Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

(apologies, I couldn't quite muster the energy for a serious answer. The idea people have some kind of absolute religious faith in LCDM is just too off the wall for me)

How so? According to even the "true believers"(TM), inflation does not exist in nature at this point in time. It is therefore a pure "act of faith" to believe it had anything at all to do with a creation event. When did anyone empirically demonstrate the existence of "dark energy" or SUSY related "dark matter" in controlled experimentation?

Most religions require "faith" in only *one* entity that the believer cannot empirically demonstrate in controlled experimentation. Lambda religion takes at least three pure acts of faith. Inflation is now dead and gone according to the theory so that specific "belief" is by necessity a "pure" act of faith as it relates to empirical physical demonstrations and will forever remain a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer". The statement "dark energy did it" is certainly no better than any religious claim. SUSY oriented "dark matter" theory is based on *non standard* particle physics theories. Lambda-religion has it's own trilogy of entities that defy empirical support.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

(the kind of empirical physics that's really really really important for cosmology) supports LCDM and utterly dismantles EU.

You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math. EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, he didn't. Pretty much his only concern was the aurora effect.

Evidently you didn't read his work.

He made some pretty little pictures

Er no. They are called "pretty little empirical *science* experiments (with pictures)", something your industry seems to have no appreciation for whatsoever.

that looked to you like some other stuff on the Sun.

It looked that way to him as well since he was the one who originally suggested it.

By your methodology Birkeland proved that Saturn is a hollow brass ball and the rings are glowing electrons...

No, it demonstrates that EM fields "may" have helped arrange the material in the rings around the equator.

I'm sure everyone here would agree, Michael, that anyone who would claim to be doing real science that way, you know, by making things up because it looks like something in a picture, is a complete idiot.

You guys don't even know what real "experimentation" is, or what a real "prediction" from experimentation is all about. Birkeland didn't have any problem explaining and even simulating solar wind. 100 years later and you folks are still scratching your heads, and you can't figure it out. You folks forgot what "experimentation" is for, and you forgot to check out any of your beliefs in real experiments with real control mechanisms. Birkeland did his work "the old fashion way", and he was over 100 years ahead of you guys even today. Solar wind? Big mystery to the mainstream. Jets? Forget Birkeland's experiments, it's "unexplained". Coronal loop discharges around the atmosphere of the sphere? Nah, you can't figure those out either.

Only a complete idiot would fail to respect and admire the work that Birkeland did in the lab, in the field, and yes, even on paper with math formulas.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

[...]

There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

As in, an observation of an object beyond the solar system?

Easy enough to answer, in a purely empirical fashion, if it's just going outside on a dark, cloudless (and maybe moonless) night and looking up at the sky (in a certain direction).

And also easy if it's through a hand-built telescope.

It begins to get a little trickier when it's a photographic plate or film that's doing the 'observing'.

And trickier still if it's an array of CCDs+processing.

....

So what is it if it's something that the H.E.S.S. team reports?

Or something you download from the Spitzer website?

Surely the further you get from what your unaided eyes tell you, the more an "observation" becomes inextricably tied to an acceptance of various parts of the standard physics textbook?

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Evidently you didn't read his work.



Er no. They are called "pretty little empirical *science* experiments (with pictures)", something your industry seems to have no appreciation for whatsoever.



It looked that way to him as well since he was the one who originally suggested it.



No, it demonstrates that EM fields "may" have helped arrange the material in the rings around the equator.


You guys don't even know what real "experimentation" is, or what a real "prediction" from experimentation is all about. Birkeland didn't have any problem explaining and even simulating solar wind. 100 years later and you folks are still scratching your heads, and you can't figure it out. You folks forgot what "experimentation" is for, and you forgot to check out any of your beliefs in real experiments with real control mechanisms. Birkeland did his work "the old fashion way", and he was over 100 years ahead of you guys even today. Solar wind? Big mystery to the mainstream. Jets? Forget Birkeland's experiments, it's "unexplained". Coronal loop discharges around the atmosphere of the sphere? Nah, you can't figure those out either.

Only a complete idiot would fail to respect and admire the work that Birkeland did in the lab, in the field, and yes, even on paper with math formulas.

I was right!

Well, one out of three (so far) ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

An observation is something you observe. For instance we observe "redshifted photons". The mainstream "interprets" that "observation" to be related to "expansion of space".

As in, an observation of an object beyond the solar system?

