Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

After reading through the plasma cosmology thread today, I'm curious how mainstream Lambda theory would hold up to the same level of scrutiny? What exactly does Lambda-CDM theory "predict" without the use of unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities?

For instance, what empirical evidence supports the idea of inflation? No other known vector or scalar field found in nature will retain near constant density over several exponential increases in volume. The presumed homogeneous layout of matter used to be inflation's primary claim to fame, yet recent observations of "dark flows" would suggest that matter is not homogeneously distributed as "predicted" by inflation. What empirical evidence from controlled experiments demonstrates that inflation even exists in nature?

Dark energy? What is that? How do I get some? What controlled empirical test demonstrates it has any effect on nature?

What about all the so called "properties" of dark matter? How do we verify or falsify these ideas?

In what tangible and demonstrateable way is Lambda-CDM theory any "better" than any other cosmology theory?

I'd like to see where we're up to, wrt answering the question this thread asks.

First, the question - and thread - appears in the JREF Forum's Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section, so I guess it's OK to assume "woo" means "woo in the context of "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and/or Technology". Further, since "Lambda-CDM theory" doesn't have anything to do with Medicine, we can refine the scope. Then, although there are certainly Mathematics and Technology aspects to "Lambda-CDM theory" they are secondary*.

So the question becomes "is "Lambda-CDM theory" scientific woo or not?".

Well, to answer that question, we need to have a common understanding of what "scientific woo" is, don't we?

Of course, we could always ask the site owners or admins or moderators to clarify for us, but ahead of doing that, can we take a stab at working out an answer?

One such answer might be along the lines of "that which is published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences", where "relevant" is understood to mean something like "to do with cosmology".

If so, then "Lambda-CDM theory" is certainly not scientific woo; case closed.

But perhaps a somewhat different definition of 'scientific woo' might be called for, something that deals with what's written in the OP, about 'evidence', 'scrutiny', 'falsification', 'verifiability', and so on?

If so, then "Lambda-CDM theory" is certainly not scientific woo, as was made quite clear in the first page of posts in this thread ... it has been intensely scrutinised, there is tonnes of evidence to support it (and essentially none that doesn't), it is quintessentially falsifiable and verifiable, and so on.

Now I think it's fair to say that MM, the OP, is of the (strong) opinion that "Lambda-CDM theory" is, in fact, woo.

Why?

Clearly not because of reasons of falsifiability, verifiability, evidence, scrutiny etc ... if those were the kinds of reasons, then he'd've provided a link to a paper such as this: Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation (link is to the astro-ph preprint; some formatting is lost):

(Abridged) The WMAP 5-year data strongly limit deviations from the minimal LCDM model. We constrain the physics of inflation via Gaussianity, adiabaticity, the power spectrum shape, gravitational waves, and spatial curvature. We also constrain the properties of dark energy, parity-violation, and neutrinos. We detect no convincing deviations from the minimal model. The parameters of the LCDM model, derived from WMAP combined with the distance measurements from the Type Ia supernovae (SN) and the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), are: Omega_b=0.0456+-0.0015, Omega_c=0.228+-0.013, Omega_Lambda=0.726+-0.015, H_0=70.5+-1.3 km/s/Mpc, n_s=0.960+-0.013, tau=0.084+-0.016, and sigma_8=0.812+-0.026. With WMAP+BAO+SN, we find the tensor-to-scalar ratio r<0.22 (95% CL), and n_s>1 is disfavored regardless of r. We obtain tight, simultaneous limits on the (constant) equation of state of dark energy and curvature. We provide a set of "WMAP distance priors," to test a variety of dark energy models. We test a time-dependent w with a present value constrained as -0.33<1+w_0<0.21 (95% CL). Temperature and matter fluctuations obey the adiabatic relation to within 8.9% and 2.1% for the axion and curvaton-type dark matter, respectively. The TE and EB spectra constrain cosmic parity-violation. We find the limit on the total mass of neutrinos, sum(m_nu)<0.67 eV (95% CL), which is free from the uncertainty in the normalization of the large-scale structure data. The effective number of neutrino species is constrained as N_{eff} = 4.4+-1.5 (68%), consistent with the standard value of 3.04. Finally, limits on primordial non-Gaussianity are -9<f_{NL}^{local}<111 and -151<f_{NL}^{equil}<253 (95% CL) for the local and equilateral models, respectively.

So what's going on?

