🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1dcf7vINNfi0@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn) writes:

>I also want to reiterate that the dark matter hypothesis looks considerably
>less "outrageous" when you note that virtually every extension of the
>standard model of particle physics predicts heavy new particles.
>The suggestion that the reason for this is that the particle physicists
>have rigged their theories in order to make this true so that they can
>solve the dark matter problem is manifestly absurd:  The idea that there
>should be a grand unified symmetry is older than the dark matter problem,
>and has many strong arguments to recommend it that are independent of
>cosmology.  Grand unified theories require new massive particles.  This

      How can one make definitive statements about GUT's *requiring*
      new massive particles without there existing a tenable GUT?
      After all, I am reasonably sure that there are infinite possible
      theories that do not require new particles.  In fact, there are 
      probably potential GUTs that do not even use the concept of particles.
      I am not so confident as to the suitability nor the uniqueness of
      our representations as you appear to be.

>is an argument in favor of nonbaryonic dark matter which is completely
>independent of the usual cosmological ones.

      In the absence of a tenable theory, this is not an argument for
      much of anything.

      I repeat my question.  How would Einstein have fared against
      an army of 'believers' in the nonbaryonic dark matter hypothesis?
      Thank goodness the particle zoo was rather barren at the time.
      I suspect that he wouldn't have wasted his time because one
      of his primary motivations would have been gone.  Even if he
      did, I suspect no one would have listened.  Seelinger's hypothesis
      of intra-Mercurial matter would have been greatly strengthened
      if he had just known about the nonbaryonic dark matter that was 
      everywhere in great abundance, especially seeing as you didn't
      actually have to *see* anything.

>The most important point is simply this:  If you want to decide whether
>or not to believe in nonbaryonic dark matter, you'd best study the evidence,
>and see whether or not you find it compelling.  It's not good enough just
>to say, "It sounds pretty strange to me, so I don't buy it."

      Nor is it good enough to say 'everyone accepts it, so it must
      be okay'.   I am reminded of the emperor's clothes.

                              dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926