Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[edd]

There are VP's moving between the plates and VP's moving outside the plates and there are more of them outside the plates, creating more VP "pressure" outside the plates than inside the plates. No areas experience "negative pressure".

I may be stating the woefully obvious, but there were no metal plates in the early universe.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And that's rhetorical trick #2: "If I can't get my hands dirty in a lab, the phenomenon is self-evidently made up".

From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.

That's only slightly less transparent and pathetic than the conflation tactic. It really only demonstrates the limitations of your own technique, not the limitations of the discipline you are attacking.

Woah. First of all, as it relates to your original statement concerning the Casimir effect specifically, I agree with you completely. There is no reason I should not "understand" this process as well as any "believer" in "negative pressure in a vacuum".

That is quite different however from something like "inflation" or "dark energy" or something I *cannot* empirically verify. You must accept that there is a difference here between these two different things.

Expertise first; criticism second. Or be prepared to forgo all credibility.

I'll state again that as it relates to a *known and demonstrated phenomenon* like the Casimir effect, sure I need "expertise" first. As it relates "inflation" however, my skepticism stems from the lack of empirical support that it even exists in nature or that it has some effect on nature. No amount of "expertise in the math" is going to address my basic skepticism of the idea at the level of empirical physics. I don't need to know the math that relates to an electrical discharge to believe they occur in nature. I can observe them here on my desk anytime I want to see them in action. I can observe them in nature during an electrical storm. I have *empirical evidence* that EM fields influence nature. I have no *empirical evidence* that inflation does anything to monopoles, electrons, protons, etc.

 

[edd]

From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.

We have a (comparatively) simple mathematical model of inflation and its effects. If you have a simple mathematical of God, suitably qualified theologians would I'm sure be delighted to test it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I may be stating the woefully obvious, but there were no metal plates in the early universe.

The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one. The VP's just provides more pressure on one side than the other. No area inside the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

As it relates to Guth's inflation theory, an all pervasive weak EM field around Guth's near singularity would only provide constant "inward kinetic pressure" on his near singularity, and as you point out, it would likely have no effect at all. Under no circumstances will we get "negative pressure" from the "vacuum", just 'kinetic transfers of energy" inside the vacuum.

 

[D'rok]

From the standpoint of empirical physics, how is "inflation did it" any more credible than "God did it"? It's not "rhetoric" to point out that something lacks empirical support.



Woah. First of all, as it relates to your original statement concerning the Casimir effect specifically, I agree with you completely. There is no reason I should not "understand" this process as well as any "believer" in "negative pressure in a vacuum".

That is quite different however from something like "inflation" or "dark energy" or something I *cannot* empirically verify. You must accept that there is a difference here between these two different things.



I'll state again that as it relates to a *known and demonstrated phenomenon* like the Casimir effect, sure I need "expertise" first. As it relates "inflation" however, my skepticism stems from the lack of empirical support that it even exists in nature or that it has some effect on nature. No amount of "expertise in the math" is going to address my basic skepticism of the idea at the level of empirical physics. I don't need to know the math that relates to an electrical discharge to believe they occur in nature. I can observe them here on my desk anytime I want to see them in action. I can observe them in nature during an electrical storm. I have *empirical evidence* that EM fields influence nature. I have no *empirical evidence* that inflation does anything to monopoles, electrons, protons, etc.

I didn't actually expect to breach your defences. I just wanted to highlight the obvious for other lurkers like me.

I encourage you to carry on with your tactics. I'm actually learning a lot from the knowledgeable people who continue to try to engage you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have a (comparatively) simple mathematical model of inflation and its effects. If you have a simple mathematical of God, suitably qualified theologians would I'm sure be delighted to test it.

I'll just blatantly pilfer your inflation math and call it "God energy".

 

[sol invictus]

And that's rhetorical trick #2: "If I can't get my hands dirty in a lab, the phenomenon is self-evidently made up".

One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically. In the world the rest of us live in, astronomers make observations and use them to test theories, discarding those that fail and refining those that don't. While the specific challenges and limitations observational astronomers must face are different than those faced by experimental physicists in labs, the methods they use are more or less identical, and their ability to test theories is at least broadly equivalent.

