From blew w th.nao.ac.jp Thu Jun 1 16:43:03 2006 From: blew w th.nao.ac.jp (blew) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 23:43:03 +0900 Subject: [Shape-univ] Re: loose thoughts on topology and nongaussianity Message-ID: <200606012343.04040.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Well this sure was really hard week with fluid mechanics and stuff but now eventually back to cosmology Hi Boud, shape-univ >> >> If we assumed some multiply-connected space-time within some model (eg. >> dodecahedral) then my question is whether is leads to nongaussian (NG) >> features in CMB. I think it definitely should. > > In principle, yes. In practice, maybe. > >> Such spacetime, gives a modified power spectrum of fluctuations, limited to >> fundamental domain size and there should be repercusions of this size >> in harmonic modes that are natural multiple of that size. Then given a feature >> at one length scale should automatically give features at other scales - >> hence vialation of gaussianity. This could be investigated by bi- or >> tri-spectrum optimalized for these particular perturbation modes that come >> from the model. Given NG simulations one could estimate the sensityvity of >> this approach. >> This is also a test of the multiply connected space hypothesis. >> >> Is that right ? > > In principle, yes. > > Hajian & Souradeep (2006) measure the bispectrum from several different > version of WMAP-1st-year and claim no significant deviations from gaussianity: > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501001 This is definitelly interesting paper. They deal with tests od SI violation and what are possible sources of such violation - eg. nonuniform sky noice. This is of particular interest to me recently since, I was calculating the variance (related to power spectrum amplidute) in separate region on the sky of WMAP and clearly I see nonuniform pattern of even with small scale signal removed. So I don;t quite understand that no strong IS violation was found, unless they mean the primordial SI is not viiolated after accounting for non-uniform noice in the map. BTW. they calculate Bipolar power spectrum, NOT bispectrum IMHO. and where is it about gaussianity ? are you talking about astro-ph/0501001 ? well maybye a bit but they sure don't test it. > > But they don't model the *expected* signature of the PDS (poincare dodecahedral > space) in 0501001. > > In Hajian & Souradeep (2003), they model the expected signature from various > specific versions of the T^3 model: > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301590 again, this is not about the bispectrum. In any case with BiPS it's not possible to detect NG (non-Gaussainity), now is it ? it's on;y a measure of SI. I guess what I've jsut said above about their lack of detection is correct in light of what they say in conclusions of this paper. The question is whether it will ever be possible give such an answer. Meaning that is we knew what comes from noice, then why simply not to remove if from the map and then make a SI tests. If this is not possible then all that will be possible is to give comments like "it remains unprooved that the SI violation is of primordial origin". especially when there is not spectral dependence. However, in 0501001 I guess that they filtered the maps before analysis strongly removing anything for l>100. At such large scales the nonuniform noice distribution shouldn't be important at all. This is probably why they didn't find any SI violation at these scales. > > i've only looked at this quickly, but it seems that they do not necessarily > expect a strong (or any non-zero) signal. > > In any case, back in 2003, there was little discussion of the PDS - the paper > is dated 11 Aug 2003, and the Luminet et al. paper came out around Oct 2003. > Hmmm... i guess at least, there was no pressure for them to study PDS. :P > > > So working out what bispectrum is expected from the PDS has (maybe) not been > done yet. well, this was only a loose thought. calculating bispectrum involves calculating alm compontnts first which involves technics that are generally as much CPU consuming as calculating bispectrum itself (because of the 3J symbols) - i'm not ready yet to do that with my soft :( > > Hmm: better check the Aurich, Lustig, Steiner and Gundermann papers - they > might have tried this. > > >> What I would need is to have a full fourier space of perturbations with >> topology encoded in it. > > The PDS is a positive curvature model: you can't do fourier analysis in curved that's true generally. (but it's ok to do it in flat sky approx. - i.e. for large k or l) > space. You need the full set of eigenmodes of the PDS itself. and that's more less what I've said. i need \Phi(kx,ky,kz) for PDS topology aren't these the eigen-modes in topology nomenclature ? > > Tarou-san has done lots of cosmic topology eigenmode modelling - if > you want to do something like this, you might want to visit him: > > Kaiki Taro Inoue > kinoue phys kindai ac jp > :) one of these days, one of these days :) > > Or maybe your idea is more like making simulations, then making > measurements of the bispectrum parameters, and then comparing them to > the