Here's my working hypothesis: MM has a very different view of what modern cosmology, as a science, is than almost everyone else who has posted to this thread. If that's the case, I'd like to take this thread in somewhat of a different direction and focus on what MM's view of modern cosmology, as a science, is. In particular, I'd like to examine the extent to which it is internally consistent and the evidence there is that it employs critical thinking.

* though perhaps it's worth taking a look at these aspects later

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. This is exactly why math alone doesn't cut it. Nothing is composed of a "expectation value". Everything that is "real" mass objects and/or has a tangible effect on objects of mass. You're confusing a useful QM function about randomness with real physical objects.

You betray your ignorance yet again. If you have a massive object, how many particles does it have? Why, the obvious answer (or at least, obvious to anyone who understands quantum mechanics) is the expectation value of the number operator. We can often treat our wave function as being in an eigenstate of the number operator, but there are rather important exceptions (such as particle pair creation events).

The Higgs condensate is simply a collection of Higgs particles

No it is not. Repetition will not make it so.

It will definitely never happen here on Earth in a lab in a controlled experiment.

Big surprise: we can't curve space to any significant degree in a lab either, and probably never will. Do you have any idea why that is so?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it doesn't. You found one source aimed at a general audience which (incorrectly) referred to it as such in order to simplify their explanation. But it's just not true. Your repeated insistence on something which is false, and which everyone but you seems to understand is false, is just making you look silly.

Riiight. You refuse to embrace reality and it's all my fault....... Of course you can't demonstrate squat.

Correct: it's a field. If I have an electric field of 1 Volt/meter, what's the photon density of that field? It's a nonsensical question. Assigning a number density of Higgs particles to the Higgs field is likewise nonsensical.

Nope. In the case of the EM field the photon is only the carrier particle. In a Higgs boson condensate, the Higgs is the carrier of mass and part of the condensate *at the same time*. It's just changing energy states, not the total number of particles in the field.

 

[sol invictus]

No his claim wasn't, you still don't understand what he's referring to there when he said condensate. Different use of the word than a condensate made up of atoms.

Let me try to clear that up a little. The Higgs condensate is named that for a reason, and it is indeed by analogy to condensed matter condensates like Cooper pairs in superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms. The theory that describes them is very similar in some ways - all three can be described by a scalar field theory (which is an approximation in the condensed matter cases, but fundamental in the Higgs case) in which the scalar condenses and spontaneously breaks a symmetry.

However there are some very important differences as well. One which is crucial for this discussion is that the Higgs condensate is Lorentz invariant. If you boost a Bose-Einstein condensate, its density will increase due to Lorentz contraction. But if you boost the Higgs condensate, nothing happens - the density is invariant. That makes no sense for a substance made of a fixed number density of particles - but then, the Higgs condensate isn't.

Another difference is that in a BEC we can think of the condensate as being formed from atoms. But inside a large BEC, there is not really any such thing as an atom - the wavefunctions of the atoms are spread uniformly across the whole thing, and the excitations of that substance look nothing like individual atoms moving around (which is why BECs have such weird properties). If you lived inside a giant BEC (as we do inside the condensed Higgs phase), you'd never describe it in terms of atoms. So the degrees of freedom in the condensate bear little or no relation to the degrees of freedom in the uncondensed phase. Same goes for superconductivity.

The Higgs condensate is similar in that the degrees of freedom in the two phases are different, but in that case the Higgs particle is by definition an excitation of the condensed phase. If anything can be said to condense, it is certainly NOT Higgs particles - that would be nonsensical, since they do not even exist in the uncondensed phase. Instead what condenses are the excitations of the uncondensed phase (which don't have a more convenient name) - but at the phase transition those excitations are massless, and so the number of them is not well-defined (for reasons I explained before, which are the same reasons Zig has mentioned with regard to photons).

 

[sol invictus]

Riiight. You refuse to embrace reality and it's all my fault....... Of course you can't demonstrate squat.

You claimed to have "debunked" my mathematical proof that the Higgs condensate (or any other Lorentz scalar condensate) has a potential energy density that is constant as the universe expands. But your "debunking" consisted solely of asking irrelevant questions about "units". I answered those anyway (for entertainment) in #293 above.

So - do you now admit the math is correct? If not, please explain why - we're waiting with baited breath. Statements like "it's obviously wrong" aren't going to cut it - I gave you a specific mathematical derivation, and even answered your bizarre and irrelevant question about the units of V. So: which step is wrong?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So the question becomes "is "Lambda-CDM theory" scientific woo or not?".

