Fermi and dark matter

[ben m]

The problem from my skeptical perspective Ben is that you're "looking" to stuff the gaps of ignorance related to any gamma radiation with "dark matter" with unverified "properties" galore.

You sound confused. There are not (yet) serious gaps in our understanding of gamma ray data. We are collecting gamma ray data now and will see later whether it agrees/disagrees with major preexisting hypotheses like SUSY. These hypotheses were on the table already for reasons unrelated to gamma rays.

Same question to you then: When is it appropriate to choose/favor a "simpler" theory over one that requires multiple unverified things to be true?

There is no known hypothesis for dark matter which is simpler than SUSY.

How exactly are you getting these positrons out of the "dark matter" in a way that is visible to us here on Earth? In other words, an "annihilation' at the core of a sun isn't going to do us much good. These decay/ e+ e- process have to occur somewhere "visible" to us here on Earth.

You seem to be confused about these annihilations. Remember, in this hypothesis, the dark matter is an isotropic bath of SUSY particles. They annihilate wherever they happen to collide---not just in the middle of stars or something (Although there are also hypotheses where that happens too.)---but rather anywhere the density is nonzero. (The annihilation rate in standard SUSY depends on the square of the density. In some other models, it depends on the velocity distribution too.) Since most of space is empty, there is nothing the gamma rays need to "get out" of.

(Oh, and the fact that gammas do not *scatter* off of WIMPs (as they scatter off electrons or atoms) is very, very obvious in all mainstream theories.)

 

[DazzaD]

Well, let me ask you a "philosophical" question then about "science". When is it appropriate to choose/favor a solution that is based upon pure empirical physics vs a pure act of faith?

When you choose "equal", how exactly do we "compare" theories? IMO even if we put "qualification" on an equal footing with "quantification', there's no logical way to claim that exotic forms of "dark matter" had anything to do with gamma rays that have been seen in Fermi images, or cosmology in general.

In fact the mainstream seems to be going out of their collective way to *NOT* mention the fact that "electrical discharges" are the likely source of the bulk of these emissions. Instead we're seeing a "leap of faith" into a pure theoretical construct related to 'dark matter', and no mention of the fact that planets and suns are the most likely 'source' of these emissions. It's not even logical IMO.

Ah. Science Perhaps the confusion here is the rate at which new knowledge is accumulated or how quickly experimental results filter into well rounded theories (or vice versa).

I am perhaps more patient in that I understand the complexities of the issues involved and merely saying "gravity did it" or the "electric force did it" isnt good enough, in reality it takes millions of man hours to hack out the theory in the mathematics or to hack out and extract/analyse the data from missions that may have taken 20 years to plan and another 20 years to fully appreciate. Because we are in that "middle state" it may seem as if scientists are jaunting about with half baked ideas popping them off at every possible moment to see, if just by luck, they happen to knock down a theory or two or an experimental result or two. In reality it is a bit messier than that.

They have various theories and they have various experimental evidence. They would NOT be doing their job properly if they didnt seriously entertain every possible solution that stems from results/theories that have already been shown to be pretty solid. "Acts of faith" as you seem to put it are to me, sometimes, merely an hypothesis (but note I would never personally use the term "act of faith" to describe that). There is perhaps a fine dividing line here but that argument rests in the realm of the philosophy of science and perhaps, again, would deserve its own thread.

I think perhaps we are just misunderstanding each others position here. As others have explained scientists are not proposing that the source of these particular gamma emissions are down to dark matter. They are wondering, in an interested way, that maybe, just maybe, if some of these gamma ray emissions are down to dark matter, then maybe, just maybe, we could show in the data a population of them that we are hard pressed to assign an existing, natural if you will, explanation for.

Even if quantification only counts as say a single point, I've handed you a 'slam dunk' that includes mathematical explanations as well visual (in Fermi images) verification of the fact that planets and suns are "known sources" of gamma rays. It's therefore no "leap of faith' for me to believe that binary stars are 'brighter' and "scattering happens" in a dusty core filled with binary stars.

"Dark matter did it" theory will forever remain a "second rate" theory IMO until and unless it ever gains some sort of empirical support. Until that time, it will only ever be able to receive one point of a possible two points on the "qualification/quantification" scales of science.

No one is arguing at all in any way shape or form that the gamma rays could not come from a variety of sources and processes, many of which could involve known "stuff" if you will as you possibly describe.