analytical calculations in Hajian & Souradeep (2003)? Hmmm... well, > this would only function as a check that HS2003 have not made any errors. > > But then you could presumably think of something new and interesting > as a followup step - you can add stuff to simulations which can be (in > some sense) difficult to add to analytical calculations. > I have to stick with NG I guess not SI. however there is so much independent sources of NG... my primary target is to deal with NG as an one of the observales (currently achievable) to constrain inflationary models. But seems to me that also A ans n_s and tensors are of very high competitive interest. I'm not yet sure which of these are better way of doing that, sure they are independent and NG will continoue to be sexy in cosmology for many years. :) BUT... since topo-stuff can also be a source of NG - which is primordial - so it surly is within my interest. pozdr. Bartek From keshape-univ w astro.uni.torun.pl Sun Jun 4 22:50:31 2006 From: keshape-univ w astro.uni.torun.pl (Rae Hathaway) Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:50:31 -0800 Subject: [Shape-univ] Re: Re: Message-ID: Hola Obtain a prosperous future and money earning power Get a DIPLOM-A based on your life experience Call now to receive DIPLOM-A in 2 weeks 1-206-600-4902 (Call 24hrs, 7 days a week, If you are outside USA please add country code before the number) Get In Touch Soon From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Mon Jun 5 15:52:52 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 15:52:52 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] Re: loose thoughts on topology and nongaussianity In-Reply-To: <200606012343.04040.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> References: <200606012343.04040.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Message-ID: hi Bartek, shape-univ, On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, blew wrote: > > Hajian & Souradeep (2006) measure the bispectrum from several different > > version of WMAP-1st-year and claim no significant deviations from > gaussianity: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501001 > > This is definitelly interesting paper. They deal with tests od SI SI = statistical isotropy (for people who didn't read the paper). > violation and what are possible sources of such violation - eg. > nonuniform sky noice. This is of particular interest to me recently since, > I was calculating the variance (related to power spectrum amplidute) in > separate region on the sky of WMAP and clearly I see nonuniform pattern of > even with small scale signal removed. So I don;t quite understand that no > strong IS violation was found, unless they mean the primordial SI is not > viiolated after accounting for non-uniform noice in the map. > BTW. they calculate Bipolar power spectrum, NOT bispectrum IMHO. > and where is it about gaussianity ? are you talking about astro-ph/0501001 > ? well maybye a bit but they sure don't test it. i haven't looked closely at either the bispectrum nor the bipolar power spectrum, so you're presumably correct: these are (presumably) two completely different statistics. My error, sorry. :( > > But they don't model the *expected* signature of the PDS (poincare > dodecahedral > > space) in 0501001. > > > > In Hajian & Souradeep (2003), they model the expected signature from various > > specific versions of the T^3 model: > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301590 > > again, this is not about the bispectrum. > In any case with BiPS it's not possible to detect NG (non-Gaussainity), > now is it ? it's on;y a measure of SI. True: statistical isotropy and non-gaussianity do not imply each other. > I have to stick with NG I guess not SI. Sure, there are dozens of people around the world working on these subjects, so better continue to focus on one topic and do it properly than try to do too much... > however there is so much independent sources of NG... > my primary target is to deal with NG as an one of the observales (currently > achievable) to constrain inflationary models. But seems to me that also > A ans n_s and tensors are of very high competitive interest. > I'm not yet sure which of these are better way of doing that, sure they are > independent and NG will continoue to be sexy in cosmology for many years. :) :) > BUT... since topo-stuff can also be a source of NG - which is primordial - so > it surly is within my interest. pozdr boud From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Mon Jun 5 16:18:25 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 16:18:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] INTEGRAL/SPI: first 511keV-photograph of dark matter halo? Message-ID: witam Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) seems to be the main "discovery" article of the INTEGRAL/SPI results. It has some very nice pictures - especially Figs 4, 5 and 7 - here i've put the closed links, but the figures are in the astro-ph versions too, of course: Fig 4 http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img62.gif Fig 5 http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img63.gif Fig 7 http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img108.gif We may soon be able to say that Fig.