Well, to answer that question, we need to have a common understanding of what "scientific woo" is, don't we?

Of course, we could always ask the site owners or admins or moderators to clarify for us, but ahead of doing that, can we take a stab at working out an answer?

I *definitely* second your idea to have Randi (or someone in his place) define the rules here. I would define it as anything like numerology that has a math formula attached to the idea and no actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms. You better hope JR doesn't get interested in this issue. You guys won't even pass his first question either by the way.

One such answer might be along the lines of "that which is published in relevant peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences", where "relevant" is understood to mean something like "to do with cosmology".

Appeal to authority fallacy. It's along the lines of asking other numerologists to decide what it right based on what they are willing to publish. You'll have to do something useful with your math.

If so, then "Lambda-CDM theory" is certainly not scientific woo; case closed.

Like there has never been anything "published' on numerology? If publishing something is all that matters then numerology is not scientific woo, case closed. Sorry, that one definitely won't cut it.

But perhaps a somewhat different definition of 'scientific woo' might be called for, something that deals with what's written in the OP, about 'evidence', 'scrutiny', 'falsification', 'verifiability', and so on?

Ya think? How about you even try passing his first question on whatever you claim you can physically demonstrate is related to inflation and dark energy?

If so, then "Lambda-CDM theory" is certainly not scientific woo, as was made quite clear in the first page of posts in this thread ... it has been intensely scrutinised,

I've only been scrutinizing it a week and already you're all squealing like pigs and hiding from the fact you can't physically demonstrate squat.

there is tonnes of evidence to support it

Prove it in a *controlled* experiment for us.

(and essentially none that doesn't), it is quintessentially falsifiable and verifiable, and so on.

BS. How can I "verify" it actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way before you point to the sky and claim "may magic math did it"?

Now I think it's fair to say that MM, the OP, is of the (strong) opinion that "Lambda-CDM theory" is, in fact, woo.

Indeed. As it relates to your claim about the inflation deity, I am a "strong" atheist. As it relates to this debate, I am simply a "weak" atheists who lacks belief and expects to see some evidence to support your claim of an inflation deity.

So what's going on?

What's going on is that you're playing numerology games to distract from the fact that you can't actually physically or empirically demonstrate anything. It's pure smoke and mirrors and any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate this fact conclusively. It is literally "metaphysical garbage" with no predictive value. It's inflation numerology.

Here's my working hypothesis: MM has a very different view of what modern cosmology, as a science, is than almost everyone else who has posted to this thread.

Not really. I'm simply an EU advocate that lacks belief in your inflation deity. You made the claim. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically. Why is that too much to ask? I can show you gravity exists in a controlled experiment. I can show you EM fields exist in a controlled experiment. Therefore my cosmology theories are easily demonstrated, and Birkeland has physically demonstrated many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation. What's your problem?

 

[temporalillusion]

Sure, but the term Higgs condensate relates to a collection of Higgs particles. It's not a magic thingy, just a collection of particles.

See Zig's and sol's reply.

This is the kind of nonsense you guys come up with instead of noting you can't demonstrate your claims empirically. It's all tangents and weird analogies.

No, I'm using different units to illustrate that there's nothing magical about units; they don't matter when you are describing the relationship.

And you didn't answer the question. If I used some different units of measure for mass and the speed of light, would the answer still be in Joules?

People resort to tangents and analogies when someone doesn't understand what they're saying. The purpose of an analogy is to take something one doesn't understand and relate it to something that one should understand in an effort to bring understanding to the doesn't understand part. If you notice people using a lot of analogies with you it's because you are missing what they're trying to say.

If one claims that a Higgs condensate will undergo exponential increases in volume and experience no change in density, the units are *critically important* and damn obvious too. What's the problem?

He gave you units already, what's the problem? I guess the problem is that it's not in "Higgs per volume" that you want but that doesn't apply anyway?

That's not true. I can see it emit light and track it in orbit. What's your point?

I assume you mean you can see it reflect light.. But by your own standards you've imposed on other phenomenon you can't say this. You only see the light reflected from Pluto, and before it was visible you could only infer its existence by movements of other bodies. You can't test for its existence in controlled experiment. You can't get Pluto at wal-mart, so it doesn't exist.

I'm just using your own lines of reasoning...

I also notice you skipped out part of my post about units, so I'll re-ask:

Units are important if you are actually making a calculation to come up with a result, but if you are using the formula to demonstrate a relationship or whatever then the units don't matter.

