Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old Black Hole Stuff

It has been a busy week; meetings every evening and two presentations to write. Already I am pages behind. Will I ever catch up? We'll see, but meanwhile, this is from several pages back. Hopefully not too far behind.

Skwinty said:
Is Quantum Theory of Gravity considered to be a field theory. Wiki gives that impression, but lacks citations.
Click to expand...
Yes, quantum theories of gravity use quantum field theory. I don't think there is any theory in physics that does not boil down eventually to a classical or quantum field theory.

Skwinty said:
Also, as I asked before, please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math.
Click to expand...
Well, the point of the difference between general relativity (a classical field theory) and quantum gravity (a quantum field theory) is that the former suffers from inconvenient singularities, while the latter will not. So the former has no limit on the contraction of a massive body inside the event horizon, while the latter does limit the contraction of a massive body inside the event horizon. So the idea that there is a "natural limit" to the contraction of any massive body is itself a natural consequence of any quantum theory of gravity. So it is no big surprise that Baryshev comes up with a natural limit of contraction. Indeed, on page 12 of his paper (Baryshev, 1999) he says, after equation 37: "It follows from here that there is a natural limit of contraction of a body and it is the condition that the energy of the field should be less than that of the rest mass energy of the body." So if the energy of the field, which is what forces the contraction, is less than the rest mass energy of the body, which resists the contraction, then contraction should stop. It seems a reasonable constraint to me.
 
GeeMack said:
No, you can't, because you can't do math. :)
Click to expand...
Fortunately for both of my children, that statement isn't true. They may be the only people I ever try to "do math" with because I know that their motive in asking me for help with math is based upon a true desire to understand it, not because they are interested in trying to entrap me, or to use some slip up I make as an excuse to claim "Aha, there is proof you know *nothing* about math!".

Give me a break. I won't bark up math on command for you or anyone else, and the only people who need ever benefit from my personal math skills are the people I love. Get over yourself. Math skills are not even the "be-all-end-all" of empirical physics. You forgot to bother even "experimenting" with your imaginary friends before slapping on math. You're doing "advanced calculus" with dark elves and monopole monkey destroying inflation faeries. What would you like me to say about your math? "Wow, what beautiful math"?
 
Reality Check said:
Hi MM: You still have not answered my question so I will restate it.
Experimental physicists know that there are atoms in a vacuum chamber. They know what their effects are on a pair of metallic plates (or a metallic plate and sphere) used to measure the Casimir effect.

Why do you think that they would be dumb enough to ignore this effect when measuring the Casimir effect?
Click to expand...

No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.

In a similar vein: Do you think that all nuclear physicists who measure radiation are not smart enough to calibrate their instruments to take in account background radiation?
Click to expand...

I really resent when folks attempt to suggest I have a tough time with nuclear physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. I have *a lot* of respect for nuclear physics theory even if I am curious about the outcome of the Higgs search, but I have *zero* respect for Lambda-CDM theory. Please keep that in mind as we continue these discussions. Nuclear physicists use real "experiments" to test their "theories", and real control mechanisms as well. There's no comparison in these two realms of "physics".
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
MM:

Take a look at this: link
Click to expand...

Yikes! It will take me awhile to get through all 37 pages. :) FYI I am wrapping up some programming today, so it may be awhile before I've read through it.

It certainly appears to be an attempt to include a specrum of possible explanations.

"10 Conclusions
Cosmic acceleration provides an intriguing puzzle. Occam’s razor suggests that the phenomenon
may be explained simply by a cosmological constant. This may be an acceptable phenomenological
explanation, but it would be more satisfying to have a physical explanation for the observed value
of (lambda). The unexpectedly small value inferred for (lambda) leads us to suspect that instead the apparent cosmological
constant may be the false-vacuum energy associated with the displacement of some field
from its minimum and/or that there may be new gravitational physics beyond Einstein’s general
relativity. Plenty of interesting ideas for dark energy and alternative gravity have been conjectured,
but there is no clear front runner. The models are all toys, awaiting any new, corroborating or
contraindicating evidence."

Why do you suppose there are no PC/EU explanations included?
Click to expand...

It's kinda hard to speculate on why two authors chose not to include any PC/EU explanations. It is not as though none have been suggested.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

In fairness to sol, since he has me on ignore, I should point out that he raised an objection to this presentation earlier which I have not fully "check out" on my own yet. I should and will check out sol's objection, but it is not as though no one has attempted to provided such an "explanation" based on EM fields. The problem however is that even this idea "requires" inflation, and therefore it wouldn't necessarily quality as an empirically based "EU/PC" theory and most PC/EU theorists would probably therefore reject it. :)

EU/PC theory isn't like an ordinary cosmology theory. It does not attempt to look at cosmology from a "prophetic" orientation as though we can be absolutely certain when it all began, certain what will take place in the future, etc. It tends to focus on particle physical processes in plasma starting with processes inside our solar system, that are then extended outward.