~4 was the "first picture of invisible matter" ;). Ascasibar et al 2005 has some very interesting conclusions - apart from the continued validity of LDM as only (so far) viable explanation, they say: > One consequence is that the value of the fine structure constant \alpha > should differ from that recommended in the CODATA (Committee on Data > for Science and Technology). This is a very strong test for the LDM > scenario and an additional motivation in favour of experiments > measuring \alpha directly. Our results finally indicate that an accurate > measurement of the shape of the dark halo profile could have a > tremendous impact on the determination of the origin of the 511-keV > line and vice versa. Both of these are very good for showing that evidence should build up either for or against the LDM hypothesis. :) pozdr boud Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506026 http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005A%26A...441..513K&db_key=AST Ascasibar, Y et al. (2005) http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507142 http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006MNRAS.368.1695A&db_key=AST From Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl Tue Jun 6 08:52:40 2006 From: Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl (Bartosz Lew) Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 08:52:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] INTEGRAL/SPI: first 511keV-photograph of dark matter halo? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Czesc, Is this something new ? The peper is like from one year ago. > > Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) seems to be the main "discovery" article of > the INTEGRAL/SPI results. > > It has some very nice pictures - especially Figs 4, 5 and 7 - here i've > put the closed links, but the figures are in the astro-ph versions too, > of course: > > Fig 4 > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img62.gif > > Fig 5 > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img63.gif > > Fig 7 > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img108.gif > > We may soon be able to say that Fig.~4 was the "first picture of > invisible matter" ;). well, it's a picture of what's left of it: electrons, positrons ... and protons, neutrinos, etc. I didn't have time to read this carefully, but what are the principles of the measurment giving hint on variation of fine structure constant ? > > > Ascasibar et al 2005 has some very interesting conclusions - apart from > the continued validity of LDM as only (so far) viable explanation, they say: > >> One consequence is that the value of the fine structure constant \alpha >> should differ from that recommended in the CODATA (Committee on Data >> for Science and Technology). This is a very strong test for the LDM >> scenario and an additional motivation in favour of experiments >> measuring \alpha directly. Our results finally indicate that an accurate >> measurement of the shape of the dark halo profile could have a >> tremendous impact on the determination of the origin of the 511-keV >> line and vice versa. > > Both of these are very good for showing that evidence should build up either > for or against the LDM hypothesis. :) > > pozdr > boud > > > Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) > http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506026 > http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005A%26A...441..513K&db_key=AST > > Ascasibar, Y et al. (2005) > http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507142 > http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006MNRAS.368.1695A&db_key=AST > > > From mqmsz w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Jun 6 16:58:12 2006 From: mqmsz w astro.uni.torun.pl (mqmsz w astro.uni.torun.pl) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 06:58:12 -0800 Subject: [Shape-univ] start making more money in just 2 weeks Message-ID: read this! Good News! Interested to obtain Bach"elors', Maste"rs', MBA's, Docto"rate & Ph.D. Degre"es available in your field in 2 weeks time? It's available now... Call Us and get yours today 1-206-337-1870 Our Education office has someone available 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week Don't wait, Call Now It's 100% Anonymous 1-206-337-1870 Bye From Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl Wed Jun 7 03:14:24 2006 From: Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl (Bartosz Lew) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 03:14:24 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] start making more money in just 2 weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: what the hell is this ? b. On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, mqmsz w astro.uni.torun.pl wrote: > read this! > > Good News! > Interested to obtain Bach"elors', Maste"rs', MBA's, Docto"rate & Ph.D. > Degre"es available in your field in 2 weeks time? > It's available now... > Call Us and get yours today 1-206-337-1870 > > Our Education office has someone available 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week > Don't wait, Call Now It's 100% Anonymous > 1-206-337-1870 > > Bye > > From ssober w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Jun 7 09:06:08 2006 From: ssober w astro.uni.torun.pl (Sebastian Soberski) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:06:08 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Shape-univ] start making more money in just 2 weeks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: spam? On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote: > > what the hell is this ? > > b. > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, mqmsz w astro.uni.torun.pl wrote: > > > read this! > > > > Good News! > > Interested to obtain Bach"elors', Maste"rs', MBA's, Docto"rate & Ph.D. > > Degre"es available in your field in 2 weeks time? > > It's available now... > > Call Us and get yours today 1-206-337-1870 > > > > Our Education office has someone available 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week > > Don't wait, Call Now It's 100% Anonymous > > 1-206-337-1870 > > > > Bye > > > > > > From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Jun 7 12:55:44 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:55:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] start making more money in just 2 weeks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bartek, On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Sebastian Soberski wrote: > > spam? > > On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote: > > > > > what the hell is this ? > > > > b. There's no such user mqmsz. Someone faked the From address and his/her ranking in spam databases is not (yet) high enough to be high probability spam. There's always going to be a compromise between being more open to encourage discussion of cosmology by younger students who don't yet know about self-organising mailing lists (and older faculty who don't want to know ;) and being closed to spammers (or, potentially, people who could become disruptive, flaming etc.). Please read this email again - the cosmo-torun list was too closed for one of our students and too open for spammers, so there's no simple, naive solution: http://cosmo.torun.pl/pipermail/cosmo-torun/2006-June/000364.html Remember that the astri lists are very tightly controlled - i'm not sure it's in anyone's interests to make the lists that tightly controlled just because of a couple of spams. Anyway, the person/people who spammed in the last few days has a systematic behaviour pattern in his/her/their emails, so i've added a spamassassin filter rule (which i can send to anyone interested offlist - who knows, the spammers *might* read this email list). pozdr boud > > > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, mqmsz at astro.uni.torun.pl wrote: > > > > > read this! > > > > > > Good News! > > > Interested to obtain Bach"elors', Maste"rs', MBA's, Docto"rate & Ph.D. > > > Degre"es available in your field in 2 weeks time? > > > It's available now... > > > Call Us and get yours today 1-206-337-1870 > > > > > > Our Education office has someone available 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week > > > Don't wait, Call Now It's 100% Anonymous > > > 1-206-337-1870 > > > > > > Bye From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Wed Jun 7 14:28:39 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:28:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] INTEGRAL/SPI: first 511keV-photograph of dark matter halo? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Witam, On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote: > Is this something new ? The peper is like from one year ago. No, but i hadn't seen it before. > > Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) seems to be the main "discovery" article of > > the INTEGRAL/SPI results. > > > > It has some very nice pictures - especially Figs 4, 5 and 7 - here i've > > put the closed links, but the figures are in the astro-ph versions too, > > of course: > > > > Fig 4 > > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img62.gif > > > > Fig 5 > > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img63.gif > > > > Fig 7 > > http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/full/2005/38/aa2063-04/img108.gif > > > > We may soon be able to say that Fig.~4 was the "first picture of > > invisible matter" ;). > > well, it's a picture of what's left of it: electrons, positrons > ... and protons, neutrinos, etc. > > I didn't have time to read this carefully, but what are the principles of > the measurment giving hint on variation of fine structure constant ? http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507142 IIUC (if i understand correctly): * introduction LDM hypothesis to explain INTEGRAL/SPI => mass estimated < 100 MeV => "scalar particle" coupled to light Z' boson * sections 2, 3, 4 lead to: * 5.1 "scalar particle" coupled to light Z' boson AND "scalar particle" coupled to heavy fermion * 6.3 there is some small difference f(10^{-11}) [the function f is not given] between alpha measured by the Quantum Hall experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect and a "theoretical" estimate made assuming the standard model of p.p. including