Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[sol invictus]

I believe the point is that there are some knowledgeable people out there who are not convinced by the current consensus and who feel they are not given fair treatment. Is that true or not?

I'm not aware of anyone that thoroughly understands the relevant physics and doesn't think the universe is expanding.

Suppose you want to overthrown the standard cosmological model. You'll need:

1) to understand the current model very, very, very well, understand the evidence for it and why it came to be accepted in the first place, and be able to point out specific flaws or internal inconsistencies and argue convincingly that these really are a problem; and

2) to have a specific, concrete, mathematically rigorous model which fits the data as well or better than the standard one.

There are lots of historical examples of this - Einstein's GR is a perfect one.

But I have never encountered anyone that remotely qualifies for either 1) or 2) in this context, let alone both. In fact all the PC proponents I've seen fail 1) miserably, and 2) even more so.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(my bold)

No offense to derekmcd of course, but that is an absolutely hilarious statement. You've demonstrated over and over that you don't know anything about GR.

This denial and personal attack routine is typical of your industry. Unless you simply never followed this conversation at all, it should be very obvious to you and everyone else that your theory has *qualification* problems, not *quantification* problems. My math skills are therefore utterly irrelevant to my basic objection, nor am I asking you for any math, or any help with math.

Even if one individual cannot demonstrate their point mathematically on command, that does not mean that this has never been done by anyone else, or that you may therefore ignore the work which was done just because the individual presenting the work cannot personally duplicate that work.

I've met many "scientists" on the web over the years, many reporting to be "experts" on GR. Of all the individuals I've met over the past 4 years in cyberspace, the two folks I'd trust most to explain something to me correctly about GR are an individual that goes by the handle of Tensor and Derek. Did the fact you were left off my list upset you somehow?

Can you solve Einstein's equations in any context? Do you know anything about pseudo-Riemannian manifolds?

Again, you missed my point or you are intentionally avoiding the whole point of my criticism. If I was complaining about your mathematical presentation or complaining about GR theory, you'd have some legitimate reason to question my background in math and solving GR equations. Since I'm not questioning your postidicted math formulas, and I am questioning your your lack of *qualification* of inflation as a force of nature, this is a moot point.

You guys love to posture with this math ego of yours and parade around these math formulas as though they are deities and entities in and of themselves due to their mathematical elegance. It is not true that one needs a mathematical understanding of an idea to "verify" the existence of something. I can drop apples to show that gravity has an effect on objects in nature. I can turn on my plasma ball and see the effects of the current in the plasma even without understanding anything at all about MHD theory. The *physical demonstration of concept* is a form of "qualification", not necessarily quantification. The "qualification process" can help us determine if the mathematical models are accurate, but you need something to happen and a control mechanisms to do that. Evidently inflation is dead, and no control mechanism with therefore ever exist to test anything. You folks simply ignore the observations that shoot holes in your theory, or you incorporate them into the "new and improved inflation/dark energy deity".

If and when I'm complaining about something related to your math or your personal grasp of GR, and it has some relevance to our conversation, then ask me again. Since I asked about how you *qualified* your theory, it's not even relevant.

If you were such the "expert" on GR, you'd just ignore me altogether and go find the error in Michal's paper by yourself and "show me" you have a better grasp of GR than I do.

 

[Michael Mozina]

These are quite specious arguments. Gravity (Einstein or Newton -- take your pick) is a foundational theory of physics. The same is true of Maxwell's equations and all subsequent QED theories.
Asking MM to demonstrate the existence these phenomena as some sort of test that is supposed to equate to the (quite hypothetical) existence of DE and inflation is so much sophistry.
MM's complaint is that DE and inflation cannot be demonstrated in a lab. He is correct, but his complaint has no merit since there exist a multitude of astronomical phenomena that cannot be duplicated in a lab, which nevertheless have a strong scientific basis.
The current prevailing theory of gravity could possible be modified or amplified some day to some small degree; but it is not going to be overturned. However, it is still possible that DE will be overturned by a new approach coming from new observations. If you can't agree to that you are engaging in dogmatism, not science!

There is one point of clarification I would add here to your comments. I fully realize that any and all theories will need to be "scaled to size" and there *must* be an allowance for this in *any* cosmology theory. I can't duplication a neutron star in a lab, but I can demonstrate they exist in nature and that gravity has an effect on nature, and it's therefore "possible" that such stars could form. I likewise can't create an object with an event horizon in a lab (some think this is actually possible but I do not), yet even still, I'm willing to entertain they idea because it's just a combo of gravity and mass. We might debate whether it achieves "infinite density", but the basic concept of a very massive objects is based on physics. I'll even go so far as to allow for theories like "quark stars" other exotic ideas that I know can't be demonstrated here, but may have some merit because quarks show up in experiments on Earth.

