Quark Flavor Mixed Multicomponent Dark Matter Model

[quantauniverse]

A nutty dark matter theory out at Kansas university wastes money looking for dark matter in cosmology, by using quantum particles in standard models. Flavors are actually just one of many adjustable parameters used for correcting and fixing theoretical quark models. Charms, colors, flavors, and lots more crazy names, means the theory requires two different masses for dark matter particles. Everything done on a supercomputer simulation at the university, and a headline story. Is this all a result of the money involved for finding dark matter?
http://today.Ku.edu/2014/09/03/research ... ark-matter

[Metryq]

Mikhail Medvedev, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas, who has just published breakthrough research on dark matter

Research? This qualifies as research? Observation-free science—Occam's razor has been tossed out the window, unfortunately slicing the carotid of real science who happened to be walking by at the time.

The computer time would have been better spent by the animation class working on their Pixar wanna-be projects. Seriously.

[BronzeDragon]

I regard dark matter with the same skepticism I reserve for God. In fact, dark matter is exactly like God: invisible, undetectable, nobody can see it or touch it or experiment with it...but it can perform all sorts of miracles, and many people insist that it HAS to be out there somewhere, because how else can we explain all the puzzling things that happen?

Also, here is this: Molecules with silly names. Even scientists need to have nerdy fun sometimes.

[Michael Mozina]

Is it just me, or are these ad hoc "theories" about dark matter getting weirder and less believable by the day?

The multiple "dark"/invisible deities of Lambda-CDM theory amount to a *pantheon* of invisible supernatural constructs. It's become a really goofy religion not unlike polytheism, it's definitely not "science" anymore.

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

First, I agree wholeheartedly with Metryq's assessment. Careless mishandling of Occam's tool leaves them without an empirical hand to grasp reality.

"Astrophysicists believe that about 80 percent of the substance of our universe is made up of mysterious “dark matter” that can’t be perceived by human senses or scientific instruments."

OH brother - the article doesn't even start off with the imagined percentage correct. The mainstream model says it's 26% DM, not 80%.

"Medvedev compared flavor-mixing to white light that contains several colors and can generate a rainbow.
'If white was a particular flavor, then red, green and blue would be different masses — masses one, two and three — that mix up together to create white,” he said. “By changing proportions of red, green and blue in the mix, one can make different colors, or flavors, other than white.'"

This Prof. seems to prefer a long ride on his favourite Unicorn rather than the established view of the EM light spectrum.

"Medvedev said that dark matter candidates are also theorized to be flavor-mixed — such as neutralinos, axions and sterile neutrinos."

Neutralinos - the "unattracted to all" particle.
Axions - the "but it just has to be there" particle
and the poor sterile neutrinos- the "bereft of quantum social skills" particle

Previously we discovered that flavor-mixed particles can ‘quantum evaporate’ from a gravitational well if they are ‘shaken’ — meaning they collide with another particle,

I found it particularly interesting that the image created to visualize this "effect of quantum evaporation" looks suspiciously like a tapering Birkeland current in a plasma formation.

he said. “That's a remarkable result, as if a spacecraft made of flavor-mixed matter and hauled along a bumpy road puts itself into space without a rocket or any other means or effort by us

.
LOL! By that analogy, every plate of left-overs pulled out of a microwave should float off the table into space.

“Each simulation utilized over a 1,000 cores and ran for a week or so,” he said. “This yearlong project consumed about 2 million computer hours in total, which is equal to 230 years.”

LOL! Gotta love that creative math. Just to impress them, lets list our efforts in "dog years on Mercury",
either that or they're using Tardis powered computer cores.

"a year long study with each simulation taking approximately 1 week"
No matter how much work they want to imply was done by the equipment, it's still only approx. 52 simulations over no more than 8760 hours.
---

I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but personally I find the proposition for an Intelligent Creation much more plausible than those of the BB-UFN & either of it's Dark progeny.
One of the things I find attractive about the EU proposals are that at least they maintain scientific neutrality;
They don't support any particular religious interpretation nor do they jump to exclaim "aliens did it"...
yet at the same time, they also do not automatically preclude an IC possibility in the explanations of ancient myths and art.
They merely provide a different possible methodology.

In reality, the physical sciences only deal with the interrelationships of the hows,

the whys are the realm pure speculation...
much like this DM "research".

[Metryq]

I mean no disrespect to previous posters, but personally I find the proposition for an Intelligent Creation much more plausible than those of the BB-UFN & either of it's Dark progeny.

I do not discount the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, but I find the hypothesis unproductive. It is essentially the same "homunculus fallacy" used by pre-scientific peoples who merely posited a man-like being who willed the universe to be a certain way. All that does is change the question from "why is nature this way?" to "why does god make nature this way?" Perhaps there is an Intelligent Designer, but until there is some compelling reason to lean that way, it is a recursive notion that short circuits the will to ask "why?"