QED and the results of the "g-2" muon experiments related to supersymmetry testing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry#Muon_g.E2.88.922_experiment The authors say that this difference could be due to different precision levels in the QH versus the experiments contributing to the QED "theoretical" estimate. Equality between the two is obtained for m_LDM \sim 3-9 MeV. In other words: the QH and g-2 experiments give different results for alpha. The difference is not (yet) statistically significant, but a light scalar coupled to a heavy particle, needed for the LDM hypothesis, would give this difference for m_LDM \sim 3-9 MeV. (The real mass might be higher since this assumes smooth distribution of matter in the DM halo, ignores the fact that some part of the emission might be from point sources, etc.) So improvements in the QH effect experiments could support the LDM hypothesis and explain the present possible discrepancy in alpha estimates. This is, coincidentally(?), roughly on the same order of magnitude as the alpha evolution claims in quasar absorption systems, since the QSO claims were of order 10^{-6} or over \sim 5 billion yr or so, and if convert this to 8kpc = 3000yr then we get delta(alpha)/alpha \sim 10^{-12} between the Sun and the GC. However, the last i remember of the QSO abs sys alpha evolution claims they were no longer looking interesting (one of Srianand's papers is pretty convincing - look in shape-univ and/or cosmo-torun archives... :). In any case, a more precise calculation would be needed to see if these really are on the same scale or whether i've rounded off too many orders of magnitude. BTW, the estimate of the inner part of the MW DM profile is quite tight: * section 5.2 \gamma \gtapprox 1.03\pm 0.04 Again, clustering, contamination, etc. make this a lower limit only. pozdr boud > > Ascasibar et al 2005 has some very interesting conclusions - apart from > > the continued validity of LDM as only (so far) viable explanation, they say: > > > >> One consequence is that the value of the fine structure constant \alpha > >> should differ from that recommended in the CODATA (Committee on Data > >> for Science and Technology). This is a very strong test for the LDM > >> scenario and an additional motivation in favour of experiments > >> measuring \alpha directly. Our results finally indicate that an accurate > >> measurement of the shape of the dark halo profile could have a > >> tremendous impact on the determination of the origin of the 511-keV > >> line and vice versa. > > > > Both of these are very good for showing that evidence should build up either > > for or against the LDM hypothesis. :) > > > > pozdr > > boud > > > > > > Kn\"odlseder et al. (2005) > > http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506026 > > http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005A%26A...441..513K&db_key=AST > > > > Ascasibar, Y et al. (2005) > > http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507142 > > http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006MNRAS.368.1695A&db_key=AST > > > > > > > > From Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl Fri Jun 9 10:16:55 2006 From: Bartosz.Lew w astri.uni.torun.pl (Bartosz Lew) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:16:55 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] INTEGRAL/SPI: first 511keV-photograph of dark matter halo? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, > * introduction > LDM hypothesis to explain INTEGRAL/SPI > => mass estimated < 100 MeV > => "scalar particle" coupled to light Z' boson > > * sections 2, 3, 4 lead to: > > * 5.1 "scalar particle" coupled to light Z' boson AND > "scalar particle" coupled to heavy fermion > > * 6.3 there is some small difference f(10^{-11}) [the function f is not given] > between alpha measured by the Quantum Hall experiment > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Hall_effect > > and a "theoretical" estimate made assuming the standard model of p.p. including QED > and the results of the "g-2" muon experiments related to supersymmetry testing: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry#Muon_g.E2.88.922_experiment > > The authors say that this difference could be due to different precision levels > in the QH versus the experiments contributing to the QED "theoretical" estimate. > > Equality between the two is obtained for m_LDM \sim 3-9 MeV. > > > In other words: the QH and g-2 experiments give different results for alpha. > The difference is not (yet) statistically significant, but a light scalar coupled to > a heavy particle, needed for the LDM hypothesis, would give this difference > for m_LDM \sim 3-9 MeV. (The real mass might be higher since this assumes > smooth distribution of matter in the DM halo, ignores the fact that some part > of the emission might be from point sources, etc.) still it's elusive to me, but if I understand correctly you say only about two different , and possibly giving different results, methods of measuring alpha. where is the part about it's evolution ? and the alpha is made of three fundamental physical constants: due to change of which one is the hypotetised evolution ascribed to ? > > So improvements in the QH effect experiments could support the LDM hypothesis > and explain the present possible discrepancy in alpha estimates. > > This is, coincidentally(?), roughly on the same order of magnitude as > the alpha evolution claims in quasar absorption systems, since the QSO > claims were of order 10^{-6} or over \sim 5 billion yr or > so, and if convert this to 8kpc = 3000yr then we get > > delta(alpha)/alpha \sim 10^{-12} between the Sun and the GC. hmm, so this is about the evolution but, this is a different experiment. > > However, the last i remember of the QSO abs sys alpha evolution claims they > were no longer looking interesting (one of Srianand's papers is pretty > convincing - look in shape-univ and/or cosmo-torun archives... :). In any case, > a more precise calculation would be needed to see if these really are on > the same scale or whether i've rounded off too many orders of magnitude. > well, anyway it's interesting enough to read more about over a morning coffee :)) pozdr. bartek. From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Jun 9 11:27:09 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 11:27:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] INTEGRAL/SPI: first 511keV-photograph of dark matter halo? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi all, On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Bartosz Lew wrote: > > In other words: the QH and g-2 experiments give different results for alpha. > > The difference is not (yet) statistically significant, but a light scalar coupled to > > a heavy particle, needed for the LDM hypothesis, would give this difference > > for m_LDM \sim 3-9 MeV. (The real mass might be higher since this assumes > > smooth distribution of matter in the DM halo, ignores the fact that some part > > of the emission might be from point sources, etc.) > > still it's elusive to me, but if I understand correctly you say only about > two different , and possibly giving different results, methods of > measuring alpha. > where is the part about it's evolution ? The LDM article says nothing at all about evolution of alpha. > and the alpha is made of three fundamental physical constants: > due to change of which one is the hypotetised evolution ascribed to ? It's not about evolution. It's about using two different experiments and different sets of physics assumptions. From what i understand, the QH experiment requires less physical assumptions than the g-2 experiment, but (at the moment) is less precise. The g-2 experiment is more precise, but requires assumptions of QED (standard model of pp). If we add in the hypothesised pp explanation for LDM, which goes beyond the standard model of pp, then the two experiments come into agreement because the derived value of alpha from g-2 is modified by the difference from the standard model. > > So improvements in the QH effect experiments could support the LDM hypothesis > > and explain the present possible discrepancy in alpha estimates. > > > > This is, coincidentally(?), roughly on the same order of magnitude as > > the alpha evolution claims in quasar absorption systems, since the QSO > > claims were of order 10^{-6} or over \sim 5 billion yr or > > so, and if convert this to 8kpc = 3000yr then we get > > > > delta(alpha)/alpha \sim 10^{-12} between the Sun and the GC. > > hmm, so this is about the evolution but, this is a different experiment. i'm not so convinced by alpha evolution, see the following paragraph: > > However, the last i remember of the QSO abs sys alpha evolution claims they > > were no longer looking interesting (one of Srianand's papers is pretty > > convincing - look in shape-univ and/or cosmo-torun archives... :). In any case, > > a more precise calculation would be needed to see if these really are on > > the same scale or whether i've rounded off too many orders of magnitude. > > > > well, anyway it's interesting enough to read more about over a morning > coffee :)) Well, there was also something which came up during discussions at the cosm-pl meeting a few weeks ago. Just as a century ago, particle physics seemed to be nearly complete with everything made of protons, electrons, neutrons and four fundamental forces, and there was just a few minor problems such as the infrared catastrophe and the Michelson-Morley experiment, it could be that the explanation for nbDM is a whole bunch of different particles - so maybe both DAMA/NaI and INTEGRAL/SPI correctly reveal two of the main constituents of nbDM. And from what i understand from Ascasibar 2005, the \sim 6-7 MeV particle would have to interact with both a light Z' boson and a heavy particle, implying at least 3 particles present in significant densities in the DM halo. So we might end up with a whole new zoo of astronomically significant particle populations... ;) pozdr boud From blew w th.nao.ac.jp Wed Jun 14 15:58:08 2006 From: blew w th.nao.ac.jp (blew) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:58:08 +0900 Subject: [Shape-univ] CMB/WMAP constraints on alpha Message-ID: <200606142258.09062.