> It's quite tiresome to read the same objections as if physicists somehow hadn't thought of them. Okay now do climate change and climatologists. And most peo

> It's quite tiresome to read the same objections as if physicists somehow hadn't thought of them. Okay now do climate change and climatologists. And most people just don't bother to read the article at all it seems. No better than reddit. Changing gears, though, and trying to be more useful, if you want more coverage on this topic there's a note in Peter Woit's blog: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13232 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=13232 Points to another blog which attacks the "nightmare scenario": https://tritonstation.com/2022/11/29/the-angel-particle/ https://tritonstation.com/2022/11/29/the-angel-particle/ I don't particularly buy that a gravity-only interacting particle "is not physics". If that is what exists, that is what exists. And we've already detected it via dark matter observations. So it is physics. What we can't do is ever really prove it other than by exclusion, but if we racked up a thousand years of failure, we'd have to accept that it was real (hopefully by then not dogmatically and we'd let any kid who wanted to tilt at windmill to go for it). And Woit links to a paper on dark matter being only a right handed majorana neutrino, requiring no real physics beyond the standard model (plus three right handed non-interacting neutrinos): https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08930 https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08930 And links to a comment on that in John Baez's blog: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2022/12/neutrino_dark_matter.html https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2022/12/neutrino_dark_m...