The area of a circle is equal to the square of the radius times pi, regardless of what units I use. Cubits, cm, miles, AU, lengths of string, whatever. Agreed?

 

[sol invictus]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Evidently you don't know what "fallacy" means. Appeal to legitimate authority - like the experts in a field - is obviously not a "fallacy". It's just the opposite - it's the best answer humanity can give.

Appeal to a false authority - as you did recently, with your creationist-style list of doubters - is a fallacy.

I've only been scrutinizing it a week and already you're all squealing like pigs and hiding from the fact you can't physically demonstrate squat.

Nah - it's just entertaining to bait trolls for a while. Eventually we'll get bored and go on to ripping a new one for the next quack that happens by.

 

[temporalillusion]

Another difference is that in a BEC we can think of the condensate as being formed from atoms. But inside a large BEC, there is not really any such thing as an atom - the wavefunctions of the atoms are spread uniformly across the whole thing, and the excitations of that substance look nothing like individual atoms moving around (which is why BECs have such weird properties). If you lived inside a giant BEC (as we do inside the condensed Higgs phase), you'd never describe it in terms of atoms. So the degrees of freedom in the condensate bear little or no relation to the degrees of freedom in the uncondensed phase. Same goes for superconductivity.

Thanks for this, this helps me out!

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let me try to clear that up a little. The Higgs condensate is named that for a reason, and it is indeed by analogy to condensed matter condensates like Cooper pairs in superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms. The theory that describes them is very similar in some ways - all three can be described by a scalar field theory (which is an approximation in the condensed matter cases, but fundamental in the Higgs case) in which the scalar condenses and spontaneously breaks a symmetry.

However there are some very important differences as well. One which is crucial for this discussion is that the Higgs condensate is Lorentz invariant. If you boost a Bose-Einstein condensate, its density will increase due to Lorentz contraction. But if you boost the Higgs condensate, nothing happens - the density is invariant. That makes no sense for a substance made of a fixed number density of particles - but then, the Higgs condensate isn't.

Another difference is that in a BEC we can think of the condensate as being formed from atoms. But inside a large BEC, there is not really any such thing as an atom - the wavefunctions of the atoms are spread uniformly across the whole thing, and the excitations of that substance look nothing like individual atoms moving around (which is why BECs have such weird properties). If you lived inside a giant BEC (as we do inside the condensed Higgs phase), you'd never describe it in terms of atoms. So the degrees of freedom in the condensate bear little or no relation to the degrees of freedom in the uncondensed phase. Same goes for superconductivity.

The Higgs condensate is similar in that the degrees of freedom in the two phases are different, but in that case the Higgs particle is by definition an excitation of the condensed phase. If anything can be said to condense, it is certainly NOT Higgs particles - that would be nonsensical, since they do not even exist in the uncondensed phase. Instead what condenses are the excitations of the uncondensed phase (which don't have a more convenient name) - but at the phase transition those excitations are massless, and so the number of them is not well-defined (for reasons I explained before, which are the same reasons Zig has mentioned with regard to photons).

OK -- from a naive point of view:
All the sources I have looked at regard the Higgs field (and particle) to be hypothetical extensions of the standard model. So, how do we know so much (in such exact detail) about a hypothetical particle and field? This situation appears to give some credibility to MM's claim that its all mathematics and not physics.

 

[sol invictus]

OK -- from a naive point of view:
All the sources I have looked at regard the Higgs field (and particle) to be hypothetical extensions of the standard model. So, how do we know so much (in such exact detail) about a hypothetical particle and field? This situation appears to give some credibility to MM's claim that its all mathematics and not physics.

There are two logically distinct questions:

1) is the standard model + Higgs theory the correct description of nature, and

2) what are the properties of the standard model+Higgs theory?

This discussion has been about 2), not 1). You're correct that we don't know the answer to 1) - that's what hte LHC was built to find out. We do know quite a bit, though - we know that there is spontaneous breaking of electro-weak symmetry, and that something has to be responsible for that. There are quite a few known alternatives to the Higgs, but all of them are either strongly disfavored by existing data or are variations on the Higgs theme (more complex versions of the simplest model). And either way, the physics of inflation, and the fact that the energy in a Lorentz scalar condensate does not change with expansion of space, is completely independent of 1).

