Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Tubbythin · Feb 17, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The only one of us peddling a creation event is you, not me. You better be careful where you start throwing stones.

Once again you are incapable of reading what is written by other posters. Either that or you choose to deliberately lie about it. Which is utterly stupid on a forum when anyone can check back and see what was written. You made exactly the same gaffe with me earlier and you still chose to repeat. Here is what Sol said (my bolding):

Appeal to a false authority - as you did recently, with your creationist-style list of doubters - is a fallacy.

He never said you were a creationist. Just that your argument style was as bad as theirs. Understand yet?

I'm going to have fun with you here. I don't have to be polite here or take your BS or play nice. I can be as rude and arrogant as you, and I can be just as obnoxious as you if you insist.

You are rude and obnoxious.

The only "quack" her is you. You can't empirically demonstrate squat. You have a numerology formula with zero in the way of predictive value in any controlled experiment. You're a quack with an attitude. If you didn't engage in ad homs and strawman arguments, you'd be utterly and completely defenseless. Those seem to be your only two claims to debating fame in fact.

Your the one with strawmen. Hell there's one I just quoted up there^. Remember when you said...

The only one of us peddling a creation event is you, not me. You better be careful where you start throwing stones.

That was a strawman since as I've just pointed out to you, Sol never called you a creationist.

Tubbythin · Feb 17, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I realize that anyone who knows anything about particle physics and can read knows that you lied what you said that a Higgs condensate was not composed of particles and that your argument falls apart from there.

I'll add my name to those who know anything about particle physics and know that it is you who is wrong.

sol invictus · Feb 17, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
The most marvelous aspect of the universe is that it does behave mathematically.
However, as I have no doubt you know, one has to be very careful how mathematics is applied to any physical reality. For example, if one tried to apply Boyle's gas law to the Higgs field (on the simplistic premise that a field is "kind of like" a gas), one would get nonsensical results. Boyle's law doesn't even work well for gasses in some situations. So, by simply "extending" the standard model to include the Higgs particle, how do we know we are getting any real physics?

Well, we know that the standard model without the Higgs (or some other new feature that serves the same purpose) does not make sense - it predicts that probabilities for some events are greater than 1. So either there's something new, such as the Higgs, or the whole model is wrong. But the model makes astonishingly precise predictions that are confirmed by experiment, so it seems very unlikely it's wrong. Still, there could be something other than the Higgs that completes it - I mentioned some possibilities - but no one in 30 years of intense effort has been able to come up with a particularly compelling alternative.

But of course no one is sure - otherwise why waste so much money building the LHC? And (contrary to what many cranks seem to think) physicists would be most excited by something truly unexpected. It's boring being right all the time.

Michael Mozina said:
BZZT! I don't believe the "experts" in astronomy have found the "best answer humanity can give". Now what? We just "assume" I'm wrong because I'm not a recognized "expert" like you? Give me a break.

I never claimed to be an expert. You're wrong because what you're saying is stupid, self-contradictory, based on near total ignorance of the subject, and in conflict with masses of empirical data. It's not like it's a coincidence that you also disagree with the experts.

I'm going to have fun with you here. I don't have to be polite here or take your BS or play nice. I can be as rude and arrogant as you, and I can be just as obnoxious as you if you insist. The only "quack" her is you. You can't empirically demonstrate squat. You have a numerology formula with zero in the way of predictive value in any controlled experiment. You're a quack with an attitude. If you didn't engage in ad homs and strawman arguments, you'd be utterly and completely defenseless. Those seem to be your only two claims to debating fame in fact.

I'm arrogant and right. You're arrogant and wrong. You lose.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the error in my math. I told you what the units were. Should I take your silence as an admission that I was right and you were wrong all along?

Tubbythin · Feb 17, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Um, we haven't even had all that accurate measurements for half a century have we?

You're right. The CMBR was discovered in 1965. That makes it only 44 years which means my statement about 50 years was about 14% too big. (Hey, I can admit when I make mistakes.) Still, could be worse. I could be out by a factor of 700 million.

I have no idea what specific part of it that you personally find so damn appealing that you would throw away physics entirely and go with pure pseudoscience.

So I'll ask again. Which part of a black body spectrum is pseudoscience?

Background radiation has been "predicted" long before BB theory became popular and it wasn't "predicted" to exist as a result of BB theory in the first place! Evidently you're willing to ignore all the other aspects of astronomy to focus on this one specific issue. That's what I don't understand.

NONE of these other theories, as you have repeatedly been told, predict a perfect black body spectrum. You're the one who is seemingly ignoring all other aspects of cosmology to focus on inflation. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so obvious you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.

This seems to be one of those things you guys do when you can't actually physically or empirically demonstrate your claim. You attack the messenger on unrelated and trivial issues in some hope of hiding the fact you can't demonstrate your claim.

You were provided a long list of evidence. The fact that YOU can't understand it is not my problem and does not make it wrong.

Somehow it must be all my fault. I'll remind you that Birkeland was the first one to "predict" a universe of "flying electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds". He "predicted" current flows in space, not simply interplanetary space, but the whole of space. At the time the "cosmology theories" claimed that the vacuum of space was pretty much empty and devoid of electrical current. Birkeland is in fact the originator of EU/PC theory. You might argue his solar model is "replaceable" under EU/PC theory, but he certainly was the first one to predict and simulate an electric universe theory. Admittedly the EU/PC theory is considered Alfven's work not Birkeland's work, but Birkeland started this process, and Alfven simply scaled it size, knowing by that time that the universe was much larger than Birkeland first realized.

Do you have any evidence that any of this can stop the Universe from collapsing under its own gravity? Yes or N. If yes please link to relevant research and explain it in your own words.

When did I say "a few minutes"? I swear that if you guys didn't have the strawman thing down pat you'd be practically defenseless. I spend most of my time in these debates pointing out the strawmen in these arguments because none of you can actually demonstrate your claim, so you play word games and hope nobody notices you can't demonstrate your claim.

You didn't say "a few minutes". That's why I didn't say it either. I said...

...is going to come up with a meaningful alternative explanation in the space of a few moments? Seriously?

Which was in response to

I suspect there is a relatively simple solution I'm simply overlooking at the moment, but frankly I think you're putting *way* too much emphasis on this *one* issue when there are a whole host of other issues to discuss.

The point was, if the solution is so simple, why has it eluded those who know what they're talking about for so long?