But to turn round and then say outright, without investigation or checking or detailed analysis, that this then means that everything that Fermi will see can be explained by EU (or for that matter a standard model that I prefer) is not science.

If that is a scientists attitude then there was no point launching the damn thing in the first place. We might just as well spent all that money on one big booze up and congratulate ourselves that we know everything there is to know about gamma rays already.

Is it not unreasonable to entertain different scenarios for the formation (in detail) of what Fermi 'sees'?

Is it not unreasonable to assume that there will be a variety of processes and theories that will be needed to explain all the observations, not a single overarching simplified explanation (whether that be my standard model or yours)?

Is it not unreasonable to sit back and pat ourselves on the back for knowing everything there is to know about the universe? I WANT people to take a sledgehammer to all we know and see if they cant smash into a million pieces.

Again I understand your position here but my own way of thinking likes that fact that some people, not all, but some people are willing to go out on a limb a little bit and bash those existing theories with a big hammer and see if they cant break them or discover them behaving in a weird way. For me personally it is important that some scientists are firmly rooted to the ground, as in your "belief" in this paragraph but also that some are willing to tinker. Else I would always wonder "what if" and worry about us missing something interesting and amazing.

It's therefore no "leap of faith' for me to believe that binary stars are 'brighter' and "scattering happens" in a dusty core filled with binary stars.

Is it unreasonable to allow that without further justification, calculation, experimental evidence or analysis of how it may effect current existing theories (yours or mine)?

Else surely we are just opening the door for everyone to go "its ok, it werent that it was just that" and getting a PhD for it. What practical purpose would that serve?

 

[dafydd]

Sure, you guys are peddling three forms of invisible metaphysical buddies, and *I'm* the nutcase.

The sun has a soild shell surface? Nutcasism,surely?

 

[Dancing David]

Ben M, thanks very much for the discussion of DM candidates.

 

[dafydd]

That's not a point. That's a rant. Maybe even a rant against modern science?

What are you trying to accomplish after 100's of posts on this subject?

That's what I was wondering.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, this is called a "background". We know that the Sun, LMXBs, etc., produce these low energy gamma rays. If the dark matter emits low-energy gamma rays, it will be difficult to conclusively observe because we'll have to convince ourselves that Observation X cannot be just background. This may be difficult or impossible. We are trying.

This process is called "science".

I'm not so sure. If one's expectation is to find evidence of 'dark matter' even before launching Fermi, it seems as though there is a "need" to justify the program and find evidence of dark matter. The skeptic in me wonders how "hard" astronomers are trying to explain these observations "naturally" without any need for dark matter. Is the mainstream really giving empirical physics a fair shake?

Listen: the hypothesis that dark matter is made of SUSY LSPs includes everything we know about the SUSY LSP hypothesis---including things we learn about it from, e.g., collider data and electroweak theory. One aspect of this hypothesis is that the LSP annihilation products include > 50 GeV gamma rays. Understand? That's a prediction of the SUSY LSP hypothesis for what the dark matter is made of.

The data does not yet support or refute this hypothesis.

The problem here is that none of this is verifiable in any empirical manner. No it's "not ruled out", but then there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of this is true either. Essentially what your saying is it's "perfectly acceptable" to now stuff the gaps of our ignorance about any "high energy" gamma rays with some theory about 'dark matter'. Is there even an upper or lower limit to what you might attempt to attribute to this specific form of DM? Since there are many exotic particles to choose from, why even choose that particular one unless you're specifically looking for "dark matter' wherever you think you can find it? It seems like this whole line of reasoning is based on a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, it's going to be pretty busy at work and at home this week. My oldest daughter is in a school play and I have several programming projects I'm working on this week. This will probably be a "back burner" conversation for me this week.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You sound confused. There are not (yet) serious gaps in our understanding of gamma ray data. We are collecting gamma ray data now and will see later whether it agrees/disagrees with major preexisting hypotheses like SUSY. These hypotheses were on the table already for reasons unrelated to gamma rays.
.....
There is no known hypothesis for dark matter which is simpler than SUSY.

The problem here Ben is that there is no known hypothesis for gamma rays which is simpler than an electrical discharge. You want to give SUSY theory 'credit" for being "the most viable (simple) explanation" of exotic matter, but you are not applying that same "simpler" concept to gamma rays in general.