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

It's therefore a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Birkeland could explain and simulate solar wind acceleration in terms of electricity and EM fields, astronomers are concerning themselves with something called "dark energy" that "mysteriously" accelerates plasma, but only out there somewhere we can't reach. :)

Whereas PC theory began in a lab, Lambda-CDM theory began on "paper". The mainstream has an annoying habit of preferring "paper' solutions like Chapman's math, rather than *physical solutions* like Birkeland's experiments. The problem of course is that paper solutions don't always apply to the real world, and Birkeland's beliefs won out over time. I'll be dead if I wait for the mainstream to figure out that he was correct about the acceleration of solar wind particles too. I'm afraid I approach astronomy and cosmology as standard scientific pursuits that can and should be explainable via standard physics. If I can't explain some specific distant observation via a logical explanation based on known forces of nature, I simply move on to something else that I can explain with PC/EU theory.

I don't just make up a new force of nature on paper, and even if I did, it would not invalidate PC theory in that process. Do you see my point at all here?
 
Ziggurat said:
In the case of liquids at negative pressures, it comes from the fact that the atoms attract each other and the container walls. So in order to expand the container, you need to do work to pull the atoms farther apart from each other and the container walls, increasing the potential energy of the system. But of course, force opposes the increase of potential energy, so you get an inwards force, and hence a negative pressure. This is really basic stuff, and you seem totally unaware of it.
Click to expand...

I have never heard someone try to describe molecular and atomic bond "stress" in terms of "negative pressure". It's an odd "lingo" to be sure. I'm going to have to read though that liquid link again very carefully. I see where you're heading with this concept, but you seem only to be applying "stress" to "bonds", you are not actually creating any "negative pressure" areas within the vacuum chamber or within the material. You are stressing bonds in this way, much like you might do with any ordinary solid. Sooner or later those bonds will 'break' from 'stress'. It's not actually "negative pressure" but it is an interesting *analogy*, I'll give you that much.
 
edd said:
I'm yet to see much you say that's right, but this could not be more wrong.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the Klein-Alfven "bang" theory by any chance? It doesn't include the notion of a 'creation date' per se, it's more of a cyclical idea.
 
Alfven-Klein

Michael Mozina said:
Have you ever read the Klein-Alfven "bang" theory by any chance?
Click to expand...
I did ask for a reference to this once, but it must have fallen by the wayside. Is there a paper? a book? Some accessible reference where the model is described? When you ask someone if they have read something, I think it would be good form to include a reference where one might actually do that.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Yikes! It will take me awhile to get through all 37 pages. :) FYI I am wrapping up some programming today, so it may be awhile before I've read through it.



It's kinda hard to speculate on why two authors chose not to include any PC/EU explanations. It is not as though none have been suggested.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

In fairness to sol, since he has me on ignore, I should point out that he raised an objection to this presentation earlier which I have not fully "check out" on my own yet. I should and will check out sol's objection, but it is not as though no one has attempted to provided such an "explanation" based on EM fields. The problem however is that even this idea "requires" inflation, and therefore it wouldn't necessarily quality as an empirically based "EU/PC" theory and most PC/EU theorists would probably therefore reject it. :)

EU/PC theory isn't like an ordinary cosmology theory. It does not attempt to look at cosmology from a "prophetic" orientation as though we can be absolutely certain when it all began, certain what will take place in the future, etc. It tends to focus on particle physical processes in plasma starting with processes inside our solar system, that are then extended outward.

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

It's therefore a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Birkeland could explain and simulate solar wind acceleration in terms of electricity and EM fields, astronomers are concerning themselves with something called "dark energy" that "mysteriously" accelerates plasma, but only out there somewhere we can't reach. :)

Whereas PC theory began in a lab, Lambda-CDM theory began on "paper". The mainstream has an annoying habit of preferring "paper' solutions like Chapman's math, rather than *physical solutions* like Birkeland's experiments. The problem of course is that paper solutions don't always apply to the real world, and Birkeland's beliefs won out over time. I'll be dead if I wait for the mainstream to figure out that he was correct about the acceleration of solar wind particles too. I'm afraid I approach astronomy and cosmology as standard scientific pursuits that can and should be explainable via standard physics. If I can't explain some specific distant observation via a logical explanation based on known forces of nature, I simply move on to something else that I can explain with PC/EU theory.

I don't just make up a new force of nature on paper, and even if I did, it would not invalidate PC theory in that process. Do you see my point at all here?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

So, what do we have here?

PC/EU explanations

an empirically based "EU/PC" theory

PC/EU theorists

EU/PC theory

PC theory

explain with PC/EU theory

PC theory.

Is that one theory? two? three? more?? Are any "PC/EU theorists" alive today? If so, who are they? Is MM one such?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Is that one theory?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

It is the same theory that Eric Lerner has written extensively about?

If so, who are they? Is MM one such?
Click to expand...

Yes.
Click to expand...
Part of the context is missing; here it is:

Are any "PC/EU theorists" alive today? If so, who are they? Is MM one such?

Since MM is alive, that answers both the first and third question (and partly the second).

Who are some of the other "PC/EU theorists" alive today?

