Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[temporalillusion]

Yup the forum software can easily split out posts to a new thread. Just report the post using the little triangle and ask for that, they should be able to do it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Since then it's been clearly established that you do, indeed, have "a very different view of what modern cosmology, as a science, is than almost everyone else who has posted to this thread"

I am an empiricist. I don't practice any branch of science in a "special" way. You're the one that wants to be give cosmology theories a free pass as it relates to empirical support of concept. I see no logical reason to do that. I'm not alone in my skepticism of mainstream theory.

So the main thing that is still being discussed, in this thread, is how and why you, MM, regard modern cosmology (or at least LCDM models) as scientific woo.

It's "woo" because you can't 'predict' anything useful in a controlled experiment based on your belief in A) inflation, B)Dark energy C)Dark matter.

Now there are many ways to go about answering that question (or set of questions); I've chosen a particular approach that involves first understanding the scope of what you regard as cosmology (and you've been most forthcoming on that topic, thanks), then determining what criteria you use to assess acceptability, within that scope.

This is one of those infamous red herrings. My personal beliefs are irrelevant. Can you empirically demonstrate inflation for us today? Yes or no? The answer is of course "no", and according to you folks, it can *never* be empirically demonstrated so it is a pure act of faith.

Why then should I believe in inflation? Lots of people come up with "woo" and proclaim it to be science. How is your inflation theory any more useful at predicting anything in a controlled experiment than say numerology or astrology?

I'm sorry to read that you think I'm "attacking" you; may I assure you that I'm not, and ask that you point me to the posts where you think I was (so I can modify my future posts so as to avoid giving you this perception)?

You have absolutely no particular reason to focus on any individual or any individual's personal beliefs. Can you empirically demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, yes or no? My opinions are irrelevant to this answer. If you asked me can I empirically demonstrate that gravity and EM fields exist in nature I would have no trouble demonstrating these things exist in nature in a controlled experiment, regardless of what opinions you might have on these subjects. EU theory is therefore a form of pure empirical physics, and its core tenets show up in real experiments. If you believe Lambda-CMD theory to be superior, how so? You can't demonstrate any of your "fudge factors" are real or exist in nature, so why should I go on and on about my own beliefs, when it's your beliefs that cannot be demonstrated? The core tenets of EU/PC theory are easy to demonstrate. What's the problem with your theory and why should I give it a free pass as it relates to empirical support? Empirical support has nothing to do with the beliefs of Michael Mozina. It's not personal.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about "superluminal expansion", whatever you think that is.

How large is the physical universe in light years, and how many years old is the universe in your opinion?

Expansion of objects? What objects - what are you talking about?

You know, planets, stars, galaxies, the little things that makeup our physical universe?

You tried to draw a distinction between "spacetime expansion" and expanding space, which is absurd.

The absurd part is not noting that "space" does not expand, whereas objects can expand and do expand away from each other in all sorts of controlled experiments. Care to physically demonstrate the spacetime expansion you're trying to use that would allow this universe to be this physical size in under 14 billion years?

You have no idea what you're talking about, and as usual when called on it you respond with non-sequitors. Just like humber.

You guys have gotten really predictable at this point. It's like watching numerologist chastise me for not knowing what I'm talking about in numerology! Sheesh. Talk to me when you can actually predict the outcome of a controlled experiment with inflation or DE.

Yes or no, can you physically and empirically demonstrate inflation for us *before* you start pointing at the sky and claiming inflation faeries did it? Yes or no? Same question for DE unicorns? How are these not "acts of faith" on your part?

 

[Perpetual Student]

M. M.:
One of your major criticisms of dark energy has been the lack of evidence. My understanding is that the theory that the universe's expansion is accelerating and dark energy is the cause of that acceleration came about as a result of type 1a supernovae observations. So, I can understand why that sole evidence could be considered quite thin on its own.
Are you aware of the recent discovery of galaxy distribution and clustering that was predicted by the dark energy hypothesis? This was one of the findings of the recent Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Since I am not an astronomer and some of the details of the findings are quite esoteric, you may be able to learn something about this by researching Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona. The predicted clustering was originally described by David Weinberg of Ohio State University (among others).
I think this is the kind of observational evidence that has significant weight in the absence of "laboratory experiments.”