It doesn't need to be outside the solar system. I observe solar wind. I observe bright coronal loops. I observe "jets" coming from the sun. I observe "aurora" in the sky. Birkeland observed aurora and "interpreted" this phenomenon to be related to electrical current. He then *experimented* with his presumed "cause" to make sure that he could demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between aurora around spheres in a vacuum and electrical current. In those "experiments" (another thing you folks don't understand) he demonstrated a physical cause/effect relationship between current flow and aurora.

Easy enough to answer, in a purely empirical fashion, if it's just going outside on a dark, cloudless (and maybe moonless) night and looking up at the sky (in a certain direction).

A pure 'observation' cannot necessarily tell us the "cause" of a specific observation. That's what "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" are for. Birkeland didn't just "assume" that "electricity did it", he "experimented" with his ideas, and demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between lights around the poles and electrical current.

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

If the "standard physics textbook" claims "inflation did it", then it's no longer just a pure "observation", is it? When astronomers start trying to "verify" the existence of SUSY particles from distant, uncontrolled observations, its no longer an "observation" but rather it's an "act of faith" in something that cannot be demonstrated empirically. I've seen all sorts of "properties" being assigned to "dark matter", none of which are actual "observations" from controlled experiments, but rather "leaps of faith" devoid of any empirical lab support. Gamma rays don't come from SUSY particles in a lab. That is an "interpretation" of their "faith" related some belief they hold in SUSY theory.

 

[Dancing David]

How so? According to even the "true believers"(TM), inflation does not exist in nature at this point in time. It is therefore a pure "act of faith" to believe it had anything at all to do with a creation event. When did anyone empirically demonstrate the existence of "dark energy" or SUSY related "dark matter" in controlled experimentation?

Most religions require "faith" in only *one* entity that the believer cannot empirically demonstrate in controlled experimentation. Lambda religion takes at least three pure acts of faith. Inflation is now dead and gone according to the theory so that specific "belief" is by necessity a "pure" act of faith as it relates to empirical physical demonstrations and will forever remain a pure act of faith on the part of the "believer". The statement "dark energy did it" is certainly no better than any religious claim. SUSY oriented "dark matter" theory is based on *non standard* particle physics theories. Lambda-religion has it's own trilogy of entities that defy empirical support.

And once again you are making a philosophical distiction between observations in a lab and observations not is a lab. (What was that about Arp? His oberservations are valid?)

Funny double standard that makes no sense.

Just semantics.

How do youe explain the gravity effects again? MACHOs are not going to make 90% of the matter that gravity says is there. So there is a theory of dark matter. A thoery is an approximate model.

Yukawa were particles were doubted by people just like you, but they exist. Or they at least are a good approximate model.

Dark matter is a hypothesis, you are the one saying you know what reality is, which as stated before is nonsense.

We only have approximate models, there are not enough MACHOs to account for the observed gravitational effects. So hypothesize a particle that interacts only with gravity.

Big whoop. Continue your ranting, it destroys what credibility you have.

 

[Dancing David]

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".



You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math. EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

Ah yes ,like your explanation of why the solar wind exists, that you refuse to defend.

let us reveiew shall we?

1. You say that the sun has a negative change.
2. You say that the heliosphere has a positive charge.

Fine great but then you contradict yourself
-the solar wind is made up of positive and neutral particles as well, but gosh your mechanism only accounts for negative partciles. Insert some magical thinking here will you.
-negative particles attracted to teh heliosphere, which somehow has no defintion, bounds or meaning, so if someone asks why the particles just don't neutralize and stop moving you say something like 'flow'.

Your theory is not only contradictory it is not supported by laboratory evidence either.

Where is the lab evidence that your negative particles will drag along positive ones in the solar wind? Oh what was that they are no longer positive they are now neutral, where do the positive ones come from?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There's something quite profound here ...

What is an "observation"?

An observation is something you observe. For instance we observe "redshifted photons". The mainstream "interprets" that "observation" to be related to "expansion of space".

[...]

Actually, we don't.

We observe lines on a computer monitor, or patterns of light and dark in a photographic plate.

Using textbook physics, we interpret what we observe as "redshifted photons".

That interpretation implies - or requires, take your pick - that the parts of the physics in the textbook that were used to arrive at this interpretation are valid for making that interpretation.

And if the parts of the standard physics textbook involved include those which you, MM, so vehemently reject, then surely they can no longer be "observations", can they?

If the "standard physics textbook" claims "inflation did it", then it's no longer just a pure "observation", is it? When astronomers start trying to "verify" the existence of SUSY particles from distant, uncontrolled observations, its no longer an "observation" but rather it's an "act of faith" in something that cannot be demonstrated empirically. I've seen all sorts of "properties" being assigned to "dark matter", none of which are actual "observations" from controlled experiments, but rather "leaps of faith" devoid of any empirical lab support. Gamma rays don't come from SUSY particles in a lab. That is an "interpretation" of their "faith" related some belief they hold in SUSY theory.

