Don't later models require proton decay primarily because Pati-Salam opened the door, even if the vanilla form doesn't REQUIRE it? That reduces the likelihood of other GUTs that don't also require it. I'm certainly open to them, just not aware of any save the grandaddy of all GUTs. Saying such unconceived alternatives likely lurk somewhere sounds like my argument for withholding judgement on exotic dark matter.
If you think that position tenable we may need to retrace our steps a bit. 


The two cases are not easily comparable, because the current states of evidence are very different. Also, saying the correct GUT might not yet be conceived is like saying that the correct exotic dark matter particle might not yet be conceived. GUTs and exotic dark matter are both classes of theories; saying we don't know the right one in the class isn't the same as saying we should look in another class.
Your point on the difference in the evidence for each is valid. You've convinced me that the evidence strongly supports exotic dark matter; I don't think it irrefutable, but no more convincing refutation exists, nor is it likely to emerge, which is a form of supporting evidence in itself. There's no evidence against it, which also helps immensely, and is something most GUTs only wish they could say. As long as they keep predicting proton decay at levels experiment proves impossible, Pati-Salam remains the best by default, and we may be approaching a point where simply warping the theory to allow longer lived protons won't be enough, because if the half-life is so high it CAN'T be experimentally detected (bearing in mind that an experiment that can't be replicated is worthless) even a valid GUT will have left the realm of science. With that in turn in mind the distinction of exotic dark matter and GUTs as equal classes of theories also seems valid, though it also means they both raise the same potential problem that invalidating any or all known theories can't invalidate the class unless it involves invalidating some necessary common attribute.
In general, proton decay is a prediction of GUTs because they do away with conservation of baryon number. (You're right that Pati-Salam has this implicitly, though not explicitly.) It may just be that proton decay is very very suppressed, so the experimental half-life bounds of ~10^34 years would be acceptable. Some newer GUTs (utilizing supersymmetry, for example) make predictions that fit the experimental half-life bound. Supersymmetry corrections make the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces all unify at a single point. Supersymmetry also predicts a new stable particle (the lightest supersymmetric particle) which could be a dark matter candidate.
I assume it goes without saying at this point that eliminating conservation of baryon numbers would put us back at square one on MACHOs.

I'm not sold on all of that, though I admit it has some appeal. No direct evidence yet exists. If supersymmetry is correct, we should find evidence of it at the LHC. Because of the dearth of evidence, however, this is an area where current hypotheses may just be off in the wrong direction. If that's the case, whatever actual evidence we get from the LHC should serve as a course corrector.
And that is very much as it should be. I like a neat creative theory as much as the next guy, and am all for simplifying the big questions whenever possible, but the data has to tell the story on its own. If a verifiable theory's valid, doing experiments in the area it addresses will sooner or later prove it whether anyone wants to or not. If it's not, the same experiments will prove that, too. That's THE reason why I don't want to rule out anything, however unlikely, until/unless it becomes impossible, and likewise not accept as fact anything, however probable, until/unless it becomes irrefutable. I don't really think reputable scientists need to be TOLD that, per se, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees, so a periodic reminder couldn't hurt.

Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Exciting video about the universe
28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
- 1264 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect.
28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM
- 966 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter.
28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM
- 910 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 850 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
- 950 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
- 885 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
- 791 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
- 812 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
- 912 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
- 987 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
- 827 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
- 785 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
- 865 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
- 786 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
- 860 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
- 814 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 1021 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 832 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
- 900 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
- 1149 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
- 1145 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 853 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
- 970 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
- 939 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
- 928 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
- 893 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
- 1063 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
- 832 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
- 1124 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 734 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 1083 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 858 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 1157 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
- 967 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
- 1201 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 974 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99)
28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM
- 1278 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
- 836 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 827 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 965 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 775 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1302 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
- 815 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM
- 1029 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM
- 936 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
- 1124 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
- 852 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
- 1103 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
- 852 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
- 806 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 765 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
- 868 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
- 818 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
- 984 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
- 952 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
- 790 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
- 873 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
- 775 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
- 948 Views