Perpetual Student · Feb 17, 2009

sol invictus said:
Well, we know that the standard model without the Higgs (or some other new feature that serves the same purpose) does not make sense - it predicts that probabilities for some events are greater than 1. So either there's something new, such as the Higgs, or the whole model is wrong. But the model makes astonishingly precise predictions that are confirmed by experiment, so it seems very unlikely it's wrong. Still, there could be something other than the Higgs that completes it - I mentioned some possibilities - but no one in 30 years of intense effort has been able to come up with a particularly compelling alternative.

But of course no one is sure - otherwise why waste so much money building the LHC? And (contrary to what many cranks seem to think) physicists would be most excited by something truly unexpected. It's boring being right all the time.

I was not aware of that. Thanks.
Another question: If the LHC does lead to finding the Higgs particle, why would it necessarily follow that the Higgs would behave as predicted by an "extension" of the standard model? Sometimes simple extrapolation will not yield accurate results in physics -- things often behave differently than predicted under extreme situations (Boyle's law comes to mind again). Is it assumed that since the standard model predicts the Higgs particle it must behave exactly as the standard model requires or will other experiments be needed to verify the behaviour of the Higgs? Does my question make any sense?

Hellbound · Feb 17, 2009

PS:

Let me get a bit abstract and see if I can give an idea here.

Let's say we're looking at a collection of numbers. This collection represents our Standard Model, and it consists fo the following experimentally verified numbers:
1,3,5,7,11,13.

Now, in additiona to knowing the numbers, we also know (for example) that the total adds up to between 56 and 58 (something else predicted by the model). So, for this model to be correct, there has to be another number in the sequence (call it our Higgs Number), and that number should be 17 (or something very close to that). The properties of the model (the numbers we know and the constraint of a certain sum) predict the range of values of the final number.

That's the current situation; the constraints of the Standard Model predict a Higgs Boson with properties in a certain range.

Now, let's say we are able to experimentally measure our final number in the sequence, and it turns out to be 21.7. Is that Higgs Number? Well, no, it isn't. Because the Higgs is predicted by the standard model, so if we find something that does not fit in that prediction, then that indicates that the standard model is wrong. Therefore, the prediction o fthe Higgs Number is wrong, so the particle, whatever it is, can't be a Higgs Boson. It's something else, and our theory is going to have to be modified.

IN other words, if you're searching an area because you predict there's a treasure chest there, but you actually find a gold mine, then you can't just call it a funny-shaped treasure chest

sol invictus · Feb 17, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Another question: If the LHC does lead to finding the Higgs particle, why would it necessarily follow that the Higgs would behave as predicted by an "extension" of the standard model? Sometimes simple extrapolation will not yield accurate results in physics -- things often behave differently than predicted under extreme situations (Boyle's law comes to mind again). Is it assumed that since the standard model predicts the Higgs particle it must behave exactly as the standard model requires or will other experiments be needed to verify the behaviour of the Higgs? Does my question make any sense?

Kind of.

Think of it like this: the Higgs is the name for a mathematical model (with some continuous parameters, so "class of models" might be more accurate). One of the features of that model is that it predicts that the LHC will find a particle with mass in a certain range, with certain specific interactions with known particles, etc. If the LHC finds something with all those properties, it will be very strong evidence the model is at least close to correct, but obviously as the evidence improves it might turn out it's not quite right and needs adjustment.

If the LHC finds a particle that doesn't have those properties, then it's not the Higgs - it's just something else.

Could you have a Higgs-like particle with an energy density in its condensate that does change with the expansion of the universe? No, not really - the energy density in any scalar at a minimum really is constant. However inflation models are mostly not like that, because models like that don't work very well for inflation. In most inflation models, the field is actually not in a minimum - it's slowly sliding down a flat part of its potential. As a result its energy density does change, but only slightly (nowhere near as fast as the density of a fixed number of particles would).

Did that answer your question?

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

s. i.:

Thanks, yes -- well, partly. I need to cogitate a bit more on this. I don't quite get, "the energy density in any scalar at a minimum really is constant," and, "... As a result its energy density does change, but only slightly."

temporalillusion · Feb 18, 2009

So MM, in E=mc² if I used some different units of measure for mass and the speed of light, would the answer still be in Joules?

The area of a circle is equal to the square of the radius times pi, regardless of what units I use. Cubits, cm, miles, AU, lengths of string, whatever. Agreed?

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

Well, I have followed this ongoing debate about the the "Higgs condensate" and "inflation background" remaining constant while the universe expands -- to no avail. I really don't get it. My intuition says, if any gas, force field, array of particles, condensate (whatever that means), etc. is not increased in quantity (by the addition of more particles, etc.) in an expanding space, the density of the stuff must lessen. So there are aspects of the physics involved that are beyond my knowledge. Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word "condensate" in this context.
Some time ago, someone commented that the inflation background increases in total energy by an offsetting amount of "negative" gravitational energy. If true, is that also the case with the universal Higgs field (condensate)? By the way, what is the difference between a field and a condensate? Whew!!!

Michael Mozina · Feb 18, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Well, I have followed this ongoing debate about the the "Higgs condensate" and "inflation background" remaining constant while the universe expands -- to no avail. I really don't get it. My intuition says, if any gas, force field, array of particles, condensate (whatever that means), etc. is not increased in quantity (by the addition of more particles, etc.) in an expanding space, the density of the stuff must lessen.

Your intuition is absolutely correct.

So there are aspects of the physics involved that are beyond my knowledge.

Not really, you're just being sent "mixed messages" at the moment. They would *love* you to actually believe you can't sort it out, but I assure you that you can. You have a background in actual *physics* and frankly they are lacking in almost any understanding of actual particle physics. They can't even figure out what "physically" reconnects inside of a current sheet, and the only logical physical items to chose from are electrons and ions! I promise you that your instincts are correct.

Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word "condensate" in this context.

That's because they are misusing and abusing the term. A Higgs condensate is like any ordinary particle condensate with the one exception that the Higgs particle is also the carrier particle of mass. That's a "little" different compared to say an EM field where the point sources are electrons and protons and the carrier particles are photons, but it's pretty much exactly like an ordinary Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles, in this case Higgs particles that form a condensate. They are interchanging terms of "field" and condensate" and that may not even be acceptable. It all depends on what we actually "discover" about Higgs, and there are many theories about how exactly a Higgs condensate/field manifests itself.