{Believing this or that structure is "too complicated" is an opinion, not an observable fact. I've seen enough to believe that there is a progression of forms, but also believe that our current notions of evolution are not even in the right ball park. Either they were designed or they "just happened" is a false dichotomy. There are third, fourth and tenth possible explanations that no one has given voice to yet.)

One of the things I find attractive about the EU proposals are that at least they maintain scientific neutrality;
They don't support any particular religious interpretation nor do they jump to exclaim "aliens did it"...

Or "learn to stand before you try to walk." EU doesn't presume to explain where matter or the universe came from—none of the "ultimate" questions. For now, EU is "macroscopic."

[BronzeDragon]

"Medvedev compared flavor-mixing to white light that contains several colors and can generate a rainbow.
'If white was a particular flavor, then red, green and blue would be different masses — masses one, two and three — that mix up together to create white,” he said. “By changing proportions of red, green and blue in the mix, one can make different colors, or flavors, other than white.'"

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

Trying to keep this on the OP topic, I did notice that much of what was in that article related to discussing oddly theoretical aspects normal matter and hardly related it back to dark matter at all.

----

I do not discount the possibility of an Intelligent Designer, but I find the hypothesis unproductive. It is essentially the same "homunculus fallacy" used by pre-scientific peoples who merely posited a man-like being who willed the universe to be a certain way. All that does is change the question from "why is nature this way?" to "why does god make nature this way?" Perhaps there is an Intelligent Designer, but until there is some compelling reason to lean that way,it is a recursive notion that short circuits the will to ask "why?" .

I think history would disagree - most of the greatest discoveries made were by inquisitive minds who had "learned that way"...
and humbly, the (underlined) observation you yourself made contradict your own conclusion (highlighted).

Believing this or that structure is "too complicated" is an opinion, not an observable fact. I've seen enough to believe that there is a progression of forms, but also believe that our current notions of evolution are not even in the right ball park. Either they were designed or they "just happened" is a false dichotomy. There are third, fourth and tenth possible explanations that no one has given voice to yet.)

EU doesn't presume to explain where matter or the universe came from—none of the "ultimate" questions. For now, EU is "macroscopic.

Exactly, EU cosmology deals with the scientific questions of the most likely HOWs, not with the speculative possibilities of WHY.
The focus is the method, not the motive.
However, I also find the proposals to be the most logical & efficient I've ever heard, and they mesh soooo well with the preponderance of "circumstantial evidence" in the basics of numerous IC stories that the implications of the common thread are very difficult to ignore.

I find "design or not" to be one of those ultimate question you mentioned,
but again I don't want to clutter the thread with discussion not directly related to the post.
Maybe note me as I'd love to hear those 3, 4, ..., 10 alternatives ya mentioned.

[Michael Mozina]

What's next with ever changing ad hoc dark matter theories, the chocolate covered dark matter theory? Mmmmm. Chocolate.

[viscount aero]

Is it just me, or are these ad hoc "theories" about dark matter getting weirder and less believable by the day?

The multiple "dark"/invisible deities of Lambda-CDM theory amount to a *pantheon* of invisible supernatural constructs. It's become a really goofy religion not unlike polytheism, it's definitely not "science" anymore.

I agree and it's not just you. It's a trend now particularly with the smugly arrogant high priests of Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking who regularly make preposterous claims about leprechaun-based theoretical physics. Have you read the latest thing that Hawking said about the pending destruction of the universe?

[BronzeDragon]

Have you read the latest thing that Hawking said about the pending destruction of the universe?

Do tell!

[Metryq]

^ Since the LHC didn't destroy the Earth with a black hole, Hawking is saying that a super-duper-hyper-large-collander (requiring the GDP of every country on the planet) can accelerate an imaginary particle fast enough to destroy the universe. In other words, "Don't cross the streams. It would be bad."

What I'm confused about it why the AIs or super-advanced aliens wouldn't stop us...

[viscount aero]

Have you read the latest thing that Hawking said about the pending destruction of the universe?

Do tell!

I saw this in another thread somewhere but I'll find the article about it. When you consider the preposterous enormity of the claim (about the dubious "higgs boson"), coming from an esteemed physicist of great renown, it makes you wonder about some things Is this to be taken seriously or is it a parody taken from The Onion?

Try this:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/09/ ... -universe/

Stephen Hawking: 'God particle' could destroy the universe

excerpt:

Stephen Hawking, who once cautioned that both artificial intelligence and invading aliens could wipe out the human race, now has another dire prediction – the Higgs boson, or “God particle,” might destroy the universe...

Hawking’s gloomy theory appears in the forward to Starmus: 50 Years of Man in Space, a collection of lectures by noteworthy astronomers and researchers. In the piece, Hawking writes that the particle “has the worrisome feature that it might become metastable at energies above 100bn giga-electron-volts (GEV),” reports CNET.

According to Hawking, the vacuum decay “could expand at the speed of light” and that this could “happen at any time and we couldn’t see it coming.” While that statement might be cause for alarm, Hawking acknowledges in the essay that this threat is highly theoretical. A particle accelerator that could even reach 100bn GEV would need to be larger than the Earth itself, and would “unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.”