "gap filler" in an otherwise disproved theory?

This is important to this thread in my opinion because the refusal to accept the evidence given by surveys and experiments, regardless of what your pet theory is, is holding us back in some of the details here.

No, not really. You have specific "beliefs" that you believe support your theory, however all of those beliefs are predicated upon the "assumptions" that all matter was "created" 13.7 billion years ago and that suns are mostly made of hydrogen and helium. You're welcome to attempt to demonstrate those two points, but ultimately you can't demonstrate the first one without inserting metaphysical entities into your theory, and the second assumption is falsified by modern satellite images. That isn't to say you aren't welcome to attempt to use these ideas to support your conclusions, but my 'belief' or lack thereof will be predicated upon whether or not you can empirically demonstrate any of your claims. The standard solar theory is at least based upon standard laws of physics, whereas the standard cosmology theory is not.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed.... but then we can ask how "plasma cosmology" resolves the issue of seeing the universe to consist largely of H and He.

Would that not be a fair start to resolve this particular issue?

At this point it would be prudent of me to note that EU/PC theory can be applied to multiple solar theories, including the standard solar theory. Since I personally do not believe that H and He are the most abundant elements in the universe, I can only tell you how *I* personally explain it.

IMO the reason H and He are the most abundant elements in the ISM is due to the fact that they are the lightest elements and they most easily escape large gravity wells of suns in the presence of charge separation and/or current flow from the sun to the heliosphere. Note that in terms of abundance in interplanetary measurements, H, He+2 , and He+1 are the three most abundant elements in exactly that order. The reason it's in that particular order is due to the charge/mass ratio of the element. He+2 is more positively charged than He+1 so it is more easily accelerated by EM fields and more easily escapes the gravity well of the sun.

Heavier elements like Iron and Nickel have a much lower charge/mass ratio and they are more likely to return to the sun even if they do escape the solar surface during flares. They tend to return to the sun as "coronal rain". I personally do not even believe that H and HE are the two most abundant elements in the sun, rather I believe that all suns are mass separated and the lightest elements form the outermost layers of the sun, which also tend to be the hottest layers of the sun and therefore they emit the most light.

If you want to get into Birkeland's solar model it would be best to start a new thread. I just wanted to explain that even your claim about H and He being the most abundant elements in the universe is predicated upon the accuracy of the standard solar model.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We're back to the point that if he believes nothing in modern astronomy he's unconvinceable

Fortunately I don't reject "everything", just a lot of it.

- if he doesn't believe in the BB, or BBN, we can't argue with him that elemental abundances began at H and He and trace Li and evolved from there in stars.

You're right, you won't convince me of the nature of "dark matter" based upon a nucleosythesis type of argument.

You could convince me on this specific topic by producing some new form of "dark matter" in a controlled experiment and demonstrating that it emits gamma rays at a specific rate. Short of that empirical demonstration of concept, it's going to be difficult to convince me that "dark matter" is exotic or that it emits gamma rays.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OMG MM. There are whole *STARS* sitting between galaxies dude and astronomers are not dumb enoough to confuse them with the ICM.

It's not a matter of "confusing them", but rather that they "exist there in the ICM" along with other forms of very ordinary matter. Such massive objects will certainly "pass through" any sort of collision process and end up in the blue region you're so concerned about.

There ae not 40 times more stars between galaxies than there are in the galaxies.

So when did I claim otherwise? I simply noted for you that the ICM is populated with all sorts of standard materials, including whole 'stars", "lumpy stuff' galore and potentially even black holes. Not all of these objects will necessarily "collide" with anything substantial in the opposing plasma stream. Normal lumpy matter will also "pass through" a collisions process as long as that normal matter takes a "form" that makes it significantly more dense than the surrounding material. It too will end up "passing through" and end up in those blue blobs.

 

[ben m]

No, that is a strawman Ben. What I've said is that unlike neutrinos, no laws of physics were being violated by an absence of SUSY particles, and knowledge of the existence of neutrinos came *directly* from "controlled experimentation", not "point at the sky and add math" exercises.

There is experimental evidence for some sort of new particles at TeV scales. Why? Because all of our experimental data on the weak interaction points to such particles. The particles you see at low energies (beta decay, W and Z bosons) do not have the property of being "the only particles/forces out there". That's a perfectly clear experimental fact, as clear as the statement that "a nucleus plus an electron do not have the properties required to be the only two particles released in beta decay."

 

[Michael Mozina]

The existence of shooting strs in the earth's atmosphere is not evidence for "lumpy stuff" in the ICM.
A solar system is not an intracluster medium. Can you see the difference?

