Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Units? What are you talking about?

I'm looking for your units, you know, something like Higgs Bosons per cubic meter?

In the simplest cases it's coupled to gravity only - and that's enough for this.

Why are you "coupling" anything to anything else? You said a "condensate" would retain near constant density over exponential increases in volume. Why are "coupling" your condensate to anything?

A condensate can't have mass

A Bose-Einstein condensate certainly has mass. A Higgs Boson has mass too according to particle physics theory. I have no idea what you are referring to when you use the term "condensate" if you're just going to make this up as you go.

I guess that's another word you don't know the meaning of.

The way you use the term, it seems to mean whatever you want it to mean at the moment.

Am I gaining energy through what process?

Beats me. I'm trying to figure out how you think you're going to expand the volume by a factor of 10 and keep the same number of Higgs particles and somehow end up with exactly the same density. It's utterly illogical what you are trying to suggest. It's physically impossible.

If you mean the expansion of space, then no - the total energy is exactly constant, because the increase in total energy in the condensate is precisely compensated for by a increase in the magnitude of the (negative) gravitational potential it produces - as it must be, since it's a solution to Einstein's equations.

Huh? That's not logical either. You can't create a whole universe out of nothing and claim the gravity that is created by the mass energy somehow makes it "balance to zero". Is that what you're tying to do?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not my idea, Michael - it was Einstein's.

Baloney. What book/paper will I find this idea as expoused by Einstein himself?

This is a basic part of general relativity. Do you not believe in that either? After all, it's impossible to test in a lab...

But unlike you I'm not emotionally or personally attached to GR, certainly not a "greatest blunder" variation of something that Einstein *PERSONALLY REJECTED* as an error.

And as I told you, particles do decrease in density when you expand the space.

Ok.

Condensates do not, because they are not particles. Sometimes two different things behave differently - I guess that's a hard concept for you to grasp?

It's only hard to grasp because you're making it up. Whatever you are calling a "condensate" is nothing like any ordinary field in nature. Light for instance will definitely *not* retain a constant density if you increase the volume by a factor of ten. Nothing in nature does that. You're simply misusing the term "condensate" to attempt to skirt reality altogether. Vector and scalar fields in nature don't work that way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

NO aspects of GR can be demonstrated here on earth.

That is untrue. Whether you attribute my falling pen to a "force" of gravity, or to a "curvature of spacetime", there is no doubt that I can make my pen fall each and every time I drop it. There is no doubt that I can experience this process (whatever you wish to call it) right here on Earth!

You have no consistency.

I am being totally consistent. I can experience "gravity" right here right now. My backside is firmly planted in my chair and it hasn't lifted off my chair on it's own, not ever. I experience "gravity". Whether Einstein's math is a "better" explanation than Newton's math, or some other future math that has yet to be created is irrelevant. I can *physically experience* gravity right here, right now. I can do that with EM fields too simply by switching on and off my plasma ball on my desk. I know these things exist in nature, even if I can't begin to comprehend the math. It isn't necessary to understand the math to experience either of them here and now. What consumer product can I buy today that will allow me to experience ''inflation", right here, right now?

 

[Ziggurat]

That is untrue. Whether you attribute my falling pen to a "force" of gravity, or to a "curvature of spacetime", there is no doubt that I can make my pen fall each and every time I drop it.

But that's just Galilean gravity. That's not GR.

I am being totally consistent. I can experience "gravity" right here right now.

You can't experience curved space right here right now.

Whether Einstein's math is a "better" explanation than Newton's math, or some other future math that has yet to be created is irrelevant.

No, it isn't irrelevant. The math is the heart of the theory. It's what distinguishes one theory from another. Without math, Einstein couldn't have improved upon Newton. Newton couldn't have improved upon Galileo. And Galileo couldn't have improved upon Aristotle. But to you, they're all the same, evidently.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'll try.

First, you shouldn't think of the inflaton background (or the Higgs condensate) as being made of particles. Particles are the excitations on top of the condensate, not the condensate itself. So the question isn't sensible.

Imagine a guitar string, fixed at each end. That string has a series of vibrational modes - the fundamental, where only the ends are motionless, the first harmonic, where the ends and the center are still, the second, where the ends and the points 1/3 and 2/3rd of the way are still, etc. Now suppose it's impossible to ever keep the string from vibrating in those modes. No matter how hard you try, it's always vibrating a little bit in every one of those modes, with the same amplitude in each. Its total energy is given by a sum over all the modes - it's just the total number of modes times the energy in each (if it bothers you that the number is infinite, just suppose there's a shortest wavelength, and the modes smaller than that don't vibrate).

