Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
(apologies, I couldn't quite muster the energy for a serious answer. The idea people have some kind of absolute religious faith in LCDM is just too off the wall for me)

How so? According to even the "true believers"(TM), inflation does not exist in nature at this point in time. It is therefore a pure "act of faith" to believe it had anything at all to do with a creation event. When did anyone empirically demonstrate the existence of "dark energy" or SUSY related "dark matter" in controlled experimentation?

Most religions require "faith" in only *one* entity that the believer cannot empirically demonstrate in controlled experimentation. Lambda religion takes at least three pure acts of faith. Inflation is now dead and gone according to the theory so that specific "belief" is by necessity a "pure" act of faith as it relates to empirical physical demonstrations and will forever remain a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer". The statement "dark energy did it" is certainly no better than any religious claim. SUSY oriented "dark matter" theory is based on *non standard* particle physics theories. Lambda-religion has it's own trilogy of entities that defy empirical support.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

(the kind of empirical physics that's really really really important for cosmology) supports LCDM and utterly dismantles EU.

You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math. EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

GeeMack said:
No, he didn't. Pretty much his only concern was the aurora effect.

Evidently you didn't read his work.

He made some pretty little pictures

Er no. They are called "pretty little empirical *science* experiments (with pictures)", something your industry seems to have no appreciation for whatsoever.

that looked to you like some other stuff on the Sun.

It looked that way to him as well since he was the one who originally suggested it.

By your methodology Birkeland proved that Saturn is a hollow brass ball and the rings are glowing electrons...

No, it demonstrates that EM fields "may" have helped arrange the material in the rings around the equator.

I'm sure everyone here would agree, Michael, that anyone who would claim to be doing real science that way, you know, by making things up because it looks like something in a picture, is a complete idiot.

You guys don't even know what real "experimentation" is, or what a real "prediction" from experimentation is all about. Birkeland didn't have any problem explaining and even simulating solar wind. 100 years later and you folks are still scratching your heads, and you can't figure it out. You folks forgot what "experimentation" is for, and you forgot to check out any of your beliefs in real experiments with real control mechanisms. Birkeland did his work "the old fashion way", and he was over 100 years ahead of you guys even today. Solar wind? Big mystery to the mainstream. Jets? Forget Birkeland's experiments, it's "unexplained". Coronal loop discharges around the atmosphere of the sphere? Nah, you can't figure those out either.

Only a complete idiot would fail to respect and admire the work that Birkeland did in the lab, in the field, and yes, even on paper with math formulas.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Tubbythin said:

And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations

Click to expand...

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

[...]

There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

As in, an observation of an object beyond the solar system?

Easy enough to answer, in a purely empirical fashion, if it's just going outside on a dark, cloudless (and maybe moonless) night and looking up at the sky (in a certain direction).

And also easy if it's through a hand-built telescope.

It begins to get a little trickier when it's a photographic plate or film that's doing the 'observing'.

And trickier still if it's an array of CCDs+processing.

....

So what is it if it's something that the H.E.S.S. team reports?

Or something you download from the Spitzer website?

Surely the further you get from what your unaided eyes tell you, the more an "observation" becomes inextricably tied to an acceptance of various parts of the standard physics textbook?

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Evidently you didn't read his work.

Er no. They are called "pretty little empirical *science* experiments (with pictures)", something your industry seems to have no appreciation for whatsoever.

It looked that way to him as well since he was the one who originally suggested it.

No, it demonstrates that EM fields "may" have helped arrange the material in the rings around the equator.

You guys don't even know what real "experimentation" is, or what a real "prediction" from experimentation is all about. Birkeland didn't have any problem explaining and even simulating solar wind. 100 years later and you folks are still scratching your heads, and you can't figure it out. You folks forgot what "experimentation" is for, and you forgot to check out any of your beliefs in real experiments with real control mechanisms. Birkeland did his work "the old fashion way", and he was over 100 years ahead of you guys even today. Solar wind? Big mystery to the mainstream. Jets? Forget Birkeland's experiments, it's "unexplained". Coronal loop discharges around the atmosphere of the sphere? Nah, you can't figure those out either.

Only a complete idiot would fail to respect and admire the work that Birkeland did in the lab, in the field, and yes, even on paper with math formulas.

I was right!

Well, one out of three (so far) ...

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

An observation is something you observe. For instance we observe "redshifted photons". The mainstream "interprets" that "observation" to be related to "expansion of space".

As in, an observation of an object beyond the solar system?

It doesn't need to be outside the solar system. I observe solar wind. I observe bright coronal loops. I observe "jets" coming from the sun. I observe "aurora" in the sky. Birkeland observed aurora and "interpreted" this phenomenon to be related to electrical current. He then *experimented* with his presumed "cause" to make sure that he could demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between aurora around spheres in a vacuum and electrical current. In those "experiments" (another thing you folks don't understand) he demonstrated a physical cause/effect relationship between current flow and aurora.

