Talk:Weakly interacting massive particle: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:19, 14 March 2007

Revision as of 00:20, 14 March 2007

Line 69:

As WIMPs are thoroughly hypothetical, I would prefer more conditional tenses used in this article e.g. 'could be', or 'would be' rather than 'are'. [[User:Duncan.france|Duncan.france]] 23:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

:* Agreed, for something hypothetical, it sure is presented as "fact." WIMPs are little better than other pseudoscience. I might also add, how does one expect to detect WIMPs via neutrinos? Neutrino detectors would generally detect ALL neutrinos, yes? So, if detecting "neutrinos from inside the earth," how do we know the neutrinos weren't A) produced outside the Earth, say by the sun... B) Produced in the Earth by a process OTHER than interacting WIMPs, etc. Likewise, when detecting solar neutrinos, how can we differentiate between neutrinos produced through solar fusion and through interactions with WIMPs? Are scientists biases beginning to show through in their act of telling us what they imageimagine they see in the data, rather than looking at the data itself and realizing it tells them noting even remotely close to what they think it will? Heck, we have enough problems detecting neutrinos in the first place. Certainly not enough based on initial theories of solar fusion, so scientists invented that problem away by speculating neutrinos "change flavors." Bollocks! Why must we keep putting falsification of bad models further and further away from our ability to TEST hypotheses? Gotta' wonder. Might want to clean up the article quite a bit, including clarifying exactly how measuring neutrinos tells us ANYTHING about where they came from or what produced them, let alone tell us anything about interactions prior tot he neutrino arriving at the detector or anything prior to the neutrino's emission from its source. [[User:Mgmirkin|Mgmirkin]] 00:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)