You seem to be confused about these annihilations. Remember, in this hypothesis, the dark matter is an isotropic bath of SUSY particles. They annihilate wherever they happen to collide---not just in the middle of stars or something (Although there are also hypotheses where that happens too.)---but rather anywhere the density is nonzero. (The annihilation rate in standard SUSY depends on the square of the density. In some other models, it depends on the velocity distribution too.) Since most of space is empty, there is nothing the gamma rays need to "get out" of.

(Oh, and the fact that gammas do not *scatter* off of WIMPs (as they scatter off electrons or atoms) is very, very obvious in all mainstream theories.)

So what you want me to believe is that WIMPS don't collide or interact much with normal matter but they do collide with each other, but only "somewhere out there" where we can't see it, and not on Earth in a controlled experiment.

 

[ben m]

I'm not so sure. If one's expectation is to find evidence of 'dark matter' even before launching Fermi, it seems as though there is a "need" to justify the program and find evidence of dark matter. The skeptic in me wonders how "hard" astronomers are trying to explain these observations "naturally" without any need for dark matter. Is the mainstream really giving empirical physics a fair shake?

Sorry, MM, you are invoking a generic anti-science conspiracy theory. Is there a specific item of what you call "empirical physics" which I have not given a fair shake?

The problem here is that none of this is verifiable in any empirical manner. No it's "not ruled out", but then there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any of this is true either.

Please note, for the 50th time, that we say "we haven't identified the dark matter yet". We DO NOT say "We discovered it by ruling out everything else". We're looking for it in a number of ways, one of which is the Fermi search.

Is there even an upper or lower limit to what you might attempt to attribute to this specific form of DM? Since there are many exotic particles to choose from, why even choose that particular one unless you're specifically looking for "dark matter' wherever you think you can find it?

There were many possible top quark mass hypotheses to choose from. We looked for anything that was in reach of our experiments. Most of those experiments failed, with each failure ruling out another range of hypotheses. Then one succeeded, with positive data matching the m=173 GeV hypothesis.

Yes, any time someone offers a hypothesis we see whether the data supports that hypothesis. Remember the MACHOs, MM? They were a well-defined hypothesis or range of hypotheses. We searched. They weren't there. I don't see you arguing that the MACHO search was a meaningless shot in the dark.

 

[ben m]

The problem here Ben is that there is no known hypothesis for gamma rays which is simpler than an electrical discharge. You want to give SUSY theory 'credit" for being "the most viable (simple) explanation" of exotic matter, but you are not applying that same "simpler" concept to gamma rays in general.

You have it backwards.

We're applying SUSY theory to the missing mass problem. There is not yet anything in gamma ray data to apply it to with any confidence. SUSY is the simplest explanation for the missing mass problem for a wide range of reasons.

In the future, IF there is gamma-ray data that fits well to SUSY, you may find people using that data AND the missing-mass data to argue that (a) SUSY particles are the missing dark matter and (b) those particles annihilate or decay to in a way that explains the incoming gamma ray data.

So what you want me to believe is that WIMPS don't collide or interact much with normal matter but they do collide with each other

Just like neutrinos, MM. Do you know how to calculate the neutrino-antineutrino annihilation cross section? Good. It's a never-before-observed process, but it depends on nothing except the neutrino mass, and the fundamental low-energy weak interaction potential. It's not a ineffable mystery, is it? It's just particle physics. OK, do you know how to calculate the neutrino-photon scattering cross section? Good. It's a never-before-observed process, but it depends (at "tree level") on nothing except the neutrino electric charge, which is zero, so the scattering probability is approximately zero. Neutrinos don't scatter off of photons, nor vice-versa.

There you go: basic quantum mechanics, plus two or three neutrino properties, tell you that neutrinos can pair-annihilate but that they can't scatter off photons. Do you have any reason to doubt either of these calculations? No, they're totally standard particle physics.

Do the same calculation with a hypothetical particle. You can calculate the annihilation cross section, which depends on the mass and on the point-contact potential, both of which are part of the new-particle hypothesis. Then you can calculate the gamma scattering cross section, which is zero because it still depends only on the electric charge. There you go. Just like the neutrino version, it's an undergrad-level calculation in most ways. Unlike the neutrino annihilation cross section, the SUSY one is hypothesis-dependent because different SUSY theories have different masses and "weak" potentials.

 

[ben m]

So what you want me to believe is that WIMPS don't collide or interact much with normal matter but they do collide with each other, but only "somewhere out there" where we can't see it, and not on Earth in a controlled experiment.

