Slashdot Mirror

any subject with sources can be covered and that multiple versions are allowed so you can't revert because there will always be an alternative version available

I think viXra provides most of what you're looking for.

Another possibility for redshift has already been found: http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010...

There is also another possible source of the CBGR. Large electrical discharges give off the same radiation claimed to be the CBGR. You should look into the Electric Universe, it makes way more sense than our current model and actually has lab tests to support many of its claims. Some of their ideas are a bit out there, but most of them are not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

.
On The Thermodynamics Of General Relativity.
http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0270

I have been looking for constructive feedback on these new ideas, so please do so if you have the time. I published this paper simply to get these new ideas out on the table for discussion by the community while I turn my attention to my next paper on solutions to the paradox of Special Relativity, and later the structure of matter and spacetime. The same solution fits all the open issues I know about.
Thermodynamic Unification Theory https://plus.google.com/u/0/+S...

I googled "Proton source", image search, and this popped up:
http://blog.vixra.org/2011/05/29/new-luminosity-record-for-lhc/

At first glance a nice overview. This picture http://vixra.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/proton-source.jpg is your source. See the bottle of hydrogen there? :)
It says "Linac 2" in the background, the first accelerator at Cern, for protons.

We would have seen them via gravitational microlensing. This provides a graph of the limits on dark matter, and the planetary mass range is excluded.

Also, planets (unlike condensed dark matter) would not evade the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis limits on baryonic matter, which rule this out for any mass range.

The various limits on dark matter actually limit the ratio of the scattering cross section and the mass of whatever is making up the dark matter (this obviously does not apply to MOND type theories, which are different).

So, there are two ways to have a more-or-less non-interacting dark matter - have a small mass, and a very, very small cross section (as in WIMPs), or have a large mass, and a high density (as in quark matter DM theories). The large mass means that the scattering cross section can be more or less anything, and, specifically, can be what you would expect for regular matter.

Can't be brown dwarfs, thank's to micro lensing constraints. Can't be supernova, as it was present before the microwave background. It could be smaller compact stuff - see this for the current allowed holes in the condensed matter mass spectrum, and this for some ideas and references for an alternative DM theory involving condensed matter.

Can't be brown dwarfs, thank's to micro lensing constraints. Can't be supernova, as it was present before the microwave background. It could be smaller compact stuff - see this for the current allowed holes in the condensed matter mass spectrum, and this for some ideas and references for an alternative DM theory involving condensed matter.

This could lead to the acceptance of alternative cosmologies that have been bubbling up for years. Try these links:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_...
http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0123...
http://www.researchgate.net/pu...

Really ?

I thought Dark Matter existed as asteroids ? :-)

In asteroids. (Maybe.)

Er, \Lambda_CDM is the consensus cosmology these days, as it fits well with so much observational data, and predicted to an exquisite degree the anisotropies in the CMB as confirmed by everything from COBE & BOOMERANG to the latest WMAP data.

True, but all that means is that any DM theory must be consistent with Lambda CDM (which is true for all the ones I mentioned, at least for a suitable choice of prameters). Note that there is still the "core-cusp" problem, which it now doesn't look like _Warm_ Dark Matter can solve, and thus remains a problem for all of these theoretical choices. (Macroscopic DM can act as WDM for suitable choices of mass and density.)

CDM here is Cold Dark Matter, which of course need not just be WIMPs, but it was always a stretch to consider non-WIMP solutions, and MACHOs are effectively ruled out and axions have yet to appear in QCD experiments.

MACHOs are not ruled out for masses less than that of the Moon (although there are interesting new limits for some lower masses from femtolensing - see
here for a more fine grained description of mass spectrum constraints for dense macroscopic DM).

As for axions, it seems strange to bring up that evidence for them has "yet to appear in QCD experiments," when of course evidence for WIMPs also
has "yet to appear in QCD experiments." (There are of course also direct searches for both WIMPs, such as at Gran Sasso, and for axions, such as with the CERN helioscope, but in both cases these are also negative at present.)

Although pretty much all \LCDM cosmologists are gauge theorists,

Let's just say that, coming at this from an astronomical perspective, very few of the cosmologists I have known personally are particle physicists, and of course the Lambda part of Lambda CDM was forced upon us by astronomical observers. (I can, FWIW, remember going to cosmological talks in the 1980's where particle physicists confidently explained that the apparently large vacuum field energy in quantum field theories meant that the cosmological constant just had to be zero.)

that does not mean that they necessarily ever supported SUSY; being general relativists as well makes it pretty easy to adapt to pretty much arbitrary mechanisms that generate the metric, and sky observations suggest what those mechanisms are likely to be, constrained by what is already proven in SM/BTSM physics.