Now double the length of the string. What happens to the total energy? It doubles - for every mode which existed before there are now two, but the amplitudes (and the shortest wavelength) are just as before. So the energy density in the vibrations is exactly the same as it was before you doubled.

Scalar condensates are like that - the only feature they have is an energy density. It's impossible to change the density by expanding the space, because the condensate is featureless - it looks exactly the same when you zoom in on it. It's similar to not being able to tell by looking how far you are from an infinite plane if you have no other reference point. A collection of particles is not like that, because they are particles - they have a spacing, and the spacing gets larger when you blow up the space.

Thank you. Even though analogies are by definition imperfect, they help provide a framework for understanding. It would appear that the total energy of the inflation background increases as the universe increases. Does that imply a continuous creation of energy during the inflationary period?

 

[Michael Mozina]

But that's just Galilean gravity.

Um, that depends entirely on which math formula we use.

That's not GR.

You can't experience curved space right here right now.

Of course it's GR, and of course we experience curved space right here and now. I may not be able to absolutely verify that Einstein's math is "better than" Newton's math, but I guarantee you I can experience gravity, right here, right now, no matter how to "define" it mathematically.

No, it isn't irrelevant. The math is the heart of the theory.

It's only at the heart of a math theory! GR may someday be "replaced" with a quantum gravity theory for all I know, and no present mathematical model will stand the test of time. One thing I can guarantee you will be true a hundred years from now, and is that gravity will still hold human beings on the Earth and gravity will continue to exist and "experienced" by humans.

It's what distinguishes one theory from another. Without math, Einstein couldn't have improved upon Newton.

But humans can "experience" gravity *without even understanding the math at all!*. The current model may only be a baby step toward a far more advanced understanding of gravity in the future. The human "experience" of gravity won't change one iota.

Newton couldn't have improved upon Galileo. And Galileo couldn't have improved upon Aristotle. But to you, they're all the same, evidently.

They are all the same in the sense that the are all true in some "domain" of application, and they may all be replaced by something else in the future. Gravity won't feel any different to me then than it does today, even if I jump ship and pick a different mathematical model to "explain" it. Either way, I "experience" here and now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thank you. Even though analogies are by definition imperfect, they help provide a framework for understanding. It would appear that the total energy of the inflation background increases as the universe increases. Does that imply a continuous creation of energy during the inflationary period?

Yep. It's Guth's "free lunch" theory and it's made of baloney.

 

[Ziggurat]

Um, that depends entirely on which math formula we use.

Which determines which theory we are using. Why use one which requires something (curved space) which I can't measure here on earth?

Of course it's GR, and of course we experience curved space right here and now.

Don't be absurd. Show me a triangle with inside angles less than 180 degrees. Can't do it, can you? So you can't show me space is curved. Sure, we've got this attractive force, but why would that have anything to do with curved space? Electric forces don't. It makes no sense, and I don't believe it if I can't measure it here on earth. So there's no reason to believe in general relativity, because it requires something I cannot experience, and which cannot be measured in a lab on earth.

Everything you have said boils down to an argument from incredulity.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm looking for your units, you know, something like Higgs Bosons per cubic meter?

How many times do I have to tell you? A condensate is not a collection of particles. If you want to know the energy of the Higgs condensate relative to the uncondensed phase, you can look it up (to the extent it's constrained) in many places.

Why are you "coupling" anything to anything else? You said a "condensate" would retain near constant density over exponential increases in volume. Why are "coupling" your condensate to anything?

Gravity couples to all forms of energy. If you believe in GR, you have no option.

A Bose-Einstein condensate certainly has mass.

It has an energy density. You could call that a mass density if you choose - but it's a mass density (the total energy depends linearly on the volume), not a mass. If you understand that properly, you'll resolve your confusion.

A Higgs Boson has mass too according to particle physics theory.

That's right - but the Higgs condensate is not a Higgs boson. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

I have no idea what you are referring to when you use the term "condensate" if you're just going to make this up as you go.

Learn some basic physics and come back to me.

Huh? That's not logical either. You can't create a whole universe out of nothing and claim the gravity that is created by the mass energy somehow makes it "balance to zero". Is that what you're tying to do?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You were the one that asked the question - I'm not trying to "do" anything.

