Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

I could ""test my math" against real empirical tests.

No, you can't, because you can't do math.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Old Black Hole Stuff

It has been a busy week; meetings every evening and two presentations to write. Already I am pages behind. Will I ever catch up? We'll see, but meanwhile, this is from several pages back. Hopefully not too far behind.

Is Quantum Theory of Gravity considered to be a field theory. Wiki gives that impression, but lacks citations.

Yes, quantum theories of gravity use quantum field theory. I don't think there is any theory in physics that does not boil down eventually to a classical or quantum field theory.

Also, as I asked before, please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math.

Well, the point of the difference between general relativity (a classical field theory) and quantum gravity (a quantum field theory) is that the former suffers from inconvenient singularities, while the latter will not. So the former has no limit on the contraction of a massive body inside the event horizon, while the latter does limit the contraction of a massive body inside the event horizon. So the idea that there is a "natural limit" to the contraction of any massive body is itself a natural consequence of any quantum theory of gravity. So it is no big surprise that Baryshev comes up with a natural limit of contraction. Indeed, on page 12 of his paper (Baryshev, 1999) he says, after equation 37: "It follows from here that there is a natural limit of contraction of a body and it is the condition that the energy of the field should be less than that of the rest mass energy of the body." So if the energy of the field, which is what forces the contraction, is less than the rest mass energy of the body, which resists the contraction, then contraction should stop. It seems a reasonable constraint to me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, you can't, because you can't do math.

Fortunately for both of my children, that statement isn't true. They may be the only people I ever try to "do math" with because I know that their motive in asking me for help with math is based upon a true desire to understand it, not because they are interested in trying to entrap me, or to use some slip up I make as an excuse to claim "Aha, there is proof you know *nothing* about math!".

Give me a break. I won't bark up math on command for you or anyone else, and the only people who need ever benefit from my personal math skills are the people I love. Get over yourself. Math skills are not even the "be-all-end-all" of empirical physics. You forgot to bother even "experimenting" with your imaginary friends before slapping on math. You're doing "advanced calculus" with dark elves and monopole monkey destroying inflation faeries. What would you like me to say about your math? "Wow, what beautiful math"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi MM: You still have not answered my question so I will restate it.
Experimental physicists know that there are atoms in a vacuum chamber. They know what their effects are on a pair of metallic plates (or a metallic plate and sphere) used to measure the Casimir effect.

Why do you think that they would be dumb enough to ignore this effect when measuring the Casimir effect?

No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.

In a similar vein: Do you think that all nuclear physicists who measure radiation are not smart enough to calibrate their instruments to take in account background radiation?

I really resent when folks attempt to suggest I have a tough time with nuclear physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. I have *a lot* of respect for nuclear physics theory even if I am curious about the outcome of the Higgs search, but I have *zero* respect for Lambda-CDM theory. Please keep that in mind as we continue these discussions. Nuclear physicists use real "experiments" to test their "theories", and real control mechanisms as well. There's no comparison in these two realms of "physics".

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM:

Take a look at this: link

Yikes! It will take me awhile to get through all 37 pages. FYI I am wrapping up some programming today, so it may be awhile before I've read through it.

It certainly appears to be an attempt to include a specrum of possible explanations.

"10 Conclusions
Cosmic acceleration provides an intriguing puzzle. Occam’s razor suggests that the phenomenon
may be explained simply by a cosmological constant. This may be an acceptable phenomenological
explanation, but it would be more satisfying to have a physical explanation for the observed value
of (lambda). The unexpectedly small value inferred for (lambda) leads us to suspect that instead the apparent cosmological
constant may be the false-vacuum energy associated with the displacement of some field
from its minimum and/or that there may be new gravitational physics beyond Einstein’s general
relativity. Plenty of interesting ideas for dark energy and alternative gravity have been conjectured,
but there is no clear front runner. The models are all toys, awaiting any new, corroborating or
contraindicating evidence."