As for whether this is all math - physics is the attempt to describe nature using mathematics. That attempt has been astonishingly successful. If you're reading this it's because you are looking at a computer monitor connected to the internet - 'nuff said. What physicists have learned is that mathematics is the correct language for describing nature, and further that the consistency requirements inherent in it are extremely restrictive - it's very, very, very difficult to write down theories that are consistent both internally and with existing data. As a result, physicists take the successful ones seriously, and that attitude has been extremely productive (it has resulted in extremely precise and successful prediction after successful prediction). So while nothing is certain, some things are nearly so - and taking mathematical models of fundamental physics seriously is one of the lessons learned.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There are two logically distinct questions:

1) is the standard model + Higgs theory the correct description of nature, and

2) what are the properties of the standard model+Higgs theory?

This discussion has been about 2), not 1). You're correct that we don't know the answer to 1) - that's what hte LHC was built to find out. We do know quite a bit, though - we know that there is spontaneous breaking of electro-weak symmetry, and that something has to be responsible for that. There are quite a few known alternatives to the Higgs, but all of them are either strongly disfavored by existing data or are variations on the Higgs theme (more complex versions of the simplest model). And either way, the physics of inflation, and the fact that the energy in a Lorentz scalar condensate does not change with expansion of space, is completely independent of 1).

As for whether this is all math - physics is the attempt to describe nature using mathematics. That attempt has been astonishingly successful. If you're reading this it's because you are looking at a computer monitor connected to the internet - 'nuff said. What physicists have learned is that mathematics is the correct language for describing nature, and further that the consistency requirements inherent in it are extremely restrictive - it's very, very, very difficult to write down theories that are consistent both internally and with existing data. As a result, physicists take the successful ones seriously, and that attitude has been extremely productive (it has resulted in extremely precise and successful prediction after successful prediction). So while nothing is certain, some things are nearly so - and taking mathematical models of fundamental physics seriously is one of the lessons learned.

The most marvelous aspect of the universe is that it does behave mathematically.
However, as I have no doubt you know, one has to be very careful how mathematics is applied to any physical reality. For example, if one tried to apply Boyle's gas law to the Higgs field (on the simplistic premise that a field is "kind of like" a gas), one would get nonsensical results. Boyle's law doesn't even work well for gasses in some situations. So, by simply "extending" the standard model to include the Higgs particle, how do we know we are getting any real physics?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks Michael, your post was way better than I'd hoped!

I *definitely* second your idea to have Randi (or someone in his place) define the rules here. I would define it [scientific woo] as anything like numerology that has a math formula attached to the idea and no actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms. You better hope JR doesn't get interested in this issue. You guys won't even pass his first question either by the way.

That's really helpful, in terms of understanding how your idea of science (in this case) differs from that of working scientists, in general.

Unfortunately, to be helpful to the topic at hand - modern cosmology, as a science - it needs some clarification, I feel.

For example - what is this "numerology", and how does one test that one has "something like numerology" in one's test setup?

More important: what, to you, constitutes "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", in cosmology?

Appeal to authority fallacy. It's along the lines of asking other numerologists to decide what it right based on what they are willing to publish. You'll have to do something useful with your math.

Like there has never been anything "published' on numerology? If publishing something is all that matters then numerology is not scientific woo, case closed. Sorry, that one definitely won't cut it.

Actually, it's standard practice, as far as I understand it, in HPS ... one (and I stress only one) way to start to get a handle on your research subject (modern cosmology, as a science) is to collect all the things that people who "do" modern cosmology, as a science, publish.

Anyway, it's a rather unproductive approach, in this case, because it doesn't get to what I'm interested in ("MM's view of modern cosmology, as a science, is. In particular, I'd like to examine the extent to which it is internally consistent and the evidence there is that it employs critical thinking.")

But perhaps a somewhat different definition of 'scientific woo' might be called for, something that deals with what's written in the OP, about 'evidence', 'scrutiny', 'falsification', 'verifiability', and so on?

Ya think? How about you even try passing his first question on whatever you claim you can physically demonstrate is related to inflation and dark energy?

If so, then "Lambda-CDM theory" is certainly not scientific woo, as was made quite clear in the first page of posts in this thread ... it has been intensely scrutinised,

I've only been scrutinizing it a week and already you're all squealing like pigs and hiding from the fact you can't physically demonstrate squat.

Though rather crudely, and rudely, expressed, this too is quite helpful; thanks.

there is tonnes of evidence to support it

Prove it in a *controlled* experiment for us.

(and essentially none that doesn't), it is quintessentially falsifiable and verifiable, and so on.