 

[Ziggurat]

How large is the physical universe in light years,

That is unknown. It is larger than the visible universe, but we don't know if it's closed (finite) or open (infinite), because its curvature is small.

and how many years old is the universe in your opinion?

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years.

The absurd part is not noting that "space" does not expand, whereas objects can expand and do expand away from each other in all sorts of controlled experiments. Care to physically demonstrate the spacetime expansion you're trying to use that would allow this universe to be this physical size in under 14 billion years?

Complain to Einstein. GR allows an infinitely large universe with a finite age - no inflation, dark matter, or dark energy required. Your objection only makes sense if you either don't understand general relativity or think its wrong. Since you don't seem to be taking the second option, I have to assume it's the first.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Rather than use my own words, here is a quick and easy summary:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html

I don't see any particular reason to "assume" that universe has to be "infinite" in the first place. This seems to apply to an "infinite universe", not necessarily a static one of a finite size. The inverse square law and quantum scattering would seem to take care of that problem pretty nicely unless we assume an *infinite* universe. Our eyes aren't even capable of seeing individual photons so it's really a matter of "bright areas" and "less bright areas" as far as our eyes are concerned.

What does he say about it? The observed time dilation of distant supernovae would appear to rule out any "tired light" or EM theory.

Not necessarily.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602500
Ari attributes this to the same basic mechanisms that are involved in redshifting photons. You'd have read the whole paper (it's one of his shorter ones actually) to appreciate his position but:

4 Conclusions and discussions
The very best data by the supernova researchers are consistent with the magnitude-redshift relations predicted by the plasma redshift. The data indicate that there is no time dilation; that is, the data indicate that the contemporary big-bang hypothesis is false. In Figs. 1, 2, and 3 it is assumed that each galaxy has an intrinsic redshift of about z = 0.000925, which was derived independently from the density determination in the Galactic corona. [7] Fig. 1 to 3 are consistent with these intrinsic redshift estimates. Fig. 4 indicates that Eq. (1), which eliminates the time dilation from the magnitude determination, is a good approximation. The 10 high-redshift supernovae with excessive deviation from the theoretical curve are listed in Table 2. These 10 supernovae are all at high Galactic latitudes, 9 have positive and 1 negative
deviations. This suggests that a large positive deviation is due to an underestimate of the absorption in the neutral gas of host galaxy. Fig. 2 shows that when we exclude these supernovae, both the low and high-redshift supernovae are close to the theoretical curve for plasma redshift.

Those are pretty much his views in a nutshell.

Well, I'm on thin ice here, but I'll try. The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value (at equilibrium). So, that would also have to apply to the total universe. If the universe did not have a beginning, it would have attained total equilibrium by now.

It may in fact be at "equilibrium" as far as relative movement is concerned. In theory you'd expect the energy sources of stars to run out over time, so I can see the wisdom of assuming we live in a finite and less than eternal universe. Picking an "age" of the universe however seems, well, pretty arbitrary.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is unknown. It is larger than the visible universe, but we don't know if it's closed (finite) or open (infinite), because its curvature is small.

If you don't even know it's actual size, how could you possibly know it's age?

Somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 billion years.

You picked this specific age based on? Let me guess, a *subjective interpretation* of redshift?

Complain to Einstein.

Why? He rejected blunder theory.

GR allows an infinitely large universe with a finite age - no inflation, dark matter, or dark energy required. Your objection only makes sense if you either don't understand general relativity or think its wrong. Since you don't seem to be taking the second option, I have to assume it's the first.

I don't *believe* in "blunder" theory as Einstein put it. Einstein explicitly noted that objects of mass cannot exceed the speed of light, so unless you are relying upon some form of "expansion" that you cannot actually physically demonstrate, the universe cannot be more than 28 billion light years across, and yet it is.

I'm not even going to get into debating GR with you until you can empirically demonstrate the "expansion" you're describing that would allow for a universe that is larger than 28 billion light years across. That is not an "objects in motion stay in motion" type of "expansion" and you can't physically demonstrate that "space" expands. Spacetime can expand as the object that makeup spacetime expand and spread out, but "space" never expands in a controlled experiment.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Questions:

Dark energy is estimated to account for more than 70% of the mass of the universe. I assume since DE is "energy," the mass estimate comes from the E=mc² relationship. Why is the mass estimate so huge?
DE manifests as a force that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Gravity tends to slow the universe down. So what is the mass of gravity as a percentage of the total? What percentage of the total mass would all the EM energy in the universe represent? Would quantum theory require that there exist DE particles?