It's only when a new *force* of nature is being posited that an extra step is then required. One must demonstrate that their new force exists in nature. Guth never did that. His "reasoning" for inflation is that he couldn't otherwise explain expansion. He other "big prediction" from the paper was a prediction of near zero "monopoles", and he seemed to believe that was useful somehow. It's like claiming your theory is valid because it predicts the existence of zero unicorns in nature, and indeed there are none.

Guth's inflation was pure "ad hoc". It wasn't like the neutrino for instance that came about via active controlled experimentation and the fact a law of physics seemed be violated in a decay reaction. In that case there was very good reason to posit an actual new form of energy. There was real "physics" and real "hardware tests" done to verify the existence of the neutrino. That's fine by me. In Guth's case however, he simply "made it up in his head" due to his inability to otherwise explain the observation in question. In 25 years since the time he first postulated inflation, it's now evidently been labeled "dead on arrival" by the time it reaches Earth, so we know for certain we can *never* demonstrate it actually exists in nature.

There's a huge difference between controlled experimentation that leads to postulation as in the case of the neutrino, and a concept pulled directly out of a single individuals backside based on pure speculation.

Inflation is the ultimate "ad hoc" concept. It's also utterly unfalsifiable. When there observations don't fit, like a dead inflation deity should result in a universe that slows down over time and instead the universe is still accelerating, they invent yet a new deity to explain the failures of the old one. When they discover now that the universe has "dark flows", they're now in denial, and soon they'll come up with new "dark flow" attributes to assign to the inflation deity formula. This isn't science, this is religion. It requires *multiple* (not just one) acts of "pure faith" in something they cannot empirically demonstrate.

 

[temporalillusion]

It is not true that one needs a mathematical understanding of an idea to "verify" the existence of something. I can drop apples to show that gravity has an effect on objects in nature.

By your $50 wal mart lab standard of discovery, Pluto would have never been discovered.

Please describe how you would have discovered Pluto in the lab with $50 worth of stuff from wal mart?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I find this particularly odd ...

If GR is a theory of gravity, then DE in the form of the cosmological constant (lambda) is part of that theory ...

Demonstrate it. Show me that "dark energy" has some effect on objects made of mass. I can show you that EM fields affect objects. Show me DE isn't a figment of your imagination *before* you go stuffing it into a formula we agree is a real physics formula.

The part that was simply "over the top" for me is suddenly I'm supposed to believe that everything I once "knew" about the composition of the universe was entirely false and 75 percent of it is made of something you can't even demonstrate? More importantly the QM ramifications were virtually ignored altogether. You don't find that the least bit "suspicious"?

i.e. DE is gravity,

That is simply another claim that you cannot demonstrate here on Earth. Since DE is evidently not "dead" like inflation, how about a physical demonstration of concept? Predict something useful in a controlled experiment here on Earth based on your "knowledge" that dark energy *is* gravity.

and observations confirming the existence of DE in nature, as part of gravity, should be welcomed, shouldn't they? After all, we could say that yet another prediction from GR has been empirically demonstrated, couldn't we?

This whole line of reasoning demonstrates the circular feedback nature of your theory. The observation of acceleration could have been "interpreted" as a failure of your (inflation/GR) deity, but instead you stuffed the deity with new forces of nature to fill the gaps, and you needed 75 percent gap filler to do it.

After all, this is perfectly consistent with the way you conflate "electricity" with "EM fields", isn't it?

No. EM field do thing to other things in real "experiments" on Earth. DE is like inflation. It's useless at "predicting" anything from a real controlled experiment. It's a dead deity too, and pure gap filler.

 

[Michael Mozina]

By your $50 wal mart lab standard of discovery, Pluto would have never been discovered.

Please describe how you would have discovered Pluto in the lab with $50 worth of stuff from wal mart?

Unless you're trying to claim that some object in space is made of material that does not exist on Earth, you aren't making any 'extraordinary' claims by identifying a "planet" (at least at that time) when we clearly have evidence of the existence of planets and normal matter here on Earth. I have no doubt that ordinary matter exist in nature. I'm made of the stuff.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Cool, I want a bike powered by the strong force! Or a Casimir Effect door closer. Or my quantum entanglement telephone! Schrodinger's litter box too. Fusion powered garden lights? Neutrino flashlight?



Your silly plasma ball "experiment" doesn't describe even Newton's understanding of gravity let alone Einstein's.