Both inflation and dark energy are more or less required by the data. To be more precise, no one up to this point in time has found a valid theory which can account for observational data and doesn't include them. At the same time, both are falsifiable - very easily so - by any of a myriad of potential observations. As such they obviously meet the definition of empirical science, and I would not be at all surprised if the Nobel committee recognizes some of the more important players in either or both in the near future. In fact, the discoverers of inflation have already been awarded a Dirac medal.

 

[edd]

The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one. The VP's just provides more pressure on one side than the other. No area inside the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

As it relates to Guth's inflation theory, an all pervasive weak EM field around Guth's near singularity would only provide constant "inward kinetic pressure" on his near singularity, and as you point out, it would likely have no effect at all. Under no circumstances will we get "negative pressure" from the "vacuum", just 'kinetic transfers of energy" inside the vacuum.

MM. I keep saying this but it isn't sinking in. Please read this carefully.

There is no 'around'. The universe is the same everywhere. There's no outside and inside. There's just high density everywhere.

There is no kinetic pressure forcing things to move in or out from some central location.

The effect of the pressure is gravitational, and is important in how the energy density varies with volume, not in directly moving any physical object through physical impacts.

The relevance of the Casimir effect is solely in the fact that it is an example of negative pressure. It may have a deeper connection to a vacuum energy responsible for cosmic evolution but it isn't clear at this point.

 

[D'rok]

One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically. In the world the rest of us live in, astronomers make observations and use them to test theories, discarding those that fail and refining those that don't. While the specific challenges and limitations observational astronomers must face are different than those faced by experimental physicists in labs, the methods they use are more or less identical, and their ability to test theories is at least broadly equivalent.

Both inflation and dark energy are more or less required by the data. To be more precise, no one up to this point in time has found a valid theory which can account for observational data and doesn't include them. At the same time, both are falsifiable - very easily so - by any of a myriad of potential observations. As such they obviously meet the definition of empirical science, and I would not be at all surprised if the Nobel committee recognizes some of the more important players in either or both in the near future. In fact, the discoverers of inflation have already been awarded a Dirac medal.

Thanks to contributions from you and others in this thread, I'm actually starting to get a layperson's grasp of these things. Ironically, MM is the fly in the ointment that has made this possible! If you were just talking amongst yourselves in your professional capacity, I would be lost.

 

[Ziggurat]

The point of our Casimir debate is that the VP's provide "kinetic pressure" on *both* sides of the plates, not just one.

A minor curiosity: the term "kinetic pressure" actually has a distinct meaning, separate from ordinary pressure: namely, the kinetic energy per unit volume of a fluid. It's called a "pressure" because it's got the same dimensions as pressure, but actual pressure is not equal to kinetic pressure. For nonrelativistic non-interacting particles, actual pressure turns out to be 2/3rds of the kinetic pressure, and for relativistic non-interacting particles, actual pressure will be 1/3rd of kinetic pressure. For interacting particles, all bets are off.

 

[Ziggurat]

The relevance of the Casimir effect is solely in the fact that it is an example of negative pressure.

MM can't even wrap his head around negative pressures in liquids, even though they can be easily and directly measured in a lab. There's really no hope that we can get him to understand the Casimir effect.

 

[paximperium]

Thanks to contributions from you and others in this thread, I'm actually starting to get a layperson's grasp of these things. Ironically, MM is the fly in the ointment that has made this possible! If you were just talking amongst yourselves in your professional capacity, I would be lost.

Seconded. This has been a great introduction to the topic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One of the many problems with MM is that he holds the (delusional) belief that theories of cosmology cannot be tested empirically.

One of the many problems with sol and this crew is that they hold the (delusional) belief that astronomers should have a "free pass" when it comes to empirically supporting their beliefs. Somehow it's "ok" to posit hypothetical entities like "dark energy" and "inflation" and SUSY particles galore and call the whole thing a "physics theory". Only 4% of this theory is based on actual "physics" and 96% of it is purely "made up" stuff that nobody can empirically demonstrate.

Birkeland didn't approach astronomy like that. He demonstrated that one *can* explain solar wind, high temperature discharges in the solar atmosphere, jets, aurora around planets, etc, all via standard forces of nature. This was all done in a lab over 100 years ago. It took the mainstream more than 60 years to finally comes to grips with the idea that Chapman's math was flawed and Birkeland's ideas had merit. I'll be dead If I wait around for them to figure out solar wind.

The mainsteam sees a Birkeland current in space and ignorantly refers to it as a "magnetic slinky" because none of their theories really "predict" or expect such a thing and they *refuse* to revisit Birkeland's emprical work.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM can't even wrap his head around negative pressures in liquids, even though they can be easily and directly measured in a lab. There's really no hope that we can get him to understand the Casimir effect.

I just see no comparison to "bond tension" and "negative pressure in a vacuum". Guth didn't say squat about "liquids", he needs negative pressure in a vacuum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM. I keep saying this but it isn't sinking in. Please read this carefully.

There is no 'around'. The universe is the same everywhere. There's no outside and inside. There's just high density everywhere.

In terms of actual "physics", *what* is there is a high density of?

There is no kinetic pressure forcing things to move in or out from some central location.

Ok.

The effect of the pressure is gravitational,

What does that mean? Where does the "gravitational pressure" come from and which direction is the "pressure" coming from? What does the term "pressure" apply to, and where does it come from?

What "pressure" are you talking about if this is not "kinetic" in nature?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Seconded. This has been a great introduction to the topic.

Well, at least I'm good for something, if only for the entertainment value.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just see no comparison to "bond tension" and "negative pressure in a vacuum".

You also don't know how to define pressure. And for some strange reason you still refuse to acknowledge that liquids really can be at negative pressure, which is related to your inability to define pressure.

 

[Tubbythin]

Knowing from an empirical standpoint is something I also appreciate and "crave" just as much as you do. I simply see the difference between empirical truth, and "wishful thinking'. If you could empirically demonstrate your claims had merit, my "skepticism" would be removed, and I would be happy to embrace empirical illumination and empirical wisdom.

Well, first of all, they're not my claims (at least, not the ones about inflation). Secondly, people have empirically demonstrated inflation has merit. They've made predictions from the theory and those predictions have turned out, through empirical measurements, to be accurate.

What we have here however is a theory based on three different hypothetical entities based on a kludged together ad hoc bunch of "buddies", most recently "dark energy" which now presumably makes up 75% of the whole universe!

Dark energy is basically just the words used to describe the fact that empirical observations seem to show the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.

I'm afraid I do not see that as "finding out" anything. I see that as way to "create a mythos" that sounds pretty cool and comes with nifty math, but that is not a form of empirical truth. It requires *multiple* acts of faith on the part of the "believer".

No it doesn't. That's the whole point. It is empirically testable. Which means it certainly isn't an act of faith.

Birkeland did things by the book. He could explain "Birkeland currents" in space and we see "cosmological examples" of such structures all the time.
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/01/12/magnetic-slinky-in-space/


It's not a "magnetic slinky, it's a "Birkeland current".
[qimg]http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/helical_orion-2.jpg[/qimg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]

All very nice. But not of any relevance here.

 

[GeeMack]

Birkeland didn't approach astronomy like that. He demonstrated that one *can* explain solar wind, high temperature discharges in the solar atmosphere, jets, aurora around planets, etc, all via standard forces of nature.

No, he didn't. And it doesn't matter how often you repeat this lie, it will not become true.

 

[Tubbythin]

The EM field applies 'force' or pressure to the plates, sure, but it is simply kinetic energy in motion that does this "pushing", not "negative pressure in a vacuum".

What do you mean by "kinetic energy in motion". That makes no sense to me.

The difference is there are photons doing the "pushing" rather than atoms doing the "pushing", but it's all "positive kinetic energy in motion" that "pushes the plates together". There is no "negative pressure" involved, it's pure kinetic energy in motion. Seriously.

Just so we're clear, how would you calculate the kinetic energy of a photon?

You're simply describing the "force per unit area of the carrier particle of the EM field! It is a simple "force" of nature that "pushes" (from the outside) the plates together because the "pressure" of the particles on the outside is "greater than" the "pressure" from the particles on the inside of the plates.

Loosely speaking.

At no time is there any "negative pressure" doing any work inside the chamber, and there cannot ever be "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" as Guth needs to make his theory fly.

How not?

Even if you claim there is an EM field "pushing" on his near singularity thingy, all the arrows will be pointed directly *into* the near singularity, not "away from" the near singularity, unless of course you claiming that it is "discharging towards" some external "nearsingularitymagnetosphere" of some sort?

No idea what you're talking about here.