I don't think that anything has been experimentally proven in beyond standard model physics (except that neutrinos have mass).

It's not that WIMPs came from particle physics, it's that literally they must not interact electromagnetically at all, they must not feel the strong nuclear force, they must be essentially collisionless, they must not clump significantly (distributions are gaslike and stay that way all the way down to where a "cusp" could be), they must be individually massive, and they must move mostly thermally, or there would be easily-observed sky artifacts.

Limits on DM only limits on the Cross Section / Mass ratio. As Ariel Zhitnitsky is fond of pointing out, if the mass is small, the cross section has to be tiny, but if the mass is macroscopic, the cross section can be fairly large.

Those restrictions sure seems like a good fit for some sort of heavy neutrino, and hey if SUSY's (well, say MSSM's) neutralinos might fit (they don't totally) why oppose searches for them in labs motivated by particle theories?

I certainly do not oppose such searches.

Especially if the searches narrow the particle space in which various other WIMP candidates might hide.

However, in \LCDM there is nothing precluding a DM sector with arbitrary numbers of interacting fields; there could even be a whole "dark chemistry", with

from what I've seen, in certain field, publishing on arXiv is like handing a note "from your mother" written in your own scrawly handwriting and signed "Mom" to your teacher.

Really? I'm not sure what fields you're referring to. ArXiv was founded primarily to disseminate preprints in High Energy Physics. In that field, nobody treats it as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed journal, but it is where most people I know in the field actually get and read the literature. Hardly anybody looks papers up in the journals any more.

For what it's worth, arXiv does filter out the outright crackpots, which is why viXra exits. Shop and compare.

Since you're a fan of free software, why don't we see more open data efforts in particle physics? I see headlines like this and they're kind of a turnoff. Aside from this super confusing applet I haven't been able to find torrents of the data available on these tests. Why is that? I mean, as a software developer there is a legitimate effort of folks writing open source software and then there's a legitimate effort of people using that software to accomplish many things and everyone deserves credit. So why are particle physicists so keen on being the collectors and (at least initially) the sole keepers of their data? It would seem to make sense to me that people should be rewarded based on their collection of data and how meticulous and well they do that while any group can consume and derive results from said data. I understand the process has gotten more open but why so slowly? Why not torrent your data to whoever wants it immediately after you get it?

The fascinating thing about the energy they're talking about (125-126 GeV) is that it's too low. So low, in fact, that the equations predict vacuum instability at about that range.

What does vacuum instability mean? It means that vacuum might have a half-life, after which it decays into energy. This is a cool concept until you realize that the Universe is mostly made of vacuum. If the Universe were to spontaneously disintegrate, that would be Bad.

Of course since that doesn't happen, there must be new physics that keeps everything from fizzling out. That means that if the Higgs boson is found at 126 GeV then we're not done searching. There will be new questions to answer and possibly a new particle, the Higgsino, to look for.

Exciting stuff if you're a physics nerd. Or really for anyone who has a vested interest in the Universe continuing to exist.

The idea that the meson first decays into a tachyon, which then converts to the neutrino, is a cute one. I have a model, which is basically similar, but doesn't mention tachyons. It simply says that the neutrino is created instantaneously 18 meters away (in forward direction) from the meson decay point. This idea may seem weird, but it doesn't contradict any previous experiments, because nobody has ever seen neutrino tracks in bubble chambers or emulsions. One can also check that if the fact of the mu-tau neutrino oscillations is taken into account then the proposed distant creation of neutrinos does not violate relativistic invariance and conservation laws. More details in the preprint

http://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0052v2.pdf

Eugene Stefanovich

AZSquib discovered in the paper that the cesium standard was not actually used for timing, but only to periodically reset the 100 MHz Ethernet timers to cover the drift of those crystals. http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comment-11088

The problem with the experiment is worse than than you think. AZSquib has audited the report and discovered that standard uncalibrated Ethernet timers were effectively used to timestamp the neutrino events. An impressive master clock was present but used to no effect, only to hide the long term drift.

http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/#comment-11088

There is some more details here:

http://blog.vixra.org/2011/09/19/can-neutrinos-be-superluminal/

I'm still dubious, since superluminal neutrinos would violate causality.

The Physics Advisory Committee at Fermilab have announced their decision to continue running the Tevatron until 2014. It is easy to see why they want to do that: This years published results have strengthened the case for a light Higgs sector. In the mass range up to 150 GeV the rival Large Hadron Collider does not have such a big advantage and wont make the Tevatron obsolete until around 2014 when it’s higher energy and luminosity will finally trump the Tevatron at all mass scales.

from vixra, in september of last year.