This is ultimately a great example of a 'Red herring" by the way. They use these distractions to attempt to hide the fact they can't demonstrate inflation and DE aren't figments of their imagination.

Whew!!!

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0306/0306070v1.pdf

I'll try to explain it this way. The Higgs condensate can indeed be seen as an ordinary collection of particles, a lot like a Higgs bosson version of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The Higgs "field" tends to act like a "superfluid" that moves around in space. Think of the Higgs fields as something akin to a pool of dense mercury that collects around the energy excited Higgs bosons, the ones that are the carrier particle of mass. The higgs fields around the gravity wells of space time are like a dense superfluid, but the superfluid is not evenly distributed anymore than mass is evenly distributed. The density of the superfluid is not infinite or uniform in distribution. If we increase the volume by a factor of ten, there will be more "space" and the superfluid isn't going to fill that entire space evenly.

They really *want* you to believe that you can't understand this, and you will have to accept that they will try to play against any self esteem or self confidence issues they can find. If you doubt them they will berate you as well. It's pure BS and plain ignorant thuggery, nothing more. Don't let them play you. You *can* understand it, and your instincts were right on target. It''s them that don't "get it' because they attempt to *oversimplify* everything, including the Higgs field. It's not as simple as they make it sound, and of course there is no way to physically "test" any of this, so it's a "perfect" way they might confuse and bully you. Don't let them do that. They don't *begin* to grasp the actual physics going on.

This is ultimately nothing but a petty distraction. They can't demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of their collective imagination. They can't demonstrate DE does anything to anything else. They can't demonstrate SUSY particles either but at least they *may* have a legitimate way to test that theory. Their whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on gross oversimplifications, pure fabrication, 96% metaphysics, and only 4% real demonstrated forces of nature. Believe me when I tell you that you should *not* be intimidated by this group or Lambda-Gumby theory. They have so many ways to stretch Gumby theory the can make gravity attract at close scales and repulse on scales you can't get to. Please don't be intimidated by this crew. They're an ignorant crowd with damn few skills in actual physics. Their only claim to fame is a grasp of mathematics and their greatest weakness their poor grasp of physics.

The Man · Feb 18, 2009

Hellbound said:
PS:

Let me get a bit abstract and see if I can give an idea here.

Let's say we're looking at a collection of numbers. This collection represents our Standard Model, and it consists fo the following experimentally verified numbers:
1,3,5,7,11,13.

Now, in additiona to knowing the numbers, we also know (for example) that the total adds up to between 56 and 58 (something else predicted by the model). So, for this model to be correct, there has to be another number in the sequence (call it our Higgs Number), and that number should be 17 (or something very close to that). The properties of the model (the numbers we know and the constraint of a certain sum) predict the range of values of the final number.

That's the current situation; the constraints of the Standard Model predict a Higgs Boson with properties in a certain range.

Now, let's say we are able to experimentally measure our final number in the sequence, and it turns out to be 21.7. Is that Higgs Number? Well, no, it isn't. Because the Higgs is predicted by the standard model, so if we find something that does not fit in that prediction, then that indicates that the standard model is wrong. Therefore, the prediction o fthe Higgs Number is wrong, so the particle, whatever it is, can't be a Higgs Boson. It's something else, and our theory is going to have to be modified.

IN other words, if you're searching an area because you predict there's a treasure chest there, but you actually find a gold mine, then you can't just call it a funny-shaped treasure chest

Excellent post, Hellbound, but because you know that no current experiment has proven that 17 exists and since I can only count to ten, you can never prove to me that 17 is possibly a real number.

The Man · Feb 18, 2009

temporalillusion said:
So MM, in E=mc² if I used some different units of measure for mass and the speed of light, would the answer still be in Joules?

The area of a circle is equal to the square of the radius times pi, regardless of what units I use. Cubits, cm, miles, AU, lengths of string, whatever. Agreed?

I think radians are the actual non-units you might be looking for. As the relationship of an arc length over the radius subtending that arc length, radians have no mathematical units. For example if we consider a radius of R and arc length of 2 R the the subtended angle is PI. Whatever units you what to use is of no concern as radians are a proportion of those units. So meters over meters gives you no units as inches over inches would do. This is why radians are so useful as a unitless or scale independent application of any angle.

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Well, I have followed this ongoing debate about the the "Higgs condensate" and "inflation background" remaining constant while the universe expands -- to no avail. I really don't get it. My intuition says, if any gas, force field, array of particles, condensate (whatever that means), etc. is not increased in quantity (by the addition of more particles, etc.) in an expanding space, the density of the stuff must lessen. So there are aspects of the physics involved that are beyond my knowledge. Maybe I don't really understand the meaning of the word "condensate" in this context.

Did you read the example with the "string" I gave earlier? That's one way it can happen (that's how vacuum energy arises in quantum field theory). But in this case the physics is simpler. In non-gravitational physics, the absolute value of the energy doesn't mean anything - only energy differences matter, so if you shift every energy by a constant nothing changes. But gravity acts on all forms of energy, even constants - so the absolute value does matter. A scalar potential when the scalar is homogeneous and constant is precisely just that - an overall shift of the energy. Gravity acts on it, and the solution is either de Sitter or anti de Sitter space, depending on the sign (and if there's no other energy around).

It's worth noting that the expansion of space is not a very well-defined concept. In fact in de Sitter and anti de Sitter the space can either be thought of as expanding, contracting, or static - that's a choice of coordinates. Physically the effect of the vacuum energy is to either pull everything in or push it out - and it's perfectly valid to think of that as a force and the space itself as static. Thought of that way, there's no expansion to dilute the energy density.

In that language, inflation is not an exponential expansion of space - it's just a pressure that forces everything to move away from everything else and dilute (though the fact that space is static does not mean it isn't curved - it is - and that's one reason it's possible to keep pushing things without running out of "room").

If you have any math background, I'll give you one more way to think about this. Imagine a sphere. Spheres have constant scalar curvature, and think of that curvature as an energy density (it's directly related to it by Einstein's equations). Now take one of the directions of the space the sphere is in and turn it into time (mathematically, multiply that coordinate by i). That turns the sphere into a hyperboloid (write the equation, multiply by i, and you'll see why). So now the sphere is expanding - exponentially, actually, in this coordinate - but the curvature is still constant.

Some time ago, someone commented that the inflation background increases in total energy by an offsetting amount of "negative" gravitational energy. If true, is that also the case with the universal Higgs field (condensate)?