BS. How can I "verify" it actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way before you point to the sky and claim "may magic math did it"?



Indeed. As it relates to your claim about the inflation deity, I am a "strong" atheist. As it relates to this debate, I am simply a "weak" atheists who lacks belief and expects to see some evidence to support your claim of an inflation deity.



What's going on is that you're playing numerology games to distract from the fact that you can't actually physically or empirically demonstrate anything. It's pure smoke and mirrors and any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate this fact conclusively. It is literally "metaphysical garbage" with no predictive value. It's inflation numerology.



Not really. I'm simply an EU advocate that lacks belief in your inflation deity. You made the claim. All I'm asking you to do is demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically. Why is that too much to ask? I can show you gravity exists in a controlled experiment. I can show you EM fields exist in a controlled experiment.

Once again, thanks for answering so quickly and so well, in terms of making it clear how your view of modern cosmology, as a science, differs from that of almost everyone else who has posted to this thread.

As I said earlier, I'd like to focus on these differences from now on, starting with my next post.

Therefore my cosmology theories are easily demonstrated, and Birkeland has physically demonstrated many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation. What's your problem?

On first reading of this, I was going to say this isn't relevant ... but upon reflection I see that it is, very ... so thanks again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let me try to clear that up a little.

Er, right......

The Higgs condensate is named that for a reason, and it is indeed by analogy to condensed matter condensates like Cooper pairs in superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms. The theory that describes them is very similar in some ways - all three can be described by a scalar field theory (which is an approximation in the condensed matter cases, but fundamental in the Higgs case) in which the scalar condenses and spontaneously breaks a symmetry.

No Higgs bosons are created or destroyed in other words, they simply pick up an increased energy state....or they don't.

However there are some very important differences as well. One which is crucial for this discussion is that the Higgs condensate is Lorentz invariant. If you boost a Bose-Einstein condensate, its density will increase due to Lorentz contraction. But if you boost the Higgs condensate, nothing happens - the density is invariant.

Essentially correct. The *existing* boson(s) simply pick up an energy state.

That makes no sense for a substance made of a fixed number density of particles - but then, the Higgs condensate isn't.

Yes it is! The total number of Higgs bosons in the condensate never changes! You just said so yourself! Only the energy state changes. The density is unaffected by them picking up an energy state! Gah!

The only difference between these condensates is that Higgs particles are the carrier of mass and part of the condensate at the same time. You can spread out the particles and decrease the density of the Higgs field just like any other particle field just by increasing the volume.

The Higgs condensate is similar in that the degrees of freedom in the two phases are different, but in that case the Higgs particle is by definition an excitation of the condensed phase.

You're right, but then it should be obvious to you that the total number of particles in the condensate never changes! More of them can pick up an energy state, but they are incapable of "multiplying" only because we increase the volume. The density will *necessarily* be less than a more compact "condensate"! Sheesh.

If anything can be said to condense, it is certainly NOT Higgs particles - that would be nonsensical, since they do not even exist in the uncondensed phase.

The Higgs bosons exist in a higher energy state, or they don't. The number of particles is unchanged and the density is unchanged by the energy increase. The only way to affect the density is to increase/decrease the volume, in which case you will necessarily decrease/increase the density in the condensate.

I can't believe you can't see the error in your explanation. Despite your claim, the density of the condensate is not infinite. The "density" of Higgs bosons in the condensate is determined by the number of particles in the condensate divided by the volume. The number of Higgs in a higher energy state are irrelevant to the density per volume, but the volume most certainly has an effect on density!

Like I said, you are simply making this up as you go.

The Higgs condensate *is* composed of Higgs bosons and the density is determined by the number/volume like any other condensate. It's density is still total determined by particles/volume. Some of the Higgs bosons in the condensate simply have higher energy states than others, but in every other respect every part of the Higgs condensate is composed of Higgs particles like any other condensate, and they are the same as any other particle condensate. The rest of your claims are gibberish, and this is obvious bsaed on the fact you can't demonstrate your claim empirically in any possible way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks Michael, your post was way better than I'd hoped!



That's really helpful, in terms of understanding how your idea of science (in this case) differs from that of working scientists, in general.

Unfortunately, to be helpful to the topic at hand - modern cosmology, as a science - it needs some clarification, I feel.

For example - what is this "numerology", and how does one test that one has "something like numerology" in one's test setup?

Beats me. I think a better question is "what is inflation" and how does one test that inflation is real in one's test setup?

More important: what, to you, constitutes "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", in cosmology?

Let's start with Birkeland's work. It is "by the book" empirical physics, and it has *significant* predictive value. For instance, Birkeland charged the surface of his sphere as a cathode and in doing so, he "discovered" many things he didn't actually expect to observe, and he wrote about them. He described the jets, the coronal loops, solar wind, aurora around spheres, rings, etc. At the time the mainstream believed that space was pretty much a vacuum without much movement of ions or electrons or anything he actually "predicted". All of these things have now been "observed" by satellites in space. That is by the book "science".

Compare that to simply "making up" a force of nature and pointing the sky with a math formula in hand.

The only thing that PC/EU theory depends on, and requires is the existence of gravity and the existence of EM fields, both of which are known to exist in nature and show up in the lab. What's wrong with your theory? Why doesn't it "predict" anything in a controlled experiment? What value does it have if you can't even show it exists in nature other than as a "fudge factor" in your math formulas?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The most marvelous aspect of the universe is that it does behave mathematically.
However, as I have no doubt you know, one has to be very careful how mathematics is applied to any physical reality. For example, if one tried to apply Boyle's gas law to the Higgs field (on the simplistic premise that a field is "kind of like" a gas), one would get nonsensical results. Boyle's law doesn't even work well for gasses in some situations. So, by simply "extending" the standard model to include the Higgs particle, how do we know we are getting any real physics?

The easy way to know if it's "real physics" is to "experiment" and find out if the math actually fits the experimental results. Since they can't even tell you where inflation comes from, or be sure it even exists anymore (they seem sure it doesn't exist in fact), it's impossible to "experiment" with anything. We simply have to have "faith" that inflation existed at some point in time and be happy with the idea we can never actually verify it's a real physical thing and not a imaginary friend conjured up in Alan Guth's overactive imagination. Sorry, but that doesn't fly for me even if they are happy with their dogma.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

MM's view of modern cosmology, as science (1)

To get the ball rolling, I'd like to start with some stuff that's not, strictly speaking, modern cosmology*, the Sun.

In terms of "actual "predictive" value in controlled scientific tests with real control mechanisms", "physically demonstrate [something other than] squat", "actually affects anything in a physical or tangible or empirical way", "some evidence to support [one's] claim", "any real "experiment" involving control mechanisms will demonstrate [something] conclusively", "demonstrate [something] isn't a figment of your collective imagination empirically", "show [everyone something] exists in a controlled experiment", and "physically demonstrate[] many of my core beliefs in controlled experimentation", what would be acceptable, to you, re a statement such as this: "the Sun has a solid iron surface, and is powered by a [insert number here] mass neutron star at its core"?

Now, to be clear, I'm pretty sure I've got some aspects of your approach mischaracterised (even though I've quoted you) Michael, and my test statement about the Sun doesn't capture all the key aspects of one of your published papers, so I'd be grateful if you'd first suggest some corrections and edits, to make the above more atune to your approach to cosmology.

Then, could you please quickly summarise the parts of how what's in the paper with your name as an author meets with your criteria for science?

* though I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that, for MM, it is

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidently you don't know what "fallacy" means. Appeal to legitimate authority - like the experts in a field - is obviously not a "fallacy". It's just the opposite - it's the best answer humanity can give.

BZZT! I don't believe the "experts" in astronomy have found the "best answer humanity can give". Now what? We just "assume" I'm wrong because I'm not a recognized "expert" like you? Give me a break.

Appeal to a false authority - as you did recently, with your creationist-style list of doubters - is a fallacy.

The only one of us peddling a creation event is you, not me. You better be careful where you start throwing stones.

Nah - it's just entertaining to bait trolls for a while. Eventually we'll get bored and go on to ripping a new one for the next quack that happens by.

I'm going to have fun with you here. I don't have to be polite here or take your BS or play nice. I can be as rude and arrogant as you, and I can be just as obnoxious as you if you insist. The only "quack" her is you. You can't empirically demonstrate squat. You have a numerology formula with zero in the way of predictive value in any controlled experiment. You're a quack with an attitude. If you didn't engage in ad homs and strawman arguments, you'd be utterly and completely defenseless. Those seem to be your only two claims to debating fame in fact.

 

[The Man]

You mean it's part of the current dogma that you cannot empirically demonstrate. It's a "claim" you folks make that none of you can demonstrate.

Dogma? Not a chance. If you’ve got a theory that fits the observational data more accurately we would sure be glad to hear it.

Bull! You would have to show some physical link between a Higgs and inflation, and you forgot to ever do that. Paper claims don't count. I want to see real "physics".

It is called General Relativity, remember that thing that makes a GPS work and explains what we could not explain before about gravity.

It is "in your head" in the form of a mathematical formula that you cannot physically confirm! Gah. You guys can't even tell physics and empiricism from mathematical mythos.

Nope, it is quite literally at your feet as well as over your head. You obviously can’t tell that in today’s world physics has gone far beyond our human attributes of perception where there is no “empiricism” without applied mathematics.

The only thing you'll ever learn about inflation in a "real experiment" here on Earth is that it's a giant no show, like magic faeries, and invisible unicorns. It's a math myth, a lot like numerology.

Nope, as I said those experiments will confirm, refute or result in a modification of the model because as much as you might like and profess it to be, science is not dogma.

You can't "scale" something that doesn't exist! You're tying to scale magic monkey based on your claim that they only show up "out there somewhere". Come on. You can't scale something that you can't demonstrate to exist in the first place.

Well you missed the boat again on that one, the point was that certain aspects are scale dependent and those scales are simply un-producible in a lab. That certainly does not mean that those large scale effects do not exist simply because we are incapable of reproducing the conditions for those effects in a lab.

I'll grant you that observations can be used to separate valid mathematical models from ones that don't work, but *only* if you stick to known forces/curvatures of nature! You can't make up magic stuff and slap it into a math formula related and start pointing at the sky looking for verification of your magic stuff.

What you choose to grant or not to grant is completely irrelevant, as are whatever limits you would prefer to see placed on the “forces/curvatures of nature”.

Those "control mechanisms" allow us to determine the actual "cause", whereas your uncontrolled observation of invisible monkeys can't be verified based on a functional math formula. The problem here is simple. You guys can't demonstrate that inflation has any affect on the observation of redshift. Period. It's all numerology math that has no value whatsoever on Earth because inflation is evidently gone by now and we therefore will *never* be able to "experiment" with it in *any* condition. It's like the ultimate act of "faith". I have to simply accept the idea that magic inflation faeries farted out a whole universe and they are gone now, so I can't ever see them or see them do anything today. If that isn't a "religion", what is?

Well this is where you misunderstand. “can't be verified based on a functional math formula.”? Your forgetting about that whole General Relativity thing again aren’t you? In actuality the control has to be in the observations first. You can collect all the data you want, if it is not done in a controlled fashion it will most likely tell you nothing. With controlled observations of even uncontrolled events we can make causal inferences. With those causal inferences we can perhaps test them by attempting to control the process, again controlled observations are the only way we can confirm that we are controlling the process. Some processes unfortunately are just not given to our ability to control and cosmological processes account for a lot of them. Sorry, if that is a fact that you are simply not willing to accept, you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone that you take any cosmology seriously. You seem to want to put the cart before the horse claiming the need for controlled experiments under conditions and scales that we simple can not control. Unfortunately that would leave us extremely limited and eliminate countless fields of study including cosmology. Controlled observations (not specifically controlled experiments) are the principle foundation of science, without them there are no (or literally no way to perform or confirm) controlled experiments.

 

[Ziggurat]

The Higgs condensate *is* composed of Higgs bosons and the density is determined by the number/volume like any other condensate.

Nope. There are different kinds of condensates, a fact that has been pointed out to you repeatedly and which you haven't yet grasped. The Higgs condensate, unlike a Bose-Einstein condensate, is Lorentz invariant - do you have any clue what that means? Its density is not defined (and cannot be defined) as a number density, because number densities are not Lorentz invariant.

The rest of your claims are gibberish, and this is obvious bsaed on the fact you can't demonstrate your claim empirically in any possible way.

Really? And can you demonstrate your claims about Higgs particles and their relationship to the condensate in an empirical way? No, of course you can't: until we find the Higgs particle, it's still only theoretical, and so might not exist at all. Since it's still in the realm of theory only, there can be no empirical demonstration of anything by any of us on this board. All there can be is a correct and and incorrect understanding of the theory (with the correctness of the theory itself being a completely different question). And you, clearly, do not understand the theory. You would have done far better to claim the theory is wrong, or unconvincing, or untested, rather than to attack it with so little evident understanding of its meaning. But you have managed to convey one piece of information rather successfully: your hypocrisy when it comes to standards of evidence is plain for all to see.