You seem to be having a tough time with the idea of empirical physics. Neutrinos have been shown to have an effect on matter. Fusion powers the bombs that protect my nation. The Casimir effect shows up in a lab. In short, every "process" you describe shows up in controlled experiments, whereas nothing useful at all can ever be done with inflation.

 

[temporalillusion]

Unless you're trying to claim that some object in space is made of material that does not exist on Earth, you aren't making any 'extraordinary' claims by identifying a "planet" (at least at that time) when we clearly have evidence of the existence of planets and normal matter here on Earth. I have no doubt that ordinary matter exist in nature. I'm made of the stuff.

So, maybe all the planets are an illusion? You only infer they exist by indirect observation. Do you have any way of telling the difference between light reflecting off a real planet and light being generated in a complicated illusion somehow?

Do you forget that Pluto wasn't observed? It's existence was inferred by indirect observations of other things.

You seem to be having a tough time with the idea of empirical physics. Neutrinos have been shown to have an effect on matter. Fusion powers the bombs that protect my nation. The Casimir effect shows up in a lab. In short, every "process" you describe shows up in controlled experiments, whereas nothing useful at all can ever be done with inflation.

Luck you to live in a time when every real force and object in the universe has been detected and cataloged in the lab.

None of those things are available in wal mart, so again by your standards they should be discounted. Oh but for these forces you can make an exception.

At one point the neutrino was the exact same as inflation.. observations were made that could not fit in the existing models, so a new particle was invented to compensate for that. The theory and math was worked out 20 years before the particle was actually detected.

So if you were posting between the prediction and the detection, would you have the same view of the neutrino; would you call all of established physics wrong because they believed in a made up particle?

On one had you discount what the majority of science says, on the other you place absolute trust in them that everything real can be reproduced in the lab.

What is so special about us that every aspect of reality should ultimately be reproducible by us in the lab?

Your pattern is similar to that of a creationist. You seem to be having a problem with not being 100% right, problem with knowledge changing over time and new discoveries taking more than a moment to fully understand.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, maybe all the planets are an illusion?

Including the one I'm on now?

You seem to be missing the key point here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Planets are made of ordinary material and I live on a planet. The notion other planets existing in space is not an extraordinary claim. The claim that "inflation did it", *is* an extraordinary claim because inflation is dead and to my knowledge it never existed in the first place.

None of those things are available in wal mart, so again by your standards they should be discounted. Oh but for these forces you can make an exception.

I never said it *must* be available at Walmart. I simply said most useful things show up in Walmart products and those that do not tend to be really expensive, or are controlled as a function of national security.

At one point the neutrino was the exact same as inflation..

Never. In the case of neutrinos, it was *controlled experimentation* that suggested we were either A) missing some particle of mass, or B) the *laws* of conservation of energy were invalid. Option A violated no known laws of physics and controlled experiments told us one of the two must be true.

Inflation came right out of Guth's imagination, not from controlled experimentation, and unlike neutrinos that have a measurable effect on Earth, inflation is dead and cannot ever be "tested" for nor will it ever do anything on Earth.

This was a *terrible* comparison.

What is so special about us that every aspect of reality should ultimately be reproducible by us in the lab?

So this also should apply to all religious ideas too I presume?

Your pattern is similar to that of a creationist. You seem to be having a problem with not being 100% right, problem with knowledge changing over time and new discoveries taking more than a moment to fully understand.

You have that backwards. You expect me to accept your belief system on *faith* like any creationist and you have no empirical support to back up your claim. It's a pure act of faith that you ask for and demand. Any evidence I might present to demonstrate that many things in the universe can be explained with ordinary gravity and electricity are met with contempt and are ignored, regardless of the validity of the issue in question. You *insist* I have faith in your inflation deity regardless of the fact you can't demonstrate it.

 

[temporalillusion]

Including the one I'm on now?

Nope, that's the exception. The other ones are though, because I can't prove their existence in a controlled experiment.

The claim that "inflation did it", *is* an extraordinary claim because inflation is dead and to my knowledge it never existed in the first place.

Observations showed there was something that could not be explained with existing models, so the model was changed. Is it the changing of a model that you have a problem with?

I never said it *must* be available at Walmart. I simply said most useful things show up in Walmart products and those that do not tend to be really expensive, or are controlled as a function of national security.

Not at all what you've said, every post seems to imply that because I can't buy inflation driven devices at wal mart it's made up.

Never. In the case of neutrinos, it was *controlled experimentation* that suggested we were either A) missing some particle of mass, or B) the *laws* of conservation of energy were invalid. Option A violated no known laws of physics and controlled experiments told us one of the two must be true.

Observations suggested something was missing, that those observations took place in a lab is incidental. I don't see why observations in a lab where the control is contrived is so special compared to astronomical observations were the control is other astronomical observations.

Inflation came right out of Guth's imagination, not from controlled experimentation, and unlike neutrinos that have a measurable effect on Earth, inflation is dead and cannot ever be "tested" for nor will it ever do anything on Earth.

The neutrino came out of imagination as well, its properties were generated out of pure thought before it was detected. When detected it fit with the prediction.

This was a *terrible* comparison.

Oh well, I tried. I do wish I was better at articulating myself.

So this also should apply to all religious ideas too I presume?

By saying that you just lead me to believe that the only evidence you find acceptable is that which you can reproduce in a lab at this moment in time.

You have that backwards. You expect me to accept your belief system on *faith* like any creationist and you have no empirical support to back up your claim.

No, it's like a creationist because people spend pages and pages showing all the support, asking for alternatives, etc and the reply is still wal mart cosmology.

It's a pure act of faith that you ask for and demand. Any evidence I might present to demonstrate that many things in the universe can be explained with ordinary gravity and electricity are met with contempt and are ignored, regardless of the validity of the issue in question. You *insist* I have faith in your inflation deity regardless of the fact you can't demonstrate it.

I've seen much evidence in this thread, but not much from you...

Maybe because you haven't listened to what they've said, and you haven't demonstrated the level of understanding you claim to have, is why they are sometimes terse with you?

I guess I'm just tilting at windmills, if the guys that have a far better understanding can't communicate it in a way that you grok it, I have no hope.

 

[Dancing David]

These are quite specious arguments. Gravity (Einstein or Newton -- take your pick) is a foundational theory of physics. The same is true of Maxwell's equations and all subsequent QED theories.
Asking MM to demonstrate the existence these phenomena as some sort of test that is supposed to equate to the (quite hypothetical) existence of DE and inflation is so much sophistry.
MM's complaint is that DE and inflation cannot be demonstrated in a lab. He is correct, but his complaint has no merit since there exist a multitude of astronomical phenomena that cannot be duplicated in a lab, which nevertheless have a strong scientific basis.
The current prevailing theory of gravity could possible be modified or amplified some day to some small degree; but it is not going to be overturned. However, it is still possible that DE will be overturned by a new approach coming from new observations. If you can't agree to that you are engaging in dogmatism, not science!

You misunderstood my post.

here is the short form:

1. All human words, thought and theories are models. None have any truth to them, they are abstracted maps that approximate reality.
2. It is only through examination of a model/theory that the validity of it's predictions can be asertained.

It is foolish sophistry to state that only laboratory experiements can produce empirical result. Observation of spectral lines in the sun's spectru, led to the discovery of helium. Not lab experiments, they confirmed that the hypothesis of the new element was coherent with observation.

You have mistaken my post entirely.
dark matter is a hypothesis /theory to explain the gravitational effects that are observed. Stars, star clusters and galaxies move in a way that indicates there is more gravity present than can be accounted for through the observation of EM radiation. ERGO energy/partciles are hypothesized that suggest there are partciles that interact only with gravity, so they do not give an EM signature to detect. this is the hypotesis of dark matter. So far it is coherent, but likely to be tested repeatedly.
dark energy i don't really understand, but it accouints for the apaprent increase in the what is hypotesized to be the cosmological redshift over time. It again is a hypothesis that will need to be tested.

But electrons and gravity are hypotsthesis as well, they are not tangible, they are abstaced concepts of approximate behavior. there are theories that are based upon those hypothesis and make predictions about the observation. IE the theories are coherent with observational data.

My point is that there is observational data, period.

Some occurs in a lab, some occurs in the universe. Why si Eddington's limit accepted theory even though it can not be tested in alab, ebacsue we can llok for stars that excede Eddington's limit. And we don't find them.

 

[Perpetual Student]

(s. i.) I'm not aware of anyone that thoroughly understands the relevant physics and doesn't think the universe is expanding.

I think MM might say, after someone has spent the years required to understand the relevant physics, they can no longer think about cosmological expansion with an open mind. There could be some merit to that point.

Suppose you want to overthrown the standard cosmological model. You'll need:

1) to understand the current model very, very, very well, understand the evidence for it and why it came to be accepted in the first place, and be able to point out specific flaws or internal inconsistencies and argue convincingly that these really are a problem; and

2) to have a specific, concrete, mathematically rigorous model which fits the data as well or better than the standard one.