 

[Michael Mozina]

M. M.:
One of your major criticisms of dark energy has been the lack of evidence.

Let me be clear it is the fact that they cannot demonstrate that DE has any affect on anything that I criticize. I'm sure they can whip up what they call "evidence" from a "point at the sky with a math formula in hand" exercise, but I'd like to see a proof of concept first. In other words they can use EM fields to explain acceleration if they like because I can be sure EM fields exist in nature. In fact I have even seen a pretty good DE theory that does away with DE altogether in favor of EM fields, making Lambda-CMD theory a hybrid EU/+ magic inflation theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

Are you aware of the recent discovery of galaxy distribution and clustering that was predicted by the dark energy hypothesis?

Well, based on that last paper, I could also rightfully claim that this same observations was predicted by the presence of EM fields in space. No "dark energy" is necessary.

I think this is the kind of observational evidence that has significant weight in the absence of "laboratory experiments.”

The problem is that pure observations are not an acceptable alternative to some empirical tests. Obviously we cannot control events in space, but we should be able to demonstrate the items we put into formulas exist in nature. "Dark energy" does not exist in nature, and according to that paper, it's not even necessary in the first place since an ordinary EM field would do fine.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Questions:

Dark energy is estimated to account for more than 70% of the mass of the universe. I assume since DE is "energy," the mass estimate comes from the E=mc² relationship. Why is the mass estimate so huge?
DE manifests as a force that causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Gravity tends to slow the universe down. So what is the mass of gravity as a percentage of the total? What percentage of the total mass would all the EM energy in the universe represent? Would quantum theory require that there exist DE particles?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

Checkout this paper.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Creationist tactics like appeal to a long list of names. Complete misrepresentation of the topic at hand. Demanding the theory in question explains stuff it was never intended to explain or be tested in such a way as to falsify the theory if the test was succesful. Regular shifting of goal posts. Complete refusal to subject their own pet theory to the standard of proof they demand of others.
Oh wait, these were all tactics used by you.

Nope, not by me. I can easily demonstrate that gravity and EM fields are not figments of my imagination and they work in an empirical experiment with real control mechanisms. All I'm asking you for is evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. Is that really too much to ask when you are claiming this is a form of "science"? FYI, I'm not attached to any timeline or creation event, so the only one of us that is peddling a creation event on a specific timeline that they can't actually demonstrate is you, not me.

 

[ben m]

All I'm asking you for is evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination. Is that really too much to ask when you are claiming this is a form of "science"? FYI, I'm not attached to any timeline or creation event, so the only one of us that is peddling a creation event on a specific timeline that they can't actually demonstrate is you, not me.

Inflation is a hypothesis. It's a good hypothesis in the opinion of most physicists, and a bad hypothesis in the opinion of a small number of people.

With inflation, we do exactly what we're supposed to do with hypotheses: make predictions and try to verify or falsify them using all available means. Your distinction between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" experiments is stupid and useless---you invented it yourself, and you redefine it on the fly such that "science you like" comes out on the good side and "science you don't like" comes out on the bad side.

There is no actual scientific-method objection to the fact that inflation is a hypothesis, nor to the observational model-testing apparatus that appears to confirm it. Nor would there be any objection to a non-inflation hypothesis which also passed such tests. (Not that you have suggested one.)

Your objection, after God-knows-how-many posts on the topic, still seems to be "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and I, Michael Mozina, despite not understanding either the claims or the proof, have appointed myself the sole judge of what is extraordinary and what isn't."

 

[Michael Mozina]

Inflation is a hypothesis. It's a good hypothesis in the opinion of most physicists, and a bad hypothesis in the opinion of a small number of people.

What exactly makes it a "good" hypothesis in the absence of empirical verification to demonstrate it even exists in nature?

With inflation, we do exactly what we're supposed to do with hypotheses: make predictions and try to verify or falsify them using all available means.

But if I swipe your math and call it "magic", you can't distinguish it from magic math! You skipped a big step. You forgot to show it exists and has the effect on things that you claim it has *before* pointing at the sky! We can't even ever empirically test the idea, so how is it anything other than a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer"? If one lacks belief in the the idea on empirical grounds, how does one gain belief in the idea? I can't just turn off my skepticism due to a curve fitting exercise related to magic.

Your distinction between "controlled" and "uncontrolled" experiments is stupid and useless

Baloney. Control mechanisms distinguish between woo and real things. Woo doesn't do anything in a controlled experiment, whereas real things do.

---you invented it yourself,

Er, no.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

Inflation evidently doesn't even exist anymore, so it has no observable ramifications anymore. It doesn't even qualify as a "scientific" theory. Even more damning however:

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests.

You simply *assumed* that inflation caused some phenomenon and never "tested" squat!

Your objection, after God-knows-how-many posts on the topic, still seems to be "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and I, Michael Mozina, despite not understanding either the claims or the proof, have appointed myself the sole judge of what is extraordinary and what isn't."

What? If you claimed that EM fields existed, you could easily demonstrate your claim. If you claimed gravity exists in nature, again, you can easily demonstrate your clam. If you claimed sound exists in nature, you can demonstrate this too. If you claim inflation did it, you can't demonstrate it at all, and you blame Michael for your failure to be able to support your claim empirically. You can't demonstrate inflation exists at all, let alone that it has some affect on a whole universe. It has no affect on anything. I can even tell you the individual that dreamed it up out of his human imagination.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, you also skipped step three entirely.

From that link.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

You skipped step three of the method entirely. You used an observation to come up with a mathematical model that has no useful function outside of the observation in question, and then you "test" it against the *very same* observation you used to work out your math! You never "predicted' anything new or any new observations with your theory! It's a circular feedback loop and has no other affect on anything!

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't *believe* in "blunder" theory as Einstein put it. Einstein explicitly noted that objects of mass cannot exceed the speed of light, so unless you are relying upon some form of "expansion" that you cannot actually physically demonstrate, the universe cannot be more than 28 billion light years across, and yet it is.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. The "blunder" was the belief (probably not the right word) in a cosmological constant that exactly counteracted gravity. As you've been told, this is an unstable equilibrium so would not provide a static Universe. Hence, when this was pointed out and Hubble made his observations, Einstein quickly rejected this idea of a static Universe in favour of a Universe with expanding spacetime[\B]. The argument from Einstein you're making is in direct contradiction to the argument you want to make.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nope, not by me. I can easily demonstrate that gravity and EM fields are not figments of my imagination and they work in an empirical experiment with real control mechanisms. All I'm asking you for is evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your imagination.

You were given a long list earlier. Which you rejected out of hand. If you want I can link to it again.

Is that really too much to ask when you are claiming this is a form of "science"? FYI, I'm not attached to any timeline or creation event, so the only one of us that is peddling a creation event on a specific timeline that they can't actually demonstrate is you, not me.

How many times! I never called you a creationist. I was just pointing out the ways that your argument style was like that of a creationist. I cannot believe you do not know the difference between "is a" and "is like a" statements. Is your reading comprehension really that terrible? Or are you deliberately making strawmen. If its the former then I apologise but if its the latter then you're just making yourself look stupid. Anybody can check back and see what I did or didn't say.

 

[Dancing David]

MM, here you make the same sophomoric mistake that you make repeatedly and it shows that you have some strange notions about science and reality

I can easily demonstrate that gravity and EM fields are not figments of my imagination and they work in an empirical experiment with real control mechanisms.

Science is a set of approximate models for the behavior of reality. Period.

Let us try that in red shall we:


Science is a set of approximate models for the behavior of reality.

You are very wrong, you can not produce a neutron, you can not produce an EM field, and you can not do any of the magic things you keep pretending that you are doing.

You can produce an 'effect' that you 'interpret' as an 'EM field'. But it is still the interpretation of indirect observational evidence. You have the model 'EM field' you make a predictions based upon the 'model of EM fields', and then you see if you can get observations to match those models.

You are making the finger=moon mistake. You are equating a map to the terrain and claiming that you have some sort of magic map that is better than all other maps. But you are not empirical in the least.

-You have no evidence that supports alternate explanations of redshift. Each one that you have presented is in direct contradiction of observe red data. that is why you are not 'empirical', you can't match your theory to the data.