Why do you suppose there are no PC/EU explanations included?

It's kinda hard to speculate on why two authors chose not to include any PC/EU explanations. It is not as though none have been suggested.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

In fairness to sol, since he has me on ignore, I should point out that he raised an objection to this presentation earlier which I have not fully "check out" on my own yet. I should and will check out sol's objection, but it is not as though no one has attempted to provided such an "explanation" based on EM fields. The problem however is that even this idea "requires" inflation, and therefore it wouldn't necessarily quality as an empirically based "EU/PC" theory and most PC/EU theorists would probably therefore reject it.

EU/PC theory isn't like an ordinary cosmology theory. It does not attempt to look at cosmology from a "prophetic" orientation as though we can be absolutely certain when it all began, certain what will take place in the future, etc. It tends to focus on particle physical processes in plasma starting with processes inside our solar system, that are then extended outward.

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

It's therefore a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Birkeland could explain and simulate solar wind acceleration in terms of electricity and EM fields, astronomers are concerning themselves with something called "dark energy" that "mysteriously" accelerates plasma, but only out there somewhere we can't reach.

Whereas PC theory began in a lab, Lambda-CDM theory began on "paper". The mainstream has an annoying habit of preferring "paper' solutions like Chapman's math, rather than *physical solutions* like Birkeland's experiments. The problem of course is that paper solutions don't always apply to the real world, and Birkeland's beliefs won out over time. I'll be dead if I wait for the mainstream to figure out that he was correct about the acceleration of solar wind particles too. I'm afraid I approach astronomy and cosmology as standard scientific pursuits that can and should be explainable via standard physics. If I can't explain some specific distant observation via a logical explanation based on known forces of nature, I simply move on to something else that I can explain with PC/EU theory.

I don't just make up a new force of nature on paper, and even if I did, it would not invalidate PC theory in that process. Do you see my point at all here?

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the case of liquids at negative pressures, it comes from the fact that the atoms attract each other and the container walls. So in order to expand the container, you need to do work to pull the atoms farther apart from each other and the container walls, increasing the potential energy of the system. But of course, force opposes the increase of potential energy, so you get an inwards force, and hence a negative pressure. This is really basic stuff, and you seem totally unaware of it.

I have never heard someone try to describe molecular and atomic bond "stress" in terms of "negative pressure". It's an odd "lingo" to be sure. I'm going to have to read though that liquid link again very carefully. I see where you're heading with this concept, but you seem only to be applying "stress" to "bonds", you are not actually creating any "negative pressure" areas within the vacuum chamber or within the material. You are stressing bonds in this way, much like you might do with any ordinary solid. Sooner or later those bonds will 'break' from 'stress'. It's not actually "negative pressure" but it is an interesting *analogy*, I'll give you that much.

 

[edd]

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

I'm yet to see much you say that's right, but this could not be more wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm yet to see much you say that's right, but this could not be more wrong.

Have you ever read the Klein-Alfven "bang" theory by any chance? It doesn't include the notion of a 'creation date' per se, it's more of a cyclical idea.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Alfven-Klein

Have you ever read the Klein-Alfven "bang" theory by any chance?

I did ask for a reference to this once, but it must have fallen by the wayside. Is there a paper? a book? Some accessible reference where the model is described? When you ask someone if they have read something, I think it would be good form to include a reference where one might actually do that.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yikes! It will take me awhile to get through all 37 pages. FYI I am wrapping up some programming today, so it may be awhile before I've read through it.



It's kinda hard to speculate on why two authors chose not to include any PC/EU explanations. It is not as though none have been suggested.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

In fairness to sol, since he has me on ignore, I should point out that he raised an objection to this presentation earlier which I have not fully "check out" on my own yet. I should and will check out sol's objection, but it is not as though no one has attempted to provided such an "explanation" based on EM fields. The problem however is that even this idea "requires" inflation, and therefore it wouldn't necessarily quality as an empirically based "EU/PC" theory and most PC/EU theorists would probably therefore reject it.

EU/PC theory isn't like an ordinary cosmology theory. It does not attempt to look at cosmology from a "prophetic" orientation as though we can be absolutely certain when it all began, certain what will take place in the future, etc. It tends to focus on particle physical processes in plasma starting with processes inside our solar system, that are then extended outward.

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

It's therefore a lot like comparing apples and oranges. Whereas Birkeland could explain and simulate solar wind acceleration in terms of electricity and EM fields, astronomers are concerning themselves with something called "dark energy" that "mysteriously" accelerates plasma, but only out there somewhere we can't reach.

Whereas PC theory began in a lab, Lambda-CDM theory began on "paper". The mainstream has an annoying habit of preferring "paper' solutions like Chapman's math, rather than *physical solutions* like Birkeland's experiments. The problem of course is that paper solutions don't always apply to the real world, and Birkeland's beliefs won out over time. I'll be dead if I wait for the mainstream to figure out that he was correct about the acceleration of solar wind particles too. I'm afraid I approach astronomy and cosmology as standard scientific pursuits that can and should be explainable via standard physics. If I can't explain some specific distant observation via a logical explanation based on known forces of nature, I simply move on to something else that I can explain with PC/EU theory.

I don't just make up a new force of nature on paper, and even if I did, it would not invalidate PC theory in that process. Do you see my point at all here?

(bold added)

So, what do we have here?

PC/EU explanations

an empirically based "EU/PC" theory

PC/EU theorists

EU/PC theory

PC theory

explain with PC/EU theory

PC theory.

Is that one theory? two? three? more?? Are any "PC/EU theorists" alive today? If so, who are they? Is MM one such?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did ask for a reference to this once, but it must have fallen by the wayside. Is there a paper? a book? Some accessible reference where the model is described? When you ask someone if they have read something, I think it would be good form to include a reference where one might actually do that.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

That should give you an overview.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is that one theory?

Yes.

If so, who are they? Is MM one such?

Yes.

Let me now ask you a point blank question. Are you an advocate of inflation? Yes or no?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Is that one theory?

Yes.

Thanks.

It is the same theory that Eric Lerner has written extensively about?

If so, who are they? Is MM one such?

Yes.

Part of the context is missing; here it is:

Are any "PC/EU theorists" alive today? If so, who are they? Is MM one such?

Since MM is alive, that answers both the first and third question (and partly the second).

Who are some of the other "PC/EU theorists" alive today?

Let me now ask you a point black question. Are you an advocate of inflation? Yes or no?

Huh?

In the right circumstances, inflation can be good for the health of a country or region's economy; in general I am an advocate of giving the central bank independence and tasking it to keep inflation within a clearly specified range, say 1-2%.

Oh, you mean that inflation!

No.

 

[derekmcd]

I have intentionally resisted trying to get into QM with this crowd, but on this issue there is no other way I can hope to communicate with you on this topic, and I respect you enough to at least "try". I don't really think I can reach most of the rest of this crew, but at the level of kinetic energy, I think I can explain it to you.

There are a few major facts in all particle interactions:

1) Mass of course, and size does matter in kinetic energy transfers.
2) Charge of the particle (electron vs. proton)
3) Velocity at point of "reconnection"
4) The fundamental transfer of the carrier particles of the EM field.

1) Mass, yes. However, I don't recall particle physicists ever mentioning size in their calculations involving kinetic energy. It's all about momentum.

2) Agreed, though I don't see how this relates to the Casimir effect.

3) Not sure what you mean by "reconnection". However, I agree that velocity is a major factor in particle interactions. You could have lumped this in with number 1 by simply stating that p=mv.

4) This is kinda redundant with number 1.

There are lots of other factors mind you, but these are highly important issues that all relate to this topic.

I agree that there are other factors, but I disagree that any of these has anything to do with the Casimir effect.