What? There are complete solar systems located and embedded in the ICM meaning that there is "lumpy stuff" surrounding those stars. How can you even make these kinds of statements with a straight face?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is experimental evidence for some sort of new particles at TeV scales. Why? Because all of our experimental data on the weak interaction points to such particles. The particles you see at low energies (beta decay, W and Z bosons) do not have the property of being "the only particles/forces out there". That's a perfectly clear experimental fact, as clear as the statement that "a nucleus plus an electron do not have the properties required to be the only two particles released in beta decay."

Well, some folks have suggested that the Higgs could be located in the low TeV scales (I think the upper limit for the Higgs is around 1.4 TeV) so I can't exactly argue with your point, but then your claim doesn't necessarily conflict with standard particle physics theory.

 

[Reality Check]

It's not a matter of "confusing them", but rather that they "exist there in the ICM" along with other forms of very ordinary matter. Such massive objects will certainly "pass through" any sort of collision process and end up in the blue region you're so concerned about.

That is correct. Intracluster objects such as stars do not collide.

So when did I claim otherwise? I simply noted for you that the ICM is populated with all sorts of standard materials, including whole 'stars", "lumpy stuff' galore and potentially even black holes. Not all of these objects will necessarily "collide" with anything substantial in the opposing plasma stream. Normal lumpy matter will also "pass through" a collisions process as long as that normal matter takes a "form" that makes it significantly more dense than the surrounding material. It too will end up "passing through" and end up in those blue blobs.

And still correct - the volume between galaxies is populated with "lumpy stuff" "galore" (intracluster objects such as stars).
The ICM is gas. It is not populated by intracluster objects. It surrounds them.
Intracluster objects will pass probably through the ICM and end up in the blue blobs.

What you are ignoring is that "galore" is not a scientific term.
In order for ths "lumpy stuff" to be a large part of the mass that is meassured in the blue blobs, there has to be galaxies worth of it. There has to be up to 40 galaxies worth for each galaxy in the cluster. It is not your claim. It is a consequence of your claim.


Thus your assertion leads to the fact that the mass in galactic clusters must consist of:

• 2% in galaxies (mostly H & He).
• 14% in the ICM (mostly H & He).
• 84% in "lumpy stuff" which seems to be rocks in the ICM (mostly C, O and Fe) or black holes.

You may (or may not) know that C, O and Fe are created in stars by fusion, i.e. H and He are converted to C, O and Fe.
You may (or may not) know that black holes are the remains of stars.
In either case stars are needed to produce your "lumpy stuff".
This means that sometime in the past the number of stars were much more than there were in these galactic clusters. So if astronomers look further away, i.e. further back into time, galaxies will (according to you) become more numerous or bigger to contain the ~40 times increase in the number of stars.

And more locally:

If your claim and its concequence are correct then there are about 40 times the mass of the Milky way in "lumpy stuff" between the Milky Way and neighbouring galaxies, e.g. the Andromeda Galaxy.

• The "lumpy stuff" is not MACHOs which by definition are in the galatic halo.
• The "lumpy stuff" is not black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs or very faint red dwarfs since these are ruled out by micro-lensing.

That leaves smaller stuff as "lumpy stuff", e.g. unassociated planets, rocks or dust. If there was only a little bit of this stuff then it would not have been detected (yet!). But you are implying that there are essentially 40 Milky Ways of "lumpy stuff" between us and the Andromeda Galaxy.

But the Andromeda Galaxy is well observed.
Why have astronomers not noticed 40 Milky Ways of "lumpy stuff"?

 

[ben m]

Well, some folks have suggested that the Higgs could be located in the low TeV scales (I think the upper limit for the Higgs is around 1.4 TeV) so I can't exactly argue with your point, but then your claim doesn't necessarily conflict with standard particle physics theory.

The Higgs alone does not make the Standard Model work. The Standard Model by itself is unable to prevent the Higgs mass from running away, thus breaking the Higgs mechanism altogether. (Note: the Higgs is not some add-on to the SM, it is an integral part of it.) There must be non-Higgs new particle content at "TeV scales" (by which we mean, roughly, below 10 TeV).

SUSY is one example of what this new particle content could look like. Technicolor is another example. "Nothing new at all", as you seem to be advocating, is not an option---it's inconsistent with precision electroweak physics.

 

[Tubbythin]

"Nothing new at all", as you seem to be advocating, is not an option---it's inconsistent with precision electroweak physics.

Well, technically we could have some very extreme fine tuning yes? (I realise I'm not helping matters here, but this is much more interesting than MM's arguments anyway.)

