“Ultra light bosons” explanation for dark matter doesn’t pan out either

“Ultra Light Bosons” Explanation For Dark Matter Doesn’t Pan Out Either

If I was "woke" that could have sounded vaguely racist, an attempt to say Dark (black) Matter doesn't matter because it can be replace by light (white) bosons. I'm surprised that nobody has raised that yet. Seversky

Bornagain77/2

Might I suggest that this current study with black holes satisfies that ‘size’ requirement for a particle collider, and thus, in over the top fashion, falsifies the supersymmetric model even more forcefully that the LHC has done thus far?? In short, I hold that this present study can be counted as another devastating and fatal blow against the supersymmetry model of string theory.

I'm sorry, I had no idea you are a theoretical physicist. Seversky

From the paper we find that the prediction that Dark Matter is composed of light bosons flows from the supersymmetry model.

One Idea to Explain Dark Matter – Ultralight Bosons – Fails the Test - April 20, 2021 Excerpt: Supersymmetry models, for example, predict that every known fermion must have a corresponding boson and vice versa. Thus, the electron would have a counterpart boson known as the selectron, the photon would have a counterpart fermion known as the photino, and so forth. Another possibility are axions, which were proposed in 1977 to address subtle aspects of how quarks interact. Both axions and supersymmetry particles could be low-mass bosons and would satisfy the needs of dark matter. But if either exists, they haven’t been found thus far. Still, these light bosons would interact with regular matter gravitationally, hence this latest study. If dark matter is made of light bosons, then these particles would be spread across the universe, including near black holes. A black hole would gravitationally capture nearby bosons, thus increasing its mass. If a black hole is rotating, the capture of dark matter particles would also tend to slow down its rotation. You can imagine children at a playground that has a merry-go-round. If children jump onto the merry-go-round as it is spinning, the merry-go-round will slow down slightly because of the added mass. The same would be true for black holes. In other words, dark matter bosons would limit the rate that black holes rotate. The team realized that heavier bosons would limit black holes more, and lighter bosons would constrain them less. So they looked at the LIGO and Virgo data of black hole mergers, which tells us the rotation rate of black holes before they merge. It turns out that some of these black holes rotated so quickly that it rules out the existence of ultra-light dark matter bosons. Based on this study, dark matter can’t be axions or light supersymmetry particles. https://www.universetoday.com/150964/one-idea-to-explain-dark-matter-ultralight-bosons-fails-the-test/

It is also important to know that the supersymmetry model itself is a 'prediction' that follows from string theory. As the following article explains, "String theory predicts that a type of connection, called supersymmetry, exists between these two particle types. Under supersymmetry, a fermion must exist for every boson and a boson for every fermion. Unfortunately, experiments have not yet detected these extra particles."

String Theory and Supersymmetry Excerpt: According to string theory, all particles in the universe can be divided into two types: bosons and fermions. String theory predicts that a type of connection, called supersymmetry, exists between these two particle types. Under supersymmetry, a fermion must exist for every boson and a boson for every fermion. Unfortunately, experiments have not yet detected these extra particles. Supersymmetry is a specific mathematical relationship between certain elements of physics equations. It was discovered outside of string theory, although its incorporation into string theory transformed the theory into supersymmetric string theory (or superstring theory) in the mid-1970s. One benefit of supersymmetry is that it vastly simplifies string theory’s equations by allowing certain terms to cancel out. Without supersymmetry, the equations result in physical inconsistencies, such as infinite values and imaginary energy levels. https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/string-theory-and-supersymmetry/

In is also important to realize that String Theory has been, since at least the mid 1980s, the leading candidate for mathematically solving the ‘theory of everything’. (i.e. mathematically unifying Gravity and Quantum Mechanics in a single mathematical framework).

String theory Excerpt: Following Witten's lead, between 1984 and 1986, hundreds of physicists started to work in this field, and this is sometimes called the first superstring revolution,,, In 1995, at the annual conference of string theorists at the University of Southern California (USC), Edward Witten gave a speech on string theory that in essence united the five string theories that existed at the time, and giving birth to a new 11-dimensional theory called M-theory. M-theory was also foreshadowed in the work of Paul Townsend at approximately the same time. The flurry of activity that began at this time is sometimes called the second superstring revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#First_superstring_revolution

The Large Hadron Collider had previously ruled out some of the supersymmetric particles that were predicted by String Theory. As the following article points out, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”

Where are all the squarks and gluinos? The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. - Jan 2021 Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv. And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero. After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid. While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment. While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren't a lot of compelling alternatives. Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell. https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html

Moreover, this present study testing for supersymmetric particles, via black holes, is also very interesting because some theoretical physicists have argued that the reason that we are not seeing any of the theoretical particles predicted by supersymmetry is simply because the Large Hadron Collider is not nearly big enough. In fact, some theoretical physicists have argued that to properly empirically test and see if gravity and the other forces of nature truly unify, we would need to build a particle collider the size of the solar system.