Let me now ask you a point black question. Are you an advocate of inflation? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Huh? :confused:

In the right circumstances, inflation can be good for the health of a country or region's economy; in general I am an advocate of giving the central bank independence and tasking it to keep inflation within a clearly specified range, say 1-2%.

Oh, you mean that inflation! :yikes:

No.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have intentionally resisted trying to get into QM with this crowd, but on this issue there is no other way I can hope to communicate with you on this topic, and I respect you enough to at least "try". I don't really think I can reach most of the rest of this crew, but at the level of kinetic energy, I think I can explain it to you.

There are a few major facts in all particle interactions:

1) Mass of course, and size does matter in kinetic energy transfers.
2) Charge of the particle (electron vs. proton)
3) Velocity at point of "reconnection"
4) The fundamental transfer of the carrier particles of the EM field.
Click to expand...

1) Mass, yes. However, I don't recall particle physicists ever mentioning size in their calculations involving kinetic energy. It's all about momentum.

2) Agreed, though I don't see how this relates to the Casimir effect.

3) Not sure what you mean by "reconnection". However, I agree that velocity is a major factor in particle interactions. You could have lumped this in with number 1 by simply stating that p=mv.

4) This is kinda redundant with number 1.

There are lots of other factors mind you, but these are highly important issues that all relate to this topic.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are other factors, but I disagree that any of these has anything to do with the Casimir effect.

The Casimir effect has is obviously not occurring at the level of atoms.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It is due to the kinetic energy of the EM fields of the universe. They permeate all things.
Click to expand...

This is a statement within classical physics, not quantum mechanics.

How do we know the charge carrier particle of the EM field is involved in this process? The type of material we use turns out to be critical, and metallic plates tend to give us the best results. We know that the EM field has unique effects on magnetic materials. This is a huge hint.
Click to expand...

When did electrons enter the picture??? Besides, the plates are uncharged which sets boundaries conditions for the electromagnetic field. And the plates are most certainly not magnetic. Don't you think magnetic plates might fudge up the experiment a wee bit?

So, what is the huge hint again?

Those green lines are the carrier particles of the EM fields of the universe flowing through our box.
Click to expand...

No they are not. Look at your picture again. It's labeled for you. They are quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field of empty space as defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). More precisely, they are virtual particles which are better defined as fields in quantum field theory.

They are NOT electromagnetic fields that we can directly detect and measure with our instruments.

The metallic plates block/absorb some of that energy in the carrier particles these particles begin to align the atoms in the metallic plates.
Click to expand...

Once again, no they don't block/absorb anything in a physical sense. They set boundary conditions in such that because the plates are not charged, there is no classical electromagnetic field present. However, due to the HUP, there is still an fluctuating electromagnetic field in the empty space around the plates.

The kinetic energy is coming from the moving EM carrier particles that move through all things at wavelengths we may not even fathom.
What we do know is that there is no "negative pressure" between those plates. It is not even necessary to do this in a vacuum because it's an EM carrier kinetic energy transfer, not an atomic transfer of kinetic energy. There is in fact positive pressure in the best of "vacuums", and there are lots of carrier particles of the EM field flowing through the vacuums of space.

You can't say I didn't try to explain it.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I can't really follow what you are saying. You are mangling terminology and mixing classic physics with quantum mechanics. Actually, despite your claim about this being a discussion of quantum mechanics, you are still stuck on classical physics.

Perhaps, you could try to explain how pressures equivalent to one atmosphere are measured in an evacuated chamber?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Thanks.

It is the same theory that Eric Lerner has written extensively about?
Click to expand...

It's the same one "mainstream" cosmologists write about when they combine MHD theory and GR theory. Can't say I've personally read Lerner's work so I couldn't comment on it.

Huh? :confused:
Click to expand...

LOL! Only you could be confused with a "yes" answer and a yes or no question. (Ok maybe it was my spelling?) That was funny anyway. I have no idea who else might label themselves as someone who believes in EU/PC theory, whether they see some distinction between the two as you seem to do, etc. I simply define EU/PC theory as the combination of MHD theory and GR, and I have no idea how others define that label.

Oh, you mean that inflation! :yikes:

No.
Click to expand...

So why are you personally on that side of the aisle again?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.
Click to expand...
The point is that there is negative pressure involved in the Casimir effect. There is a net negative force on an area. Force divided by area is pressure. Thus the pressure is negative.
Of course now your atom idea is withdrawn, we are left with the physical measurement of a negative pressure.

Why do the papers report an negative force and so pressure when such a pressure cannot exist?

Michael Mozina said:
I really resent when folks attempt to suggest I have a tough time with nuclear physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. I have *a lot* of respect for nuclear physics theory even if I am curious about the outcome of the Higgs search, but I have *zero* respect for Lambda-CDM theory. Please keep that in mind as we continue these discussions. Nuclear physicists use real "experiments" to test their "theories", and real control mechanisms as well. There's no comparison in these two realms of "physics".
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you mean by this. Your "in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea" was just that - dumb. This was because it assumed that all experimental physicists (vacuum, nuclear, etc.) were not intelligent enough to take in account background effects, e.g.
  • vacuums are never perfect and so contain atoms.
  • background radiation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Give me a break. I won't bark up math on command for you or anyone else, and the only people who need ever benefit from my personal math skills are the people I love. Get over yourself. Math skills are not even the "be-all-end-all" of empirical physics. You forgot to bother even "experimenting" with your imaginary friends before slapping on math. You're doing "advanced calculus" with dark elves and monopole monkey destroying inflation faeries. What would you like me to say about your math? "Wow, what beautiful math"?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it is clear to everyone else here that your attempt to "debunk" Guth's paper has been a failure of epic monumental proportions. Physics is a mathematical science. We haven't even got past the abstract and you've already shown to us you are completely incapable of what you claimed you would do. If you can't do the maths where appropriate then you can't do the physics. Its as simple as that. If you don't want to do the maths then don't try to pick apart a mathematical theory (especially one you have no comprehension of). All you have is words. Words you spout that you don't even seem to vaguely comprehend. You made a claim regarding pressure and you were shown to be completely and utterly wrong. And this wasn't shown just through observations (which to any real physicist would be more than enough) but through actual laboratory physics which you claim to love so much.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......
Click to expand...
MM, do you enjoy digging your own hole?
Big Bang theories stem from the observations of a cosmological redshift although the idea of an expanding Universe can be dated a little earlier (the works of Friedmann and Lemaitre on good old GR). At no point did somebody decide "The universe was created on such and such a date......" and try to extrapolate from there. Quite the opposite. Multiple pieces of observational evidence have been used, together with the experimentally tested theory of General Relativity, to find different ways of dating the time since the Big Bang. These agree on a time of around 13.7 billion years.

So your above statement has put you in a rather difficult position.
Either:
You admit that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and thus show us all that you are in no position to make any kind of judgement whatsoever on the validity (or otherwise) of LCDM.
Or:
You admit that your above statement was a blatant lie, perpetuated deliberately in a crass, dirty and unscientific attempt to defend the original premise of this thread; thus removing the last tiny shred of credibility you have left.

So, which is it?
 
Tubbythin said:
Big Bang theories stem from the observations of a cosmological redshift although the idea of an expanding Universe can be dated a little earlier (the works of Friedmann and Lemaitre on good old GR).
Click to expand...

Hi TT,
Question wrt to above quote.
If the cosmological redshift and Hubble Law were proved to be incorrect, as many are trying to prove, where would this leave the BBT?
 
Skwinty said:
Hi TT,
Question wrt to above quote.
If the cosmological redshift and Hubble Law were proved to be incorrect, as many are trying to prove, where would this leave the BBT?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

The "Hubble Law" cannot be "proved to be incorrect".

It is an empirical relationship, simply the name given to a correlation between some datapoints. While not quite the same as "the sky is blue" or "the night sky is dark", it's pretty close. Does it make sense to say "if the night sky were proven to be not dark"?

The "cosmological redshift" also cannot be "proved to be incorrect".

In one respect, it is simply the name given to a prediction derivable from certain models (of the universe) built upon a theory in physics which goes by the name "General Relativity" (or the general theory of relativity).

In another respect, as part of science, the word "proof" is misleading (at best) and downright wrong (at worst). As a keen student of HPS - and a fan of Feyerabend to boot! - I'm a little surprised to see you using this word in this way.

To the intent of your question: it would depend on how it "were proved to be incorrect". Without at least some details of that how, there is no way to answer your question ... "the BBT" may be essentially unchanged, or it may turn out that we are specimens in some kind of giant collector's bottle, or ...
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
(bold added)

The "Hubble Law" cannot be "proved to be incorrect".


The "cosmological redshift" also cannot be "proved to be incorrect".

..
Click to expand...


My bad, not stated very well.
If the interpreted cause of redshift was incorrect or Hubble made some mistakes in his empirical measurements.

The reason I ask is:

The expansion of space, which is the predominant interpretation of cosmological redshift, is the foundation of the BBT, specifically when running time in reverse.

Or, am I misunderstanding the issue?
 
Skwinty said:
Hi TT,
Question wrt to above quote.
If the cosmological redshift and Hubble Law were proved to be incorrect, as many are trying to prove, where would this leave the BBT?
Click to expand...

I think you're asking what would happen if, say, the redshift of distant objects turned out to be due to something other than recession velocity? Tired light, for example?

If that were firmly established, it would have many effects. It would probably overturn GR, because GR does not contain any stable, static cosmological solutions. One would then be left in the very awkward position of explaining all the phenomena GR explains so well with something else.

It would overturn BBT - if distant objects aren't receding, there's no reason to think there was a bang in our past. One would be left struggling to understand how all the various paradoxes associated with static universes would be resolved (Olber's, 2nd law of thermo, etc.) and how to explain the CMB, the many observed changes as a function of redshift in galaxy clustering, metallicity, stellar populations, etc. (these are easy to understand in BBT, because higher redshift means greater distance means longer ago means the conditions in the universe were very different - but they are incomprehensible in a static model).

It would overturn some large chunk of non-gravitational physics, because there is no known mechanism that can explain cosmological redshifts other than an expanding universe.
 
Skwinty said:
My bad, not stated very well.
If the interpreted cause of redshift was incorrect or Hubble made some mistakes in his empirical measurements.
Click to expand...
[nitpick]

Hubble made a great many mistakes in his empirical measurements! :jaw-dropp

However, astronomers subsequently tested the Hubble relationship a bazillion ways to Sunday, and the relationship holds (albeit in a somewhat different form than Hubble's first publication of it).

For example, one big surprise was "Dark Energy" - the line turned out to be not linear, but somewhat bent, and a shorthand way to describe the apparent bending (of the curve) is "accelerated expansion", or "Dark Energy". Of course, dozens (hundreds?) of astronomers - and others - tried to find fault with the work of the two teams who (independently and essentially simultaneously) announced finding this DE. And if you think MM and Z have been given a hard time here, you should know that the scrutiny the DE observations - initial and subsequent - got makes their grilling seem very mild indeed.

[/nitpick]
The reason I ask is:

The expansion of space, which is the predominant interpretation of cosmological redshift, is the foundation of the BBT, specifically when running time in reverse.

Or, am I misunderstanding the issue?
Click to expand...
You are, in one respect.

The CMB, the primordial abundance of light nuclides, and large-scale structure are just as much "foundation of the BBT" as the Hubble relationship. And, as si has noted, the one thing which ties this all together is GR.

The true theoretical underpinning of the BBT is GR.

And that is the reason why, when all is said and done, that what "many are trying to prove" is nothing other than a falsification of GR (or a dramatic revision of it).

Once you grasp this you can easily see why PC (as defined by Lerner, for example) is the very definition of scientific woo.
 
thanks DRD and SI,
I can now understand why the mainstream is skeptical of these alternatives as much is at stake.

After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am not a big fan of PC/EU although I do concede that these alternatives may have a basis in some minor features in current cosmology.
 
Last edited:
Since I went to the bother of typing out a more detailed reply to essentially the same question in the other thread, let me quote it here:

sol invictus said:
Perpetual Student said:
Do you think it is remotely possible that we have it all wrong regarding cosmological expansion and the big bang?
Click to expand...

It is remotely possible, yes. But the odds are so low I can't even estimate them.

Here's what would have to be wrong:

  • GR (since there are no stable static cosmo solutions), Newtonian gravity (same reason), and in fact any theory in which gravity is attractive and there are no repulsive forces of comparable size acting over cosmological distances (same reason).

  • that the redshift of distant objects is due to recession velocities (because if they are, the universe is expanding).

  • that all of the myriad effects we see correlated with redshift - amounts of metals and other elements (you see those via absorption and emission lines in spectra), composition of stellar populations, shapes and configuration of large scale structures, etc. etc. - have some explanation other than that the universe was different when it was younger. Hard to imagine why, in a static universe, distance from earth would be correlated with so many changes in those things, isn't it?

  • the simple explanation of the CMB that arises in BBT (in a static universe, it would have to be something like that there's a very hot, perfectly thermalized, perfectly spherical wall centered on the earth and about 13 billion lightyears in radius).

  • the 2nd law of thermodynamics - if the universe is eternal, it should now be in equilibrium. Yet stars are still forming and igniting.

  • as much of non-gravitational physics as is need to account for the redshift by some other means.

Point being, there's a vast array of many different kinds of evidence that all indicates that the universe is expanding and was very different in the past. For it all to have another interpretation is.... very difficult to imagine.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Read through my explanation to Derek one time. I think you'll have a better idea what I'm trying to explain. It's all about kinetic energy and the kinetic energy of the carrier particle of the EM field. Remember that photons carry "kinetic energy", and it is better to view the whole process as a transfer of kinetic energy rather than mass.
Click to expand...


Your argument that photons carry kinetic energy is a semantic one, lets see the math Michael.

The mass of a photon is very low, it does not increase with frequecy.
The speed of a photon (dependant on media) is invariant.

So if 'kinetic energy' is roughly equivalent to momentum being related to the product of mass and velocity, you would have invaiant 'kinetic energy' for photons.

So you will say that 'but the frequency is higher' and so I ask,

How then do you relate that to 'kinetic energy' ? The common use of 'kenetic energy' is the related to teh work required to get an object up to a certain speed, the speed of a photon is invaiant and does not change with frequence, nor does it's mass.


From what you are saying in other posts, how do you represent the 'kinetic energy' of EM fields, can you show how it relates to any of the common equations that describe EM fields?

You seem to be using words as you wish again.

:)
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
It is the same theory that Eric Lerner has written extensively about?
Click to expand...
It's the same one "mainstream" cosmologists write about when they combine MHD theory and GR theory. Can't say I've personally read Lerner's work so I couldn't comment on it.

[...]

I have no idea who else might label themselves as someone who believes in EU/PC theory, whether they see some distinction between the two as you seem to do, etc. I simply define EU/PC theory as the combination of MHD theory and GR, and I have no idea how others define that label.

[...]
Click to expand...
"It" - a one and only one it - being <"EU/PC" theory> a.k.a. <EU/PC theory> (without the quotation marks) a.k.a. <PC theory> a.k.a. <PC/EU theory>.

IOW, whatever "it" is, it is known to only one person; namely, MM ... or, perhaps, MM knows of only one person who knows this it (MM himself).

And here we start another LWRRc (Lather, Wash, Rinse, Repeat cycle) ... but at least this time round I, personally, have a better understanding of why MM's presentation of this (the "it") comes across as incoherent and inconsistent.

I'll come back to the rest of your post later MM, and will also look more closely at "believes in" later too.
 
Dancing David said:
Your argument that photons carry kinetic energy is a semantic one, lets see the math Michael.

The mass of a photon is very low, it does not increase with frequecy.
The speed of a photon (dependant on media) is invariant.

So if 'kinetic energy' is roughly equivalent to momentum being related to the product of mass and velocity, you would have invaiant 'kinetic energy' for photons.

So you will say that 'but the frequency is higher' and so I ask,

How then do you relate that to 'kinetic energy' ? The common use of 'kenetic energy' is the related to teh work required to get an object up to a certain speed, the speed of a photon is invaiant and does not change with frequence, nor does it's mass.


From what you are saying in other posts, how do you represent the 'kinetic energy' of EM fields, can you show how it relates to any of the common equations that describe EM fields?

You seem to be using words as you wish again.

:)
Click to expand...

I think this is unfair. By the same argument you would surely have photons having invariant (well, zero) momentum, but they do not. Your argument is flawed in defining momentum as the product of mass and velocity.

I agree that it's pointless to draw some kind of distinction between the overall energy of a photon and kinetic energy and that kinetic energy is poorly defined, if at all, for a photon, from what I can see, but I think your approach to this is wrong.
 
Skwinty said:
My bad, not stated very well.
If the interpreted cause of redshift was incorrect or Hubble made some mistakes in his empirical measurements.

The reason I ask is:

The expansion of space, which is the predominant interpretation of cosmological redshift, is the foundation of the BBT, specifically when running time in reverse.

Or, am I misunderstanding the issue?
Click to expand...

As DRD said, Hubble's did get stuff wrong IIRC he assumed all Cepheid variables were the same (that is, they obeyed the same period luminosity relation) when, it turns out, there are 2 different sorts. Its a while since I learned all this. Can DRD or somebody confirm I'm in the right ballpark here?
As for answering the above, Sol Invictus gave a (well 2, in fact) better answer(s) than I could. But... yes, if the interpretation of the redshift were completely wrong then BBT would be in trouble. This, however, would not lead to everyone becoming plasma cosmologists because
a) They don't seem to have an alternative explanation that is in anyway close to matching observations (despite what they might claim).
b) They cannot even hope to explain other cosmological observations coherently.
 
Tubbythin said:
This, however, would not lead to everyone becoming plasma cosmologists because
a) They don't seem to have an alternative explanation that is in anyway close to matching observations (despite what they might claim).
b) They cannot even hope to explain other cosmological observations coherently.
Click to expand...


Agreed, that is why I stated "I am not a big fan of PC/EU although I do concede that these alternatives may have a basis in some minor features in current cosmology."
 
edd said:
I think this is unfair. By the same argument you would surely have photons having invariant (well, zero) momentum, but they do not. Your argument is flawed in defining momentum as the product of mass and velocity.

I agree that it's pointless to draw some kind of distinction between the overall energy of a photon and kinetic energy and that kinetic energy is poorly defined, if at all, for a photon, from what I can see, but I think your approach to this is wrong.
Click to expand...

While he may have some details wrong, I think what DD is pointing out is that standard (i.e. Newtonian) notions of momentum and kinetic energy obviously do not apply to photons, or EM fields - and it's a good and correct point.

The energy in EM fields obviously does not come from little particles flying around. First, photons have exactly zero mass, and they all move at the same speed (c). What distinguishes them and determines their momentum and energy is their frequency - a concept that makes no sense at all for a little ball flying around. Moreover, one can have completely static configurations of fields - like a constant electric field - which carry energy. If you want, you can think of that energy as arising from the spatial variation of the scalar potential. The field is constant and static, and in that gauge not even the potential is changing with time or moving, so to call that energy "kinetic" (which comes from the Greek for "motion") is very strange indeed.

Anyway, like most arguments with MM it just boils down to the usual sillyness. Physics cranks take technical terms and define them in their own head, and then argue with others about true statements which don't make sense using their personal definitions. It's pointless to argue unless you can manage to explain to the crank that his definition is non-standard - otherwise it just goes around and around in circles.
 
sol invictus said:
While he may have some details wrong, I think what DD is pointing out is that standard (i.e. Newtonian) notions of momentum and kinetic energy obviously do not apply to photons, or EM fields - and it's a good and correct point.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I wouldn't dispute that, and heaven forbid I be misinterpreted as giving MM any support ;)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
IOW, whatever "it" is, it is known to only one person; namely, MM ... or, perhaps, MM knows of only one person who knows this it (MM himself).
Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest that mainstream beliefs are all consistent and invariable and consistent from individual to individual? Look and you and topic of inflation! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....

Look at "dark energy". It got stuffed into the theory only relatively recently.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I have never heard someone try to describe molecular and atomic bond "stress" in terms of "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

Well, the idea is quite common. Which is why that article keeps using the term "negative pressure".

It's an odd "lingo" to be sure.
Click to expand...

Not at all. It comes directly from [latex]$P=-\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}$[/latex], a completely standard way to define pressure. You may not be familiar with it, but this is actually pretty standard stuff in physics.

I see where you're heading with this concept, but you seem only to be applying "stress" to "bonds", you are not actually creating any "negative pressure" areas within the vacuum chamber or within the material.
Click to expand...

First off, it's not a vacuum chamber in the case of liquids at negative pressure. Secondly, that negative pressure is very much present throughout the liquid. And thirdly, the attraction between different liquid molecules is generally not called a "bond", because they aren't actually bound to each other.

You are stressing bonds in this way, much like you might do with any ordinary solid. Sooner or later those bonds will 'break' from 'stress'.
Click to expand...

So what? Yes, there's a maximum negative pressure that any given liquid can sustain. Doesn't mean it's not negative.

It's not actually "negative pressure" but it is an interesting *analogy*, I'll give you that much.
Click to expand...

In what way is it not negative pressure? You claimed before that it wasn't negative because it was only a relative negative, but that's quite clearly wrong, it is an absolute negative. You seem to be trying to alter what you mean by pressure so that it can never be negative. But that's not the way it works. You come up with a definition first, then you figure out whether or not it's negative under that definition. And under every standard definition (whether it's the one I gave above, or simply outward force per unit area), the pressure in liquids can be negative.

But this does shed some light on the problem that you seem to be having with negative vacuum pressure. Whatever definition of pressure you are working with, it most definitely isn't a standard one, or you would have understood exactly how liquids can support negative pressures, and understood it as such and not merely an analogy. So perhaps you had better explain what you think pressure is, because it's not what everyone else thinks it is.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, the idea is quite common. Which is why that article keeps using the term "negative pressure".
Click to expand...

The idea of inflation is quite common too. That does not mean it is a correct statement. There is no region in that piston that achieves "negative pressure". You have *stress* being applied to bonds in the liquid but no area of the region has "negative pressure", just "positive pressure" and stress. The fact there are molecules inside that container prohibit it from even being a 'pure vacuum' (devoid of all atoms), let alone a "negative pressure" environment. The term "negative pressure" is a misleading idea, since all you are doing is "stressing' the bonds of the atoms in the liquid, much like you could also do with a solid. The bonds eventually break and that is that. It's not negative pressure, it's "stress" of atomic/molecular bonds.

First off, it's not a vacuum chamber in the case of liquids at negative pressure. Secondly, that negative pressure is very much present throughout the liquid.
Click to expand...

No. The atoms have "pressure" and volume all on their own. You're simply *pulling at them* until these bonds reach a critical stage and the show is over. It would be the same if you put "stress" on a solid until something broke. It would not be a demonstration of "negative pressure". The liquid idea makes it somewhat different than stressing the bonds of a solid, but it's the same basic principle. There are "bonds" that must be broken by "stress".

And thirdly, the attraction between different liquid molecules is generally not called a "bond", because they aren't actually bound to each other.
Click to expand...

There is in fact a "surface tension" and bonding present in most liquids. The terms your using are not consistent with chemistry. Look up hydrogen bonds in water. There are plenty of "bonds" between atoms, even in liquids.

So what? Yes, there's a maximum negative pressure that any given liquid can sustain. Doesn't mean it's not negative.
Click to expand...

It's pure stress! It's would be like putting solid gelatin in the container and doing the same thing. There is no "negative pressure" inside that chamber, just stress on atomic bonds. You could do that with virtually any solid too if you attached the piston to the solid. It's just a chemical bond you're breaking with "stress". There is no point in the vacuum where "negative pressure" exists.

In what way is it not negative pressure?
Click to expand...

There is no region in the cylinder that has "negative pressure". There are bonds that have "stress", but the presence of atoms in this structure show that there is a "greater than zero" amount of atoms present, and all you are doing is stressing the bonds of the atoms. You could do that with a solid.

You claimed before that it wasn't negative because it was only a relative negative, but that's quite clearly wrong, it is an absolute negative.
Click to expand...

Well, you are correct that there is more than one tor being applied and I didn't catch that at first. My point still stands however.

You seem to be trying to alter what you mean by pressure so that it can never be negative. But that's not the way it works. You come up with a definition first, then you figure out whether or not it's negative under that definition. And under every standard definition (whether it's the one I gave above, or simply outward force per unit area), the pressure in liquids can be negative.
Click to expand...

Come on. You're changing terms as go. First we were talking about negative pressure in a vacuum. Now you're trying to compare that to stress on bonds in a liquid. These are not the same concepts because a vacuum *has no bonds* to prevent anything moving. You're comparing apples to oranges. Guth needs a "negative pressure" not in a "liquid", but rather he claimed one existed in a vacuum *devoid* of molecular bonds to hold any "negative pressure" as you are calling it. These are two *entirely* different circumstances in the first place.
 
Reality Check said:
The point is that there is negative pressure involved in the Casimir effect.
Click to expand...

No, there is no area in the experiment that experiences ''negative pressure"! The whole thing can be done in virtually *any* positive pressure environment and we can't even make a "pure vacuum" with *no pressure", let alone "negative pressure".

There is a net negative force on an area. Force divided by area is pressure. Thus the pressure is negative.
Click to expand...

Now your just confusing force with pressure. The "force" is actually coming from the *outside* of the plates. Anything inside the plates is due to molecular attraction. There is no "negative pressure" involved.

Of course now your atom idea is withdrawn, we are left with the physical measurement of a negative pressure.
Click to expand...

Hoy. No. We are left with *subatomic pressure* in the form of EM carrier fields. I botched my explanation to Derek by using the term "magnetic plates" when I meant "metallic plates", but the rest is valid. The whole reason that the type of material is relevant is because EM fields have unique effects on many metallic objects like steel. This tells us the carrier particles involved, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with "negative pressure".

Why do the papers report an negative force and so pressure when such a pressure cannot exist?
Click to expand...

Why do they report "magnetic reconnection"? Beats me. Pressure and force are not the same. I have have positive pressure in the chamber and "directional force" that pushes the plates together. That's all that is happening here.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Your "in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea" was just that - dumb. This was because it assumed that all experimental physicists (vacuum, nuclear, etc.) were not intelligent enough to take in account background effects, e.g.
Click to expand...

I was only trying to use the idea as an *analogy* and all that did is create pure confusion. As I noted earlier on several occasions, the WIKI explanation is quite valid. Where does it say "negative pressure" exactly in that article by the way?

Those arrows are in fact "pressure". There is "more pressure" on the outside of the plates, and 'less pressure" between them, but even the subatomic process is based on "more kinetic energy on the outside and less of it on the inside". It's all positive kinetic pressure, even at the subatomic level. There is simply "more force" outside the places than inside the plates due to "positive kinetic pressure".
 
Tubbythin said:
I'm sorry but it is clear to everyone else here that your attempt to "debunk" Guth's paper has been a failure of epic monumental proportions.
Click to expand...

You've all failed to demonstrate any sort of "negative pressure" in a vacuum. The failure has been yours, and indeed it's been a failure of epic proportions because Guth's theory is dead in the water unless you can demonstrate such a thing is possible.

Physics is a mathematical science.
Click to expand...

Mathematics can indeed correctly describe the physical processes of nature, but physics is a physical process that can often be very difficult if not impossible to correctly mathematically model.

We haven't even got past the abstract and you've already shown to us you are completely incapable of what you claimed you would do.
Click to expand...

Er, you must have missed the key quote I pulled from the body of the paper about negative pressure in a vacuum? I haven't even really focused on the rest of the problems in this paper (which was actually "falsified" (if you can call it that) by the way). I'm simply noting that he has a *key* problem in his understanding of a vacuum and physics of a vacuum. There can be no such thing as "negative pressure" in a vacuum.

If you can't do the maths where appropriate then you can't do the physics.
Click to expand...

BS. I can turn on my plasma ball and watch it function and know absolutely nothing about the 'math' that might be useful in describing the motion of those filaments in the plasma. You can do "physics" in a physical way too without having any preconceived understanding of the math.

Its as simple as that. If you don't want to do the maths then don't try to pick apart a mathematical theory (especially one you have no comprehension of).
Click to expand...

The primary problem with Guth's claims are not related to his "math". You folks keep insisting that only mathematics matters, but the physics also matters. Vacuums do not contain "negative pressure". They can't. That's the problem in Guth's theory. He stuck a minus sign in from on pressure. Mathematically it works. Physically it does not.

All you have is words. Words you spout that you don't even seem to vaguely comprehend.
Click to expand...

No, all you have are math formulas applied to words that make no physical sense. There is no such thing as a 'negative pressure' in a vacuum. The best we can ever achieve is a "low pressure". Not every flaw in every theory is related to math. When are you going to accept that reality?

You made a claim regarding pressure and you were shown to be completely and utterly wrong. And this wasn't shown just through observations (which to any real physicist would be more than enough) but through actual laboratory physics which you claim to love so much.
Click to expand...
That is not true. First of all this was *not* a vacuum. It was a "liquid" with "bonding" processes in the liquid. You could have done the same thing with a solid and stressed it's bonds until it broke in a similar manner, but that is not 'negative pressure', that is "stress", put on "bonds" in the liquid.

It's irrational to even be comparing a vacuum to a solid or a liquid. It would be rational to compare it to a gas or a plasma, but Guth expressly applied this idea to a "vacuum", not a "liquid".
 
Holy cow this forum moves fast. I have a number of honey-do projects to finish up today, so it will take me awhile to catch up to all the comments since last night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom