On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 7:42 PM Jesse Mazer <laserma...@gmail.com> wrote:
*> Does the idea that colliders should have already found WIMPs depend on > the "naturalness" idea at > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics) > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics)> which requires > supersymmetric particles at those energies in order to solve the "hierarchy > problem", or are there independent reasons to think that if WIMPs existed > they should already have been found?* > When the LHC was being built most physicists thought when completed it would find the least massive member of the supersymmetric family (the most obvious candidate for a WIMP particle, a.k.a.Dark Matter) almost as soon as it was turned on, but it would take much longer to find the Higgs particle. It didn't turn out that way. The LHC found the Higgs over 10 years ago but since then it hasn't found even a hint of Supersymmetry. However Supersymmetric theory is very tweakable, it's easy to add a few bells and whistles so that the least massive supersymmetric particle is just a tad too heavy for the largest particle accelerator in the world to produce, and when a larger machine is made and still sees nothing you can just tweak the theory again. Physicists feel that being that tweakable makes a theory ugly because it violates "naturalness" which is really just a special case of Occam's Razor. By contrast Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity has been called the most beautiful theory in physics because it is very difficult to add or remove anything in it without the whole thing collapsing, and yet it remains wonderfully consistent with all existing experimental results. Although still a leading candidate Supersymmetric particles are not as popular an explanation for Dark Matter as they were a few years ago, but the rival Axion Theory is gaining popularity. > *in order to solve the "hierarchy problem"* Even if super symmetric particles are found and even if they are proven to be the source of Dark Matter it won't solve the hierarchy problem. Why is the electromagnetic force between 2 electrons 10^42 times stronger than the gravitational force between them? Why is the "Weak Force" 10^24 times stronger than gravity? There's something special about the number zero and the number one, but what's so special about 10^42 and 10^24? Nobody knows. *> I've read that those who endorse the string theory "landscape" idea see > anthropic fine-tuning as an alternative to naturalness and thus didn't > predict that supersymmetric particles would likely be found at LHC > energies, for example Leonard Susskind's 2004 paper > at https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406197v1 > <https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406197v1> said the following on pages 1-2:* > *'If the Landscape and the Discretuum are real, the idea of naturalness > must be replaced with something more appropriate.vI will adopt the > following tentative replacement: First eliminate all vacua which do not > allow intelligent life to evolve.* > String Theory postulates over 10^ 500 landscapes that have fundamentally different physics than our own, the trouble with using anthropic reasoning is that some, perhaps many, of those 10^500 worlds may contain stable structures constructed out of things radically different from anything we have ever seen or even theorized about that are nevertheless able to process information. And if something can process information it has the potential to be intelligent. And I believe if something is intelligent it is conscious. But what is the likelihood any form of life that bizarre actually exists? I don't think anybody knows enough to even make an educated guess about that except to say the probability is greater than zero and less than one. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> uty sts >> As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see >>> something they called a "Dark Star". >>> >>> Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope >>> <https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/422/3/2164/1043351?login=false> >>> >>> They theorized in the early universe Dark Matter, whatever it is, >>> must've been much more densely concentrated than it is today, and if Dark >>> Matter particles are their own antiparticles as many think then their >>> annihilation could provide a heat source, they could keeping star in >>> thermal and hydrodynamic equilibrium and prevent it from collapsing. They >>> hypothesized something they called a "Dark Star '', it would be a star with >>> a million times the mass of the sun and would be composed almost entirely >>> of hydrogen and helium but with 0.1% Dark Matter. A Dark Star would not be >>> dark but would be 10 billion times as bright as the sun and be powered by >>> dark matter not nuclear fusion. >>> >>> Astronomers were puzzled by pictures taken with the James Webb telescope >>> that they interpreted to be bright galaxies just 320 million years after >>> the Big Bang that were much brighter than most expected them to be that >>> early in the universe, a recent paper by the same people that theorized >>> existence of Dark Stars claim they could solve this puzzle. They claim >>> 3 of the most distant objects that the Webb telescope has seen are point >>> sources, as you'd expect from a Dark Star, and their spectrum is consistent >>> with what they predicted a Dark Star should look like. With a longer >>> exposure and a more detailed spectrum, Webb should be able to tell for sure >>> if it's a single Dark Star or an early galaxy made up of tens of millions >>> of population 3 stars. >>> >>> Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST >>> <https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305762120> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Bz%2BpFHXeRfCajK0fccB2%2BpxXfAc8LO_GdLCJ93kUReA%40mail.gmail.com.