We Could Solve the Mysteries of Time and Space—If We Had a Particle Accelerator the Size of the Solar System - Oct. 2018 Excerpt: Even the 27-kilometer-round (16-mile) Large Hadron Collider, which uses superconducting magnets to accelerate and collide beams of protons to 99.9999990 percent of the speed of light, isn’t big enough to answer these questions. It can only probe what the universe was like when it was the size of an apple. Scientists would need more energy, and therefore a larger collider, in order to probe what it was like at smaller sizes.,,, ,,, You could maybe unify the strong and weak nuclear force with a collider built around Mars. But to add gravity to the fray, “by some naive estimates, we’d need a collider around the orbit of Neptune. Worse, some physicists claim that such an estimate is hopelessly naive, and that we’d need to go bigger.” The benefits would be enormous—such a collider would probe the Planck scale, the smallest scale we could possibly look at as allowed by quantum mechanics. “We’d understand everything about gravity, quantum mechanics—and, by the way, we’d also get the unification of the electroweak and strong forces, for free, and also time travel, string theory, dark matter, dark energy, the measure problem, multiverse theory, etc.” ,,, “It’s entirely possible that gravity and the other forces of nature unify at some extremely high energy, but to investigate the question we’d need to build an LHC-style collider circling around the outer edge of the Solar System, or larger. https://gizmodo.com/we-could-solve-the-mysteries-of-time-and-space-if-we-ha-1829207595

Might I suggest that this current study with black holes satisfies that 'size' requirement for a particle collider, and thus, in over the top fashion, falsifies the supersymmetric model even more forcefully that the LHC has done thus far?? In short, I hold that this present study can be counted as another devastating and fatal blow against the supersymmetry model of string theory. Of related interest, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder notes that the prediction(s) from String Theory for the existence of new supersymmetric particles was a ‘prediction’ that was made in order, simply, to avoid the implications of the fine-tuning of the laws of nature. Specifically Hossenfelder stated that, “new particles must appear” in an energy range of about a TeV (ie accessible at the LHC) “to avoid finetuning.”,, "This was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness.",,, "if you continue to ask “why” at this point you’ll notice how the scientific basis crumbles away under your feet. Why should this be?",, "Because it smells like intelligent design?”

"… This was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness. I explained many times previously why the conclusions based on naturalness were not predictions, but merely pleas for the laws of nature to be pretty.”,,, “I must have sat through hundreds of seminars in which naturalness arguments were repeated. Let me just flash you a representative slide from a 2007 talk by Michelangelo L. Mangano (full pdf here), so you get the idea. The punchline is at the very top: “new particles must appear” in an energy range of about a TeV (ie accessible at the LHC) “to avoid finetuning.” … This was the argument why the LHC should see something new: To avoid finetuning and to preserve naturalness. I explained many times previously why the conclusions based on naturalness were not predictions, but merely pleas for the laws of nature to be pretty. Luckily I no longer have to repeat these warnings, because the data agree that naturalness isn’t a good argument. (“Pretty” as in ‘not-fine-tuned’?) My disbelief in naturalness used to be a fringe opinion and it’s gotten me funny looks on more than one occasion. But the world refused to be as particle physicists expected, naturalness rapidly loses popularity, and now it’s my turn to practice funny looks. The cube, it’s balancing on a tip and nobody knows why. In desperation they throw up their hands and say “anthropic principle”. Then they continue to produce scatter plots. … The naturalness arguments are eventually based on the idea that whatever a fundamental theory looks like, it does conform to this ideal: There’s one or only a few parameters. They are neither fine-tuned nor appear in unreasonably large ratios. We, the stuff we are made of, and our universe, is somehow “natural,” “average” or “mediocre.” However, if you continue to ask “why” at this point you’ll notice how the scientific basis crumbles away under your feet. Why should this be? Because very small parameters make you feel uneasy? Because you don’t find many parameters a satisfactory explanation? Because it’s not pretty? Because it smells like intelligent design?” – Sabine Hossenfelder – PhD Physics - quoted per uncommon descent

Also of note, both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fine-tuned, and therefore, to quote Hossenfelder, "smell like intelligent design".

Dark Matter Deniers Exploring a blasphemous alternative to one of modern physics' most vexing enigmas. By Steve Nadis|Thursday, May 28, 2015 Excerpt: If dark matter is responsible for such uniform rotation speeds, it would require an extraordinarily precise distribution of the invisible stuff – “fine-tuning in the extreme,” as Milgrom calls it. “It’s like taking 100 building blocks and throwing them on the floor, and lo and behold, I see a castle. http://discovermagazine.com/2015/july-aug/15-dark-matter-deniers The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics - Jan. 14, 2016 Excerpt: Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer: "Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said. "This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction." On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html

Supplemental note:

Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8--eE

Verse:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

bornagain77

A failed search would only be 'exciting' after dozens of failures if you knew in advance that the object existed. Proper excitement: Four years ago I caught a glimpse of a '41 Studebaker Champion, but I wasn't quite sure of it. I kept an image of it on the back burner, kept watching for it on every walk, and finally got a good closeup look two years later, verifying its identity. That was exciting. Improper excitement: For twenty years I kept searching for a wife, believing on the basis of false meritocratic theories that such an object simply had to exist. After hundreds of "exciting" failures I finally decided the meritocratic theory was false, adopted the null hypothesis, and stopped wasting time and energy. polistra