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Witam, So, getting back to alpha, there is a nice paper with a nice intrduction with summary on fine structure constant evolution from variety of experiments (see refs.) and using WMAP 1st yr data they constrain alpha by it's impact on recombination rate and hence power spectrum here it is: http://arxiv.org/ps/astro-ph/0602577 pozdr. Bartek From blew w th.nao.ac.jp Thu Jun 15 07:07:09 2006 From: blew w th.nao.ac.jp (blew) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:07:09 +0900 Subject: [Shape-univ] DM review Message-ID: <200606151407.09594.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Hello Agnieszka, shape-univ Maybe it's a bit off tipic of the list but here is a nice review paper on DM if you're interested. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605719 Comments: Not yet externally reviewed - not for quotation A study of the current status of WIMP dark matter searches has been made in the context of scientific and technical planning for a Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) in the U.S. The table of contents follows: 1. Overview 2. WIMP Dark Matter: Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics 3. Direct Detection of WIMPs 4. Indirect Detection of WIMPs 5. Dark Matter Candidates and New Physics in the Laboratory 6. Synergies with Other Sub-Fields 7. Direct Detection Experiments: Status and Future Prospects 8. Infrastructure 9. International Context 10. Summary and Outlook 11. Acknowledgements despite of the unapealing "comments" fileld :p there is a large scientific group behind :) pozrd. BL From szachula w astro.uni.torun.pl Thu Jun 15 10:16:59 2006 From: szachula w astro.uni.torun.pl (Agnieszka Szaniewska) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:16:59 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [Shape-univ] DM review In-Reply-To: <200606151407.09594.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Bartek, shape-univ, On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, blew wrote: > Hello Agnieszka, shape-univ > > Maybe it's a bit off tipic of the list but > here is a nice review paper on DM if you're interested. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605719 > > Comments: Not yet externally reviewed - not for quotation > > A study of the current status of WIMP dark matter searches has been made in > the context of scientific and technical planning for a Deep Underground > Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) in the U.S. The table of contents > follows: > 1. Overview > 2. WIMP Dark Matter: Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics > 3. Direct Detection of WIMPs > 4. Indirect Detection of WIMPs > 5. Dark Matter Candidates and New Physics in the Laboratory 6. Synergies with > Other Sub-Fields > 7. Direct Detection Experiments: Status and Future Prospects > 8. Infrastructure > 9. International Context > 10. Summary and Outlook > 11. Acknowledgements > > despite of the unapealing "comments" fileld :p there is a large scientific > group behind :) > Thanks' but I had read this paper few days ago. Interesting ;) Pozdr Agbnieszka From boud w astro.uni.torun.pl Fri Jun 16 16:16:48 2006 From: boud w astro.uni.torun.pl (Boud Roukema) Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:16:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Shape-univ] CMB/WMAP constraints on alpha In-Reply-To: <200606142258.09062.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> References: <200606142258.09062.blew@th.nao.ac.jp> Message-ID: witam On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, blew wrote: > Witam, > > So, getting back to alpha, there is a nice paper > with a nice intrduction with summary on fine structure constant evolution > from variety of experiments (see refs.) > and using WMAP 1st yr data they constrain alpha by it's > impact on recombination rate and hence power spectrum > > here it is: > http://arxiv.org/ps/astro-ph/0602577 True, it has a good review at the beginning - John Webb's papers are [17], [18] and Srianand et al's response is [19]. pozdr boud > pozdr. > Bartek > > From lushape-univ w astro.uni.torun.pl Mon Jun 26 17:48:12 2006 From: lushape-univ w astro.uni.torun.pl (Errol Weaver) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:48:12 -0800 (PDT) Subject: [Shape-univ] I lvoe you! Message-ID: Good day shape-univ w astro.uni.torun.pl, A Gen_uine Coll`ege Diplom*a in 2 weeks Cal_l us now_!-> 1*2*0*6-984-2839 No Study Required!� �1_0_0_% Veri.fiable! Right now the following Degr*ee are being offered: B*achelors, Master*s, MBA, and Doctorat*e (PhD) C.al_l us now_ for more information, 1*2*0*6-984-2839 Thanks, Scot Roach From iksandra w astro.uni.torun.pl Tue Jun 27 17:32:06 2006 From: iksandra w astro.uni.torun.pl (Freda Dailey) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:32:06 -0800 (PDT) Subject: [Shape-univ] i heard you dumped her Message-ID: <936402501459903wsi9xjo0dk7.3691978083355.Mail.news@adrostral.fasthondas.com> How have you been, A Gen_uine Coll`ege Dipl!oma in 2 weeks Cal_l us now_!-> 1!2!0!6-337-1168 No Study Required!   1_0_0_% Veri.fiable! Right now the following Deg!ree are being offered: Ba!chelors, Ma!sters, MBA, and Do!ctorate (PhD) C.al_l us now_ for more information, 1!2!0!6-337-1168 Thank you, Rolando Spicer