Baloney. What book/paper will I find this idea as expoused by Einstein himself?

"Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie", A. Einstein, 1917.

But unlike you I'm not emotionally or personally attached to GR, certainly not a "greatest blunder" variation of something that Einstein *PERSONALLY REJECTED* as an error.

I'll ignore the idiotic personal attacks. Einstein came to believe the magnitude of that term should be zero, not that he had made a mistake in the analysis of the physics when it's non-zero. As for that quote, it's highly questionable he ever said any such thing - pure hearsay.

It's only hard to grasp because you're making it up. Whatever you are calling a "condensate" is nothing like any ordinary field in nature.

Wrong. As I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, the Higgs has precisely the same property. So does the QCD condensate, for that matter.

Light for instance will definitely *not* retain a constant density if you increase the volume by a factor of ten.

Light is not a condensate. Why is the fact that different things are different so hard for you to grasp?

Nothing in nature does that. You're simply misusing the term "condensate" to attempt to skirt reality altogether. Vector and scalar fields in nature don't work that way.

OK, it's you against me, Einstein, and every physicist alive. You have no math, and can find nothing wrong with mine. All you have are nonsense words.

 

[sol invictus]

Yep. It's Guth's "free lunch" theory and it's made of baloney.

Your posts are great examples of the classic physics crank pattern. You think the Establishment is suppressing brilliant ideas (yours and Alfven's, in this instance) because it has to protect itself. If only it wouldn't suppress you - as those bad, bad drones at the BAUT forum apparently did - the truth of your ideas would be recognized and you'd be lauded as a great thinker.

The irony is that the physics "establishment" couldn't be further from monolithic. It's more like a collection of desperately hungry ants swarming in all directions. Sure, when one finds some honey many of the rest follow until it's used up - but meanwhile there are always scouts sniffing around in other directions, and the moment one of them finds something promising, it's jumped on by many others.

That doesn't mean they always find the most rapid path to the truth, but it does mean that bad ideas get very, very quickly exposed, and good ideas very, very quickly followed up and exploited.

 

[Reality Check]

That is not what I'm trying to suggest. I don't really have a problem with the idea that the universe isn't controllable. I have a problem with attempting to claim inflation or DE has some influence on the universe if you can't even make them show up in a laboratory experiment here on Earth. If they don't show up here, why should I believe they have some influence somewhere "out there" in space?

So your beliefs include the following:

• General Relativity cannot be tested because the deflection of light caused by bodies such as the Sun cannot be duplicated here on Earth.
• Only plasma states that that can be created here on Earth exist.
• There is no point in researching stars because we cannot do experiments on stars here on Earth.
• You would ignore pulsars and magnetars just because we cannot build big enough magnets in labs to match the strength of their magnetic fields.
• The Lyman-Alpha forest cannot exist because we need a pet universe in a lab to test it.

 

[Tubbythin]

Why wouldn't they? We're living in part of the cosmos aren't we?

So I suppose you observe black holes in the lab everyday?

Er, no. Micro evolution has been well documented in nature. Hox genes show that even macro-evolutionary changes are possible in a single generation. These issues aren't even in the same league as something like inflation that never shows up anywhere.

The point, which you missed, was that your demands of evidence, if fulfilled, would immediately falsify the theory in question. Just like a monkey instantaneously turning into a human would falsify evolution as we know it.

That is utterly illogical. If I can't demonstrate that faeries are real, and have some affect on nature, slapping on some math formulas, and pointing at the sky isn't going to make faeries appear in the sky! Gah!

But we can observe evidence that suggests that inflation may have had a role in the past. SO your analogy fails.

If that were so, you could empirically demonstrate it exists in nature, like you can empirically demonstrate EM fields exist in nature. The fact you can't do that is evidence that it is in fact "made up". In fact I can even tell you the name of the individual that made it up. His name is Alan Guth.

I'll repeat: your demands of evidence, if fulfilled, would immediately falsify the theory in question. Just like a monkey instantaneously turning into a human would falsify evolution as we know it.

No, that's pretty much exactly how it went down. It took time of course, but no consumer product runs on inflation does it?

That is just a blatant lie.

Observation can be helpful in deciding which theories have merit. They can't help us demonstrate that faeries exist in nature and have some affect on distant objects.

Agreed. This, however, has no relevance to a thread entitled "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?"

 

[Michael Mozina]

How many times do I have to tell you? A condensate is not a collection of particles.

What the heck is it then? Where do I find one to play with?

If you want to know the energy of the Higgs condensate relative to the uncondensed phase, you can look it up (to the extent it's constrained) in many places.

Word salad. What is this "Higg's condensate" your talking about? A typical Bose-Einstein condensate is simply a collection of particles moving in concert in a single direction. You've got a magic thing going on in this "condensate" of yours. Define this thing in physical terms and put a few units on those moth formulas for us.

Gravity couples to all forms of energy. If you believe in GR, you have no option.

"Couples" in what physical way? You're making it do magic tricks not just bending space time.

It has an energy density. You could call that a mass density if you choose - but it's a mass density (the total energy depends linearly on the volume), not a mass. If you understand that properly, you'll resolve your confusion.

If it's density depends on volume then a 10 fold increase in volume will lead to a significant decrease in density too. You're not being consistent in this verbal explanation and your math doesn't include a mention of a single unit of measurement, let alone the number of Higgs Bosons per cubic meter.

That's right - but the Higgs condensate is not a Higgs boson. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?

What's difficult to "understand" is what what you mean by the term "condensate". A 'condensate' in physics is simply a collection of particles. Your "condensate" is nothing of the sort evidently, but you refuse to explain what it actually is, or put any units to your math! Come on. This is pure word salad with math salad thrown in for fun.

Learn some basic physics and come back to me.

It's pretty clear you aren't talking "physics" or physical particle here at all. It's pure make believe nonsense as best as I can tell. Where can I pick up one of these magical condensates that retains constant density when I increase the volume? Where can I buy one?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You were the one that asked the question - I'm not trying to "do" anything.

You're trying to tell me that some "condensate" (whatever you mean by that term) maintains constant density over *exponential increases in volume*. That a "extraordinary" claim. I'd like to see some extraordinary evidence and I want to see it work in the real world.

"Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie", A. Einstein, 1917.

Page and quote please.

[QUTOE]I'll ignore the idiotic personal attacks. Einstein came to believe the magnitude of that term should be zero, not that he had made a mistake in the analysis of the physics when it's non-zero. As for that quote, it's highly questionable he ever said any such thing - pure hearsay.[/QUOTE]

Riiiight.

Wrong. As I keep telling you and you keep ignoring, the Higgs has precisely the same property.

You keep claiming this, but you've yet to explain any of it, or put any units to anything. It's impossible to decifer anything you've written to this point in time. How about adding some units to your math so I have some hope of grasping what you mean?

Light is not a condensate. Why is the fact that different things are different so hard for you to grasp?

It's hard to grasp anything related to what you've said or the math you've posted because:

A) not one item has a single unit of measurement included in the description
B) nothing in nature does what you claim so I can't verify any of this.

OK, it's you against me, Einstein, and every physicist alive. You have no math, and can find nothing wrong with mine. All you have are nonsense words.

The only "nonsense" around here is the math you posted that doesn't define a single unit of measurement. Get real.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your posts are great examples of the classic physics crank pattern. You think the Establishment is suppressing brilliant ideas (yours and Alfven's, in this instance) because it has to protect itself. If only it wouldn't suppress you - as those bad, bad drones at the BAUT forum apparently did - the truth of your ideas would be recognized and you'd be lauded as a great thinker.

Um, the "great thinkers" would be Birkeland and Bruce and Alfven. I'm more like your average Joe that can likes their work. Nobody "hid" their work from me, so I fail to see why you think I"m into some sort of giant conspiracy kick. BAUT is just an insignificant online cult.

The irony is that the physics "establishment" couldn't be further from monolithic. It's more like a collection of desperately hungry ants swarming in all directions. Sure, when one finds some honey many of the rest follow until it's used up - but meanwhile there are always scouts sniffing around in other directions, and the moment one of them finds something promising, it's jumped on by many others.

So if they can't explain solar wind acceleration, and they refuse to "jump on board" Birkeland's bandwagon, what exactly are they doing to enlighten themselves these days?

That doesn't mean they always find the most rapid path to the truth, but it does mean that bad ideas get very, very quickly exposed, and good ideas very, very quickly followed up and exploited.

Sorry, but I know history well enough to know that is not correct. Chapman's theories were preferred over Birkeland's theories for almost 60 years before satellites in space showed that Birkeland was correct. It may take the mainstream another 100 years to figure out he was right about the "cause" of the aurora too. Progress in this industry takes place at a snails pace, and I don't have another 60 years to wait around for them to figure out that the solar wind is caused by charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere or that coronal loops are electrical discharges as Bruce demonstrated over 50 years ago.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So your beliefs include the following:
[*]General Relativity cannot be tested because the deflection of light caused by bodies such as the Sun cannot be duplicated here on Earth.

Strawman number one!

[*]Only plasma states that that can be created here on Earth exist.

Strawman number 2.

[*]There is no point in researching stars because we cannot do experiments on stars here on Earth.

Birkeland manageed to experiment with one here on Earth. What's your problem? Doesn't hydrogen fusion work on Earth?

[*]You would ignore pulsars and magnetars just because we cannot build big enough magnets in labs to match the strength of their magnetic fields.

Strawman number 3 (you might go over to Arxiv sometime and look up "mozina" sometime.

[*]The Lyman-Alpha forest cannot exist because we need a pet universe in a lab to test it.
[/LIST]

Gee, almost a complete strawman argument. How quaint.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which determines which theory we are using. Why use one which requires something (curved space) which I can't measure here on earth?

Beats me. We use Newton's formulas for most if not all interstellar space travel. GR is more of a "cosmology" theory than a useful math formula for most space related human activity.

Don't be absurd. Show me a triangle with inside angles less than 180 degrees. Can't do it, can you? So you can't show me space is curved.

Will my pen fall if I drop it? Does any math formula prevent me from "experiencing" gravity?

Sure, we've got this attractive force, but why would that have anything to do with curved space?

It's possible it's related to a quantum process for all I know. I do know I experience here and now and it shows up in controlled experiments, unlike your inflation thingy.

Electric forces don't.

They show up in the lab.

It makes no sense, and I don't believe it if I can't measure it here on earth. So there's no reason to believe in general relativity, because it requires something I cannot experience, and which cannot be measured in a lab on earth.

But gravity does exist, and therefore I have no problem with you using Einsteins' formulas to describe gravity, even if they get replaced later on by something "better". I have no doubt that gravity exists, even if I don't have 100% faith in your math.

Everything you have said boils down to an argument from incredulity.

Everything you have said boils down to a popularity fallacy. Inflation is well accepted, therefore it must be "true". Bull.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yep. It's Guth's "free lunch" theory and it's made of baloney.

OK, now seriously, for the inflation background to stay constant, is there energy created? -- from, say, the annihilation of matter? some other source? -- in order to drive inflation?
Hey, I'm not in a position to enter this debate -- I'm just interested in how the standard inflation model works.

 

[Reality Check]

Strawman number one!
Strawman number 2.
Birkeland manageed to experiment with one here on Earth. What's your problem? Doesn't hydrogen fusion work on Earth?

Wrong - No one has ever had the susutained fusion that occurs in the sun.

Strawman number 3 (you might go over to Arxiv sometime and look up "mozina" sometime.

Did that - no mention of gigatesla magnetic fields produced in labs here on Earth. There is someone called Michael Mozina who is (according to your beliefs) making an idoit of himself by studying stars without having a star in an Earth-based lab. For example: "Michael Mozina, Hilton Ratcliffe, O. Manuel, Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle (2005)"

Gee, almost a complete strawman argument. How quaint.

They were not arguments - they were deductions from your answers.

Perhaps you could definitely state your position as regards astronomical based observations used as experimental evidence.

Do you regard all astronomical observations as experimental evidence?

If not how do you distinguish between an astronomical observation that is experimental evidence and one that is not experimental evidence?

Do you regard no astronomical observation as experimental evidence?

 

[sol invictus]

<garbage snipped>

I'm not going to repeat myself yet again. You've ignored mathematics, physics, and the basic facts at hand three times or more already, so there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

You were going to look at the math "this afternoon". Yet another lie, apparently.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Laboratory?

When did inflation cause anything to move in a controlled test? ... When was "dark energy" shown to ever cause anything to accelerate in a controlled empirical test here on Earth? ... What "observation"? An uncontrolled observation is not an "empirical test".

Query: Is it your contention that science deals only with controlled, terrestrial, laboratory experiments, and all other forms of observation are necessarily unscientific? Please try to give an explanatory answer free of invective, name calling, and general temper tantrums.