Yes - the energy in the Higgs condensate acts in a way that's nearly identical to the inflaton background.

By the way, what is the difference between a field and a condensate? Whew!!!

A constant value of the Higgs field is all that's meant by the "Higgs condensate".

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

sol invictus said:
I'm still waiting for you to point out the error in my math. I told you what the units were. Should I take your silence as an admission that I was right and you were wrong all along?

Michael Mozina said:
<snipped empty rant>

I'll take that as a yes.

By the way, who the heck is this "they"? You sound schizophrenic. Get help.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 18, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Thanks for the swift response.

However, you didn't answer the question I asked, which was "Are you prepared to go through this "whopper" in detail, to see just how well it accounts for all directly relevant astronomical observations?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give it shot. I don't profess to be the author of the paper mind you, but I'll be happy to defend his work to the best of my ability.

[...]

Click to expand...

Again, thanks for the swift response.

First, I assume you got the wrong Ari Brynjolfsson paper, in your earlier post (the one you provided a link to is only 19 pages long, not 95). No worries, I'll assume that you mean the set of Ari Brynjolfsson papers on 'plasma redshift', unless you tell us all otherwise.

Here's a few of the relevant observations, off the top of my head:

* Scranton et al.'s 2005 paper on weak gravitational lensing of quasars in the SDSS DR3 (link is to the arXiv preprint)

* the neutrino version of Olbers' paradox (especially one filled with stars that shine by the Michael Mozina/O. Manuel mechanism)

* quasar and quasar host galaxy redshifts are the same

* angular smearing of objects not observed, out to z ~6, across the whole EM spectrum (though this is not a particularly stringent test for the gamma ray region)

* ditto, wrt line widths

* existence of the Gunn-Peterson trough

* CMB temperature higher at high z (than locally)

* z-dependent AGN/quasar volume density (under AB's cosmology, MM's, or LCDM models)

* complete lack of GRBs with redshifts >~7

* disappearance of the "δz′_MW ≈ 0.00095" signal in the much larger databases of SNe Ia than AB used, back in 2003/4

* heating of the IGM in rich clusters by AGN jets (leaves nowhere for AB's mechanism to dump its energy).

No doubt there's more, but that should get you started ... pick one and give us an 'AB plasma redshift/cosmology' explanation.

Michael,

I know you're really busy - look at all the posts you've written just in the last few hours! - so you may have overlooked this one of mine.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Dancing David · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That's because they are misusing and abusing the term. A Higgs condensate is like any ordinary particle condensate with the one exception that the Higgs particle is also the carrier particle of mass. That's a "little" different compared to say an EM field where the point sources are electrons and protons and the carrier particles are photons, but it's pretty much exactly like an ordinary Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles, in this case Higgs particles that form a condensate. They are interchanging terms of "field" and condensate" and that may not even be acceptable. It all depends on what we actually "discover" about Higgs, and there are many theories about how exactly a Higgs condensate/field manifests itself.

This is ultimately a great example of a 'Red herring" by the way. They use these distractions to attempt to hide the fact they can't demonstrate inflation and DE aren't figments of their imagination.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0306/0306070v1.pdf

I'll try to explain it this way. The Higgs condensate can indeed be seen as an ordinary collection of particles, a lot like a Higgs bosson version of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The Higgs "field" tends to act like a "superfluid" that moves around in space. Think of the Higgs fields as something akin to a pool of dense mercury that collects around the energy excited Higgs bosons, the ones that are the carrier particle of mass. The higgs fields around the gravity wells of space time are like a dense superfluid, but the superfluid is not evenly distributed anymore than mass is evenly distributed. The density of the superfluid is not infinite or uniform in distribution. If we increase the volume by a factor of ten, there will be more "space" and the superfluid isn't going to fill that entire space evenly.

They really *want* you to believe that you can't understand this, and you will have to accept that they will try to play against any self esteem or self confidence issues they can find. If you doubt them they will berate you as well. It's pure BS and plain ignorant thuggery, nothing more. Don't let them play you. You *can* understand it, and your instincts were right on target. It''s them that don't "get it' because they attempt to *oversimplify* everything, including the Higgs field. It's not as simple as they make it sound, and of course there is no way to physically "test" any of this, so it's a "perfect" way they might confuse and bully you. Don't let them do that. They don't *begin* to grasp the actual physics going on.

Other than the boring hyberbole and lack of any model that you present and can explain, you have shown and abysmal lack of understand of both QM and relativity.

So you either have overturned QM or relativity or you don't understand even a little about either.

And lets us see you have just told Pauli that his imaginary numbers have no use, Fermi that nutrinos can't exist and that Yukawa particles are impossible.

The trifecta of foolishness would be now complete if you mentioned the theory of natural selection through reproductive success.

then you would have the trifecta QM, relativity and 'darwinism'.

Try actually explaining how you can get the structure of the universe from your model?
Try some numbers and some variable that you can model.

And then you can tackle the one you want to avoid at all costs:

Please Michael Mozina explain to us how you explain the observed fact that some ojects are in faster orbits aorund common centers of gravity than can be explained by gravity-hypothesized dark matter?

here is is in another color:
Please Michael Mozina explain to us how you explain the observed fact that some objects are in faster orbits aorund common centers of gravity than can be explained by gravity minus hypothesized dark matter?

DSo · Feb 18, 2009

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persectued by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."

- Robert Park

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

-Carl Sagan*

*There appear to be many different versions of this quote floating around the interwebs, but the gist is the same.

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

By the way, here's another way to see that the Higgs condensate cannot change as the universe expands. The Higgs condensate is what gives all particles their mass in the standard model (the mass of a particle is its coupling to the Higgs times the Higgs vacuum expectation value). If the condensate diluted as the universe expands, the masses of particles would change by a huge factor over the expansion history of the universe. Any such theory is ruled out for many, many reasons - but regardless, it doesn't happen in the standard model, because the Higgs condensate does not dilute.

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

sol invictus said:
Did you read the example with the "string" I gave earlier? That's one way it can happen (that's how vacuum energy arises in quantum field theory). But in this case the physics is simpler. In non-gravitational physics, the absolute value of the energy doesn't mean anything - only energy differences matter, so if you shift every energy by a constant nothing changes. But gravity acts on all forms of energy, even constants - so the absolute value does matter. A scalar potential when the scalar is homogeneous and constant is precisely just that - an overall shift of the energy. Gravity acts on it, and the solution is either de Sitter or anti de Sitter space, depending on the sign (and if there's no other energy around).