And let me clarify: the WIMP-WIMP elastic or quasielastic scattering cross section---the sort of interaction akin to "two atoms colliding"---is indeed very small, for very simple and well-understood reasons (exactly the same reason, in fact, that the low-energy neutrino-electron scattering cross section is small: because the force carrier's rest mass is higher than the collision energy.) The WIMP-WIMP annihilation cross section is not small, because if the WIMP is massive then the "collision energy" gets to include all of this mass-energy, so the massive force carrier does not present a barrier. This is totally standard particle physics. It is hard to emphasize how standard this is.

It does happen everywhere, of course, if it happens at all. Now that you know this prediction, you can design an experiment to look for it. Do you want to design a detector on Earth, in which any WIMP annihilations would be fully-contained? Be my guest. (I've done this calculation, by the way.)

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah. Science Perhaps the confusion here is the rate at which new knowledge is accumulated or how quickly experimental results filter into well rounded theories (or vice versa).

I am perhaps more patient in that I understand the complexities of the issues involved and merely saying "gravity did it" or the "electric force did it" isnt good enough, in reality it takes millions of man hours to hack out the theory in the mathematics or to hack out and extract/analyse the data from missions that may have taken 20 years to plan and another 20 years to fully appreciate. Because we are in that "middle state" it may seem as if scientists are jaunting about with half baked ideas popping them off at every possible moment to see, if just by luck, they happen to knock down a theory or two or an experimental result or two. In reality it is a bit messier than that.

Well, if we're going to invest the next several decades investigating various "possibilities", should we not at least favor any solution that is grounded in empirical physics over a purely hypothetical mathematical construct?

In this specific case there isn't even any guarantee that DM is composed of anything that annihilates at all. DM could be made of any number of hypothetical particles responsible for "missing mass", even if there really is an exotic form of matter involved. It seems to me when the number of hypothetical "properties" reaches a certain number (say three?) one starts to wonder about the viability of the "package deal". When we approach a half dozen "assumptions" about the nature of the "missing mass", I start to get a wee skeptical.

Since there isn't even a certainty that "WIMPS" make up the bulk of the missing mass, and we have no idea if we can see them in a gamma ray image.

Here's my basic concern about what's going on based upon NASA's list of stated "priorities", and recent naming conventions of the mainstream:

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/

* Explore the most extreme environments in the Universe, where nature harnesses energies far beyond anything possible on Earth.

That is a noble goal if you ask me, and I'm glad they listed it first.

* Search for signs of new laws of physics and what composes the mysterious Dark Matter.

They're searching for new "laws of physics" in distant events? Hmmmmm. How do they even know if DM has anything to do with gamma rays? That seems like a very unusual "second" listed goal. How exactly did they intend to add a "control" mechanism in a real attempt to isolate cause/effect relationships?

The odd part is that Fermi has already identified a 'cause/effect' relationship between gamma rays and annihilation signatures and discharges in the Earth's atmosphere.

* Explain how black holes accelerate immense jets of material to nearly light speed.

Ok.....

* Help crack the mysteries of the stupendously powerful explosions known as gamma-ray bursts.

Ok.....

* Answer long-standing questions across a broad range of topics, including solar flares, pulsars and the origin of cosmic rays.

That's cool too. Now I wish of course they listed this as a stated goal before suggesting they intended to try to determine cause/effect relationships with zero control mechanisms of pure observations. This does however bring me back to the mainstream 'buzzwords' for "current flow" and 'circuits". They see x-rays and gamma rays and even annihilation signatures from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere in Fermi and Rhessi images. They point those same two satellites at the sun's atmosphere and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". They literally will do anything and everything to avoid using the term "discharge" or "current flow". Instead of choosing a term like "circuit reconnection" to explain this discharge and short circuit process , they use a "magnetically sterilized" term instead. Now we're stuck with what Alfven called "pseudoscience" instead of actual empirical physics.

FYI, if you ever do get around to reading Birkeland's material, you'll see that he actually 'predicted" (and filmed) 'coronal loops' in the atmosphere of his sphere. 100 years ago Birkeland "explained' these high energy discharge phenomenon. Instead of going with an empirical solution that works in a lab, and on the Earth, astronomers today are mystified by simple electrical discharges. IMO these really are the "dark ages" of astronomy and it's this "quantification is the only thing that matters" attitude that is at the heart of the problem. IMO somewhere along the road astronomy lost itself in mathematical models and forgot to test any of their theories in lab. Birkeland tried and verified that all his 'discharge" theories work in lab to explain and actually "predict" (real experimental predictions by the way) the core observations related to solar atmospheric activity. Bruce even further quantified and refined what he called "electrical discharge theory" and so did Alfven. Somehow when they use Alfven same mathematical formulas in solar theory, they don't use circuits and current flow to explain these events like Alfven, instead they wind up with a form of what Alfven himself referred to as "pseudoscience".