 

[ben m]

Well, technically we could have some very extreme fine tuning yes? (I realise I'm not helping matters here, but this is much more interesting than MM's arguments anyway.)

Yes, but it's been a while so I've forgotten what this fine-tuning looks like. Do you let the Higgs mass run very high, then do something funny to let the mechanism work anyway? Or do you tune something else so that the renormalized mass only runs up to the electroweak scale? And what's left to tune to keep Grand Unification on line---or do you have to give up on that? (It's been a while.)

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, but it's been a while so I've forgotten what this fine-tuning looks like. Do you let the Higgs mass run very high, then do something funny to let the mechanism work anyway? Or do you tune something else so that the renormalized mass only runs up to the electroweak scale? And what's left to tune to keep Grand Unification on line---or do you have to give up on that? (It's been a while.)

I would love to be able to answer those questions. But they exceed my (largely handwavy) understanding of particle physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is correct. Intracluster objects such as stars do not collide.

So explaining material that "passes through" a collision process requires no new forms of matter. Occum is no longer your friend.

And still correct - the volume between galaxies is populated with "lumpy stuff" "galore" (intracluster objects such as stars).

So any form of "lumpy stuff" is likely to end up in the blue areas whereas "lightly distributed plasma" won't necessarily "pass through" the collisions process unscathed, in fact it probably will collide with the other ICM and end up in the pink regions.

What you are ignoring is that "galore" is not a scientific term.
In order for ths "lumpy stuff" to be a large part of the mass that is meassured in the blue blobs, there has to be galaxies worth of it. There has to be up to 40 galaxies worth for each galaxy in the cluster. It is not your claim. It is a consequence of your claim.

Actually, the only "requirement' is that *some* of the material "pass through" and *some* of the material must not and there must be a specific amount of it that does one or the other of those two things. That "pass through' phenomenon could potentially be related to the distribution pattern of "the gas" (as you call it), rather than just solid particles.

Your assertion about the expected number of collisions *assumes* that the plasma is relatively evenly distributed. Instead of distributing the plasma evenly, it could be "over dense' in some areas and "under dense' in others. At least part of an "over-dense" region of plasma could also "pass through' an under-dense region coming from the other direction. You can't simply *assume* that the plasma of the ICM is homogeneously distributed.

There only has to be a "specific amount of mass" present, and specific amount that "passes through" the process for whatever reason. It is not necessary for the "lumps" to be made of solid material. The "lump" that passes through the collision process could simply be a significantly more "dense plasma", it need not be a true solid. You keep asserting that all plasma will necessarily collide but that is simply not true. You can't just *ASSUME* that the plasmas of both ICMS will be evenly distributed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, technically we could have some very extreme fine tuning yes?

I suppose that would depend on the energy state of the Higgs and what we actually 'discover' about the Higgs via the LHC experiments.

 

[Tubbythin]

I suppose that would depend on the energy state of the Higgs and what we actually 'discover' about the Higgs via the LHC experiments.

Well the problem is related to why the weak force is so much stronger than gravity. In that sense I don't think it matters whether the Higgs has a mass of 100 GeV, 1 TeV or 1 PeV (but I could be wrong). If the LHC doesn't find the Higgs at all then all bets are off...

EDIT: Not that the LHC would find the Higgs if it had a mass of 1 PeV.

 

[DazzaD]

So how many of those folks believe in "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source? How many of them ever bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" by Alfven where the creator of MHD theory applies MHD theory to space?

To be honest I don't know how many have read the book. I do know that most of the Cosmology department had not read Einstein's initial treatise on General Relativity and that most of the Biology department had not read Darwin's On the Origin of Species (there was a survey).

Quite what that proves about the theories viability I do not know.

Really? What powers coronal loops and heats them to millions of degrees for hours on end? What generates the acceleration of solar wind particles? What creates those 'jets" that come from the sun?

I am not sure. Do you have a good explanation please?

That particular explanation is rather "skewed" toward the notion that it is important or necessary that PC/EU theory make "predictions" that are congruent with BB theory. That is *never* how EU/PC theory has been approached by the way. It also includes some glaring errors like this one:

No. It is a requirement for a valid theory to make predications in line with what we observe in carefully undertaken experiments.

Which it fails to do on a number of points that the standard model can.

How is "inflation did it" not a handwave of an argument? What empirical evidence demonstrates that inflation even exist in nature or ever existed in nature, let alone that it generates "homogenity" in some way? How was "dark energy" not a handwave, not to mention a "gap filler" in an otherwise disproved theory?