You deny the existence of Pauli numbers, Fermi’s' neutrino and Yukawa particles every time you call DM or DE a 'metaphysical entity'.

Because here is the deal, and why you are sophomoric. they are ALL metaphysical entities, there is always a level of abstraction to ANY theory.

Gravity does not exist, there is a model of 'gravity' that explains the behavior of reality.
Electrons do not exist, there is a model of 'electrons' that explains the behavior of reality.

This is true for all words, all thoughts and all theories, all the time. When you pretend that you are 'empirical' , you are just pretending that your finger is the moon.

Your models do not match the evidence, you refuse as do all PC people to explain some very simple observations and then hide behind the skirts of 'laboratory science'.

1. You have not presented a model of alternate redshift that is not in direct contradiction with observation of cosmological redshifts and other data.
2. You have not offered any explanation of why objects in orbit around common centers of gravity move at a faster rate than explained by the theory of gravity-DM.
3. You have not presented a model that can coherently explain a lot of the disparate evidence for the expansion of the universe and its apparent acceleration.



All models are wrong, they are all just approximations of the behavior of reality. Some are better approximations than others.

But you are deluded if you think you are 'empirical', you have yet to present coherent theories that are not contradicted by the evidence.

You don't like
-inflation
-dark matter
-dark energy
that is fine, neither do most of the people who were first presented with them (something your ignore)

but they are possible models that explain what is actually observe red,

you have yet to present a coherent models that explains either
-the observed 'cosmological redshift'
-the rotations curves of galaxies
-the observed acceleration over time of the redshift phenomena.

It is all very well to question
but you haven't actually tried to present an alternative that meets the observations.

It is great that you oppose ideas, we all should, but then you need to come up with a model that meets the data better.

So far that is lacking.


Now i am sure you will further your sophmoric attitude arather than actually adress my points.

 

[sol invictus]

Can you empirically demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your imagination, yes or no?

As you have been told over and over, yes.

How large is the physical universe in light years, and how many years old is the universe in your opinion?

You already asked me that question, and I already answered. You completely ignored my response, and now you're asking precisely the same thing again.

Why?

You know, planets, stars, galaxies, the little things that makeup our physical universe?

You thought the expansion of the universe meant stars are expanding?!

Another stupid and childish misunderstanding - but at least now I understand your bizarre questions. You need to go learn something, MM.

Care to physically demonstrate the spacetime expansion you're trying to use that would allow this universe to be this physical size in under 14 billion years?

Now you're back to rejecting GR after telling us it was empirically supported. The sad part is, you have no idea what you're saying.

You guys have gotten really predictable at this point. It's like watching numerologist chastise me for not knowing what I'm talking about in numerology! Sheesh. Talk to me when you can actually predict the outcome of a controlled experiment with inflation or DE.

The theory can and does successfully predict the outcome of literally thousands of experiments every day. Every observation made by each of the tens of telescopes and other astro instruments around the globe and in orbit.

Yes or no, can you physically and empirically demonstrate inflation for us *before* you start pointing at the sky and claiming inflation faeries did it? Yes or no? Same question for DE unicorns? How are these not "acts of faith" on your part?

The same question again, and again you ignore the answer every time it's given and simply ask again. What a total waste of time.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't *believe* in "blunder" theory as Einstein put it.

Get it through your head already: expansion of space itself in GR happens in the absence of a cosmological constant, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation.

Einstein explicitly noted that objects of mass cannot exceed the speed of light,

Which, if you understood anything about GR, would tell you precisely nothing about how the metric itself can change.

I'm not even going to get into debating GR with you

Of course not, because you clearly don't understand it, you obviously don't believe it, and yet you insist on pretending that your own ideas don't contradict it. No wonder you're not interested in debating GR.

 

[sol invictus]

Get it through your head already: expansion of space itself in GR happens in the absence of a cosmological constant, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation.

Exactly right.

I'll repeat it one more time - in GR the only way to avoid the conclusion that space is expanding (or contracting) is to add both a positive cosmological constant and positive spatial curvature (in exactly the right balance) - and even then the solution is unstable. Every other cosmological solution either expands or contracts.

So if you deny that space expands, you deny that GR is correct. But you told us you believe GR. Yet another contradiction.