Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
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.
It's important to consider the difference between falsifiability and testability. Something is falsifiable if it makes a prediction that could be proven wrong in principle; it's testable if the prediction could be proven wrong in practice. Our current inability to make a measurement to the necessary degree of precision doesn't make a hypothesis unfalsifiable or "unscientific," but it does mean that we have to put it on the backburner until we can figure out a way to test it.
It may very well be that proton decay is just extremely suppressed, but if that's the case, it does seem like we'll have to find some more easily testable prediction coupled to the prediction of proton decay in order to be confident that it happens.
Yes, in general, we can only invalidate a class of theories by ruling out some attribute common to every theory in the class. I'm not sure why that's a problem, persay.
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'd really REALLY like to see a new GUT that doesn't require proton decay (or strong evidence for Pati-Salam in its entirety) because of the issue to which I keep returning on GUTs: Even if protons DO decay, if they do so so rarely that we can't observe a reproducible event we don't have a viable scientific theory. It would really suck to have the right theory about something so pivotal and no way to verify it, but that seems increasingly likely; if we need a neutrino detector the size of the Moon we're screwed. Meanwhile, theories that simply revise the half-lifes lower limit upward indefinitely unnervingly remind me of the particle zoo.

Eliminating conservation of baryon number doesn't necessarily put us back to square one on MACHOs; it depends on how much the conservation is violated.
Yes, a continual shifting of the goal posts is generally a troubling sign for a theory, although it's not always. Sometimes, it may be that the goal posts were initially set in a bad spot, and people are hesitant to move them too far in one fell swoop.
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
- 909 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 848 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
- 790 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
- 911 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
- 784 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
- 812 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 1019 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 831 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
- 1143 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 851 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
- 927 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
- 1122 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 733 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 1081 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 857 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 1155 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
- 1200 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 973 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
- 834 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 825 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 964 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 774 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1300 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
- 1028 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
- 1122 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
- 851 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
- 850 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
- 804 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
- 764 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
- 867 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
- 817 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
- 872 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