There are lots of historical examples of this - Einstein's GR is a perfect one.

But I have never encountered anyone that remotely qualifies for either 1) or 2) in this context, let alone both. In fact all the PC proponents I've seen fail 1) miserably, and 2) even more so.

In my view, the requirements you state in 1) and 2) above, are quite valid and make a very powerful point. I agree, from my (layman's) perspective, it doesn't appear any of the detractors of the current model meet either 1) or 2).

 

[Perpetual Student]

You misunderstood my post.

here is the short form:

1. All human words, thought and theories are models. None have any truth to them, they are abstracted maps that approximate reality.
2. It is only through examination of a model/theory that the validity of it's predictions can be asertained.

OK.

It is foolish sophistry to state that only laboratory experiements can produce empirical result. Observation of spectral lines in the sun's spectru, led to the discovery of helium. Not lab experiments, they confirmed that the hypothesis of the new element was coherent with observation.

I agree.

You have mistaken my post entirely.
dark matter is a hypothesis /theory to explain the gravitational effects that are observed. Stars, star clusters and galaxies move in a way that indicates there is more gravity present than can be accounted for through the observation of EM radiation. ERGO energy/partciles are hypothesized that suggest there are partciles that interact only with gravity, so they do not give an EM signature to detect. this is the hypotesis of dark matter. So far it is coherent, but likely to be tested repeatedly.

I agree.

dark energy i don't really understand, but it accouints for the apaprent increase in the what is hypotesized to be the cosmological redshift over time. It again is a hypothesis that will need to be tested.

Yes, I agree.

But electrons and gravity are hypotsthesis as well, they are not tangible, they are abstaced concepts of approximate behavior. there are theories that are based upon those hypothesis and make predictions about the observation. IE the theories are coherent with observational data.

Yes, however electrons and gravity have passed the test of being productive models through many years and countless tests. That is not true of DE, for example.

My point is that there is observational data, period.

Some occurs in a lab, some occurs in the universe. Why si Eddington's limit accepted theory even though it can not be tested in alab, ebacsue we can llok for stars that excede Eddington's limit. And we don't find them.

Yes, however, controlled experiments can speed up the process and reduce ambiguities for verification. Simple observations take a lot more time and are often subject to interpretation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope, that's the exception. The other ones are though, because I can't prove their existence in a controlled experiment.

That is absolutely not true. We've landed things on several planets now. The existence of other planets have been empirically demonstrated with "real hardware".

Observations showed there was something that could not be explained with existing models, so the model was changed. Is it the changing of a model that you have a problem with?

If you had "changed" your model using known forces of nature, I would have had no particular complaint about your changes. When Guth however pulled a whole force of nature out of his pure imagination, that's quite a different sort of "change". I'd like to see evidence he didn't just "make it up" and slap some postdicted math on it.

Not at all what you've said, every post seems to imply that because I can't buy inflation driven devices at wal mart it's made up.

There is a significant difference between a non-existent hypothetical entity and one that has a useful function. EM fields are easily demonstrated and they show up in consumer products. Gravity shows up in empirical experiments too and it has useful predictive value when putting spacecraft on distant planets. Inflation is evidently dead and gone, and it's a pure act of faith.

Observations suggested something was missing, that those observations took place in a lab is incidental.

That is absolutely silly. It is not "incidental" in the least. In the case of neutrinos it was "controlled experimentation" with a known "source" of energy/mass that led to the realization that some energy/mass was unaccounted for in these controlled decay reactions, or laws of physics were being violated and they were no longer "laws" at all. The more "likely" scenario is we were missing something. We knew where these neutrinos came from and we identified the source. We built real hardware to "test" the theory again in "controlled experimentation". This branch of astronomy is "squeaky clean" pure empirical physics at it's finest.

Compare and contrast that with Guth being perplexed one night about the the BB and simply "making up" inflation in his head without so much as doing a single controlled experiment.

I don't see why observations in a lab where the control is contrived is so special compared to astronomical observations were the control is other astronomical observations.

You can't "control" anything in a pure observation. In the case of the neutrino, they had already identified the presumed source of these particles. They understood the approximate energy states and could therefore build real hardware to attempt to detect them. They did build hardware to detect neutrinos, and they built more controlled experiments to verify their hardware worked as advertised. They turned of the source and watched the effect on their experiments.

You can't turn on or off inflation and in fact according to theory it's gone and useless now for anything related to science other than to prop up your otherwise failed dogma.

Neutrino detection on the other hand is real, and has real uses in the real world.

The neutrino came out of imagination as well, its properties were generated out of pure thought before it was detected.

No. They came out of "experimental, empirical science", done the old fashion way. Inflation was a figment of one guys imagination who simply 'made it up'.

When detected it fit with the prediction.

You have no hope of ever "detecting" your inflation thing. It's dead and therefore useless at predicting the outcome of any scientific experiment. It's an act of faith that has no practical value whatsoever.

No, it's like a creationist because people spend pages and pages showing all the support, asking for alternatives, etc and the reply is still wal mart cosmology.

I'll take Walmart cosmology (AKA "Real physics") over make believe deities that have no useful function whatsoever any day of the week.

Maybe because you haven't listened to what they've said, and you haven't demonstrated the level of understanding you claim to have, is why they are sometimes terse with you?

No "level of understanding" is required for me to "experience" gravity. No "level of understanding" is necessary for me to be struck by lightning. I can experience these things in nature because they exist in nature. I only have to have a "level of understanding" in numerology and inflation theory and things that have no useful predictive value whatsoever that can be demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

I guess I'm just tilting at windmills, if the guys that have a far better understanding can't communicate it in a way that you grok it, I have no hope.

I hear this sort of argument a lot on religious websites. If I only 'understood better' it would make more sense to me. I'm often told that the reason it doesn't make sense to me personally is because I'm not an "expert" in that field. This faith of yours in inflation is actually "goofier" than most people's faith in a deity because most folks who believe in a deity believe that it has an effect on their lives. The inflation deity is evidently dead and useless to anyone except someone who is desperately trying to "keep the faith" in Lambda-dead-inflation theory.

Inflation theory is just like numerology. Someone just 'made it up' on a whim and it has zero useful predictive value in determining the outcome of any scientific experiment that human beings will ever create. In short, it's a dead deity, and a dead religion and pure "woo".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey look, the inflation deity was "hairy".

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2833

I. INTRODUCTION
Recent developments of precision cosmology have yielded a slight shift of an inflationary paradigm [1]. Before the precision cosmology, zeroth order predictions of inflationary scenarios were sufficient. Indeed, curvature fluctuations had been supposed to be statistically homogeneous, isotropic, gaussian and almost scale invariant. However, because of progress in observations, we are now forced to look at fine structures of fluctuations such as spectral tilt, non-gaussianity, parity violation, and so on [2].

Translation: Our "predictions" didn't actually match observation as it relates to our claim about a homogeneous layout of matter, so we need to explain why it's not as homogeneous as we claimed. We can't of course just falsify the model like real science, so we need to add some metaphysical "hairs" to the inflation process. Wanna bet that a version of hairy inflation is going to now be used to "postdict" that "dark flow" observation? I can already see that the new and improved Nereid the inflation deity will have "dark hair".

In fact, we need theoretical predictions at a percent level.

Translation: We need a new fudge factor.....

Those precise predictions of inflationary scenarios will provide a clue to understand fundamental physics such as superstring theory when they are compared with observations.

Translation: Nereid the inflation deity has a superstring sidekick named Bob that we can't demonstrate either.

 

[Reality Check]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2833

You did read the abstract didn't you?

I. INTRODUCTION
Recent developments of precision cosmology have yielded a slight shift of an inflationary paradigm [1]. Before the precision cosmology, zeroth order predictions of inflationary scenarios were sufficient. Indeed, curvature fluctuations had been supposed to be statistically homogeneous, isotropic, gaussian and almost scale invariant. However, because of progress in observations, we are now forced to look at fine structures of fluctuations such as spectral tilt, non-gaussianity, parity violation, and so on [2].

What they are saying is previously a zeroth order calculation of inflationary scenerios matched the data. Now that there is more precise data the calculations have to be extended to look at finer structures within the existing scenerios.

Translation: We have to now include in our calculations things that we previously ignored because their effect was within the errors of the previous data.

This is similar to the situation in Quantum Electrodynamics and the measurement of the fine structure constant. As experimenst delivered more precise values of the fine structure constant, more terms (i.e. Feynman diagrams) in QED have to be calculated.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You did read the abstract didn't you?

What they are saying is previously a zeroth order calculation of inflationary scenerios matched the data. Now that there is more precise data the calculations have to be extended to look at finer structures within the existing scenerios.

This is similar to the situation in Quantum Electrodynamics and the measurement of the fine structure constant. As experimenst delivered more precise values of the fine structure constant, more terms (i.e. Feynman diagrams) in QED have to be calculated.

The primary difference of course is that QM formulas actually show up in actual measurements from real physical experiments whereas inflation is dead and useless at predicting anything related to an actual experiment with real control mechanisms.

I'm just waiting to see how you folks deal with those observations of "dark flows". I know Nereid the inflation deity is going to get an upgrade sooner or later. I'm just trying to "predict" which inflation model is going to be used to try to postdict those dark flow observations and a "hairy" inflation deity sounds like just the trick!

What is stupid about these mathematical exercises is that each and every one of them are based upon a point at the sky and add math mentality, and inflation cannot *ever* actually be "qualified" in a lab, or used to predict anything useful about nature. It's dead. It's gone. It's an act of faith in a dead deity. That has to be the most pathetic metaphysical deity ever invented.

 

[temporalillusion]

That is absolutely silly. It is not "incidental" in the least. In the case of neutrinos it was "controlled experimentation" with a known "source" of energy/mass that led to the realization that some energy/mass was unaccounted for in these controlled decay reactions, or laws of physics were being violated and they were no longer "laws" at all.

And in inflation there was something unaccounted for in the observations.

The only difference being that in case of the neutrino there was a controlled experiment which lead to the observation of something missing, in the case of the universe you can't put it in a lab and turn things on and off, so you have to make observations of varying types and parameters to isolate variables.

You don't accept any result that doesn't come from a lab, or if it comes from somewhere outside a lab it has to depend on already known forces that DO come from a lab... that seems unreasonable to me. How would you ever discover something new that couldn't be detected in the lab? Are you saying that that is categorically impossible?

You can't "control" anything in a pure observation.

So your point is that science cannot be done using pure observation alone? There's no way to do science on something without a controlled experiment?

You have no hope of ever "detecting" your inflation thing. It's dead and therefore useless at predicting the outcome of any scientific experiment. It's an act of faith that has no practical value whatsoever.

Well you haven't demonstrated that, at least not to me as trying to understand what you are saying and what others are saying. It's difficult to wade through your vitriol and repetition of not very helpful phrases to determine what you are actually saying beyond "I don't believe it".

The practical value I think has been shown already, the predictions the model makes and the confirmed observations. I think the question of an alternative that makes all those predictions has been raised already.

No "level of understanding" is required for me to "experience" gravity.

No, but to understand gravity something more than experiencing it was required. Newton showed that, by creating his theory despite is inability to test his theory in a lab.

By level of understanding I was referring to understanding what things like GR and the Lambda-CDM model say, usually you have to understand something well to determine if it's valid or not. I know you'll disagree though.

I hear this sort of argument a lot on religious websites. If I only 'understood better' it would make more sense to me.

Of course, I usually say most creationists don't accept evolution because they don't understand it, they usually reject some view of evolution which isn't real. I get the same sense reading your posts that you don't understand what they're talking about with you here.

I'm often told that the reason it doesn't make sense to me personally is because I'm not an "expert" in that field.

A better understanding would lead to a batter ability to either confirm or refute something. But I agree being an "expert" (meaning a publishing scientist or something) isn't required, being able to demonstrate and substantiate one's view is all that's really important.

This faith of yours in inflation is actually "goofier" than most people's faith in a deity because most folks who believe in a deity believe that it has an effect on their lives.

I don't have any faith in inflation.. if I could make sense of your alternative and it better described the observations and it became the prevailing theory (or I felt confident enough in my understanding and were able to assess it myself), I'd switch my views in an instant. I don't have faith, I have trust that the scientific enterprise works, because it's demonstrated that it works. If inflation fails, it'll be replaced, like all the other things that have been replaced by a better understanding.

Inflation theory is just like numerology. Someone just 'made it up' on a whim and it has zero useful predictive value in determining the outcome of any scientific experiment that human beings will ever create. In short, it's a dead deity, and a dead religion and pure "woo".

Interesting caveats.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is why it is "woo".

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle).

Now this does apply to the neutrino, because it was experimental tests that demonstrated the need for a neutrino even before it was shown to exist in yet another empirical experiment, complete with a control mechanism.

Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. 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.

Here's where your dead inflation deity failed to qualify as a "scientific" theory. It's not observable. I can't test it. Unlike any ordinary religious deity, I can't ever even hope to verify it. It's the ultimate in pathetic, impotent, useless deities.

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.

Boy does that apply to this case. It doesn't matter how badly Guth's original inflation theory actually failed to accurately predict those holes in universe and those "dark flows" we now observe. You'll dream up a new brand that does, sooner or later based on *postdicted* formulas and then add all the things that should have falsified the theory to it's list of "triumphs". Gah!

Here's where inflation "fails".