They have various theories and they have various experimental evidence. They would NOT be doing their job properly if they didnt seriously entertain every possible solution that stems from results/theories that have already been shown to be pretty solid.

So why isn't EU theory receiving more attention? "Discharges" are a known source of gamma rays. If you're looking to equate anything empirical with Fermi images, "discharges" are a guaranteed winner.

I'll come back to the rest a bit later.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, if you ever do get around to reading Birkeland's material, you'll see that he actually 'predicted" (and filmed) 'coronal loops' in the atmosphere of his sphere. 100 years ago Birkeland "explained' these high energy discharge phenomenon. Instead of going with an empirical solution that works in a lab, and on the Earth, astronomers today are mystified by simple electrical discharges.
....

FYI DazzaD,
If you get around to reading Kristian Birkeland's material you will see that

• He was decades ahead in his description of the Earth's aurora as the interaction between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field.
• He was one of the first people to correctly state that the solar wind was electrons and positively charges ions.
• He made several incorrect predictions based on what he saw from electrical discharges from brass and iron spheres:
  • That solar coronal loops and flares were electrical discharges.
  • Saturn's rings were disks formed by electrical discharges.
  • Nebulae were electrical discharges (surprise!).

He was of course working with the knowledge of the universe that existed before 1917 (his year of death). At that time his predictions were quite reasonable.

Astronomers are not mysitified that much by coronal flares and loops (MM's "electrical discharges") since they have used the well known properties of plasmas (verified in labs as any plasma cosmologist will be glad to confirm) to model what the coronal flares and loops actually do. This is in contract to what MM thinks they do, i.e. act like electricl discharges.

If you were really a glutton for punishment then you could look through the hundres of posts in the Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not? and Electric universe theories here threads that mention Birkeland.


I do not know that you should trust anything that MM says about Kristian Birkeland's book since MM tends to make things up:

• Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book? First asked 7th July 2009
• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
• Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun). First asked 7th July 2009
• Is Saturn the Sun? First asked 14 July 2009 (Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

 

[ben m]

Well, if we're going to invest the next several decades investigating various "possibilities", should we not at least favor any solution that is grounded in empirical physics over a purely hypothetical mathematical construct?

a) Your definition of "grounded in empirical physics" is arbitrary; it is shared by many crackpots, but by few or no physicists or philosophers of science.

b) What baryon-based dark matter hypothesis has not been ruled out by data? That's the problem, MM---you keep re-proposing failed hypotheses.

In this specific case there isn't even any guarantee that DM is composed of anything that annihilates at all. DM could be made of any number of hypothetical particles responsible for "missing mass", even if there really is an exotic form of matter involved.

If the DM matter indeed annihilates then Fermi may find it. If not, it won't. This is not different than any other science.

It seems to me when the number of hypothetical "properties" reaches a certain number (say three?) one starts to wonder about the viability of the "package deal". When we approach a half dozen "assumptions" about the nature of the "missing mass", I start to get a wee skeptical.

Considering that you've only learned about these assumptions, to all appearances, in this thread, you are not the best judge. The assumptions I state are extremely natural---so natural, in fact, that we built a $4B collider in Geneva with the specific goal of testing the SUSY "package" you so dislike.

Since there isn't even a certainty that "WIMPS" make up the bulk of the missing mass, and we have no idea if we can see them in a gamma ray image.

Yes, this is how experiments work. If we DO see them in the gamma rays, then we will know, won't we?

I will ignore your reconnection rant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You have it backwards.

We're applying SUSY theory to the missing mass problem.

You're not limiting your argument to "missing mass" in Fermi images Ben. You're now attempting to select *one specific* theoretical particle to explain 'missing mass' and trying to pick up a "two-fer" by claiming that this exotic mass also explains yet *another* observation in space.

The problem is Ben that these observations of high energy particles have already been directly and specifically associated with "electrical discharges", and not 'dark matter'.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sorry, MM, you are invoking a generic anti-science conspiracy theory. Is there a specific item of what you call "empirical physics" which I have not given a fair shake?

