Another Problem With Big Bang?

[Zep]

Or is that plasma and electromagnetism?

You are having a problem with reality?

 

[BeAChooser]

What makes/causes dark matter/energy or drives inflation is up for debate (somewhat)

Somewhat? ROTFLOL!

this simple model describes an enormous amount of phenomena.

So does plasma cosmology. The standard model depends on Big Bang. If Bang Bang is ultimately found to be unreal, then the standard model may be significantly flawed. Perhaps our understanding of matter may have to be revised ... and doing that might open doors we didn't suspect existed. That's why the stakes are high in this game of cosmology.

Big bang describes the state of the early universe

So does plasma cosmology.

inflation solves other issues

Inflation is essential to make Big Bang fit the observed data. Without it, Big Bang cosmologists can't explain certain things we actually see out there. And in reality, they have no clue what inflation actually is or what made it happen. It is purely a mathematical construct. That's ALL. Only in Big Bang cosmology is it acceptable to simply make up A to explain B, then claim B proves the existance of A. And then when it turns out that A doesn't fully explain B, make up C and D, and then repeat the circular logic while overlooking the fact that neither A, C or D has ever been observed in the lab. No other area of science works like this.

dark matter gives us the correct picture of structure formation

Does it? The article at the beginning of this thread suggests the current picture of dark matter isn't right. Why not? The reality is that many observations contradict Big Bang expectations ... hence the many kludges. And for the record, plasma cosmology claims to give us the correct picture of structure formation. It explains the formation of the sun. It explains the formation of galaxies. Why can't it explain what we see as the interactions of galaxies?

dark energy...is...well, observationally unavoidable.

What can I do but laugh at that statement? Dark energy is needed because without it, Big Bang predicts an age for the universe less than that of stars in our own galaxy. It is just another unobserved mathematical notion.

Now, the current Hot Topic is trying to figure what the heck dark matter/energy really IS.

Well good luck. But if the explanation involves yet another unobservable, untestable particle, field, interaction or physical principle, what do you do then?

This would lead to a 5th force among dark matter particles ONLY.

Do you folks ever listen to yourselves?

 

[BeAChooser]

Question for BeAChooser: If I were to say enough things, providing enough references and evidence, would you ever decide that the standard cosmological model is the current best way to describe the universe,

I'll be satisfied if you can tell us what inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are ... besides mathematical constructs (i.e., kludges) to fit observed data.

Tell me, sir ... why do Big Bang proponents think plasma and electromagnetism are not worth mentioning in a universe where what we do see is almost all plasma and where electromagnetic effects are ubiquitous? Let's see you explain the formation of the sun without saying plasma and electromagnetic forces. Let's see you explain the workings of our galaxy without mentioning them. You can't do it. So why do you think you can explain the interactions of galaxies without mentioning them? And if one could explain the interaction of galaxies ...

 

[BeAChooser]

You are having a problem with reality?

I'm not the one who needs a menagerie of invisible particles and forces with utterly bizarre properties, as well as bizarre events like inflation, to explain what we see out there (i.e., reality).

 

[Zep]

I'm not the one who needs a menagerie of invisible particles and forces with utterly bizarre properties, as well as bizarre events like inflation, to explain what we see out there (i.e., reality).

Indeed not! All you seem to need is an imaginary, petulant, self-important sky-daddy with an ugly temper and no consistent plan to magically woof stuff into being in the wrong order, including himself.

Yep, that's really scientific, that is!

Just because you don't understand a subject doesn't make the information you read on it nonsense. That sort of thinking powers fundies of all sorts in this world - they are ugly, sad, ignorant and often violent people. You don't want to align yourself with them, now, do you?

 

[Yllanes]

This model explains with great accuracy everything that happened to the large scale structure of spacetime after the first 10-6 seconds

Only by inferring a bunch of forces, particles, energies, interactions and physics that so far no one has actually observed or reproduced in labs here on earth. Inflation, which is an essential part of the Big Bang theory at this time, is nothing more than a mathematical notion.

The inflation was before that. As I said, exotic theories may be needed for that period, but after the first 10^-6 s you don't need any of that. I don't claim we understand the inflation, I'm being conservative.

 

[wollery]

Dark matter is affected by gravity, but not by the other fundamental forces. That's why we can only infer its presence by the gravitational effect it has, we have no other way of detecting it. But since it is reasonable to presume that it exists, and baryonic matter is affected by forces which do not affect dark matter, how hard is it to imagine that dark matter could well be affected by forces that do not affect baryonic matter?

Having said that, I'd like to see how MOND copes with this interesting phenomenon.

 

[Dancing David]

I'll be satisfied if you can tell us what inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are ... besides mathematical constructs (i.e., kludges) to fit observed data.

Tell me, sir ... why do Big Bang proponents think plasma and electromagnetism are not worth mentioning in a universe where what we do see is almost all plasma and where electromagnetic effects are ubiquitous? Let's see you explain the formation of the sun without saying plasma and electromagnetic forces. Let's see you explain the workings of our galaxy without mentioning them. You can't do it. So why do you think you can explain the interactions of galaxies without mentioning them? And if one could explain the interaction of galaxies ...

I think it is the way that things work.

The biggest kludge is the VanderHooft (I may misremember the name) canceling of infinities, however it provides solutions to particle physics.

And as far as the big bang event, it is a theory. It is currently the theory that approximates the behavior of reality rather well. If there are competing theories that is great, that is the way science works. When the plasma cosmology makes a prediction that matches the data better than the current theory, then it will become the standard theory.

That is the way science works.

There is a crucial point that I always drive around, science is a method for testing which theories approximate the behavior of the universe the best, and it is not a tool for deriving the ultimate answer.

So the extra particles (and I am curious which ones you feel haven't been observed?) are based upon the way the theory seems to work out. When Gell-Mann predicted the resonances they weren't observed, now they are.

There sure were plenty of other theories at the time. It just happens that his made the most accurate approximation.

So there are other competing theories to the BBM, so? When they have the best fit to observation then they will become the standard model. That is the way it works.

So the BBM may fall it may not.

 

[Yllanes]

By the way, in case someone hasn't heard of it, here's a Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology. Basically, it is a theory that when first proposed could have some interest, because at that time cosmology was almost devoid of precise observations. Nowadays, we have very good observations and a qualitative picture such as that provided by plasma cosmology is not enough. We need quantitative predictions to match the accuracy of the observations. Big Bang cosmology survives and plasma cosmology doesn't.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background
…..
Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced, explanations relying on integrated starlight do not provide any indication of how to explain the observed angular power spectrum of one part in 105 CMB anisotropies. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP
and was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang to the detriment of alternatives

It does not appear that plasma cosmology has yet been refined to explain certain observations, although it certainly could be. Baryon assymetry is way cool!

Wow Yllanes, we did the same thing, wierd.

 

[TV's Frank]

I don't know why BeAChooser keeps going on about how cosmologists "ignore" plasma physics. Plasma physics plays a large role in cosmology, from the Cosmic Microwave Background to Baryon Acoustic Oscillations to Reionization to First Stars to Active Galatic Nuclei Jets/Bubbles to galaxy disk formation to....you get the idea. The universe contains a whole lot of physics, but at large scales everything is dominated by gravity.

Plasma cosmology is hampered by two things: it's inability to make predicitons that match observations (see the wikipedia article), and the fact that there just aren't any large-scale electric fields! None! Nada! There are tons of electric fields out there, but no big ones. Sorry!

ETA: And by "large-scale" I mean cosmological scale: of the order of the Hubble length, or at least cluster-sized.

 

[BeAChooser]

Just because you don't understand a subject doesn't make the information you read on it nonsense.

I notice that you haven't even attempted to dispute any of the facts I mentioned. All you've done is just claim victory. Is that going to be typical of *debates* with you?

If you want to have an honest discussion of the subject, I'll be more than happy to cooperate but if this is going to be typical of your offerings, you will probably just be ignored.

I tell you what ... I'll give you another chance to dialog.

If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write.

 

[BeAChooser]

The inflation was before that.

Don't get hung up on this time thing you have. The fact is that inflation is an essential part of the Big Bang theory. Without it, certain fundamental observations simply cannot be explained by Big Bang proponents. Yet you can't tell us what physics was involved in inflation ... i.e., what caused it. So is belief in inflation science or magic?

 

[BeAChooser]

Or I should add, religion?

 

[Yllanes]

If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas

99% of the visible matter.

which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies?

Because matter is neutral. There are no large scale EM fields, as TV's Frank said. The intergalactic magnetic field is of the order of the microgauss and consists of random clusters of no more than 1 MPc. At larger scales (cosmological scales) there is no discernible EM field.

 

[Yllanes]

Don't get hung up on this time thing you have. The fact is that inflation is an essential part of the Big Bang theory. Without it, certain fundamental observations simply cannot be explained by Big Bang proponents. Yet you can't tell us what physics was involved in inflation ... i.e., what caused it. So is belief in inflation science or magic?

It's needed to explain how we got to that time, not so much for what happened afterwards. Big Bang cosmology works after that time, plasma cosmology doesn't.

Also, on the plasma thing: have you heard the terms 'quasineutral' and 'Debye length'?

 

[BeAChooser]

Dark matter is affected by gravity, but not by the other fundamental forces.

How utterly BIZARRE. It's almost like magic powder!

But since it is reasonable to presume that it exists

Why is it reasonable if other more mundane explanations for phenomena it is said to explain exist? Take the rotation curve data I mentioned earlier. Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve. Yet read any Big Bang astronomy book and you find no mention of this. Why is that reasonable?

 

[Dr Adequate]

How utterly BIZARRE.

Yeah, that's quantum mechanics for ya.

 

[wollery]

How utterly BIZARRE. It's almost like magic powder!



Why is it reasonable if other more mundane explanations for phenomena it is said to explain exist? Take the rotation curve data I mentioned earlier. Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve. Yet read any Big Bang astronomy book and you find no mention of this. Why is that reasonable?

Does plasma physics explain all galaxy rotation curves? If not then it fails as a theory in that regard.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve.

Does it involve any actual math?