Because it has an extremely detailed and ironed out mathematical background that dovetails nicely into the existing theory and has been hammered at the edges to fit the observational evidence. It is far from handwaving.

You may not like the original premise but it is a detailed effort, not a back of the envelope calculation and I think it unfair to misrepresent it as such.

Can you explain, without inflation please,

homogeneity/horizon
flatness
lack of magnetic monopoles

(yes yes I know some items require the assumption of a "big bang" if you will but I didnt think you were questioning that per se).

using a mathematical model that fits observation and existing pre-inflationary models?

http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflation.html

No, not really. You have specific "beliefs" that you believe support your theory, however all of those beliefs are predicated upon the "assumptions" that all matter was "created" 13.7 billion years ago and that suns are mostly made of hydrogen and helium. You're welcome to attempt to demonstrate those two points, but ultimately you can't demonstrate the first one without inserting metaphysical entities into your theory, and the second assumption is falsified by modern satellite images. That isn't to say you aren't welcome to attempt to use these ideas to support your conclusions, but my 'belief' or lack thereof will be predicated upon whether or not you can empirically demonstrate any of your claims. The standard solar theory is at least based upon standard laws of physics, whereas the standard cosmology theory is not.

I did chuckle I must admit at this. Others may have railed at what might seem to them an unprovoked attack.

I would dearly love to hear more about this solar theory of yours though as it seems to go against everything I have learnt.. perhaps you have discussed it in another thread?

 

[DazzaD]

At this point it would be prudent of me to note that EU/PC theory can be applied to multiple solar theories, including the standard solar theory.

SNIP

ents in the universe is predicated upon the accuracy of the standard solar model.

May I be so bold as to ask where the H/He etc was made/created/originated? Do you have an explanation or is it assumed to be at some eternal fixed level?

Planets form how and from what? If I assume the heavy elements are to be laid fixed within this star of yours?

Perhaps you could point me out a link or two that explains this in good detail that I can compare to my knowledge of the structure and evolution of stars (I love a good debate in case you hadnt noticed).

 

[ben m]

So any form of "lumpy stuff" is likely to end up in the blue areas whereas "lightly distributed plasma" won't necessarily "pass through" the collisions process unscathed, in fact it probably will collide with the other ICM and end up in the pink regions.

So you're saying now that 80% of the mass of the galaxy consists of as-yet-undiscovered MACHOs and stars (what else can you mean by "lumpy stuff"?) and a thin plasma? Perhaps you've forgotten that the dark matter is invisible. We can see stars, plasma, and MACHOs, and their mass is nowhere near the amount "missing" from the Milky Way's gravitational mass budget.

Go back to your lumps-of-rock idea, at least that had the merits of being relevant to the observations: their visibility is not immediately obvious, and they're plausibly collisionless, which means that you're talking about dark matter. Then your only problem is explaining their origin and the absence of a huge metal excess everywhere else.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you're saying now that 80% of the mass of the galaxy consists of as-yet-undiscovered MACHOs and stars (what else can you mean by "lumpy stuff"?) and a thin plasma?

The term "lumpy stuff" can be applied to asteroids, pebbles, clumps of dense plasma. MACHO's, stars, planets, etc. It's not limited to a single thing or even solid matter IMO. Even a plasma distribution process that isn't uniform is likely to allow some material to "pass on through" the collision process.

Perhaps you've forgotten that the dark matter is invisible.

What is the likelihood in your opinion that we can directly observe a star or planet, or any smaller object in the equipment used in that lensing study?

We can see stars,

Um, maybe in our own ICM we might be able to see them, but certainly not in the ICMs of those lensing studies we can't. The best we can do is "estimate" them based on a host of debatable assumptions.

plasma, and MACHOs, and their mass is nowhere near the amount "missing" from the Milky Way's gravitational mass budget.

So some of the missing material of our own galaxy remains "unexplained". *Shrug*. As I said before I'm inclined to go with the "lots of rocks" scenario before I'd jump to any conclusions about a need for exotic matter. It actually hasn't been that long since we discovered whole satellite galaxies around the Milky way, so I suppose the rest of the missing mass could be related to almost anything.

Go back to your lumps-of-rock idea, at least that had the merits of being relevant to the observations: their visibility is not immediately obvious, and they're plausibly collisionless, which means that you're talking about dark matter.

Well, I was technically including them in the term "lumpy material".

Then your only problem is explaining their origin and the absence of a huge metal excess everywhere else.

As far as I know matter has always existed, and IMO stars are mostly made of iron and nickel, not hydrogen and helium. The huge metal excess is covered up by a photosphere, a chromosphere and a corona.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1