PDA

View Full Version : PAMELA Results Mean Only One Thing: Please Trust the Scientific Process



Fraser
2008-Nov-05, 11:00 PM
Scientists from the PAMELA (Payload for Antimatter/Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics) orbiting spacecraft have published preliminary results, putting an end to months of speculation about the first direct detection of dark matter. The science team was, in essence, "forced" to publish before they had conclusive results because other scientists "pirated" data from the team. [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/05/pamela-results-mean-only-one-thing-please-trust-the-scientific-process/)

trinitree88
2008-Nov-09, 06:01 PM
Scientists from the PAMELA (Payload for Antimatter/Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics) orbiting spacecraft have published preliminary results, putting an end to months of speculation about the first direct detection of dark matter. The science team was, in essence, "forced" to publish before they had conclusive results because other scientists "pirated" data from the team. [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/11/05/pamela-results-mean-only-one-thing-please-trust-the-scientific-process/)

Fraser. Nobody has yet shown that dark matter can annihilate into positrons and electrons in a lab, as nobody has yet shown that they can find dark matter in a lab. There is no reason that dark matter should only be found in the halos of galaxies, as it should have been part of the BB, and all the BB models posit a homogeneity to parts per million...that's what the latest CMB data says. Positrons are also produced when very energetic gamma rays.> ~a few Mev...(known phenomenology)..strike matter and lose energy by pair production.(the other half is an electron). Depending upon the spins of the pairs, they annihilate in two or three gammas themselves, and a very energetic gamma can travel through matter creating a wake of pairs, until its' energy drops below ~ 1.022 Mev, at which point it can only lose energy through Compton scattering, or photoelectric effects.
The authors' claim is weak. Show us in a lab, or state that the laws of physics in galactic halos is very distinct from the rest of the universe, and is therefor quite unknowable, as you can postulate all the silly particles you need to fit your bill. Pulsars are not a homogeneous lot, nor are supernovae progenitors, so observations of excess energies mean they need to retune their pulsar models, not claim branching ratios for dark matter annihilations.
Where's Orson Welles?... and the Martians are shooting positrons at people in New Jersey...or is it Joisey?...I dun herd it on the radio, a I'm a- gittin-my-shotgun,.. just in case.:shifty::lol: pete

Jerry
2008-Nov-10, 04:53 AM
A computer simulation using Xray and visible images of the "Bullet" galaxy was also taughted as the 'first direct proof' of Dark Matter. What we really have is forty years of not finding Dark Matter candidates in either the laboratory or careful searches for direct spectral indices. I urge everyone to apply the Jerry Test: If I came up with a computer models that demonstrated these high energy collisions were direct proof of a non-mainstream event, would anyone buy it? It is disheartening to see claim after claim of 'scientific' verification, based upon a large number of unvarified assumptions fed into mindless computers. We must do better.

matt.o
2008-Nov-10, 09:30 AM
You may think you are saying something profound here, Jerry, but the glaring (and common) errors in your post(s) show your applications of "the Jerry test" will produce nothing more than strawman arguments.

trinitree88
2009-Jan-03, 07:59 PM
There's this about the anomalous high counts of positrons,...see:http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4457



pete

Jerry
2009-Jan-05, 04:48 AM
Yes... Occum's razor trumps the 'Jerry' test...no exotic dark stuff required.