As it relates to this thread, "discharge activity and other natural causes" isn't getting a "fair shake". Somehow someone decided they were going to see "dark matter" in Fermi images even before launching the satellite, so now we're "looking for dark matter" everywhere and anywhere.

The paper I offered you and electrical discharges in general are a "better" explanation for high energy particles observed in Fermi images. That is also true of supernova shocks, black hole activity and a half dozen different more "viable" explanations for high energy particles. What the hell do gamma rays and "missing mass" have in common?

I'll take up the "fair shake" question in the other thread too where I believe you "assumed" your range of "assumptions" were all true and accurate.

 

[ben m]

As it relates to this thread, "discharge activity and other natural causes" isn't getting a "fair shake". Somehow someone decided they were going to see "dark matter" in Fermi images even before launching the satellite, so now we're "looking for dark matter" everywhere and anywhere.

You are still getting it backwards:

For 50 years, we have had abundant, consistent gravitational evidence that galaxies, galaxy clusters, the CMB-emitting bath, etc., have X amount of visible, collisional baryons and 5X amount of something else. "Discharge activity in the Sun" does not propose to explain this. Are you aware of any non-WIMP/axion/new-physics hypothesis that you think (a) explains this data and (b) that science has unjustly ignored?

As I said, if you don't understand/believe/accept---even for the sake of argument---that the WIMP hypothesis was, long before Fermi's launch, a valid hypothesis explaining a real phenomenon, then there's no point discussing Fermi's attempt to confirm that hypothesis.

 

[DazzaD]

The paper I offered you and electrical discharges in general are a "better" explanation for high energy particles observed in Fermi images. That is also true of supernova shocks, black hole activity and a half dozen different more "viable" explanations for high energy particles. What the hell do gamma rays and "missing mass" have in common?

Do they all have identical emission characteristics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's the problem as I see it Ben: Some folks at NASA are evidently SUSY theory enthusiasts. A few of them took it upon themselves to "assume" that gamma rays and "dark matter" (a very specific SUSY particle) are related. They actually have developed a "mission statement" to find new evidence of "dark matter" in Fermi images. It's now "open season" for using DM to explain 'missing mass', but now it's also "fair game" to apply any and all "unidentified flying particles" to "dark matter"! Where's the empirical link between these ideas? There isn't one.

It is a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer". One evidently has to not only believe that *some* SUSY particle exists, but they have to believe that "WIMPS did it.". It's a two for one act of faith, even if we make a WIMP a package deal special in terms of existence, weak interaction, etc.

We now are comparing an explanation that involves "known sources" of gamma rays, to an act of faith that is actually a two for one special, even when if I give you SUSY theory to work with. It's actually at least a 3 for one leap of faith because SUSY theory isn't even the only "non standard" particle physics theory to consider.

The mainstream isn't just trying to explain "missing mass". In Fermi images they are trying to explain "high energy particles". We already know that our own sun is capable of spewing out particles at a significant portion of the speed of light, and it emits gamma rays and x-rays galore. That is true of all discharge processes evidently, including discharges here on Earth. Fermi confirms these to be known sources of high energy particles.

It's not even logical to go "looking for any old excuse" to justify "dark matter". It's one thing to note one has a "missing mass" problem. It's quite another thing to stuff the gaps of the ignorance about Fermi images with WIMP theory.

 

[ben m]

Here's the problem as I see it Ben: Some folks at NASA are evidently SUSY theory enthusiasts. A few of them took it upon themselves to "assume" that gamma rays and "dark matter" (a very specific SUSY particle) are related.

Wow, that's dishonestly phrased.

Not "some folks at NASA"---the people interested in the WIMP hypothesis (dark matter=some heavy particle) include nearly all experimental particle physicists, particle theorists, and astrophysicists. Really, almost all of them. Fermi is sensitive to several such hypotheses, the most popular of which is the SUSY one, which a strong majority of particle experimentalists (remember the LHC) and a overwhelming majority of particle theorists find particularly compelling. (Astronomers I know are generally convinced that it's a new particle, but are less interested in the SUSY/KK/axion/? distinction.)

All of these theorists and experimentalists are capable of doing the Particle Physics 101 calculation that shows that the SUSY particles should annihate to gamma rays.

Your statement is equivalent to, I dunno, "Some folks at NASA are evidently Big Bang enthusiasts. Some took it upon themselves to assume that the Big Bang had something to do with redshifts and luminosities ... now the Hubble Telescope is apparently out to 'discover' the Big Bang."