The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Fail! You all simply *assumed* "inflation did it". You can't and won't ever demonstrate it either because it's dead and useless.

Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis.

Like those *dark flows*.

Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Why wouldn't those "Dark flows" falsify inflation once and for all? If it will not falsify inflation theory, what will?

Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result.

Sound familiar?

The postiction process with inflation will continue till the end of time until somebody busts your show and points out that your deity is dead and useless as it relates to predictive value. All it's properties were *postdicted*, not actually "predicted" and Lambda-Gumby theory is 96% "woo" and only 4% physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And in inflation there was something unaccounted for in the observations.

Yes, but that "unaccounted for" observation could be caused by anything. How do you know "inflation did it and then died very conveniently for me so that nobody can ever disprove my claim in a lab".

The only difference being that in case of the neutrino there was a controlled experiment which lead to the observation of something missing,

There was also that little problem about an apparent law of physics being violated. We really only had two options to choose from. Throw out a known and accepted law of physics or look for a missing particle. Notice they didn't just sit at a computer terminal and whip up some math? They used actual "hardware" to build real "experiments" with "real control mechanisms".

in the case of the universe you can't put it in a lab and turn things on and off, so you have to make observations of varying types and parameters to isolate variables.

Sure. Then again I can't start with the premise that faeries did it and then build math formulas and point at the sky with my faerie math. That isn't "isolating variables", that is "making up the variables as you go with a preconceived opinion that can never be falsified by point at the sky exercises, especially if I keep changing my faerie math as I go!

You don't accept any result that doesn't come from a lab, or if it comes from somewhere outside a lab it has to depend on already known forces that DO come from a lab...

I want a demonstration that their theory works in the real world. If someone came to my door selling me something I would at least want to see it work before I would buy it, wouldn't you?

that seems unreasonable to me.

It seems unreasonable to me that they would expect me to buy their inflation powered wireless vacuum cleaner without a demonstration.

How would you ever discover something new that couldn't be detected in the lab?

The same way they discovered and detected neutrinos. That was "by the book" empirical physics. Why should astronomers who worship inflation get a free pass?

Are you saying that that is categorically impossible?

No, I'm saying that it's entirely possible as in the case of the neutrino. Nobody just took a "wild guess". It was all done via the experimental methods outlined in that paper on the scientific method.

So your point is that science cannot be done using pure observation alone?

Faerie math cannot be verified using pure observation of distant objects. "Faeries did it and here is the math to demonstrate it" won't cut it. I simply want to see the faeries actually do something here on Earth first before I'll believe they do something to objects out in deep space, or once a long time ago they did something to objects in space. In this case it is actually "dead faerie math" and the faeries are all gone now so nobody can ever prove they do not exist!

I don't have any faith in inflation.. if I could make sense of your alternative and it better described the observations and it became the prevailing theory (or I felt confident enough in my understanding and were able to assess it myself), I'd switch my views in an instant.

That's Great. Let me explain how that is going to happen. Gravity and electricity show up in a lab. They "explain" *experimentally* how solar wind acceleration occurs, coronal loops, jets, aurora, etc. Sooner or later the mainstream will revisit Birkelands solar theories and find the answers that they've been looking for and cannot answer without "electricity". Once that starts, the need or desire for 'cosmology theories' will become a backseat, secondary point of interest, and figuring out all the nuances of the solar system current flows will become important to things like "space travel" and things that are actually 'useful to humans'. Inflation won't even matter anymore and what will matter is what you can "produce" with technology and the understanding of the current flows in our solar system.

Keep in mind that EU theory is pure empirical physics. It will take over not at the level of "cosmology" but at the level of "useful products" that take advantage of the current flows inside of our solar system. After that it will pick up real interest from a lot of places and dead inflation faeries will seem about as credible as a flat earth theory. That's how it will go down.

I don't have faith, I have trust that the scientific enterprise works, because it's demonstrated that it works.

Me too. That's why I believe it will be real scientific "enterprise" (probably commercial enterprise) that wins the day. Electricity and gravity work in lab. They work in space too.

If inflation fails, it'll be replaced, like all the other things that have been replaced by a better understanding.

It won't be anytime soon I'm afraid. Guth dreamed it up 25 years ago and it's still a completely useless theory. Not only hasn't it died, it's gained momentum in spite of the fact that it's dead, useless, and entirely "made up".

Honestly, once I saw Birkeland's experiments and realized the real predictive value of EU/PC theory, Lambda-CDM theory seems pitiful. Inflation is purely postdicted nonsense that is impossible to ever falsify or verify in a lab. It is absolute woo.