The Casimir effect has is obviously not occurring at the level of atoms.

Agreed.

It is due to the kinetic energy of the EM fields of the universe. They permeate all things.

This is a statement within classical physics, not quantum mechanics.

How do we know the charge carrier particle of the EM field is involved in this process? The type of material we use turns out to be critical, and metallic plates tend to give us the best results. We know that the EM field has unique effects on magnetic materials. This is a huge hint.

When did electrons enter the picture??? Besides, the plates are uncharged which sets boundaries conditions for the electromagnetic field. And the plates are most certainly not magnetic. Don't you think magnetic plates might fudge up the experiment a wee bit?

So, what is the huge hint again?

Those green lines are the carrier particles of the EM fields of the universe flowing through our box.

No they are not. Look at your picture again. It's labeled for you. They are quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field of empty space as defined by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). More precisely, they are virtual particles which are better defined as fields in quantum field theory.

They are NOT electromagnetic fields that we can directly detect and measure with our instruments.

The metallic plates block/absorb some of that energy in the carrier particles these particles begin to align the atoms in the metallic plates.

Once again, no they don't block/absorb anything in a physical sense. They set boundary conditions in such that because the plates are not charged, there is no classical electromagnetic field present. However, due to the HUP, there is still an fluctuating electromagnetic field in the empty space around the plates.

The kinetic energy is coming from the moving EM carrier particles that move through all things at wavelengths we may not even fathom.
What we do know is that there is no "negative pressure" between those plates. It is not even necessary to do this in a vacuum because it's an EM carrier kinetic energy transfer, not an atomic transfer of kinetic energy. There is in fact positive pressure in the best of "vacuums", and there are lots of carrier particles of the EM field flowing through the vacuums of space.

You can't say I didn't try to explain it.

To be honest, I can't really follow what you are saying. You are mangling terminology and mixing classic physics with quantum mechanics. Actually, despite your claim about this being a discussion of quantum mechanics, you are still stuck on classical physics.

Perhaps, you could try to explain how pressures equivalent to one atmosphere are measured in an evacuated chamber?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks.

It is the same theory that Eric Lerner has written extensively about?

It's the same one "mainstream" cosmologists write about when they combine MHD theory and GR theory. Can't say I've personally read Lerner's work so I couldn't comment on it.

Huh?

LOL! Only you could be confused with a "yes" answer and a yes or no question. (Ok maybe it was my spelling?) That was funny anyway. I have no idea who else might label themselves as someone who believes in EU/PC theory, whether they see some distinction between the two as you seem to do, etc. I simply define EU/PC theory as the combination of MHD theory and GR, and I have no idea how others define that label.

Oh, you mean that inflation!

No.

So why are you personally on that side of the aisle again?

 

[Reality Check]

No, and I do not believe it is the atoms that create this effect either. I was trying to use a macro example of the idea, but in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea. The whole point is that there is no *negative pressure* involved in this process. It is a kinetic energy process taking place at the quantum level between the plates and the carrier particles of the EM field. The WIKI explanation is actually incredibly accurate IMO right down to the direction of the BLUE arrows in the image. It's a quantum process and we know the carrier particles involved because of the fact the the material makes a significant difference in these experiments.

The point is that there is negative pressure involved in the Casimir effect. There is a net negative force on an area. Force divided by area is pressure. Thus the pressure is negative.
Of course now your atom idea is withdrawn, we are left with the physical measurement of a negative pressure.

Why do the papers report an negative force and so pressure when such a pressure cannot exist?

I really resent when folks attempt to suggest I have a tough time with nuclear physics. Quite the opposite is true in fact. I have *a lot* of respect for nuclear physics theory even if I am curious about the outcome of the Higgs search, but I have *zero* respect for Lambda-CDM theory. Please keep that in mind as we continue these discussions. Nuclear physicists use real "experiments" to test their "theories", and real control mechanisms as well. There's no comparison in these two realms of "physics".

I have no idea what you mean by this. Your "in retrospect it was probably a dumb idea" was just that - dumb. This was because it assumed that all experimental physicists (vacuum, nuclear, etc.) were not intelligent enough to take in account background effects, e.g.

• vacuums are never perfect and so contain atoms.
• background radiation.

 

[Tubbythin]

Give me a break. I won't bark up math on command for you or anyone else, and the only people who need ever benefit from my personal math skills are the people I love. Get over yourself. Math skills are not even the "be-all-end-all" of empirical physics. You forgot to bother even "experimenting" with your imaginary friends before slapping on math. You're doing "advanced calculus" with dark elves and monopole monkey destroying inflation faeries. What would you like me to say about your math? "Wow, what beautiful math"?

I'm sorry but it is clear to everyone else here that your attempt to "debunk" Guth's paper has been a failure of epic monumental proportions. Physics is a mathematical science. We haven't even got past the abstract and you've already shown to us you are completely incapable of what you claimed you would do. If you can't do the maths where appropriate then you can't do the physics. Its as simple as that. If you don't want to do the maths then don't try to pick apart a mathematical theory (especially one you have no comprehension of). All you have is words. Words you spout that you don't even seem to vaguely comprehend. You made a claim regarding pressure and you were shown to be completely and utterly wrong. And this wasn't shown just through observations (which to any real physicist would be more than enough) but through actual laboratory physics which you claim to love so much.

 

[Tubbythin]

Lambda-CDM theory is just the opposite. It begins with a prophetic premise. "The universe was created on such and such a date......

MM, do you enjoy digging your own hole?
Big Bang theories stem from the observations of a cosmological redshift although the idea of an expanding Universe can be dated a little earlier (the works of Friedmann and Lemaitre on good old GR). At no point did somebody decide "The universe was created on such and such a date......" and try to extrapolate from there. Quite the opposite. Multiple pieces of observational evidence have been used, together with the experimentally tested theory of General Relativity, to find different ways of dating the time since the Big Bang. These agree on a time of around 13.7 billion years.

So your above statement has put you in a rather difficult position.
Either:
You admit that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and thus show us all that you are in no position to make any kind of judgement whatsoever on the validity (or otherwise) of LCDM.
Or:
You admit that your above statement was a blatant lie, perpetuated deliberately in a crass, dirty and unscientific attempt to defend the original premise of this thread; thus removing the last tiny shred of credibility you have left.

So, which is it?

 

[Skwinty]

Big Bang theories stem from the observations of a cosmological redshift although the idea of an expanding Universe can be dated a little earlier (the works of Friedmann and Lemaitre on good old GR).

Hi TT,
Question wrt to above quote.
If the cosmological redshift and Hubble Law were proved to be incorrect, as many are trying to prove, where would this leave the BBT?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hi TT,
Question wrt to above quote.
If the cosmological redshift and Hubble Law were proved to be incorrect, as many are trying to prove, where would this leave the BBT?

(bold added)

The "Hubble Law" cannot be "proved to be incorrect".

It is an empirical relationship, simply the name given to a correlation between some datapoints. While not quite the same as "the sky is blue" or "the night sky is dark", it's pretty close. Does it make sense to say "if the night sky were proven to be not dark"?

The "cosmological redshift" also cannot be "proved to be incorrect".

In one respect, it is simply the name given to a prediction derivable from certain models (of the universe) built upon a theory in physics which goes by the name "General Relativity" (or the general theory of relativity).

In another respect, as part of science, the word "proof" is misleading (at best) and downright wrong (at worst). As a keen student of HPS - and a fan of Feyerabend to boot! - I'm a little surprised to see you using this word in this way.

To the intent of your question: it would depend on how it "were proved to be incorrect". Without at least some details of that how, there is no way to answer your question ... "the BBT" may be essentially unchanged, or it may turn out that we are specimens in some kind of giant collector's bottle, or ...