It's much simpler wrt what's been discussed in the last few (dozen?) posts ...

... "standard physics textbook" includes the concept of pressure, and negative pressure; the concept of negative energy; the concept of ...

At least one of these - and perhaps all - are essential parts of the logic chain from some data file (in FITS format?) to "here's the spectrum of {insert object name here} as obtained by the HST {insert instrument name here} on {insert date and time here}".

I can't be 100% sure, but I think that, by the MM approach, almost nothing obtained by modern astronomical telescopes and instruments can be "observations" ... because they all require acceptance of parts of the standard physics textbook that you have stated - in no uncertain terms - to be wrong.

 

[Michael Mozina]

He seems to be under the utterly deluded impression that external literature actually agrees with him.

You mean the literature that calls this a "force" and shows the blue arrows pointing they way I suggested?

Eg Wikipedia and his reference to Boyer. Both of which entirely contradict what he has been trying to claim.

Hoy. It's a *force* according to those links, and Boyer's work blows your theory out of the water. The experiments usually take place in "positive pressure" environments that have nothing to do with the Casimir "force".

Oh yeah, he thought Einstein agreed with him too.

Einstein set the constant to ZERO and called his variation of a Lambda theory his "greatest blunder".

 

[Tubbythin]

You guys can't tell the difference between "observation" and "interpretation".

We have multiple observations whose interpretations are all consistent with the Universe expanding and utterly inconsistent with a static Universe. If you have an alternative interpretation that is consistent with the observations please do show us. But the fact that when ever these cosmological observations are brought up you resort to talking about solar physics strongly indicates that you do not have an alternative.

You can't "dismantle" empirical physics by "making up" forces of nature in a purely ad hoc manner and slapping on some math.

These observations are empirical. You can't pretend your theory has any cosmological validity when it utterly fails to explain so many empirical cosmological observations. Well you can. But not many people are going to take you seriously.

EU theory works in a lab, and those observations of solar wind, those observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora utterly dismantle your useless religion.

Those "observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora" have as much to do with cosmology as atomic physics does to bridge engineering. Either come up with a consistent theory that explains at least as many of the cosmological observations as well as LCDM or you have nothing. Nada. Zilch. A big fat zero.

 

[Tubbythin]

You mean the literature that calls this a "force" and shows the blue arrows pointing they way I suggested?

I mean the literature that quote Casimir's calculation as a force divided by an area (any idea what a force divided by an area is) and does a detailed calculation using second quantization. Oh and links to an article on Casimir pressure. Oh, and makes no reference to ideal gases or neutrinos.

Hoy. It's a *force* according to those links, and Boyer's work blows you theory out of the water. The experiments usually take place in "positive pressure" environments that have nothing to do with the Casimir "force".

Boyer's work shows that the Casimir effect can give a negative or positive force depending on the boundary conditins. In exact agreement to what everybody except you has been saying.

Einstein set the constant to ZERO and called his variation of a Lambda theory his "greatest blunder". [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/mazeguyemotions/boggled.gif[/qimg]

Yes. And what does setting the cosmo constant to zero mean. It means that, if his theory of GR is right, spacetime absolutely and unequivocally must be expanding or contracting. In direct contradiction to what you have been claiming. Do you not learn anything? I dunno how many times you've been told this now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have multiple observations whose interpretations are all consistent with the Universe expanding and utterly inconsistent with a static Universe.

EU theory does not require a static universe.

If you have an alternative interpretation that is consistent with the observations please do show us.

Which observations? You mean those observations of high speed solar wind? You mean those "jets" of plasma flying off the sun? You mean those million degree coronal loops? Which 'observations' are most important when it comes to understanding the workings of our universe?

But the fact that when ever these cosmological observations are brought up you resort to talking about solar physics strongly indicates that you do not have an alternative.

I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

These observations are empirical.

The observation of solar wind is empirical too. Why do you focus on one type of observation and not another? Which observations are most "critical" to our human condition?

FYI, "redshift" is "observed". "Space expansion' is "interpreted".

You can't pretend your theory has any cosmological validity when it utterly fails to explain so many empirical cosmological observations. Well you can. But not many people are going to take you seriously.

Then you can't pretend Lambda theory has any validity when it utterly fails to explain so many observations inside this galaxy and solar system.

Those "observed coronal loops, those "jets", and those aurora" have as much to do with cosmology as atomic physics does to bridge engineering.

And you know this because? That "acceleration" you observe in solar wind and in galaxies as well are absolutely unrelated, because........??????

Either come up with a consistent theory that explains at least as many of the cosmological observations as well as LCDM or you have nothing. Nada. Zilch. A big fat zero.

I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics. That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I mean the literature that quote Casimir's calculation as a force divided by an area (any idea what a force divided by an area is) and does a detailed calculation using second quantization.

It's a *force* (not pressure) that comes from the EM field. The "pressure" of a "vacuum" has nothing to do with the EM field.

Oh and links to an article on Casimir pressure. Oh, and makes no reference to ideal gases or neutrinos.

Gah. That is because it's a *FORCE*, unrelated to the "pressure" in a vacuum/chamber. The neutrino example was simply to demonstrate that there is a lot of kinetic energy flowing through everything all the time.

Boyer's work shows that the Casimir effect can give a negative or positive force depending on the boundary conditins. In exact agreement to what everybody except you has been saying.

Er, no. Your side has been claiming this is a form of "negative pressure". It's a "force" unrelated to "pressure" that comes from the EM field. It can attract or repel depending on the geometry involved. It is not a demonstration of "negative pressure" as you folks claimed.

Yes. And what does setting the cosmo constant to zero mean. It means that, if his theory of GR is right, spacetime absolutely and unequivocally must be expanding or contracting.

False. It means that *if no other factors are involved*, it must expand or contract. In the presence of pervasive and persistent EM fields however that may not be true anymore. In such a case EM fields are not necessarily directly related to GR theory so there is no point in stuffing their influence into (inside of) GR theory in a sort of "ad hoc" manner. MHD theory however might come in very handy when looking at external (to the mass objects) energy.

In direct contradiction to what you have been claiming. Do you not learn anything? I dunno how many times you've been told this now.

I'm open to a static or non static universe. I'm not actually *claiming* anything about the expansion process other than you cannot empirically demonstrate is has anything at all to do with "space expansion" or "superliminal expansion".
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171
Note that this paper is a "math proof", so I know you will now immediately now bow to his mathematical wisdom and immediately give up your belief in "space expansion"?

 

[edd]

I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Actually that's rather more a philosophical question, akin to which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose. The mathematics is quite clear, but whether you choose to consider it an expansion of space or a continuous process of doppler shifting is a matter more of how to interpret the equations.

The predictions of the model and the evidence for the dark sector are unchanged by this. It's verging on a matter of wording more than anything else.

I would explain this caveat in interpretation if it's raised, but for the most part the space expansion approach has benefits in clarity over the other viewpoints in my opinion, although I wouldn't claim it has any benefit in terms of actual scientific power (naturally, as both are an interpretation of GR).

It certainly has no bearing on the argument here that I can see.

 

[edd]

I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics. That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

This is a very weak approach to science. If cosmologists had simply shrugged and said "I don't know" when presented with the evidence we have right now, what would we have done next?

Instead, we have a currently successful model in the form of LCDM which we can attempt to find evidence against.

Saying "I don't know" is bad. Saying "This is definitely the answer" is also bad. The right approach is "This seems to work instead, let's test it further."

That's what is happening right now with LCDM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually that's rather more a philosophical question, akin to which interpretation of quantum mechanics you choose. The mathematics is quite clear, but whether you choose to consider it an expansion of space or a continuous process of doppler shifting is a matter more of how to interpret the equations.

Exactly edd! There are multiple "subjective interpretations" even multiple interpretations at the level of mathematics. This is why *PHYSICS* and "experimentation" are so important.

The predictions of the model and the evidence for the dark sector are unchanged by this. It's verging on a matter of wording more than anything else.

That is not exactly true. This model requires no form of superluminal expansion. That IMO is a "big deal".

I would explain this caveat in interpretation if it's raised, but for the most part the space expansion approach has benefits in clarity over the other viewpoints in my opinion, although I wouldn't claim it has any benefit in terms of actual scientific power (naturally, as both are an interpretation of GR).

It certainly has no bearing on the argument here that I can see.

It has a direct bearing on my personal subjective "lack of belief" in Lambda-CDM ideas about 'expanding space' and 'superliminal expansion'. Now what do we do to settle such a debate?

 

[Tubbythin]

EU theory does not require a static universe.

Ok.

Which observations? You mean those observations of high speed solar wind? You mean those "jets" of plasma flying off the sun? You mean those million degree coronal loops? Which 'observations' are most important when it comes to understanding the workings of our universe?

No. I mean the cosmological observations. None of these are cosmological observations. And this is a cosmology thread after all...

I am personally not adverse to expansion, in fact I tend to lean that way, but there is no evidence that "expansion" has anything to do with "expanding space".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Erm. There are no solutions to the Einstein field equations with a zero CC for which the Universe is not either expanding or contracting. There is most certainly evidence in favour of GR so the above is just plain wrong. Moreover you said you accept GR. If you really do then you must accept expanding/contracting spacetime in the absence of a cosmological constant. It is an inevitable conclusion of Einstein's field equations.
And... as you've already been told... that is a paper on an empty Universe. The Universe is not empty.

The observation of solar wind is empirical too. Why do you focus on one type of observation and not another? Which observations are most "critical" to our human condition?

Because the solar wind is not a cosmological observation and this is a cosmology thread. Simple really.

FYI, "redshift" is "observed". "Space expansion' is "interpreted".

Space expansion/contraction is an inevitable result of GR in the absence of a cosmological constant. You can come up with another interpretation if you like but it won't be consistent with GR.

Then you can't pretend Lambda theory has any validity when it utterly fails to explain so many observations inside this galaxy and solar system.

It was never meant to explain these observations. It does not consider scales so small. Its a bit like asking "why does Newtonian mechanics not explain the intricate details of a quark-gluon plasma"?

And you know this because? That "acceleration" you observe in solar wind and in galaxies as well are absolutely unrelated, because........??????

I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to show that solar winds are important on a cosmological scale then its up to you to prove it. You have not done this. Nobody has. Plenty of people who understand GR a lot better than me say that EM effects are utterly irrelevant on the cosmological scale.

I'd rather have "no explanation" than an ad hoc theory based on 96% dark faeries and 4% actual physics.

Actually its based on General relativity and empirical astronomical and cosmological observations. Nothing whatsoever to do with faeries. That would be a strawman of yours. Please try to remember what is reality and what is fantasy you made up in your head. It would make this conversation a lot more productive.

That's mythos run a muck. An honest "I don't know' is better than simply making stuff up as I go.

Sooo... rather than make observations, construct a theory that matches the observations, make predictions with the theory and then test the theory against new empiricial observations (ie the usual scientific method) you're just gonna give up? Sounds like the antithesis of science and scientific progress to me.

 

[edd]

That is not exactly true. This model requires no form of superluminal expansion. That IMO is a "big deal".

I try never to refer to expansion as superluminal anyway. I don't think 'superluminal' is a word that can meaningfully be applied to the expansion of the universe (by which I mean the growth in distance between distant objects, not necessarily the growth of space, thanks to the aforementioned caveats).

So while it might be a big deal to you to take this approach, the model in that paper in order to fit observations requires exactly the same amount of dark matter and dark energy. It does not let you off the hook from having a dark sector or having to use something other than a Friedmann model.

Note also that recession velocities greater than c do not require either the L or the CD of LCDM. And I don't think you would want to argue to take the M out of what's left...

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a very weak approach to science. If cosmologists had simply shrugged and said "I don't know" when presented with the evidence we have right now, what would we have done next?

You might try coming up with a *real* (physical) explanation for expansion if that is what you believe is occurring. For instance, if you are not adverse to a "subluminal" expansion driven by *external EM fields*, then I'm sure you and I could come to some agreement over time. If however you are unwilling to entertain subluminal expansion, or EM fields as the "cause" of acceleration, what can we agree on?

Instead, we have a currently successful model in the form of LCDM which we can attempt to find evidence against.

Supposedly you've already found mathematical (not physical) evidence against Guth's original paper as found in this presentation, but it did not "falsify" inflation theory now did it? How do we kill this beast once and for all?

Saying "I don't know" is bad.

It didn't used to be that way. "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

Saying "This is definitely the answer" is also bad. The right approach is "This seems to work instead, let's test it further."

I don't know how you intend to "test" inflation since it does not exist in nature today. What you are calling a "test" is merely a mathematical test of inflation faeries from the perspective of a skeptic. No "cause/effect" relationship between inflation and expansion has ever been established.

That's what is happening right now with LCDM.

How does one go about falsifying that theory once and for all, particularly the ideas about 'expanding space' and "inflation"?

Like I've said on many occasions, I have no conceptual problem with "expansion of objects". I have no conceptual problem with anything you might be able to physically demonstrate in terms of "cause/effect" here on Earth. What I have a problem with are things like inflation that do not exist today, cannot be "tested" in a real experiment and have no useful predictive value whatsoever because Guth's first model was "postdicted" to fit, and it was "falsified". All new models are simply better "postdictions" and no 'cause/effect' relationship can ever or will ever be established.