Easy enough to answer, in a purely empirical fashion, if it's just going outside on a dark, cloudless (and maybe moonless) night and looking up at the sky (in a certain direction).

A pure 'observation' cannot necessarily tell us the "cause" of a specific observation. That's what "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" are for. Birkeland didn't just "assume" that "electricity did it", he "experimented" with his ideas, and demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between lights around the poles and electrical current.

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

If the "standard physics textbook" claims "inflation did it", then it's no longer just a pure "observation", is it? When astronomers start trying to "verify" the existence of SUSY particles from distant, uncontrolled observations, its no longer an "observation" but rather it's an "act of faith" in something that cannot be demonstrated empirically. I've seen all sorts of "properties" being assigned to "dark matter", none of which are actual "observations" from controlled experiments, but rather "leaps of faith" devoid of any empirical lab support. Gamma rays don't come from SUSY particles in a lab. That is an "interpretation" of their "faith" related some belief they hold in SUSY theory.

Dancing David · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How so? According to even the "true believers"(TM), inflation does not exist in nature at this point in time. It is therefore a pure "act of faith" to believe it had anything at all to do with a creation event. When did anyone empirically demonstrate the existence of "dark energy" or SUSY related "dark matter" in controlled experimentation?

Most religions require "faith" in only *one* entity that the believer cannot empirically demonstrate in controlled experimentation. Lambda religion takes at least three pure acts of faith. Inflation is now dead and gone according to the theory so that specific "belief" is by necessity a "pure" act of faith as it relates to empirical physical demonstrations and will forever remain a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer". The statement "dark energy did it" is certainly no better than any religious claim. SUSY oriented "dark matter" theory is based on *non standard* particle physics theories. Lambda-religion has it's own trilogy of entities that defy empirical support.

And once again you are making a philosophical distiction between observations in a lab and observations not is a lab. (What was that about Arp? His oberservations are valid?)

Funny double standard that makes no sense.

Just semantics.

How do youe explain the gravity effects again? MACHOs are not going to make 90% of the matter that gravity says is there. So there is a theory of dark matter. A thoery is an approximate model.

Yukawa were particles were doubted by people just like you, but they exist. Or they at least are a good approximate model.

Dark matter is a hypothesis, you are the one saying you know what reality is, which as stated before is nonsense.

We only have approximate models, there are not enough MACHOs to account for the observed gravitational effects. So hypothesize a particle that interacts only with gravity.

Big whoop. Continue your ranting, it destroys what credibility you have.

Dancing David · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math. EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

Ah yes ,like your explanation of why the solar wind exists, that you refuse to defend.

let us reveiew shall we?

1. You say that the sun has a negative change.
2. You say that the heliosphere has a positive charge.

Fine great but then you contradict yourself
-the solar wind is made up of positive and neutral particles as well, but gosh your mechanism only accounts for negative partciles. Insert some magical thinking here will you.
-negative particles attracted to teh heliosphere, which somehow has no defintion, bounds or meaning, so if someone asks why the particles just don't neutralize and stop moving you say something like 'flow'.

Your theory is not only contradictory it is not supported by laboratory evidence either.

Where is the lab evidence that your negative particles will drag along positive ones in the solar wind? Oh what was that they are no longer positive they are now neutral, where do the positive ones come from?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

Click to expand...

An observation is something you observe. For instance we observe "redshifted photons". The mainstream "interprets" that "observation" to be related to "expansion of space".

[...]

Actually, we don't.

We observe lines on a computer monitor, or patterns of light and dark in a photographic plate.

Using textbook physics, we interpret what we observe as "redshifted photons".

That interpretation implies - or requires, take your pick - that the parts of the physics in the textbook that were used to arrive at this interpretation are valid for making that interpretation.

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

Click to expand...

If the "standard physics textbook" claims "inflation did it", then it's no longer just a pure "observation", is it? When astronomers start trying to "verify" the existence of SUSY particles from distant, uncontrolled observations, its no longer an "observation" but rather it's an "act of faith" in something that cannot be demonstrated empirically. I've seen all sorts of "properties" being assigned to "dark matter", none of which are actual "observations" from controlled experiments, but rather "leaps of faith" devoid of any empirical lab support. Gamma rays don't come from SUSY particles in a lab. That is an "interpretation" of their "faith" related some belief they hold in SUSY theory.

It's much simpler wrt what's been discussed in the last few (dozen?) posts ...

... "standard physics textbook" includes the concept of pressure, and negative pressure; the concept of negative energy; the concept of ...

At least one of these - and perhaps all - are essential parts of the logic chain from some data file (in FITS format?) to "here's the spectrum of {insert object name here} as obtained by the HST {insert instrument name here} on {insert date and time here}".

I can't be 100% sure, but I think that, by the MM approach, almost nothing obtained by modern astronomical telescopes and instruments can be "observations" ... because they all require acceptance of parts of the standard physics textbook that you have stated - in no uncertain terms - to be wrong.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
He seems to be under the utterly deluded impression that external literature actually agrees with him.

You mean the literature that calls this a "force" and shows the blue arrows pointing they way I suggested?

Eg Wikipedia and his reference to Boyer. Both of which entirely contradict what he has been trying to claim.

Hoy. It's a *force* according to those links, and Boyer's work blows your theory out of the water. The experiments usually take place in "positive pressure" environments that have nothing to do with the Casimir "force".

Oh yeah, he thought Einstein agreed with him too.

Einstein set the constant to ZERO and called his variation of a Lambda theory his "greatest blunder".

Tubbythin · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

We have multiple observations whose interpretations are all consistent with the Universe expanding and utterly inconsistent with a static Universe. If you have an alternative interpretation that is consistent with the observations please do show us. But the fact that when ever these cosmological observations are brought up you resort to talking about solar physics strongly indicates that you do not have an alternative.

You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math.

These observations are empirical. You can't pretend your theory has any cosmological validity when it utterly fails to explain so many empirical cosmological observations. Well you can. But not many people are going to take you seriously.

EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

Those "observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora" have as much to do with cosmology as atomic physics does to bridge engineering. Either come up with a consistent theory that explains at least as many of the cosmological observations as well as LCDM or you have nothing. Nada. Zilch. A big fat zero.

Tubbythin · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You mean the literature that calls this a "force" and shows the blue arrows pointing they way I suggested?

I mean the literature that quote Casimir's calculation as a force divided by an area (any idea what a force divided by an area is) and does a detailed calculation using second quantization. Oh and links to an article on Casimir pressure. Oh, and makes no reference to ideal gases or neutrinos.

Hoy. It's a *force* according to those links, and Boyer's work blows you theory out of the water. The experiments usually take place in "positive pressure" environments that have nothing to do with the Casimir "force".

Boyer's work shows that the Casimir effect can give a negative or positive force depending on the boundary conditins. In exact agreement to what everybody except you has been saying.

Einstein set the constant to ZERO and called his variation of a Lambda theory his "greatest blunder". [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/boggled.gif[/qimg]

Yes. And what does setting the cosmo constant to zero mean. It means that, if his theory of GR is right, spacetime absolutely and unequivocally must be expanding or contracting. In direct contradiction to what you have been claiming. Do you not learn anything? I dunno how many times you've been told this now.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
We have multiple observations whose interpretations are all consistent with the Universe expanding and utterly inconsistent with a static Universe.

EU theory does not require a static universe.

If you have an alternative interpretation that is consistent with the observations please do show us.

Which observations? You mean those observations of high speed solar wind? You mean those "jets" of plasma flying off the sun? You mean those million degree coronal loops? Which 'observations' are most important when it comes to understanding the workings of our universe?

But the fact that when ever these cosmological observations are brought up you resort to talking about solar physics strongly indicates that you do not have an alternative.

I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

These observations are empirical.

The observation of solar wind is empirical too. Why do you focus on one type of observation and not another? Which observations are most "critical" to our human condition?

FYI, "redshift" is "observed". "Space expansion' is "interpreted".

You can't pretend your theory has any cosmological validity when it utterly fails to explain so many empirical cosmological observations. Well you can. But not many people are going to take you seriously.

Then you can't pretend Lambda theory has any validity when it utterly fails to explain so many observations inside this galaxy and solar system.

Those "observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora" have as much to do with cosmology as atomic physics does to bridge engineering.

And you know this because? That "acceleration" you observe in solar wind and in galaxies as well are absolutely unrelated, because........??????

Either come up with a consistent theory that explains at least as many of the cosmological observations as well as LCDM or you have nothing. Nada. Zilch. A big fat zero.

I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics. That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
I mean the literature that quote Casimir's calculation as a force divided by an area (any idea what a force divided by an area is) and does a detailed calculation using second quantization.

It's a *force* (not pressure) that comes from the EM field. The "pressure" of a "vacuum" has nothing to do with the EM field.

Oh and links to an article on Casimir pressure. Oh, and makes no reference to ideal gases or neutrinos.

Gah. That is because it's a *FORCE*, unrelated to the "pressure" in a vacuum/chamber. The neutrino example was simply to demonstrate that there is a lot of kinetic energy flowing through everything all the time.

Boyer's work shows that the Casimir effect can give a negative or positive force depending on the boundary conditins. In exact agreement to what everybody except you has been saying.

Er, no. Your side has been claiming this is a form of "negative pressure". It's a "force" unrelated to "pressure" that comes from the EM field. It can attract or repel depending on the geometry involved. It is not a demonstration of "negative pressure" as you folks claimed.

Yes. And what does setting the cosmo constant to zero mean. It means that, if his theory of GR is right, spacetime absolutely and unequivocally must be expanding or contracting.

False. It means that *if no other factors are involved*, it must expand or contract. In the presence of pervasive and persistent EM fields however that may not be true anymore. In such a case EM fields are not necessarily directly related to GR theory so there is no point in stuffing their influence into (inside of) GR theory in a sort of "ad hoc" manner. MHD theory however might come in very handy when looking at external (to the mass objects) energy.

In direct contradiction to what you have been claiming. Do you not learn anything? I dunno how many times you've been told this now.

I'm open to a static or non static universe. I'm not actually *claiming* anything about the expansion process other than you cannot empirically demonstrate is has anything at all to do with "space expansion" or "superliminal expansion".
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Note that this paper is a "math proof", so I know you will now immediately now bow to his mathematical wisdom and immediately give up your belief in "space expansion"?

edd · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Actually that's rather more a philosophical question, akin to which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose. The mathematics is quite clear, but whether you choose to consider it an expansion of space or a continuous process of doppler shifting is a matter more of how to interpret the equations.

The predictions of the model and the evidence for the dark sector are unchanged by this. It's verging on a matter of wording more than anything else.

I would explain this caveat in interpretation if it's raised, but for the most part the space expansion approach has benefits in clarity over the other viewpoints in my opinion, although I wouldn't claim it has any benefit in terms of actual scientific power (naturally, as both are an interpretation of GR).

It certainly has no bearing on the argument here that I can see.

edd · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics. That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

This is a very weak approach to science. If cosmologists had simply shrugged and said "I don't know" when presented with the evidence we have right now, what would we have done next?

Instead, we have a currently successful model in the form of LCDM which we can attempt to find evidence against.

Saying "I don't know" is bad. Saying "This is definitely the answer" is also bad. The right approach is "This seems to work instead, let's test it further."

That's what is happening right now with LCDM.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
Actually that's rather more a philosophical question, akin to which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose. The mathematics is quite clear, but whether you choose to consider it an expansion of space or a continuous process of doppler shifting is a matter more of how to interpret the equations.

Exactly edd! There are multiple "subjective interpretations" even multiple interpretations at the level of mathematics. This is why *PHYSICS* and "experimentation" are so important.

The predictions of the model and the evidence for the dark sector are unchanged by this. It's verging on a matter of wording more than anything else.

That is not exactly true. This model requires no form of superluminal expansion. That IMO is a "big deal".

I would explain this caveat in interpretation if it's raised, but for the most part the space expansion approach has benefits in clarity over the other viewpoints in my opinion, although I wouldn't claim it has any benefit in terms of actual scientific power (naturally, as both are an interpretation of GR).

It certainly has no bearing on the argument here that I can see.

It has a direct bearing on my personal subjective "lack of belief" in Lambda-CDM ideas about 'expanding space' and 'superliminal expansion'. Now what do we do to settle such a debate?

Tubbythin · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
EU theory does not require a static universe.

Ok.

Which observations? You mean those observations of high speed solar wind? You mean those "jets" of plasma flying off the sun? You mean those million degree coronal loops? Which 'observations' are most important when it comes to understanding the workings of our universe?

No. I mean the cosmological observations. None of these are cosmological observations. And this is a cosmology thread after all...

I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Erm. There are no solutions to the Einstein field equations with a zero CC for which the Universe is not either expanding or contracting. There is most certainly evidence in favour of GR so the above is just plain wrong. Moreover you said you accept GR. If you really do then you must accept expanding/contracting spacetime in the absence of a cosmological constant. It is an inevitable conclusion of Einstein's field equations.
And... as you've already been told... that is a paper on an empty Universe. The Universe is not empty.

The observation of solar wind is empirical too. Why do you focus on one type of observation and not another? Which observations are most "critical" to our human condition?

Because the solar wind is not a cosmological observation and this is a cosmology thread. Simple really.

FYI, "redshift" is "observed". "Space expansion' is "interpreted".

Space expansion/contraction is an inevitable result of GR in the absence of a cosmological constant. You can come up with another interpretation if you like but it won't be consistent with GR.

Then you can't pretend Lambda theory has any validity when it utterly fails to explain so many observations inside this galaxy and solar system.

It was never meant to explain these observations. It does not consider scales so small. Its a bit like asking "why does Newtonian mechanics not explain the intricate details of a quark-gluon plasma"?

And you know this because? That "acceleration" you observe in solar wind and in galaxies as well are absolutely unrelated, because........??????

I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to show that solar winds are important on a cosmological scale then its up to you to prove it. You have not done this. Nobody has. Plenty of people who understand GR a lot better than me say that EM effects are utterly irrelevant on the cosmological scale.

I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics.

Actually its based on General relativity and empirical astronomical and cosmological observations. Nothing whatsoever to do with faeries. That would be a strawman of yours. Please try to remember what is reality and what is fantasy you made up in your head. It would make this conversation a lot more productive.

That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

Sooo... rather than make observations, construct a theory that matches the observations, make predictions with the theory and then test the theory against new empiricial observations (ie the usual scientific method) you're just gonna give up? Sounds like the antithesis of science and scientific progress to me.

edd · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That is not exactly true. This model requires no form of superluminal expansion. That IMO is a "big deal".

I try never to refer to expansion as superluminal anyway. I don't think 'superluminal' is a word that can meaningfully be applied to the expansion of the universe (by which I mean the growth in distance between distant objects, not necessarily the growth of space, thanks to the aforementioned caveats).

So while it might be a big deal to you to take this approach, the model in that paper in order to fit observations requires exactly the same amount of dark matter and dark energy. It does not let you off the hook from having a dark sector or having to use something other than a Friedmann model.

Note also that recession velocities greater than c do not require either the L or the CD of LCDM. And I don't think you would want to argue to take the M out of what's left...

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
This is a very weak approach to science. If cosmologists had simply shrugged and said "I don't know" when presented with the evidence we have right now, what would we have done next?

You might try coming up with a *real* (physical) explanation for expansion if that is what you believe is occurring. For instance, if you are not adverse to a "subluminal" expansion driven by *external EM fields*, then I'm sure you and I could come to some agreement over time. If however you are unwilling to entertain subluminal expansion, or EM fields as the "cause" of acceleration, what can we agree on?

Instead, we have a currently successful model in the form of LCDM which we can attempt to find evidence against.

Supposedly you've already found mathematical (not physical) evidence against Guth's original paper as found in this presentation, but it did not "falsify" inflation theory now did it? How do we kill this beast once and for all?

Saying "I don't know" is bad.

It didn't used to be that way. "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

Saying "This is definitely the answer" is also bad. The right approach is "This seems to work instead, let's test it further."

I don't know how you intend to "test" inflation since it does not exist in nature today. What you are calling a "test" is merely a mathematical test of inflation faeries from the perspective of a skeptic. No "cause/effect" relationship between inflation and expansion has ever been established.

That's what is happening right now with LCDM.

How does one go about falsifying that theory once and for all, particularly the ideas about 'expanding space' and "inflation"?

Like I've said on many occasions, I have no conceptual problem with "expansion of objects". I have no conceptual problem with anything you might be able to physically demonstrate in terms of "cause/effect" here on Earth. What I have a problem with are things like inflation that do not exist today, cannot be "tested" in a real experiment and have no useful predictive value whatsoever because Guth's first model was "postdicted" to fit, and it was "falsified". All new models are simply better "postdictions" and no 'cause/effect' relationship can ever or will ever be established.

Tubbythin · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's a *force* (not pressure) that comes from the EM field. The "pressure" of a "vacuum" has nothing to do with the EM field.

The pressure in a vacuum is due to virtual photons in the vacuum.

I said:

Oh and links to an article on Casimir pressure. Oh, and makes no reference to ideal gases or neutrinos.

To which you said:

Gah. That is because it's a *FORCE*, unrelated to the "pressure" in a vacuum/chamber.

Are you tring to tell me the thing called the "Casimir pressure" is not a pressure? Seriously?

The neutrino example was simply to demonstrate that there is a lot of kinetic energy flowing through everything all the time.

It was an utterly stupid example since its trivial to show it has no effect on the experiment whatsoever.

Er, no. Your side has been claiming this is a form of "negative pressure". It's a "force" unrelated to "pressure" that comes from the EM field.

What? How can it be totally unrelated to pressure? Pressure is force divided by area. We're trying to calculate the force on a plate of a given area. How can you possibly think these things are unrelated? It even gives the final quantity as the force per unit area!

It can attract or repel depending on the geometry involved. It is not a demonstration of "negative pressure" as you folks claimed.

Yes it is.

False. It means that *if no other factors are involved*, it must expand or contract. In the presence of pervasive and persistent EM fields however that may not be true anymore. In such a case EM fields are not necessarily directly related to GR theory so there is no point in stuffing their influence into (inside of) GR theory in a sort of "ad hoc" manner. MHD theory however might come in very handy when looking at external (to the mass objects) energy.

Can you support the above.. Because all the world's leading experts on GR disagree with you completely. Who should we believe? Those who understand GR and the cosmological observations and can use one to the interpret the other. Or some guy who doesn't even understand the cosmic microwave background and tries to disprove the possibility of negative pressure caused by virtual photons by using the ideal classical gas law?

I'm open to a static or non static universe. I'm not actually *claiming* anything about the expansion process other than you cannot empirically demonstrate is has anything at all to do with "space expansion" or "superliminal expansion".

Yes "you" can.

Tubbythin · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It didn't used to be that way. "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

My point was that you're not saying "I don't know". I'm fine with "I don't know". What I see as the antithesis of science is the "I don't know, I don't wanna know and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who tries to find out". Which is pretty much how you come across (at least to me).

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
I try never to refer to expansion as superluminal anyway. I don't think 'superluminal' is a word that can meaningfully be applied to the expansion of the universe (by which I mean the growth in distance between distant objects, not necessarily the growth of space, thanks to the aforementioned caveats).

So far, so good.

So while it might be a big deal to you to take this approach, the model in that paper in order to fit observations requires exactly the same amount of dark matter and dark energy.

MACHO forms of "dark matter" and neutrino forms of dark matter are fine by me, but "dark energy" does not accelerate anything here on Earth, but EM fields certainly can and do accelerate plasma all the time. Every time we get a good thunderstorm around here I watch it happen in nature for free.

It does not let you off the hook from having a dark sector or having to use something other than a Friedmann model.

It seems to me that the only known macro force in nature that is many many OOMS more powerful than gravity, the EM field offers us the most hope of explaining an accelerating plasma universe.

Note also that recession velocities greater than c do not require either the L or the CD of LCDM. And I don't think you would want to argue to take the M out of what's left...

We're left with an EM acceleration of a physical universe that is mostly made of plasma, aka "EU theory".

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
My point was that you're not saying "I don't know". I'm fine with "I don't know". What I see as the antithesis of science is the "I don't know, I don't wanna know and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who tries to find out". Which is pretty much how you come across (at least to me).

Knowing from an empirical standpoint is something I also appreciate and "crave" just as much as you do. I simply see the difference between empirical truth, and "wishful thinking'. If you could empirically demonstrate your claims had merit, my "skepticism" would be removed, and I would be happy to embrace empirical illumination and empirical wisdom.

What we have here however is a theory based on three different hypothetical entities based on a kludged together ad hoc bunch of "buddies", most recently "dark energy" which now presumably makes up 75% of the whole universe!

I'm afraid I do not see that as "finding out" anything. I see that as way to "create a mythos" that sounds pretty cool and comes with nifty math, but that is not a form of empirical truth. It requires *multiple* acts of faith on the part of the "believer".

Birkeland did things by the book. He could explain "Birkeland currents" in space and we see "cosmological examples" of such structures all the time.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/

It's not a "magnetic slinky, it's a "Birkeland current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

edd · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You might try coming up with a *real* (physical) explanation for expansion if that is what you believe is occurring. For instance, if you are not adverse to a "subluminal" expansion driven by *external EM fields*, then I'm sure you and I could come to some agreement over time. If however you are unwilling to entertain subluminal expansion, or EM fields as the "cause" of acceleration, what can we agree on?

I don't talk about subluminal expansion for exactly the same reason I don't talk about superluminal expansion. The reason for this is hinted at by the fact that light is part of the universe that is expanding, and that the expansion rate is measured in dimensions of 1/time, not distance/time.

The problems with EU theories have been done to death. I'm not going into them again.

It didn't used to be that way. "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

It's certainly a better answer than giving one that is immediately demonstrably wrong. Tubbythin has put it better than me though. The right thing to do is to constantly try to explain and constantly try to disprove your explanation. Saying "I don't know" is fine (saying exactly that has been one of the most exciting points in my career) but stopping at that point is bad. We're well past the momentary "I don't know" stage with cosmic acceleration and we're working on breaking our current hypotheses.

Inflation is a different matter to LCDM (which is more about describing the universe post-inflation) and probably more difficult to test, but people are always trying to test that too, and will be testing it more as new CMB experiments and so on come online.

Reality Check · Mar 12, 2009

MM: Any answer to this?

Reality Check said:
What happens when the plates are such that the Casimir effect pushes the plates apart? Is this replusive force also created by a positive pressure?

Actually I asked this before and you ignored it. Here it is again.

So is this what you are saying:

If the plates are such that the net force is replusive then the net pressure (force divided by area) is positive.

If the plates are such that the net force is attractive then the net pressure is still positive despite the fact that the net force has changed sign.

If so your conclusion must be that the area of the plates must have also changed sign to keep the pressure positive. Can you tell us how to measure a negative area? Do we construct square plates with imaginary sides and square their imaginary lengths?

I do have another thought: Maybe you have a definition of force where it is not a vector quantity but a positive scalar quantity?

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Are you tring to tell me the thing called the "Casimir pressure" is not a pressure? Seriously?

The EM field applies 'force' or pressure to the plates, sure, but it is simply kinetic energy in motion that does this "pushing", not "negative pressure in a vacuum". The difference is there are photons doing the "pushing" rather than atoms doing the "pushing", but it's all "positive kinetic energy in motion" that "pushes the plates together". There is no "negative pressure" involved, it's pure kinetic energy in motion. Seriously.

What? How can it be totally unrelated to pressure? Pressure is force divided by area. We're trying to calculate the force on a plate of a given area. How can you possibly think these things are unrelated? It even gives the final quantity as the force per unit area!

You're simply describing the "force per unit area of the carrier particle of the EM field! It is a simple "force" of nature that "pushes" (from the outside) the plates together because the "pressure" of the particles on the outside is "greater than" the "pressure" from the particles on the inside of the plates. At no time is there any "negative pressure" doing any work inside the chamber, and there cannot ever be "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" as Guth needs to make his theory fly. Even if you claim there is an EM field "pushing" on his near singularity thingy, all the arrows will be pointed directly *into* the near singularity, not "away from" the near singularity, unless of course you claiming that it is "discharging towards" some external "nearsingularitymagnetosphere" of some sort?

temporalillusion · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's a *force* (not pressure) that comes from the EM field. The "pressure" of a "vacuum" has nothing to do with the EM field.

Pressure is force per unit area. You can have pressure from atmosphere, from water, or from the vacuum. You said it yourself, the force comes from virtual particles.. those virtual particles come from the vacuum. If the pressure (yes it's pressure, because the area as important as the force in the calculation) comes from the vacuum, then the pressure of a vacuum does have something to do with the EM field.. it creates it.

I've asked before, define pressure in the sentence above. Do you mean gaseous pressure only? Or any kind of pressure at all?

Actually define vacuum as well. Do you mean a lack of matter in a region of space?

I've asked lots of questions that never get answered...

edd said:
Actually that's rather more a philosophical question, akin to which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose. The mathematics is quite clear, but whether you choose to consider it an expansion of space or a continuous process of doppler shifting is a matter more of how to interpret the equations.

What do you mean by "continuous process of doppler shifting"?

When MM talks about redshift due to doppler shift, I get the impression it's because things are actually moving away from us fast enough through non-expanding space to have the redshift that they do, which makes no sense to me because that implies we are at the center of the universe.

When you say "continuous process of doppler shifting", isn't that just another way of saying the distance between us and the source is expanding?

edd · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Even if you claim there is an EM field "pushing" on his near singularity thingy, all the arrows will be pointed directly *into* the near singularity, not "away from" the near singularity, unless of course you claiming that it is "discharging towards" some external "nearsingularitymagnetosphere" of some sort?

Michael. There is no into and there is no away from.

For the rest of your post, I can see the position you are coming from but it's not correct. I can only recommend this earlier post.

You are deeply misunderstanding the theory I think, and are therefore in a poor position to criticise it.

edd · Mar 12, 2009

temporalillusion said:
What do you mean by "continuous process of doppler shifting"?

When MM talks about redshift due to doppler shift, I get the impression it's because things are actually moving away from us fast enough through non-expanding space to have the redshift that they do, which makes no sense to me because that implies we are at the center of the universe.

When you say "continuous process of doppler shifting", isn't that just another way of saying the distance between us and the source is expanding?

Take the classic Doppler shift example of an ambulance heading away from you. The sound leaves the ambulance and arrives at you. The Doppler shift is a result of the speed of the ambulance at the time of emission (assuming you are at rest) and does not change in its journey towards you.

In the cosmological Doppler shift, the light is continually changing in wavelength from the time it is emitted until it reaches our telescopes.

That's what I mean by it being a continuous process.

D'rok · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
You are deeply misunderstanding the theory I think, and are therefore in a poor position to criticise it.

As a lurker obsessed with this thread, I think this is the key to the whole puzzle.

There is a credibility gap here. Whatever the discipline, in order to credibly deconstruct an established paradigm, you have to be intimately familiar with what that paradigm actually is/says/does/predicts, etc.

In other words, to be taken seriously, you have to become an expert in that which you are challenging.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

Tubbythin said:
My point was that you're not saying "I don't know". I'm fine with "I don't know". What I see as the antithesis of science is the "I don't know, I don't wanna know

I want to "empirically know" what, if anything created this universe just like you do. I don't want to "make up" stuff on a whim like pixies, slap on some math and "make a wild guess". Inflationdidit is no better than Goddidit at the level of empiricism as it relates to demonstrating "cause/effect" relationships.

and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who tries to find out".

No but I'm going to point out to you that there is no empirical basis for your creation mythos, inflation, dark energy or SUSY particles. You didn't "find out" anything, you "made it all up" based on multiple things you cannot empirically support. Inflationdidit is not "empirical truth".

Which is pretty much how you come across (at least to me).

Well, I admit I probably do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder at this point due to the way I've seen empirical physics treated by this industry. I've seen Birkeland's empirical lab work be scoffed at for long enough now. I guess after seeing enough threads entitled "Is PC theory woo", one starts to wonder if you guys even understand the difference between empirical physics that works in a lab and "woo" that only works in myths and legends and is shy around a lab. How exactly does one decide what is "woo" other than what can be shown to work empirically and what cannot, and what can usefully predict the outcome of a physical experiment and what cannot? Inflation is pure woo because it has no useful predictive value when it comes to determining the outcome of any physical experiment. Dark energy is "woo" as well. SUSY theory is "speculative" at best, but at least we might have some hope of physically "testing" that one. None of these do anything to anything in an experiment. MDH theory works in a lab. After awhile of watching EU theory being disregarded in a callous and hostile fashion, I guess I am getting a bit "disgruntled" as it relates to your popular mythos and your industry's lack of respect for empirical physics.

temporalillusion · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
Take the classic Doppler shift example of an ambulance heading away from you. The sound leaves the ambulance and arrives at you. The Doppler shift is a result of the speed of the ambulance at the time of emission (assuming you are at rest) and does not change in its journey towards you.

In the cosmological Doppler shift, the light is continually changing in wavelength from the time it is emitted until it reaches our telescopes.

That's what I mean by it being a continuous process.

Right. So when you said it's a matter of interpretation of the questions, you mean that the actual process doesn't really matter right? It could be space expanding, everything shrinking, or some other mechanism that alters the light enroute, but those are just models we use to help us think about it, the math doesn't care.

Or is there some other process the math implies?

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

D'rok said:
As a lurker obsessed with this thread, I think this is the key to the whole puzzle.

There is a credibility gap here. Whatever the discipline, in order to credibly deconstruct an established paradigm, you have to be intimately familiar with what that paradigm actually is/says/does/predicts, etc.

In other words, to be taken seriously, you have to become an expert in that which you are challenging.

As it relates to the Casimir force, sure.

Yet from the perspective of a skeptic it is like being told you have to become an expert on a specific religion or an expert on numerology to properly "understand the faith" well enough to critique it. Like numerology inflation theory and dark energy theory have no actually "predictive" value when it comes to predicting the outcome of a controlled experiment. How does one "test" their belief in inflation or someone's belief in God based on math? I've seen creationist whip up some math before, and this creation mythos has no more empirical support in terms of a creation date than any other creation theory. How do you take a "superluminal expansion" theory seriously? Really? Both creationism and Lambda-CMD theory *require* this to occur. Pure coincidence? Pure coincidence it was a Priest that came up with this idea? I should not be required to have "faith" in something to see it empirically demonstrated. I can experience gravity here and now. I know it exists even if I don't know the math. I can experience many real thing here and now without understanding any math. Only when it comes to numerology and inflation does one need "special math skills" to "understand" it properly. Pure coincidence?

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

edd said:
Michael. There is no into and there is no away from.

There are VP's moving between the plates and VP's moving outside the plates and there are more of them outside the plates, creating more VP "pressure" outside the plates than inside the plates. No areas experience "negative pressure".

You are deeply misunderstanding the theory I think, and are therefore in a poor position to criticise it.

I understand *how* it actually works and I know that it in no way involved "negative pressure in a vacuum". That's how this whole debate started.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Right. So when you said it's a matter of interpretation of the questions, you mean that the actual process doesn't really matter right?

It does matter if you're actually seeking "knowledge" rather than just looking for a new way to insert some math.

D'rok · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Yet from the perspective of a skeptic it is like being told you have to become an expert on a specific religion or an expert on numerology to properly "understand the faith" well enough to critique it....

And that's your consistent rhetorical trick, isn't it? Conflate science with religion and then insist that you don't have to address the claims because they are self evidently ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but it's a transparent and pathetic tactic. Turn that "scepticism" on yourself first, then take on the establishment. You are taking refuge in your ignorance. Banish your ignorance first. Otherwise, you will likely continue to be an irrelevant Internet pest whose only contribution is to entertain lurkers like me.

Michael Mozina · Mar 12, 2009

D'rok said:
And that's your consistent rhetorical trick, isn't it? Conflate science with religion and then insist that you don't have to address the claims because they are self evidently ridiculous.

As it relates to something like the Casimir effect in your original statement, you are absolutely correct. I can and should understand the Casimir effect because it occurs in nature and I can study it empirically. I can and should have to address the specific claims being made.

As it relates to something like inflation however, or dark energy or dark matter in SUSY particles the math was never what I complained about so how do I "test" their idea physically?

D'rok · Mar 12, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
As it relates to something like inflation however, or dark energy or dark matter in SUSY particles the math was never what I complained about so how do I "test" their idea physically?

And that's rhetorical trick #2: "If I can't get my hands dirty in a lab, the phenomenon is self-evidently made up".

That's only slightly less transparent and pathetic than the conflation tactic. It really only demonstrates the limitations of your own technique, not the limitations of the discipline you are attacking.

Expertise first; criticism second. Or be prepared to forgo all credibility.

edd · Mar 12, 2009

temporalillusion said:
Right. So when you said it's a matter of interpretation of the questions, you mean that the actual process doesn't really matter right? It could be space expanding, everything shrinking, or some other mechanism that alters the light enroute, but those are just models we use to help us think about it, the math doesn't care.

Or is there some other process the math implies?

I think that's a fair way to put it, yes.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Banned

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Banned

Illuminator

Master Poster

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Technical Admin

Master Poster

Master Poster

Free Barbarian on The Land

Banned

Technical Admin

Banned

Banned

Banned

Free Barbarian on The Land

Banned

Free Barbarian on The Land

Master Poster