It's worth noting that the expansion of space is not a very well-defined concept. In fact in de Sitter and anti de Sitter the space can either be thought of as expanding, contracting, or static - that's a choice of coordinates. Physically the effect of the vacuum energy is to either pull everything in or push it out - and it's perfectly valid to think of that as a force and the space itself as static. Thought of that way, there's no expansion to dilute the energy density.

In that language, inflation is not an exponential expansion of space - it's just a pressure that forces everything to move away from everything else and dilute (though the fact that space is static does not mean it isn't curved - it is - and that's one reason it's possible to keep pushing things without running out of "room").

If you have any math background, I'll give you one more way to think about this. Imagine a sphere. Spheres have constant scalar curvature, and think of that curvature as an energy density (it's directly related to it by Einstein's equations). Now take one of the directions of the space the sphere is in and turn it into time (mathematically, multiply that coordinate by i). That turns the sphere into a hyperboloid (write the equation, multiply by i, and you'll see why). So now the sphere is expanding - exponentially, actually, in this coordinate - but the curvature is still constant.

...

Yes - the energy in the Higgs condensate acts in a way that's nearly identical to the inflaton background.

...

A constant value of the Higgs field is all that's meant by the "Higgs condensate".

Thanks. I need to review de Sitter space to understand part of your response.

OK, easily done -- multiplying one of the coordinates for a sphere turns it into a hyperboloid and the curvature is constant as we move along the "transformed" coordinate to infinity. Is this an analogy or is there an actual equation for energy density that is mathematically structured this way?

Do you refer to the "constant value" (consequently "condensate") of the Higgs field because the Higgs particles are spread out throughout space (due to quantum uncertainty) as you once described to me?

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Your intuition is absolutely correct.

Not really, you're just being sent "mixed messages" at the moment. They would *love* you to actually believe you can't sort it out, but I assure you that you can. You have a background in actual *physics* and frankly they are lacking in almost any understanding of actual particle physics. They can't even figure out what "physically" reconnects inside of a current sheet, and the only logical physical items to chose from are electrons and ions! I promise you that your instincts are correct.

That's because they are misusing and abusing the term. A Higgs condensate is like any ordinary particle condensate with the one exception that the Higgs particle is also the carrier particle of mass. That's a "little" different compared to say an EM field where the point sources are electrons and protons and the carrier particles are photons, but it's pretty much exactly like an ordinary Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles, in this case Higgs particles that form a condensate. They are interchanging terms of "field" and condensate" and that may not even be acceptable. It all depends on what we actually "discover" about Higgs, and there are many theories about how exactly a Higgs condensate/field manifests itself.

This is ultimately a great example of a 'Red herring" by the way. They use these distractions to attempt to hide the fact they can't demonstrate inflation and DE aren't figments of their imagination.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0306/0306070v1.pdf

I'll try to explain it this way. The Higgs condensate can indeed be seen as an ordinary collection of particles, a lot like a Higgs bosson version of a Bose-Einstein condensate. The Higgs "field" tends to act like a "superfluid" that moves around in space. Think of the Higgs fields as something akin to a pool of dense mercury that collects around the energy excited Higgs bosons, the ones that are the carrier particle of mass. The higgs fields around the gravity wells of space time are like a dense superfluid, but the superfluid is not evenly distributed anymore than mass is evenly distributed. The density of the superfluid is not infinite or uniform in distribution. If we increase the volume by a factor of ten, there will be more "space" and the superfluid isn't going to fill that entire space evenly.

They really *want* you to believe that you can't understand this, and you will have to accept that they will try to play against any self esteem or self confidence issues they can find. If you doubt them they will berate you as well. It's pure BS and plain ignorant thuggery, nothing more. Don't let them play you. You *can* understand it, and your instincts were right on target. It''s them that don't "get it' because they attempt to *oversimplify* everything, including the Higgs field. It's not as simple as they make it sound, and of course there is no way to physically "test" any of this, so it's a "perfect" way they might confuse and bully you. Don't let them do that. They don't *begin* to grasp the actual physics going on.

This is ultimately nothing but a petty distraction. They can't demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of their collective imagination. They can't demonstrate DE does anything to anything else. They can't demonstrate SUSY particles either but at least they *may* have a legitimate way to test that theory. Their whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on gross oversimplifications, pure fabrication, 96% metaphysics, and only 4% real demonstrated forces of nature. Believe me when I tell you that you should *not* be intimidated by this group or Lambda-Gumby theory. They have so many ways to stretch Gumby theory the can make gravity attract at close scales and repulse on scales you can't get to. Please don't be intimidated by this crew. They're an ignorant crowd with damn few skills in actual physics. Their only claim to fame is a grasp of mathematics and their greatest weakness their poor grasp of physics.

Why do you demonize mainstream physicists so? They want to understand the universe as much as you do.
I am not intimidated by people who know more about something than I do -- like you, for example.
Your opinions have the weight of being more friendly to everyday intuition; if they are valid, ultimately they will be consistent with observations and verifiable scientifically. I wish you were right, but my common sense tells me thousands of theoreticians throughout the world are not engaging in a conspiracy to dupe us.

temporalillusion · Feb 18, 2009

The Man said:
I think radians are the actual non-units you might be looking for. As the relationship of an arc length over the radius subtending that arc length, radians have no mathematical units. For example if we consider a radius of R and arc length of 2 R the the subtended angle is PI. Whatever units you what to use is of no concern as radians are a proportion of those units. So meters over meters gives you no units as inches over inches would do. This is why radians are so useful as a unitless or scale independent application of any angle.

Thanks, better to have someone who actually knows to articulate it properly. I read some of your guys' post and wish I could get from where I am to where you guys are... maybe someday I can go back to school to really learn some of this stuff. My math used to be quite good (degree in electronics) but it's depressing to go and look at some of my textbooks and realize I hardly know any of it anymore

sol invictus said:
By the way, here's another way to see that the Higgs condensate cannot change as the universe expands. The Higgs condensate is what gives all particles their mass in the standard model (the mass of a particle is its coupling to the Higgs times the Higgs vacuum expectation value). If the condensate diluted as the universe expands, the masses of particles would change by a huge factor over the expansion history of the universe. Any such theory is ruled out for many, many reasons - but regardless, it doesn't happen in the standard model, because the Higgs condensate does not dilute.

Well there you go.

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

sol invictus said:
By the way, here's another way to see that the Higgs condensate cannot change as the universe expands. The Higgs condensate is what gives all particles their mass in the standard model (the mass of a particle is its coupling to the Higgs times the Higgs vacuum expectation value). If the condensate diluted as the universe expands, the masses of particles would change by a huge factor over the expansion history of the universe. Any such theory is ruled out for many, many reasons - but regardless, it doesn't happen in the standard model, because the Higgs condensate does not dilute.

Excellent! Assuming the universe does expand there is no way to refute that the Higgs field must stay constant. Now, by analogy, it is easy to accept (for me) that the inflation field does not dilute as space expands.

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Thanks. I need to review de Sitter space to understand part of your response.

OK, easily done -- multiplying one of the coordinates for a sphere turns it into a hyperboloid and the curvature is constant as we move along the "transformed" coordinate to infinity. Is this an analogy or is there an actual equation for energy density that is mathematically structured this way?

It's not an analogy. Start with the metric on a 4-sphere of radius r, and analytically continue one coordinate: [latex]$ds^2 = r^2(d\theta^2 + \cos^2(\theta) d\Omega_3^2) \rightarrow $r^2(-dt^2 + \cosh^2(t)d\Omega_3^2)$[/latex], where d\Omega_3 is the metric on a unit 3-sphere. The scalar curvature of both metrics is completely constant (I think it's R=12/r^2) even though the second metric appears to have a volume that expands exponentially with time (it's de Sitter space).

Taking the trace of Einstein's equation tells us that the scalar curvature R is proportional to the trace of the stress-energy tensor T, and that trace is proportional to energy density plus 3 times pressure. According to MM, both energy density and pressure should redshift with the expansion, but that is manifestly wrong (since R is constant).

Do you refer to the "constant value" (consequently "condensate") of the Higgs field because the Higgs particles are spread out throughout space (due to quantum uncertainty) as you once described to me?

There is a way to think of it like that, yes - but the particles whose wave functions are spread are not Higgs particles in the normal usage of that term. They're excitations of the uncondensed phase, not of the condensed phase.

Michael Mozina · Feb 18, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Why do you demonize mainstream physicists so?

I'm not. I have no beef with real physics.

I am not intimidated by people who know more about something than I do -- like you, for example.
Your opinions have the weight of being more friendly to everyday intuition; if they are valid, ultimately they will be consistent with observations and verifiable scientifically. I wish you were right, but my common sense tells me thousands of theoreticians throughout the world are not engaging in a conspiracy to dupe us.

I think you got the wrong impression from my last post. I'm not complaining about particle physicists. They (collectively) seem to understand that there are *many* possible 'interpretations' of these issues, not simply a single one. It's only the rigid dogma of astronomy that I have a problem with because it's not based on actual physics. It's based on a mathematical formula that is devoid of a physical explanation. Inflation for instance never shows up in a controlled experiment. The same is true of "dark energy". These are not physically explained, nor physically demonstrated.

Almost every particle physicist I know personally is very "open minded", particularly as it relates to the Higgs particle and how to "describe" a Higgs field. There's no *one* way to do it. The thing about the search for the Higgs is that it is an active search that is underway as we speak. I therefore have no beef at all with particle physics theory or physicists in general.

I let myself get "suckered in" here by allowing this group to focus on yet *another* thing that cannot yet be physically demonstrated and that therefore has no single, agreed upon physical solution. It's a red herring that I should never have let them start in the first place.

The difference between most physicists I know is that they are honestly looking for physical evidence in the physical world, right here, right now in real controlled experiments. Compare than to inflation and DE proponents who are content to simply point at the sky and tinker with their math based on what they observe in the sky. These are two *entirely* different approaches to science and while I respect for real science, I have no respect for point at the sky nonsense that has no predictive value whatsoever.

Physicists build actual hardware and physically *test* their ideas in controlled experiments. Astronomers seem content with understanding math, and ignoring physics altogether. A simple example is the astronomical concept of "magnetic reconnection". A magnetic lines has no physical substance, and it forms as a full and completely continuum, without beginning and without end. It is physically incapable of "reconnecting" at the level of actual physics. That does not stop them from labeling a particle reconnection process "magnetic reconnection". I get tired of their the utter *lack* of regard for the actual physical processes at work and the actual physics of what is going on.

Ziggurat · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I let myself get "suckered in" here by allowing this group to focus on yet *another* thing that cannot yet be physically demonstrated and that therefore has no single, agreed upon physical solution. It's a red herring that I should never have let them start in the first place.

OK, then let's get back to redshifts. Those can be physically demonstrated, both with Doppler shifts and relativistic time dilation. But you don't think those are the correct explanations for the observed redshift of galaxies: you think it's tired light. But tired light hasn't been demonstrated in any laboratory. The proposed mechanisms are all either fairy farts or involve mechanisms we KNOW (from actual experiments) will produce broadening in both momentum and energy, which does NOT happen for observed astronomical redshifts of distant galaxies. Yet you still don't believe distant galaxies are all moving away from us. You instead link to papers which propose that the universe is eternal, a model which requires constant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong?

Physicists build actual hardware and physically *test* their ideas in controlled experiments.

Einstein never did. Guess he wasn't a physicist.

Michael Mozina · Feb 18, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Michael,

I know you're really busy - look at all the posts you've written just in the last few hours! - so you may have overlooked this one of mine.

I'm looking forward to your answers.

This series of questions seems to be better suited for the PC thread rather than this thread. I would hate to let you folks start *another* tangent unrelated to the fact that mainstream theory can't actually 'explain' and of those things without liberal doses of magical forces. How do *you* explain such observation using empirically demonstrated forces/curvatures of nature?

Michael Mozina · Feb 18, 2009

Ziggurat said:
OK, then let's get back to redshifts. Those can be physically demonstrated, both with Doppler shifts and relativistic time dilation. But you don't think those are the correct explanations for the observed redshift of galaxies: you think it's tired light.

Not exactly. I personally think some movement is "likely" and some time dilation may be a valid explanation for some redshift. As long you are not peddling "space expansion", I have no problem with either of the other two forms of redshift.

But tired light hasn't been demonstrated in any laboratory.

That is correct and it's therefore a valid criticism. We then have to ask ourselves is it "better" or "worse than" the idea of "space expansion" to explain any remaining forms of redshift that we cannot otherwise explain any other way?

