Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
The part of standard BB theory where the 'woo' seems to reach it's zenith, is right at the beginning where none of you really want to go, or care to go. It's a scary place. :) The mainstream theory is in fact a "creation event" where all the energy and matter of the universe originates from a single "clump". I've seen *PLENTY* of claims that the whole thing was around the size of a single atom.
Click to expand...
You're confusing physics with religion, again (you seem to do that a lot).

LCDM models have well-defined domains of applicability; the Planck regime is outside any such domain of applicability.

If you're looking for physics theories/models/whatever that include the Planck regime in their domains of applicability, you need to turn to something like LQG or string theory.

Oh, and, once again, you have not put the effort in to try to understand the difference between popularisations and the models themselves.

Now of course you would all love to disown this part of the "creation mythology", and ignore the implications of starting with nothing but light elements and a "hot" starting point.
Click to expand...
Depending on which model you're considering, the initial conditions are nearly always well before BBN, but the details of baryogenesis and, even more, leptogenesis (the symmetry breaking(s) which resulted in baryons and leptons, respectively) are rather uncertain.

Unfortunately however you are stuck with the implications of your own theory.

What makes your theory almost impossible to "falsify" is the fact it's all built on "pretend" forces of nature from the very start,
Click to expand...
I have no idea what a ""pretend" force" is, but I doubt that LCDM models contain any (perhaps you'd care to take my advice, and define every term you use double quotes for?).

none of which enjoy any sort of empirical support in a lab.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly, of course they do.

The thing they do not enjoy is "empirical" support in the lab, which is a mysterious, magical beast that no one - except possibly you - have ever seen, or even understands (perhaps you'd care to take my advice, and define this term?).

It's all "hypothetical" stuff, starting with Guth's negative pressure vacuum and "inflation".
Click to expand...
Having seen how epic your fail was, and no doubt still is, on the Casimir effect, you'll understand, I'm sure, why I'm going to ask you what you mean by ""hypothetical"" and ""inflation""; otherwise this sentence makes no sense.

Since none of your claims can be verified in a lab,
Click to expand...
Which is, to repeat, to misunderstand what physics is, today.

It's a bit like saying that a theory in biology is woo because it cannot deliver €1 billion to my bank account tomorrow ("none of your claims can be verified by delivery of €1 billion to my bank account tomorrow")

about the only thing we can ever hope to verify or falsify is your notion of "evolution" of galaxies.
Click to expand...
Don't be silly; lots of other JREF members have already given you examples of what might falsify any particular LCDM model, from the polarisation of the CMB, to the details of the ISW (Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect), to inconsistencies between the acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum and observations of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations), to inconsistencies between angular distance estimates (via the SZE - Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect - perhaps) and luminosity distance estimates (via SN1a's perhaps), to inconsistencies to do with stochastic primordial GWR (gravitational wave radiation), to ...

(I'll hazard a guess that you've likely not heard of many of these, and do not understand any of them at all).

Even on that issue you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't really seem willing to commit to any particular timeline. You don't seem to know when galaxies became "mature". You're trying to leave as much wiggle room as possible even on that issue!
Click to expand...
What are galaxies made of?

Stars, supermassive black holes (except, perhaps, in some dwarf galaxies), CDM halos, gas and dust.

How are they structured, and how do the components interact?

In extremely complex ways; for example, the gas and dust which forms the interstellar medium has at least four distinct phases.

What's the starting point?

The almost entirely homogeneous and isotropic soup of protons, electrons, helium atoms (and some helium ions), lithium-7 ions, blackbody photons, and CDM, at z ~1100.

How did the incredibly complex systems of objects which are galaxies form out of that?

No one knows, and models on galaxy formation are very poorly constrained by observational results.

Etc.

The basic problem with your theory is that defies any sort of empirical support and it's completely unfalsifiable based on the laws of physics as we understand them. You've literally created a "make believe" world based on three different forms of metaphysics. In that imaginary universe *anything* can happen. Massive objects can somehow "expand" away from each other at faster than the speed of light. Galaxies can form instantly and become "mature" is the earliest era's of the universe. No specific prediction actually allows us to falsify anything related to your theory. That's really what makes it "woo". There's no logical foundation for any of it, and no logical way to falsify any of it's three main metaphysical components. Even when the "Dark matter" thing goes down in flames in the lab, you ignore that finding entirely! This is certainly the single most "faith based" brand "science" known to man. Not a single part of it can be falsified or verified in any logical manner that isn't ultimately based on a completely circular argument.
Click to expand...
I think every substantive part of this has already been addressed, so there's no need for me to say more, is there?
 
Humanzee said:
DE IS based on known physics to the limit that it currently can be.
Click to expand...

Since "DE" is not known to exist in nature, your statement really isn't meaningful. It's not based on known physics, rather it's based on "creative wishful thinking".

Being difficult or even impossible to replicate in a lab does not mean it doesn't exsist.
Click to expand...

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

There is a problem here however as it relates to falsification. Inflation for instance no longer even exists in nature according to you folks, and it's properties are "made up". They are "tweaked" to fit and there isn't even a single "brand' of inflation anymore. It is outside of any sort of falsification process as a result.

The same is true of 'dark energy' and your concept of "expanding space" (as opposed to expanding spacetime). There is never going to be a way for humans to test such a concept in an empirical manner. Such a concept will forever be an "act of faith" in the 'unseen'. How exactly is that "science"?

Trust in math is meaningless. Math is math. If you feel the maths describing dark energy or dark matter are wrong then please feel free to show where. Use math if you can.
Click to expand...

You sort of missed the point, and DRD did correctly explain my position. Your "math" is this case relates to a "mythical" form of energy. Likewise the math related to inflation is applied to a "mythical" form of energy. There's no physical justification (qualification) for either of these claims. Your math is meaningless IMO because you failed to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. The "properties" you've then assigned to your various mythical items were all "made up', they are not based upon actual physical properties that have been determined by rigorous experimentation.

Intuition isn't necessarily based on faith. It can be based on experience.
Click to expand...

Guth had no 'experience' with "inflation". In fact no human being ever had such an experience. The "leap of faith' he took in "negative pressure vacuums" and 'inflation" was simply and completely a "pure act of faith", along with every "property' he assigned to it.

Nobody has ever "experienced" dark energy either, so that intuitiveness cannot relate to 'experience', but rather a 'desire" to find any way to mathematically express it, lest you not even get within 20% of that power spectrum.

Lack of direct empirical experience with something doesn't always equate to faith. Has anyone touched the Andromeda galaxy? Can you replicate it in the lab?
Click to expand...

In the sense that we have a star in our own backyard to study, and galaxies are composed of stars, nothing new is being created. Inflation however has *NEVER* shown up on Earth in the whole history of humanity.

DE mostly fits what we experience. It may or may not be right but it does fit what we know. It should be explored and not hand waved away because it makes us uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

My impression is that what makes you most "uncomfortable" is having to compete with empirical physics on equal terms. Instead of "settling" for a "good fit', you're willing to "make up" something that gives you a "better" one.

DE can be falsified. If the CMB didn't match expectations DE would have been falsified.
Click to expand...

The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.

If the math didn't work it could have been falsified. This is no mystery. What is a mystery is why you have an aversion to DE. Exploring it might lead us as a species to some very profound answers about ourselves and the universe we live in.
Click to expand...

It could also be leading you down the primrose path to metaphysical nonsense. By putting constraints on the concept you may just as easily be ruling out things you should not.

I understand discomfort with an idea. String theory annoys me. I don't understand how or why the universe could work like that. I also accept that there are things that I don't know personally and things that no one knows yet. We must chase what seems to work and follow it to its logical end for answers. Why discard ideas because we don't like them?
Click to expand...

It's not so much a matter of liking or disliking as being able to physically justify the math, or not. String theory is a great example of something that is being "made to fit". It started as a particle physics theory and didn't work out. It is now being applied to a macroscopic creation event and there is no way to falsify or verify that concept either.

There is point where your math is "speculative" and completely devoid of "qualification". You've quantified an imaginary friend, in fact you've quantified several imaginary friends, all in an effort to fit a power spectrum "better" than you might achieve with empirical physics right now, only to turn around and claim empirical solutions are "less valid" only because they aren't "made up and made to fit".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
From a philosophical viewpoint, if your theory cannot be falsified in any logical manner, it can't actually be considered a form of science.
Click to expand...

"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.
 
ben m said:
"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.
Click to expand...

We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?
 
Michael Mozina said:
ben m said:
"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.
Click to expand...

We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?
Click to expand...


So your answer to Ben's question is, "I don't know?"
 
Michael Mozina said:
The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't. Dark energy was brought in in 1998 to fit supernova data, and was predicted by some before that. In 1984, for example, there were a couple of papers, like one by Peebles, that suggested it as a possibility. It wasn't an entirely popular possibility as obviously introducing it has to have a good reason. Which we now have.

Regardless, I think it's quite wrong to say it was postdicted to fit the CMB, although the flatness problem and inflation solving it formed part of those early discussions of it. Remember, WMAP's first year data release was in 2003 - 5 years after the first supernova evidence for a cosmological constant.
 
Michael Mozina said:
We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?
Click to expand...

"No business being ruled in"? A minute ago you were claiming that dark energy was logically impossible to falsify. Stay on topic---what's the experiment-cost-threshhold that you're assuming makes it "logically impossible"?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Humanzee said:
Lack of direct empirical experience with something doesn't always equate to faith. Has anyone touched the Andromeda galaxy? Can you replicate it in the lab?
Click to expand...
In the sense that we have a star in our own backyard to study, and galaxies are composed of stars, nothing new is being created. Inflation however has *NEVER* shown up on Earth in the whole history of humanity.
Click to expand...
So where do you draw the line MM?

Is it "controlled experiments in the lab" (or some such)?

You do not have a Sun in your lab, nor will you ever.

Indeed, you do not have a Moon there either, nor the solid core of the Earth, nor the Canadian boreal forest, nor ...

No doubt you expect the Sun to rise tomorrow, and for what comes from the sky next time (rain) to not be 99.9% pure hydrofluoric acid, and so on.

IOW, you accept the inductive principle, but baulk when abstractions you cannot understand^ are used (i.e. math).

Why not cut to the chase? For you, only visual inspection of remote images counts as valid when testing ideas about how the universe works, beyond your lab.

DE can be falsified. If the CMB didn't match expectations DE would have been falsified.
Click to expand...
The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right?

After all this time, have you still not understood what you're (presumably) read?

Have you ever actually *read* any of the relevant papers?

HINT: DE was discovered by two teams, working independently, from observations of high-z supernovae.

DOUBLE HINT: high-z supernovae are not the CMB.

May I ask: do you simply make this stuff up? or do you really, truly not understand what you read?

It's not so much a matter of liking or disliking as being able to physically justify the math, or not.
Click to expand...
Coming soon to a movie theatre near you! The Return of the Casimir Force! :p

^ or simply don't want to try to understand?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
So where do you draw the line MM?
Click to expand...

I draw that line at "inflation". It was a purely ad hoc creation from the very start without a single bit of scientific history behind it. It came from a single human imagination and "caught on".

I also draw that line at mythical forms of energy that cannot ever be demonstrated in a lab in an empirical manner. As best as I can tell, all the "properties" you assigned to this magical stuff are simply "ad hoc" in nature, their sole purpose being to salvage an otherwise falsified theory.

I draw the line at mythical forms of matter that fail every empirical test.

Somehow you've built yourself a nice little "religion" based on multiple leaps of faith in the 'unseen', only so you can claim "superiority" over an empirical solution that was evidently "in the ballpark" to start with. It sounds like you're completely unwilling to try to "tweak" an empirical solution with anywhere near the same sort of "creativity" you've applied to your own theories. Why is that?


Coming soon to a movie theatre near you! The Return of the Casimir Force! :p
Click to expand...

Oh joy, I can hardly wait. :) Start with explaining exactly what you intended to add to a perfect vacuum to achieve 'negative pressure". :) You folks always run from that question. Why is that?

Get real. Guth literally "invented" himself a little mythology based on "postdicting a fit'. The SN data is just another piece of data you never actually "predicted" with your theory, so you 'postdicted' another fit based on another mythological form of energy. You'll simply ignore those outright fails in the lab, so what else can this be except a pure "act of faith" on the part of the "believer"?

The whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on myth and legend and nothing more than imaginary friends. It fails every empirical test. It won't ever show up in a lab. It's never going to be anything other than "woo" for the whole of eternity.

I'd personally much rather start with a "ballpark" solution that is based entirely upon empirical physics and work from there. You can go right ahead and waste your entire life chasing dark invisible friends, but I have no desire to do that.

The only thing that might possibly salvage that sad little theory is something "unusual" found at LHC. Even still, I seriously doubt it will have any of the characteristics and "properties" necessary to fit your postdicted brand of matter or energy. If that last lab test on dark matter is any indication, that's not looking good.

I am frankly stunned that you realize that there is already a "decent" explanation based on pure empirical physics, but you'd prefer to 'put faith' in the unseen. That's simply a leap of faith into pure metaphysics IMO.
 
Last edited:
ben m said:
"No business being ruled in"? A minute ago you were claiming that dark energy was logically impossible to falsify.
Click to expand...

Yes, and therefore it (and DM and inflation) never should have been "ruled in" to begin with.

Stay on topic---what's the experiment-cost-threshhold that you're assuming makes it "logically impossible"?
Click to expand...

Well, it's "logically impossible" to ever verify or falsify inflation in an empirical experiment. It's evidently dead now. It now longer exists. For the purposes of other "sciences", it's irrelevant. Only you need it, and it seems to be an 'emotional" need rather than a physically necessary one.

If there is a power spectrum solution on the table that is based upon pure physics and is with 20% of the 'correct' answer, don't you figure it's worth the time to "tweak' that theory with the kind of gusto you've put into inventing invisible friends?
 
Michael Mozina said:
I draw that line at "inflation". It was a purely ad hoc creation from the very start without a single bit of scientific history behind it. It came from a single human imagination and "caught on".

I also draw that line at mythical forms of energy that cannot ever be demonstrated in a lab in an empirical manner. As best as I can tell, all the "properties" you assigned to this magical stuff are simply "ad hoc" in nature, their sole purpose being to salvage an otherwise falsified theory.

I draw the line at mythical forms of matter that fail every empirical test.

Somehow you've built yourself a nice little "religion" based on multiple leaps of faith in the 'unseen', only so you can claim "superiority" over an empirical solution that was evidently "in the ballpark" to start with. It sounds like you're completely unwilling to try to "tweak" an empirical solution with anywhere near the same sort of "creativity" you've applied to your own theories. Why is that?

Oh joy, I can hardly wait. :) Start with explaining exactly what you intended to add to a perfect vacuum to achieve 'negative pressure". :) You folks always run from that question. Why is that?

Get real. Guth literally "invented" himself a little mythology based on "postdicting a fit'. The SN data is just another piece of data you never actually "predicted" with your theory, so you 'postdicted' another fit based on another mythological form of energy. You'll simply ignore those outright fails in the lab, so what else can this be except a pure "act of faith" on the part of the "believer"?

The whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on myth and legend and nothing more than imaginary friends. It fails every empirical test. It won't ever show up in a lab. It's never going to be anything other than "woo" for the whole of eternity.

I'd personally much rather start with a "ballpark" solution that is based entirely upon empirical physics and work from there. You can go right ahead and waste your entire life chasing dark invisible friends, but I have no desire to do that.

The only thing that might possibly salvage that sad little theory is something "unusual" found at LHC. Even still, I seriously doubt it will have any of the characteristics and "properties" necessary to fit your postdicted brand of matter or energy. If that last lab test on dark matter is any indication, that's not looking good.

I am frankly stunned that you realize that there is already a "decent" explanation based on pure empirical physics, but you'd prefer to 'put faith' in the unseen. That's simply a leap of faith into pure metaphysics IMO.
Click to expand...


Since you clearly intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've put into the list below. Until you can define them, what you wrote above is gibberish. Thanks.

  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • ballpark
  • believer
  • caught on
  • creativity
  • decent
  • in the ballpark
  • inflation
  • invented
  • negative pressure
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • properties
  • properties
  • put faith
  • religion
  • superiority
  • tweak
  • unseen
  • unusual
  • woo
 
ArmillarySphere said:
This strikes me as a pretty substantial misunderstanding of what a good/strong theory is, and how we go about verifying the accuracy of a theory.
Click to expand...

I'll cover the topic you were responding to (dark energy) in the rest of the post, but I'd like you to look at your statement as it applies to other parts of current theory for a moment.

Start with inflation for me. With all the various 'flavors' of inflation out there, how would you suggest I go about falsifying that concept? You seem more than willing to "verify' the idea, but how do we even attempt to falsify something that was literally 'invented' in someone's head, without a shred of scientific history behind it, and in light of the fact it no longer exists? It's the ultimate catch-22 in terms of falsification, so what's left except "verification"?

If a theory is very restrictive, it means it's specific, and thus easily falsified. The narrower the range of allowed observations are, the easier it would be that a new observation would violate the theory, rendering it falsified. But on the flipside, this means that each new observation that doesn't falsify the theory makes it much more likely that it is on the right track.
Click to expand...

In one's quest to "narrow the range" however, how do you know you aren't accidentally ruling out things you should be ruling out?

I understand what you're saying, but there's a different sort of danger in the desire to 'narrow the range' that I'd like you to consider.

I do hear your basic argument however, that *IF* we can narrow the range, it might help isolate an actual *EMPIRICAL CAUSE*.

If Lambda-CDM theory would match any given set of parameters, you would be quite right in calling it useless.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, what has BB theory (now Lambda-CDM theory) actually "predicted" (not postdicted) correctly the first time through in your opinion? It seems to me that it's always been 'tweaked to fit" some new "discovery" that was never "predicted" by the previous BB theory. Dark energy is the latest brand of 'creativity' added to the mix after an epic fail on the slowing universe thing.

But there's the rub: it doesn't. Having fixed a few parameters from observation, the rest are only allowed to be in certain ranges. If they fall outside these ranges, and we are sure that this does not result from observational or mathematical errors, the theory must be modified if possible (and in that case, subject to having other observations in violation), or fall.
Click to expand...

How many brands of inflation are there out there now exactly? I've read about 'hairy inflation", Guth's brand of inflation, all new and improved brands of inflation. How many parameters are being 'tweaked" just in that one theory alone since the time Guth invented it?

And when it comes to falsification, quantity is king - how would you go about falsifying a theory on qualitative grounds anyway?
Click to expand...

IMO the field of cosmology is way to fixated on quantification to the absolute exclusion of qualification. It's like not only is quantity king, it's the only thing that matters at all to the mainstream. An empirical theory that is within 20% of a real solution is simply discarded entirely for another theory that requires metaphysical add-ons galore. Is that really a "better' theory only because it's a "better' fit from the standpoint of math alone?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, and therefore it (and DM and inflation) never should have been "ruled in" to begin with.

Well, it's "logically impossible" to ever verify or falsify inflation in an empirical experiment. It's evidently dead now. It now longer exists. For the purposes of other "sciences", it's irrelevant. Only you need it, and it seems to be an 'emotional" need rather than a physically necessary one.

If there is a power spectrum solution on the table that is based upon pure physics and is with 20% of the 'correct' answer, don't you figure it's worth the time to "tweak' that theory with the kind of gusto you've put into inventing invisible friends?
Click to expand...


Since you clearly intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've put into the list below. I added them to the previous list of words you use differently than the common usage. Until you can define these terms, what you wrote above is gibberish. Thanks.

  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • ballpark
  • believer
  • caught on
  • correct
  • creativity
  • decent
  • emotional
  • in the ballpark
  • inflation
  • invented
  • logically impossible
  • negative pressure
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • properties
  • put faith
  • religion
  • ruled in
  • sciences
  • superiority
  • tweak
  • unseen
  • unusual
  • woo
 
Michael Mozina said:
I'll cover the topic you were responding to (dark energy) in the rest of the post, but I'd like you to look at your statement as it applies to other parts of current theory for a moment.

Start with inflation for me. With all the various 'flavors' of inflation out there, how would you suggest I go about falsifying that concept? You seem more than willing to "verify' the idea, but how do we even attempt to falsify something that was literally 'invented' in someone's head, without a shred of scientific history behind it, and in light of the fact it no longer exists? It's the ultimate catch-22 in terms of falsification, so what's left except "verification"?

In one's quest to "narrow the range" however, how do you know you aren't accidentally ruling out things you should be ruling out?

I understand what you're saying, but there's a different sort of danger in the desire to 'narrow the range' that I'd like you to consider.

I do hear your basic argument however, that *IF* we can narrow the range, it might help isolate an actual *EMPIRICAL CAUSE*.

Historically speaking, what has Lambda-CDM theory actually "predicted" (not postdicted) correctly the first time through in your opinion? It seems to me that it's always been 'tweaked to fit" some new "discovery" that was never "predicted" by the previous BB theory. Dark energy is the latest brand of 'creativity' added to the mix after an epic fail on the slowing universe thing.

How many brands of inflation are there out there now exactly? I've read about 'hairy inflation", Guth's brand of inflation, all new and improved brands of inflation. How many parameters are being 'tweaked" just in that one theory alone since the time Guth invented it?

IMO the field of cosmology is way to fixated on quantification to the absolute exclusion of qualification. It's like not only is quantity king, it's the only thing that matters at all to the mainstream. An empirical theory that is within 20% of a real solution is simply discarded entirely for another theory that requires metaphysical add-ons galore. Is that really a "better' theory only because it's a "better' fit from the standpoint of math alone?
Click to expand...


You obviously intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, so please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've added to the list below. (Others are from your previous comments.) Until you can define these terms, what you wrote above is gibberish. We appreciate it.

  • act of faith
  • ad hoc
  • ballpark
  • believer
  • better
  • caught on
  • correct
  • creativity
  • decent
  • discovery
  • emotional
  • flavors
  • hairy inflation
  • in the ballpark
  • inflation
  • invented
  • logically impossible
  • narrow the range
  • negative pressure
  • postdicted
  • postdicting a fit
  • predicted
  • properties
  • put faith
  • religion
  • ruled in
  • sciences
  • superiority
  • tweak
  • tweaked
  • tweaked to fit
  • unseen
  • unusual
  • verification
  • verify
  • woo
 
Kwalish Kid said:
Identifying the accelaration with "dark energy", or with the cosmological constant", actually does something important, because it syncs up the supernovae observations with the observations of the background radiation. Both of these sets of observations measure the amount of dark energy. They get the same number.
Click to expand...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Maybe you might start with that paper for me?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Unfortunately the best they could do was a ~+/-20% match to the Wein side of the blackbody curve (or was it the Stefan side?), so their model failed, pretty badly, to match the observed blackbody SED.
Click to expand...

Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.
 
Reality Check said:
I do not have any metaphysical friends. You may have fairies at the bottom of your garden , I do not :D!

I do know how to read. I do know how to do research. I do know how to find the research that calculates that the normal matter in the univser is about 4% of the matter & energy needed to explain the observed curvature of the univserse.

So the answer is: You are wrong as usual :jaw-dropp!
One thing that scientists do know is that the normal matter is ~4% of the content of the universe.
See for example: Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation

The WMAP Cosmological Parameters Model/Dataset Matrix is a good example of the exploration of variations of the Lambda-CDM mode but you may want to start with the Parameters of Cosmology: Overview page.
Click to expand...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Has anyone ever responded to this criticism of the WMAP data?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.
Click to expand...

Big bang cosmology doesn't need any ad hoc entities to predict a perfect black body lineshape for the CMB. And a 20% error is GIGANTIC compared to the experimental error bars on the actual data of the lineshape. It's many orders of magnitude larger than the error bars for MANY data points. Would you like to engage in an actual analysis of the statistics involved? That requires doing math, but we can do that if you want, Michael.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Maybe you might start with that paper for me?
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Has anyone ever responded to this criticism of the WMAP data?
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson posted a couple of pretty good responses in the following thread, which you started for the purpose of discussing that paper (and then abandoned):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169137

Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2352

How about this one?
Click to expand...
Probably not, since it came out just two days ago: "Last revised 17 May 2010"
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Yes, and therefore it (and DM and inflation) never should have been "ruled in" to begin with.
Click to expand...

So somehow you knew what the result of the Xenon100 experiment before they did the experiment?

Well, it's "logically impossible" to ever verify or falsify inflation in an empirical experiment.
Click to expand...

Aha! I see. Since the definition of "MM-empirical" is "random things that MM personally likes", and he doesn't like anything to do with dark energy, then it is logically impossible for a dark energy experiment to be MM-empirical---by definition. It's like saying "It's logically impossible to ever find unappealing food that tastes good."

Back in the real world: It is NOT logically impossible to test dark energy with ordinary lab experiments. You just can't afford those, and/or you won't live long enough to see the results. What's your threshold, Michael? Or rather---what's the Universe's threshhold? For what value of Q is the Universe logically forbidden from containing hard-to-test phenomena?
 
ben m said:
So somehow you knew what the result of the Xenon100 experiment before they did the experiment?
Click to expand...

No, but there was nothing about "physics in general" that requires the existence of any form of exotic matter and you don't seem the least bit willing to rethink your position even after it failed a major 'test'?

Aha! I see. Since the definition of "MM-empirical" is "random things that MM personally likes", and he doesn't like anything to do with dark energy, then it is logically impossible for a dark energy experiment to be MM-empirical---by definition. It's like saying "It's logically impossible to ever find unappealing food that tastes good."
Click to expand...

Er no. Inflation is "dead". It no longer exists in nature even if we belief you that it once did exist in nature. It cannot ever be demonstrated 'empirically' because you killed it.

Dark energy isn't "measurable" here in the solar system according to your theory, so it too is beyond our ability to ever "test". It's evidently really shy around anything that is gravitationally bound, and humans, well, we're gravitation bound to pretty much everything we get close to. :(

That leaves us with only one thing that might actually show up in a real science experiment here on Earth, your "dark matter" friend. Unfortunately for you, he too has been a "no show" to date. In fact all SUSY theories have so far failed to show up in the lab. So where now does that leave you in terms of empirical physics?

Back in the real world: It is NOT logically impossible to test dark energy with ordinary lab experiments. You just can't afford those, and/or you won't live long enough to see the results.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest we even go about trying to test dark energy here on Earth?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Has anyone ever responded to this criticism of the WMAP data?
Click to expand...

You could have checked that pretty easily yourself. Just follow the "cited by" link to the side. You would have found that the authors of your paper produced a follow-up paper that provides more details, and this follow-up paper has responses to it from others.

But you don't seem to have any clear idea of the consequences of your link being correct.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.
Click to expand...

"pretty badly" means "it's easily seen to be wrong". A model of the Universe which disagrees with the CMB data by 20% is the wrong model of the Universe. It's wrong and the data tells you it's wrong.

That's what falsification means, Michael. If the model is wrong you have to throw it out or modify it.

If the 20%-wrong model actually contains all of the MM-empirical-laws, then it's obvious that the MM-empirical-laws are insufficient to describe the Universe and the Universe is doing something else. Which is it, Michael? Do you want to live with the wrong model and pretend it's good enough? Or do you want to change the model---tweak it, you might say---by deviating from your magic list of MM-empirical details?

(Note, of course: the CMB is only one of many things that tells you EU/PC is wrong.)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.
Click to expand...
Work it out for yourself - here's the last Lerner paper on the topic (15 years' old now), and the last Peratt one (20 years' old).

RC has given you links to the WMAP data, so why not download it, and make your own analysis?

Oh, and don't forget the other thing I mentioned: the several hundred point sources found in the WMAP observations (you can start with the 5-year catalog if you like, it's probably easier to work with). Your task is to explain why the number and intensity of these point sources (which matches the standard model predictions so well) using a model of the CMB that is optically thick for most of those sources.

For lurkers: there's a nice symmetry here, an optical depth question whose answer shows just how fatally flawed an alternative model is, just as an optical depth question revealed fatal flaws in MM's solar "model" (though there's a vast difference between the two: the Peratt/Lerner model(s) are quantitative, MM's isn't).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So what got the party started Zig if not 'inflation'?
Click to expand...

Bzzt. Wrong. Inflation is a hypothesis which explains why the CMB temperature should be the nearly *same* looking north vs. south, and it further makes some predictions about the angular scale of any deviations.

Inflation is totally unrelated to whether the CMB spectrum has a blackbody distribution or some other distribution. Inflation is totally unrelated to what the temperature is.

Part of the reason that you don't like "standard cosmology", Michael, is that you don't actually know what standard cosmology SAYS. You've taken a bunch of cosmology words, made up nonsensical meanings for them, and you're all excited about debunking that. What gave you the idea that this was useful?

Still waiting for a cost-threshhold on your definition of "logically impossible". A citation from Boole or Peano would be great, but I'd settle for Birkeland in a pinch.
 
Dark Energy and Empirical Science

ben m said:
Dark energy is a perfectly straightforward hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
It's not "perfectly straight forward" enough to demonstrate it in a lab, now is it?
Click to expand...
So what? That has nothing at all to do with the question. Whether or not dark energy is empirical in nature is not directly dependent on laboratory experiments. It is yet another fatal flaw in your thinking that you believe laboratory experiments are the only source of empirical facts. We have been over this ground before as well (e.g., What is "Empirical" Science? IV, What is "Empirical" Science? III, What is "Empirical" Science? II and What is "Empirical" Science?).

Consider this quote from What is Empirical Science? II:
Tim Thompson said:
One of the essential points of science vs religion is the empirical verification of an hypothesis through observation. Dark energy & dark matter are in fact 100% empirical because their existence, as well as all of the physical properties of both, are derived entirely from observation. If you are going to claim that dark matter & dark energy are "religious", then you have no choice but to reject the validity of observation as a method for the verification of an hypothesis. This too is clearly a religious, rather than a scientific point of view.
Click to expand...

And consider this quote from What is "Empirical" Science? (emphasis added for this occasion):
Tim Thompson said:
If you are suggesting that dark matter & dark energy are "religious" in nature, you are quite mistaken. Of course, we have had this discussion before, and will no doubt have it once again. Both dark matter & dark energy are 100% pure and unadulterated empirical concepts. If you intend to argue that they are not, then it is necessary to deny the validity of science altogether, which then clearly makes yours the 100% pure & unadulterated religious position.
Click to expand...

I guess my prediction from January has come true 4 1/2 months later. We are having this discussion again, as predicted. And once again I will predict again that we will have this discussion again, as we seem to have every discussion again, sooner or later. You are just as wrong now as you were then in your assessment of controlled laboratory experiments as the exclusive arbiter of empiricism.

Controlled laboratory experiments have an obvious, and sometimes crucial role in all empirical sciences, everybody knows that. Specific claims about the precise physical circumstances in the melting transformation of water ice into liquid water are obviously in the realm of precise & controlled laboratory experimentation. Anyone can see that controlled laboratory experiments will be crucial to the verification or falsification of hypotheses on that question. However, specific claims about the formation of large scale structure in the universe are equally obviously forbidden to the realm of controlled laboratory experimentation. The only avenues of exploration available to study such cosmological phenomena are astronomical observations and numerical simulations based on the fundamental mathematical physics (the numerical simulations are in my opinion a form of controlled laboratory experiment, though this might be a controversial idea).

The heart of empirical science is the ability to formulate & test relevant hypotheses, and to make progress in understanding based on the outcome of those tests. Whether or not the tests are, or should be, physical, controlled laboratory experiments, depends entirely on the nature of the hypothesis and the question at hand.

Michael Mozina said:
It's not perfectly straight forward in the sense it is based on known laws of physics, now is it?
Click to expand...
On the contrary, dark energy is firmly rooted in the known laws of physics, a fact which could easily escape your careless approach to what you call "science". First, dark energy is constrained by observation, which makes it empirical. Second, dark energy is constrained by the fundamental laws of physics, by which I mean, for example, that it must conserve energy & momentum and obey the laws of thermodynamics, just like everything else. Dark energy is no more "magical" than is gravity; it's just another field in the great scheme of things, just like everything else.
 
Ziggurat said:
But you don't seem to have any clear idea of the consequences of your link being correct.
Click to expand...
To understand the consequences would require some understanding of empirical science, experimental error, and falsifiability, not to mention some understanding of how the mathematics of general relativity led to GR's prediction of a Big BangWP giving rise to a nearly isotropic CMBR.
 
ben m said:
"pretty badly" means "it's easily seen to be wrong". A model of the Universe which disagrees with the CMB data by 20% is the wrong model of the Universe. It's wrong and the data tells you it's wrong.

That's what falsification means, Michael. If the model is wrong you have to throw it out or modify it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be inclined to simply "throw it out" anymore than you threw out the BB theory based on SN data. I wouldn't however be inclined to simply stuff it full of ad hoc nonsense just to make it fit.

If the 20%-wrong model actually contains all of the MM-empirical-laws, then it's obvious that the MM-empirical-laws are insufficient to describe the Universe and the Universe is doing something else. Which is it, Michael?
Click to expand...

All it tells me is that the model needs work. It doesn't justify my stuffing it full of "metaphysical baggage" just to hammer out a decent fit!

Do you want to live with the wrong model and pretend it's good enough? Or do you want to change the model---tweak it, you might say---by deviating from your magic list of MM-empirical details?
Click to expand...

I don't have to "pretend" anything. If it's the 'best' empirical option that I have to work with at the moment without resorting to "pretend entities", I suppose I'll have to live with it for the time being. If however it can be tweaked to fit the observations more closely, without interjecting metaphysics, then it's certainly worth modifying the model.

(Note, of course: the CMB is only one of many things that tells you EU/PC is wrong.)
Click to expand...

That solar wind and those million degree loops tell me it's right. I know it's right because that has actually been "lab tested".
 
W.D.Clinger said:
To understand the consequences would require some understanding of empirical science, experimental error, and falsifiability, not to mention some understanding of how the mathematics of general relativity led to GR's prediction of a Big BangWP giving rise to a nearly isotropic CMBR.
Click to expand...

In one of these threads we went through Alfven's "Bang" theory and it simply started with on isotropic layout of matter and antimatter. The isotropic feature isn't the be- all-end-all that you seem to imagine it to be.
 
Michael Mozina said:
How would you suggest we even go about trying to test dark energy here on Earth?
Click to expand...

Easy. You launch an array of hundreds of satellite labs, each one sort of like a LISA pathfinder station but presumably using BEC atom interferometers or some yet-to-be-invented precision measurement device. You send them out Pioneer-like trajectories way past the heliopause, then arrange them into a spherical shell with one extra station in the middle. Then you have all of them measure their distances from all of the others. (They should also all measure all local E and B fields, radiation pressure, etc.) Then you measure their trajectories with respect to one another, using the ordinary laws of gravity, and you let this run for a few hundred years. Dark energy, if present, is an ordinary gravitational force and given sufficient precision you would detect it as an otherwise-unexpected component of the relative accelerations of the objects.

It's not logically impossible, Michael---you've been tossing the word "logically" around with the same wild abandon that you've been tossing "empirical" around for years. You have no idea what it means, you just apply it to things you like and withhold it from things you don't.
 
ben m said:
Bzzt. Wrong. Inflation is a hypothesis which explains why the CMB temperature should be the nearly *same* looking north vs. south, and it further makes some predictions about the angular scale of any deviations.
Click to expand...

Nothing goes "bang" without inflation ben. No 'bang", no "background". You're ignoring the question because you don't like the implication of the question.

Inflation is totally unrelated to whether the CMB spectrum has a blackbody distribution or some other distribution. Inflation is totally unrelated to what the temperature is.
Click to expand...

But ben, if something didn't put the "bang" in the big bang theory, you wouldn't have anything to look at in the first place!

Part of the reason that you don't like "standard cosmology", Michael, is that you don't actually know what standard cosmology SAYS. You've taken a bunch of cosmology words, made up nonsensical meanings for them, and you're all excited about debunking that. What gave you the idea that this was useful?
Click to expand...

You guys are the ones that cannot even seem to agree on anything. You can't blame me for simple confusion when even DRD doesn't seem to buy the whole inflation thing.

Still waiting for a cost-threshhold on your definition of "logically impossible".
Click to expand...

It's logically impossible to test for a dead and gone (inflation) deity in the present moment regardless of your budget! How would we even test "dark energy' ben if it's shy around anything and everything that is gravitationally bound? You've created *IMPOSSIBLE* things to even test for in the present moment. When your theory does fail (like the DM test), do you even acknowledge it?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In one of these threads we went through Alfven's "Bang" theory and it simply started with on isotropic layout of matter and antimatter. The isotropic feature isn't the be- all-end-all that you seem to imagine it to be.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and if I recall correctly, "Alfven's "Bang" theory" was DOA, which was quite a surprise to me ... that someone of his undoubted ability should fail to understand General Relativity so spectacularly (there were also loads of inconsistencies between his idea and the relevant observational results, even those known at the time he wrote that paper).

Now, as ben said in another post, if you'd like to take his idea, tweak it, add some different physical processes and assumptions, write it up, and get it published ...

How does it go MM? If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Or, time to trade in your Aristotelian physics glasses for Newtonian ones.
 
Tim Thompson said:
So what? That has nothing at all to do with the question. Whether or not dark energy is empirical in nature is not directly dependent on laboratory experiments.
Click to expand...

Since we could say the same thing about the topic of God, how exactly does your "science" differ from religion Tim?
 
Ziggurat said:
But you don't seem to have any clear idea of the consequences of your link being correct.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
W.D.Clinger said:
To understand the consequences would require some understanding of empirical science, experimental error, and falsifiability, not to mention some understanding of how the mathematics of general relativity led to GR's prediction of a Big BangWP giving rise to a nearly isotropic CMBR.
Click to expand...

In one of these threads we went through Alfven's "Bang" theory and it simply started with on isotropic layout of matter and antimatter. The isotropic feature isn't the be- all-end-all that you seem to imagine it to be.
Click to expand...
You have just confirmed Ziggurat's point, and mine. Since the conclusions of the Liu and Li papers, even if correct, falsify neither the theories you abhore nor the theories you adore, why have you been citing those papers as though they were relevant to your "argument"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom