Evidence against concordance cosmology

[ben m]

The presentation is 25 minutes-- not too long for anyone with a serious interest and non-impaired attention span.

It looks like you spend 15 minutes narrating the Tolman test paper. Why didn't you say so? Is there a few dozen or a hundred words in the video that I won't have learned ('learned') from the paper? If so, just summarize that here.

See how easy that was?

 

[Reality Check]

Next is "Free Parameters Exceed Measurements" ignorance. The Lambda-CDM parameters are well established by WMAP and Planck measurements. The lie that the concordance model has no predictive value.
There is a hint of the craziness that models should not be updated to include new observations. I call it is crazy because it is similar to "ignore the observations that Newtonian gravitation is wrong and do not look for a better theory of gravity"!
GR has solutions that describe an expanding or contracting or static universe.
There is overwhelming evidence for an expanding universe so we have the Big Bang model.
There is overwhelming evidence for dark matter so we add dark matter to the Bang model.
There is strong evidence for dark energy so we add dark energy to the Bang model.
There is good evidence for inflation so we add inflation to the Bang model.

ETA: The conclusion is ridiculous. It is never time to switch to a cosmological model that does not exist ! It is never time to switch to a bunch of "plasma cosmology" (note the small p) that cannot match fundamental observations about the universe, e.g. the temperature, black body spectrum and power spectrum of the CMB.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That is one paper covered. The presentation points out that there are observational contradictions to all the basic predictions of concordance cosmology, not just one or two. In today's science, conference presentations tend to precede peer-reviewed papers. The paper that will cover all the points in the presentation is still being written. However, the presentation cites data in papers that are published. The presentation is 25 minutes-- not too long for anyone with a serious interest and non-impaired attention span.

The presentation is tedious, long winded and pointless (I gave up after getting about half way through).
People write papers because readers can fact check, review important points and equations, be thoughtful and patiently read the material to grasp it's purpose and significance. None of that can be done with a stupid video presentation.
Come back and let us know when "the paper" is available.

 

[Perpetual Student]

So, everybody must accept a theory in schools and universities and study it, even when it's been proven wrong, just because there is no other theory to explain the phenomenon? I don't agree. I would not accept such a disproven theory and I will call it 'pseudoscience'.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[rwguinn]

Still trying to figure out which theory is disproven and how. Anybody got a.clue what Maartenn100 is talking about?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Still trying to figure out which theory is disproven and how. Anybody got a.clue what Maartenn100 is talking about?

Not me.

 

[Daylightstar]

Still trying to figure out which theory is disproven and how. ...

Nothing yet. There's no expectation that such will happen.

...Anybody got a.clue what Maartenn100 is talking about?

Maartenn100 has no scientific background.education/talents/insights/etc, he thinks that is no fair and he thinks that his education resistant opinion is entirely valid, and that he has a right to have it treated as such.

 

[catsmate]

I'll ask a supplementary question: what are the alternate hypotheses? And what is the evidence FOR them?

He's a Plasma Cosmos nut proponent.

So, everybody must accept a theory in schools and universities and study it, even when it's been proven wrong, just because there is no other theory to explain the phenomenon? I don't agree. I would not accept such a disproven theory and I will call it 'pseudoscience'.

Why not present it on the Cosmoquest 'Against the Mainstream' Forum. It will be looked at by people in the right field with enough expertise to ask you the right questions.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/

Probably because...

Rules are tougher than here though and you only get 30 days to make your case.
There is a lot of helpful advice in the FAQ to help posters though

Exactly.

 

[Mudcat]

You still learn Newtonian Physics in school, even though we now have General Relativity.

I don't think that analogy works because Newtonian physics are still applicable and does a great job of describing reality, it can make testable and verifiable predictions that can be independently and objectively observed.

As such, general relativity didn't overturn Newtonian physics. It refined them.

 

[Mudcat]

Oh jeez...........here we go again. Are we a black hole? We seem to be attracting an inordinate number of "Einstein-was-wrong" types over our event horizon at the moment, all armed with pseudo-intellectual word soup as the primary weapon, and a noticeable shortage of maths.

I have two explanations for the phenomenon.

1. Einstein has risen from the dead and been going around kicking people's dogs.
2. Biblical literalism is rearing it's ugly head at general relativity.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Still trying to figure out which theory is disproven and how. Anybody got a.clue what Maartenn100 is talking about?

I know what he thinks he is talking about. He believes that since, in his mind, general relativity has been discredited - and there's posts about it in one of these threads; something about scientists "forcing" dark matter/dark energy into the model invalidating GR - that it should no longer be taught. Maartenn, I wish to make an observation, and I've brought this up before. Even if GR is incorrect about some detail, it still has excellent agreement with a large number of other details that make it a useful theory. Why should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? If GR is wrong about something, we will investigate that wrongness and refine (or even overturn) the model; but until then, we'll use it for what we know it's good for. That's how scientific theories work.

 

[IGMisBestM]

To ask a somewhat serious question Eric, why not compare your model to the best geometric data available, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations? The problem with the Tolman test is that it is degenerate with galaxy evolution as you point out but the BAO scale is not. Plenty of data exists from BOSS, WIGGLEZ and 6dFgrs at several redshifts. A linear, static model like yours should be very simple to test as there is no weird geometric effects and the the geometry should simply be euclidean. By using only the angular correlation function you can test. That would be interesting.

I also think people could do with being a bit more polite on here.

I'd also take serious issue with the claim that the CMB is local. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich is observed and hundreds of clusters have been detected with it now up to z=1.47. It simply cannot be local.

 

[tsig]

Rules are tougher than here though and you only get 30 days to make your case.
There is a lot of helpful advice in the FAQ to help posters though

Also you have to answer questions not dance around them.

 

[JeanTate]

This should be an interesting thread!

This thread is to discuss evidence against “concordance cosmology”. Concordance cosmology is the name used for the dominant model for cosmology.

The basic hypotheses of concordance cosmology are

1) The universe is expanding. This means the space between galaxies is expanding, not space within gravitationally (or electromagnetically) bound objects. This expansion accounts for the Hubble relationship between redshift and apparent luminosity.
2) The universe originated in a Big Bang.

I know it is often expressed like this, but I don't think it's a basic assumption. If only because it isn't, as of today, testable.

It went through a state of extremely high density and temperature. During this period, the light isotopes He-4, He-3, Li-7 and d were formed.
3) The expansion was initially driven by an “inflation” force field, which expanded the universe exponentially, accounting for the smoothness of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This expansion also determines that the total energy density of the universe is the critical density. (The critical density is matter-energy density need to exactly balance gravitational energy)
4) The subsequent expansion, after inflation, was accelerated by a repulsive energy field, “dark energy” .whose energy density at the present is 70% of the critical density of the universe.

I don't think it's accurate to call DE an 'energy field', in terms of it being a basic assumption.

5) Five-sixths of the matter density in the universe is “dark matter” or non-baryonic matter, an unknown type of mater not consisting of nucleons and electrons. The remaining one sixth, or 5% of the critical density, consists of ordinary matter, or baryonic matter.

There are also a number of subordinate assumptions, and quite a few additional adjustable parameters in the model, but these are the core hypotheses.

This too is not accurate, I think. For example, there is the core assumption that 'the laws of physics' apply throughout the observable universe. Without this, every astronomical observation would be nigh on impossible to interpret.

One thing to note right off is that neither the inflation field, dark energy nor dark matter have been observed in any experiments on earth or experiments conducted by spacecraft.

True, but so what? The 21 cm hyperfine transition in H has not been so observed, but a large part of radio astronomy depends on it. Also, no state of ordinary matter like that in a neutron star either.

While in the past contradictions between this model and observations have been addressed by modification of the model, rather than questioning its underlying hypotheses, I would argue that those hypotheses are in fact testable and falsifiable. The universe is either expanding at a rate that explain the Hubble relation or it is not. It either went through a hot dense epoch, a Big Bang, or it did not.

Putting this as an either/or is too restrictive, I feel. It too arbitrarily dismisses the possibility of a partial 'explanation', for example. And that's bad science.

Dark energy exists or it does not. Dark matter exists or it does not.

These are simply incorrect. If only because they are both merely placeholders.

I summarized the evidence against concordance cosmology in an invited presentation last June to a workshop at EWASS, a large astronomy conference. It is here. People should watch this presentation before posting to this thread.

I haven't yet had a chance to watch it, but I do have a question about the sources you certainly used in preparing this!

Can you please list the primary sources you relied upon (other than your own, recent, paper)?

I realize people tend to get excited about this subject. But please, no name-calling. Personally I’ll only respond to posts that raise actual scientific arguments or questions.

I hope mine falls into the latter category; I look forward to your response.

 

[ben m]

To ask a somewhat serious question Eric, why not compare your model to the best geometric data available, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations?

I think Eric wants to do to totally separate things:

a) Talk about the things (there are indeed a few) that LCDM cosmology mispredicts. Argue that LCDM has some epistemological problem with free parameters and fudge factors (it doesn't). He wants you to end this discussion by affirmatively rejecting LCDM. "Oh, no, it's all wrong and can't be salvaged by more incremental work! I wonder where we will find a totally new idea to replace everything?"

b) At this point Eric will want to talk about his alternative cosmologies, which would look terrible side by side with LCDM. But now that LCDM is dead (see point a) Eric thinks he will try to present as an interesting incomplete theory which merely needs incremental improvements.("Improvements" in plasma cosmology never count as fudge factors or free parameters because <mumble mumble> they just don't, OK?)

 

[Belz...]

This thread is to discuss evidence against “concordance cosmology”. Concordance cosmology is the name used for the dominant model for cosmology.

This ought to be good.

1) The universe is expanding. This means the space between galaxies is expanding, not space within gravitationally (or electromagnetically) bound objects. This expansion accounts for the Hubble relationship between redshift and apparent luminosity.

Slight correction: space also expands within galaxies and planets and atoms, but the other forces keep the stuff together.

One thing to note right off is that neither the inflation field, dark energy nor dark matter have been observed in any experiments on earth or experiments conducted by spacecraft.

Isn't it frustrating that we don't just have all the answers right now?

The universe is either expanding at a rate that explain the Hubble relation or it is not. It either went through a hot dense epoch, a Big Bang, or it did not. Dark energy exists or it does not. Dark matter exists or it does not.

It is. It did. It may. IT does.

I realize people tend to get excited about this subject.

Meh.

 

[jonesdave116]

I think all of this nonsense has been dealt with by Brian Koberlein in the links I posted earlier. Unless anybody else has some new evidence, it's kind of dead in the water.

 

[Eric L]

Let’s start by looking at just the first point I make in the presentation. I do hope people see the presentation, and it does have references to published papers. But I’ll summarize here for those who need it.

The hypothesis that the universe is expanding, taken by itself –-that is taking this hypothesis alone--makes very few testable predictions. One very well-known one is that the surface brightness of objects drops as (1+z)^3. Equivalently, it makes quantitative predictions about the apparent size of objects of a given luminosity.

The alternative hypothesis-- that the universe is not expanding and the Hubble relation is due to energy loss that happens to the light as it travels-- makes the prediction that surface brightness of objects (as measured in AB magnitude—in other words per unit frequency) is constant with distance. To test that hypothesis for objects of the same intrinsic luminosity, however, you need to assume an actual relation between redshift and distance. My colleagues and I assumed z, redshift, is linearly proportional to distance at all distances (as we know it is at small z).

This relationship fits the data set of apparent magnitudes vs redshift of the supernova 1a data just as well as the LCDM model does, and it is almost mathematically indistinguishable from those predictions for that data set. It however has the Occam’s razor advantage that it fits the data set using only one adjustable parameter—the Hubble constant—while LCDM requires 3 adjustable parameters—H, the density of matter(including dark matter) and the energy density of “dark energy”. If you accept the LCDM model, the fact that the non-expanding model with linear Hubble relation fits just as well has to be considered a big coincidence.

The data set of disk galaxies, discussed in our published paper, and the data set of elliptical galaxies, taken from others work and used in this presentation, both show no change in surface brightness with distance. So the simple, no-parameter prediction of the non-expanding hypothesis is confirmed with these two data sets.

In order to fit the data with the expanding-universe hypothesis, you need four additional ad-hoc parameters to describe the size evolution of elliptical galaxies and of disk galaxies. The actual physical theories of size expansion proposed in published papers prior to this data release do NOT fit the data. Again, you have to consider that the zero-parameter fits to these two data sets by the non-expanding hypothesis are two more big coincidences.

So, to fit these two data sets, the non-expanding hypothesis takes no free parameters, the expanding universe requires at least four free parameters. Occam’s razor is very cutting here.

The expanding universe hypothesis also requires one to explain why disks and elliptical galaxy sizes evolve in exactly the same way. Disk that are high-luminosity in UV—the ones we studied—are all young galaxies—babies. To be bigger with decreasing z they have to be born bigger. Ellipticals are old galaxies. We are looking at the same evolving population of ellipitcals at high and low z.

The expanding-universe hypothesis here is like saying that our measurements with our special variable yardsticks indicate that human babies born in 1966 are 18 inches long, while babies born in 2016 are 36 inches long. At the same time, adults that were average 6 feet tall when they were 20 in 1966 are now 12 feet tall in 2016 at age 70. It is just a coincidence that when measured with non-varying yardsticks babies and adults are the same size as they were 50 years ago.

 

[Reality Check]

I think all of this nonsense has been dealt with by Brian Koberlein in the links I posted earlier

Brian Koberlein points a flaw in the Lerner et. el. paper that I was considering but in a different sense: Selection Bias

If you’re going to test an alternative model that requires the introduction of some unknown mechanism for redshift, you should probably compare your results to an expanding universe model to see if yours works better. In particular, you should probably compare your data to the ΛCDM model (the standard dark energy/dark matter/expanding universe). Do they do this? No. In their own words, “In this paper, we do not compare data to the ΛCDM model. We only remark that any effort to fit such data to ΛCDM requires hypothesizing a size evolution of galaxies with z.” Apparently hypothesizing a size evolution for galaxies is bad, but introducing an unknown tired light mechanism to preserve a static universe is okay.

A main point of tests is not whether they work for a model. It is whether they work better for some models rather than others. Not testing against an expanding universe makes the paper fairly useless. Their selection of a model to test is biased.

The other sense of selection bias is that it is usual when you select a subset from a set of data that you do tests to see whether that selection introduces biases. The paper has "5.2 Is there a bias for size or surface brightness?". We would expect this to be followed by tests for bias. What we get are assertions.

 

[Reality Check]

The hypothesis that the universe is expanding, taken by itself –-that is taking this hypothesis alone--makes very few testable predictions.

That is not right, Eric L. An expanding universe is not a hypothesis that was just made up. It is a hypothesis that is backed up by many observations and testable predictions that it passes: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: at is the evidence for the Big Bang?

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
•The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
•The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
•Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
•Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
•Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State: •Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
•Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
•Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
•Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

The Tolman surface brightness test is described by the Wikipedia article but does not emphasize the factors which prevented it from being done for about 70 years.

Your published paper on the Tolman test is irrelevant since it is not evidence against concordance cosmology, Eric L

We conclude that available observations of galactic SB are consistent with a static Euclidean model of the Universe.

Your paper does not test concordance cosmology.

The expanding universe hypothesis also requires one to explain why disks and elliptical galaxy sizes evolve in exactly the same way.

Whoops - an expanding universe is not a model of galaxy evolution, Eric L !
Nice of you to point out the ignorance of ignoring galaxy evolution as your paper.

ETA: Regardless of whether the universe is expanding or not, there is good evidence that the observable universe did not always contain galaxies. The increasing amount of neural H with z tells us that galaxies have been ionizing H for a finite time. The ages of globular clusters are less thon 13.7 billion years. Thus galaxies formed and then evolved over those 13.7 or less billion years.