In Ari's case it *may* be testable. In other words I can think of some ways to go about exploring his claim in a lab, where inflation and DE claims are "untestable" on Earth or anywhere I might physically reach in my lifetime. IMO that puts Ari's theories in the category of "better". At least I have some hope of verifying and/or falsifying his theory.

The proposed mechanisms are all either fairy farts

Why stop there? It could be anything at all. Fairy farts are only a single alternative option.

or involve mechanisms we KNOW (from actual experiments) will produce broadening in both momentum and energy, which does NOT happen for observed astronomical redshifts of distant galaxies.

My primary skepticism of his theory is that I "believe" (can't physically guarantee) that different wavelengths would have different redshifts. The overall scattering issue IMO is irrelevant, but that "smoothness" of the redshift seems important, and this is one test I can think of that *could* falsify his theories in a lab under controlled experiments.

Yet you still don't believe distant galaxies are all moving away from us.

I don't know if they are moving away from us or not, but I have no problem with expansion of *objects*. It's only the "space expansion" thing I have a problem with.

You instead link to papers which propose that the universe is eternal, a model which requires constant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong?

I frankly have no idea why you think a nearly infinite or nearly eternal universe is a violation of any laws of thermodynamics. You'll have to make your case on that specific claim.

Einstein never did. Guess he wasn't a physicist.

Einstein could be certain that gravity existed and he could "test" it as well as anyone could here on Earth at the time. He resisted the idea of stuffing GR theory with constants, so in my book, yes, he was a real "physicist", but due to technological limitations, parts of his theory could not yet be tested, but at least several parts of his theory have been tested now, and everything else matches observation. No one could rationally doubt the existence of gravity even if they doubted his math. Any decent skeptic can rationally doubt the existence of inflation or DE because you can't make them do anything to anything, or make any useful prediction about the outcome of a controlled experiment with either theory.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
This series of questions seems to be better suited for the PC thread rather than this thread.

Fair comment.

Later today I'll repeat them - together with the relevant history of posts that lead to them - in that thread. Once they're up, I will look forward to your answers.

I would hate to let you folks start *another* tangent unrelated to the fact that mainstream theory can't actually 'explain' and of those things without liberal doses of magical forces. How do *you* explain such observation using empirically demonstrated forces/curvatures of nature

You've lost me, I'm afraid ...

I can certainly have a go at explaining these within the framework of modern astrophysics (and cosmology), and I'll do that a bit later. If there are readers of this post out there who'd also like to see such an attempted explanation, please make your interest known, by writing a post.

At this time I have only the most tenuous understanding of what the MM view of modern cosmology (and astrophysics?) is, so I'm sure you'll readily appreciate that any attempt by me to address the list within that framework will almost certainly fail, and fail rather spectacularly. But not to worry, once I *have* understood this MM view of modern cosmology, I promise to try. To that end, there's another of my posts, from yesterday, that you've not answered yet, one that is highly germane to any attempt (by me) to come up with such an explanation. I'll bump it in a mo, as I know you've been really, really busy writing posts and may have overlooked it. Once I've done so, would you mind answering it please? Thanks in advance.

DeiRenDopa · Feb 18, 2009

MM's view of modern cosmology, as science (1)

DeiRenDopa said:
To get the ball rolling, I'd like to start with some stuff that's not, strictly speaking, modern cosmology*, the Sun.

In terms of "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", "physically demonstrate [something other than] squat", "actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way", "some evidence to support [one's] claim", "any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate [something] conclusively", "demonstrate [something] isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically", "show [everyone something] exists in a controlled experiment", and "physically demonstrate[] many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation", what would be acceptable, to you, re a statement such as this: "the Sun has a solid iron surface, and is powered by a [insert number here] mass neutron star at its core"?

Now, to be clear, I'm pretty sure I've got some aspects of your approach mischaracterised (even though I've quoted you) Michael, and my test statement about the Sun doesn't capture all the key aspects of one of your published papers, so I'd be grateful if you'd first suggest some corrections and edits, to make the above more atune to your approach to cosmology.

Then, could you please quickly summarise the parts of how what's in the paper with your name as an author meets with your criteria for science?

* though I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that, for MM, it is

*bump*, as promised.

Michael, your answer to this post of mine would help me greatly, in my attempt to understand your view of modern cosmology ...

Ziggurat · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Not exactly. I personally think some movement is "likely" and some time dilation may be a valid explanation for some redshift. As long you are not peddling "space expansion", I have no problem with either of the other two forms of redshift.

Then just work with them for now. Those redshifts demonstrate that galaxies are all moving away from each other.

My primary skepticism of his theory is that I "believe" (can't physically guarantee) that different wavelengths would have different redshifts. The overall scattering issue IMO is irrelevant,

Why do you think it's irrelevant? It's an absolute requirement of his proposed mechanism, and we can tell from observations that it is not there. So his theory has already been falsified. Whatever its other attractions, that's enough to demonstrate that it is wrong.

I frankly have no idea why you think a nearly infinite or nearly eternal universe is a violation of any laws of thermodynamics. You'll have to make your case on that specific claim.

It's really quite simple: if the universe is infinitely old, why isn't it all at one temperature? The only way you can keep that from happening in an infinitely old universe is to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Actually, that's not 100% correct: you could also do it by violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. But those are your only options.

Skwinty · Feb 18, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
If there are readers of this post out there who'd also like to see such an attempted explanation, please make your interest known, by writing a post.

Looking forward to your point of view.

Question about expanding space.
What is space expanding into, other than more space?

DeiRenDopa · Feb 18, 2009

Skwinty said:
Looking forward to your point of view.

Thanks Skwinty.

Please don't hesitate to answer any questions you have on my attempt at explanations.

Question about expanding space.
What is space expanding into, other than more space?

Hmm ... good question ... unfortunately I can't answer it very well off the top of my head.

I read a book that I thought was quite good at explaining this - and related questions - in a non-technical way; you might find it helpful: "Patterns in the Void", by Sten F. Odenwald.

Of course, the best answer is a technical one, involving the equations of General Relativity (GR). As Michael Mozina has said* GR is a core part of his version of PC, perhaps he could have a go at answering this question, based on his understanding of GR?

* "In a broad sense [Plasma Cosmology] is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, the combination of GR and MHD theory." (source)

Skwinty · Feb 18, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
I read a book that I thought was quite good at explaining this - and related questions - in a non-technical way; you might find it helpful: "Patterns in the Void", by Sten F. Odenwald.

Will endeavour to obtain this book.
I am not a good mathematician so I appreciate books that deal in these issues without overwhelming the reader with formulae and statistics. :boggled:

DeiRenDopa · Feb 18, 2009

Explanation of various observations, within modern astrophysics/cosmology.

DeiRenDopa said:
* Scranton et al.'s 2005 paper on weak gravitational lensing of quasars in the SDSS DR3 (link is to the arXiv preprint)

I don't think I could do any better than Scranton et al. do in the paper itself ... there's an SDSS PR which also covers this, in a non-technical way (though it suffers, as all such PRs do, from trying to adequately address too wide an audience): SDSS uses 200,000 quasars to confirm Einstein's prediction of cosmic magnification

* the neutrino version of Olbers' paradox (especially one filled with stars that shine by the Michael Mozina/O. Manuel mechanism)

First, in contemporary astrophysics, stars are not powered by the Manuel/Mozina mechanism.

Second, the 'night sky' is 'dark' in neutrinos for the same reasons it's dark in photons, principally that the universe is too young. Of course, there should be a neutrino equivalent to the CMB, but today's neutrino detectors are totally blind to such neutrinos.

* quasar and quasar host galaxy redshifts are the same

Quasars and quasar host galaxies are at the same distance, that implied by the Hubble relationship (i.e. there is no 'intrinsic redshift')

* angular smearing of objects not observed, out to z ~6, across the whole EM spectrum (though this is not a particularly stringent test for the gamma ray region)

* ditto, wrt line widths

There is no scattering, absorption, refraction, etc along the paths that photons take to get from source to detection by astronomers' instruments (other than that due to the mass-energy of the part of the universe those photons traversed). Of course, the universe is opaque to EM redward of the plasma frequency of the IGM, but we can't detect any such EM anyway (because the IPM and ISM is opaque to EM with considerably higher frequencies).

* existence of the Gunn-Peterson trough

A >30 year old prediction from the version of "the BBT" of the time. It has been conclusively detected only in the last few years (and so is yet another successful prediction of modern LCDM cosmological models).

* CMB temperature higher at high z (than locally)

Another long-standing prediction of the BBT; once the CMB had been detected (and its temperature measured), the z vs CMB temperature relationship became a zero-free-parameter prediction.

* z-dependent AGN/quasar volume density (under AB's cosmology, MM's, or LCDM models)

The actual dependence is highly model dependent; however, temporal evolution is a fundamental aspect of modern LCDM models.

* complete lack of GRBs with redshifts >~7

As above.

* disappearance of the "δz′MW ≈ 0.00095" signal in the much larger databases of SNe Ia than AB used, back in 2003/4

There is no 'plasma redshift', of the AB kind.

* heating of the IGM in rich clusters by AGN jets (leaves nowhere for AB's mechanism to dump its energy).

The details of how AGN jets heat the IGM in rich clusters continue to be worked out, but recognition of, and characterisation of, this mechanism has gone a long way to address a really interesting puzzle in extra-galactic astrophysics.

sol invictus · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
As long you are not peddling "space expansion", I have no problem with either of the other two forms of redshift.

And yet earlier you said you believed general relativity had been empirically demonstrated. But space expansion is an intrinsic element of GR... so you flipflop again. Back and forth, round and round.

By the way, you still have not responded to my repeated requests to identify the mistake in the math I posted. Earlier you were claiming is was obviously wrong, nonsense, that you had "debunked" it, that anyone that believed it was a fool, etc. And yet you can't identify a single thing wrong with it or defend any of your comments.

It's almost like you have no clue what you're talking about, and are just spouting arrogant BS in order to get a response. But that can't possibly be it, can it?

Tubbythin · Feb 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The difference between most physicists I know is that they are honestly looking for physical evidence in the physical world, right here, right now in real controlled experiments. Compare than to inflation and DE proponents who are content to simply point at the sky and tinker with their math based on what they observe in the sky. These are two *entirely* different approaches to science and while I respect for real science, I have no respect for point at the sky nonsense that has no predictive value whatsoever.

Hmm. Produced a bound di-neutron system in the lab yet? Thought not. Your complete inability to apply the same level of scepticism (or rather pseudo-scepticism) to your own work as to others is evident to everybody.

Perpetual Student · Feb 18, 2009

sol invictus said:
It's not an analogy. Start with the metric on a 4-sphere of radius r, and analytically continue one coordinate: [latex]$ds^2 = r^2(d\theta^2 + \cos^2(\theta) d\Omega_3^2) \rightarrow $r^2(-dt^2 + \cosh^2(t)d\Omega_3^2)$[/latex], where d\Omega_3 is the metric on a unit 3-sphere. The scalar curvature of both metrics is completely constant (I think it's R=12/r^2) even though the second metric appears to have a volume that expands exponentially with time (it's de Sitter space).

Taking the trace of Einstein's equation tells us that the scalar curvature R is proportional to the trace of the stress-energy tensor T, and that trace is proportional to energy density plus 3 times pressure. According to MM, both energy density and pressure should redshift with the expansion, but that is manifestly wrong (since R is constant).

There is a way to think of it like that, yes - but the particles whose wave functions are spread are not Higgs particles in the normal usage of that term. They're excitations of the uncondensed phase, not of the condensed phase.

OK, I've done a brief review of de Sitter space (wow, I am rusty). With that and with the equation for the metric you show above I am beginning to get the picture.
As you once said, saying this stuff is counter-intuitive is quite relative. I can see where, with training, one can develop an intuition within the framework of the mathematics of modern physics.

Michael Mozina · Feb 19, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
You've lost me, I'm afraid ...

I can certainly have a go at explaining these within the framework of modern astrophysics (and cosmology), and I'll do that a bit later.

What I'm looking for here is some understanding of what makes you personally believe that Lambda-CMD theory is somehow "superior" to *any* (not only PC theory) other theory of cosmology if all of your "predictions" are based upon things you cannot empirically demonstrate, like "space expansion" and inflation and "non baryonic dark matter" and only 4% of the theory is based on real (demonstrated) entities?

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Merchant of Doom

Philosopher

Illuminator

Technical Admin

Illuminator

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Scholar

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Technical Admin

Illuminator

Philosopher

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned