Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

It's amazing......

I had no idea at the start of this conversation how truly "lost" you folks are when it come to actual physical processes and pure physics. You can't tell the difference between "negative" and "less than", and when it comes to the actual physical processes that produce "pressure" you're absolutely clueless.

You seem to think that pretty much everyone in the world who is involved as a professional instructor, researcher, or scientist in the fields of physics, cosmology, astrophysics, and related sciences is an idiot and Michael Mozina is the one individual who actually knows what he's talking about. Don't you ever find it interesting that in over 5 years of you running your mouth on various forums, the general opinion is virtually unanimous that it's the other way around? How do you explain that, Michael? You always seem to avoid answering that question. Why is it that you are so incapable of explaining your crackpot views in a way that anyone else agrees with you? Are you just the crappiest communicator in the entire field of physics? Or might it be that you're just plain wrong?

I've been wondering something similar for a while too ...

Has MM presented a logically consistent, valid case that LCDM models are scientific woo? No.

Has MM presented a logically consistent alternative, scientific, basis for doing astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology? No.

Has MM presented a logically consistent alternative, scientific, basis for doing physics? No.

Has MM presented a logically consistent alternative, scientific, basis for doing any physical science? No.

Has MM presented a logically consistent critique of LCDM models, or astronomy, or astrophysics, or cosmology, or physics, or any of the physical sciences? No.

Has MM presented logically consistent, testable hypotheses regarding astronomical (including solar system) phenomena? No.

Has MM presented logically consistent, testable hypotheses regarding physical phenomena? No.

Has MM presented a new, logically consistent approach to studying any significant problem in contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology? No.

On the other hand ...

Has MM provided considerable entertainment for many readers? Yes.

Has MM facilitated, albeit unintentionally perhaps, the acquisition of new knowledge or understanding or critical thinking skills for many readers? Yes.

Now I do not claim to know what MM's objectives in posting to this forum are, and have no intention of even trying to guess, but I can't think how he could feel any such have been successful ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The basic problem with your premise MM is that your mental model you've constructed requires there be a maximum possible theoretical pressure. You should be able to calculate that, predict what it will be. You said 1 atmosphere before, but then you backtracked from that but you haven't brought forward any other number, either experimentally measured or theoretically derived.

As I think became clear quite some time ago, MM's mental model(s) is so overwhelmingly qualitative, and quantitative aspects (such as calculations) so peripheral, that this line of reasoning likely comes across as little more than noise (if it registers at all).

Of course, I could be wrong ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let me try it this way for you edd. *If* you are correct, and there is an attractive "force" between the plates, all this would demonstrate is that atoms attract other atoms. In no way would that justify the claim that a vacuum contains "negative pressure". The very most you might be able to demonstrate is that the "force" on the plates is due to an attraction between the plates. That would not demonstrate a "negative pressure in a vacuum". It would only demonstrate an attractive quality between two mass objects. So?

I wouldn't claim that the negative pressure from the vacuum in the Casimir effect is the same as a cosmological constant or currently-dominating dark energy, and certainly not the same as whatever was responsible for inflation.

However, the theory that accurately predicts the behaviour in the Casimir effect amongst a wealth of other experimental observations is pretty clear in explaining it in terms of something that reduces in energy as its volume decreases, and this is the kind of behaviour needed for dark energy or for inflation.

Guth's inflating singularity thing requires "negative pressure" from a "vacuum". That is quite unlike an attraction to another object outside of the singularity.

In this case, I believe there is a misunderstanding on your part on the role the negative pressure plays. The force from the pressure (as in the F in P=F/A) is not the force that's relevant. The gravitational force from the energy of whatever has this negative pressure is the important thing, and this is distinct from the pressure.

MM's continued inability to understand the elementary aspects of the physics in the Casimir experiment (or, perhaps, his continuing misunderstanding of them) is but one among many demonstrations that the basis of MM's understanding of physics is not quantitative.

It was some time - and many posts - ago that the deep disconnect between the foundations of physics, as a science, and MM's understanding of them became clear; pretty much from then this thread became more about the nature of physics - over the last 500 years or so - and not about cosmology at all.

Another illustration of this disconnect: Birkeland, who MM praises so highly, clearly used, in his 994-page document, some concepts in physics which MM is on record as objecting too, and vehemently so too (negative gravitational potential energy, IIRC). That MM cannot (apparently) see the logical inconsistency speaks volumes for why so many exchanges in this thread are unproductive.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

The problem is that "pressure" is typically defined as:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/4...67cb6c537c.png

Why do you say "pressure" and not simply pressure? Are you implying that it's not real pressure being defined, but only something people label as pressure?

[...]

You'll notice that MM does this a lot - use words/terms which should take their normal, technical meanings and put them in quotation marks.

And I think you've hit upon another illustration of the deep disconnect between MM's approach to physics (and science in general?) and the last half millennium or so of that branch of science ... or, in temporalillusion's words, MM's mental model and the way physics is actually done.

Yes, in physics clear definitions - especially of key terms - are important, and without them not much physics can get done.

And yes, MM's continued resistance to either working with a standard definition (such as pressure) or providing one of his own (see how tentatively, and reluctantly, he proposed the ideal gas law as a definition of pressure) shows his use of quotation marks to be honest (he has his own, private, meaning for the term) ... and illustrates, again, just how very differently he sees physics.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Keep at em mike, dont let their hypostatisated mathematical constructs and abstractions confuse you. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions, then it's just as bad as the metaphysical exploding vectors representing field lines used in "magnetic reconnection"

Negative pressure

I thought you'd left, Z; what made you change your mind?

While your post is, uncharacteristically, terse, and acknowledging that I may have misunderstood it, you seem to be confirming that, like MM, you missed the quantitative revolution in science (or physics, at least).

Let me test my hypothesis:

* is 'electricity' a 'known force of nature'?

* is 'magnetism' a 'known force of nature'?

* is 'electromagnetism' a 'known force of nature'?

* is 'the electroweak interaction' a 'known force of nature'?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Keep at em mike, dont let their hypostatisated mathematical constructs and abstractions confuse you. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions, then it's just as bad as the metaphysical exploding vectors representing field lines used in "magnetic reconnection"

Negative pressure

It was in fact my conversations with this bunch on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" that made me realize that they haven't got a clue about the physical processes their math formulas attempt to describe, albeit imperfectly. They evidently think that mathematical constructs make up "reality", when in fact the physical processes are what make up "physical reality', and the math formulas are often crude instruments. They don't understand anything *except* the math. From their perspective that minus sign in their favorite math formula is "proof positive" of "negative pressure in a vacuum". It's patently absurd of course, since it is simply an oversimplified model that *assumes* a zero pressure on the outside of the plates.

When it comes to actual "physics", and the exchange of energy between subatomic particles, they really are clueless. All they "understand" is the math. The rest is purely "ad hoc" constructs like "inflation" and "dark evil stuff' to fill in the gaps to make their math formulas fit. They really have no idea what actual PHYSICS is, nor do they begin to comprehend the value of empirical testing of concept. They are blind like Chapman's followers of the past. All that matter to them is that it works out on paper, lab tests be damned.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've been wondering something similar for a while too ...

Has MM presented a logically consistent, valid case that LCDM models are scientific woo? No.

Technically I don't have to provide evidence of a negative. You must demonstrate it is not "woo" if you believe it has merit. Since it begins with a dead inflation deity, it's never going to be anything other than a "religion" that requires active leaps of faith on the part of the "believer" that cannot ever be demonstrated in a controlled empirical "test'.

Has MM presented a logically consistent alternative, scientific, basis for doing astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology? No.

Again, this is utterly irrelevant. I can reject Lambda-Gumby theory for any logical reason without offering any "alternative" at all. If your theory is strung together with magic elves and invisible rainbow creatures, it's not much of a "scientific" theory. It has no scientific merit, regardless if I can offer a "better" explanation. I can reject your invisible ad hoc metaphysical constructs on principle, specifically the principle of *EMPIRICAL* science.

Has MM presented a logically consistent alternative, scientific, basis for doing physics? No.

This is a false statement. I have have been 100% consistent and logical. You cannot empirically demonstrate not 1, not 2, but 3 different metaphysical invisible friends that you use to justify your theory. I have no evidence that inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination. I have no evidence that "dark energy" is anything other than a fudge factor of epic proportions to make your math formula work. I have no evidence that SUSY brands of "dark matter" exist in nature, but again, your pitiful theory is dependent on that too.

Has MM presented a logically consistent critique of LCDM models, or astronomy, or astrophysics, or cosmology, or physics, or any of the physical sciences? No.

Sure I have, starting with all those metaphysical buddies you made up.

Has MM presented logically consistent, testable hypotheses regarding astronomical (including solar system) phenomena? No.

Bull. I handed you a whole volume of data related to empirical testing of Birkeland's solar model and you've probably never even bothered to read much of it.

Has MM presented logically consistent, testable hypotheses regarding physical phenomena? No.

Sure I have, including a logical way to explain "pressure" in a vacuum based upon actual "physics".

Has MM presented a new, logically consistent approach to studying any significant problem in contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, or cosmology? No.

Again, you have resorted to pure distortion of fact. I have suggested we stick to "empirical, testable physics". You're the one insisting I have "faith" in your metaphysical friends.

On the other hand ...

Has MM provided considerable entertainment for many readers? Yes.

Cool! That's been one of my primary goals. I also hope this place generates a wee bit of extra revenue from Google because of my efforts. I'd like to think someone financially benefits from my entertainment efforts.

Has MM facilitated, albeit unintentionally perhaps, the acquisition of new knowledge or understanding or critical thinking skills for many readers? Yes.

Hopefully they've learned something about relying *only* upon a mathematical construct. Invisible friends stuffed into a math formula is no substitute for an empirical test.

Now I do not claim to know what MM's objectives in posting to this forum are, and have no intention of even trying to guess, but I can't think how he could feel any such have been successful ...

My motives are pretty straight forward. I was trying to find out if you folks really had any empirical evidence to justify your claims. What I "discovered" is that you're (as a group) pretty much clueless when it comes to subatomic physics in general, and QM in particular. You evidently can't tell the difference between "low pressure" and "negative pressure", and you folks believe that magnetism somehow drives the parade, when in fact *electricity* drives the parade.

About all I can say is that I've at least satisfied my own curiosity. This negative pressure in a vacuum conversation pretty much answered my question. You really are clueless when it comes to subatomic processes and subatomic physics. While you may understand GR theory (one stuffed with pure garbage by the way), you have not clue when it comes to physical processes or the importance of empirical testing.

 

[edd]

It was in fact my conversations with this bunch on the topic of "magnetic reconnection" that made me realize that they haven't got a clue about the physical processes their math formulas attempt to describe, albeit imperfectly. They evidently think that mathematical constructs make up "reality", when in fact the physical processes are what make up "physical reality', and the math formulas are often crude instruments. They don't understand anything *except* the math. From their perspective that minus sign in their favorite math formula is "proof positive" of "negative pressure in a vacuum". It's patently absurd of course, since it is simply an oversimplified model that *assumes* a zero pressure on the outside of the plates.

When it comes to actual "physics", and the exchange of energy between subatomic particles, they really are clueless. All they "understand" is the math. The rest is purely "ad hoc" constructs like "inflation" and "dark evil stuff' to fill in the gaps to make their math formulas fit. They really have no idea what actual PHYSICS is, nor do they begin to comprehend the value of empirical testing of concept. They are blind like Chapman's followers of the past. All that matter to them is that it works out on paper, lab tests be damned.

While there's physical reality and there's our models of it, our models are invariably mathematical as that is the best way to construct testable theories.

So if we push for a mathematically based understanding of the ideas in competition here, it is because that is the best approach to testing which of those ideas actually represents physical reality.

If you cannot understand the mathematics to the point that you misunderstand the theory and mistakenly ascribe the wrong predictions to it, you are not in a good position to test it against reality.

We're firmly rooted in mathematical theories that offer the opportunity to be scientifically examined, rather than cartoons, which don't offer anything like the accuracy of prediction that match the accuracy of observation and experimentation that we are capable of.

 

[temporalillusion]

As I think became clear quite some time ago, MM's mental model(s) is so overwhelmingly qualitative, and quantitative aspects (such as calculations) so peripheral, that this line of reasoning likely comes across as little more than noise (if it registers at all).

Of course, I could be wrong ...

I think this makes sense.. a billion pages ago when we were talking about Newton and gravity and such MM was saying gravity was detectable and everyone was trying to make the point about the 1/r² relationship wasn't detectable etc etc..

 

[Dancing David]

MM,

How about if we talk about 'attractive' forces and how GR then might lead to a model of inflation and expansion?

Do you agree that gravity is an attractive force?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is a striking similarity to the debating methods of Zeuzzz, Mozina, Sol88, etc. with that of creationists.

Funny, I feel the same way about Lambda-magic proponents. The parallels are earily similar. They can't empirically justify their creation date any better than any other creation theory either.

They focus on some difficulty (imagined or actual) with prevailing theories. They then assume that focusing on that difficulty somehow boosts their own position -- by default. This debating technique is both illogical and dishonest.

I'm not trying to "boost" any other theory, I'm simply demonstrating that the Lambda-metaphysical-gumby theory is illogical and dishonest. My debate technique has been entirely honest, starting with the fact that *I* am using my actual first and last name, not hiding behind a handle. You all know exactly who I am, whereas I know nothing about you at all.

The only thing I "focused" on was a physical impossibility (negative pressure in a vacuum) that seems to be required in this theory, and all the ad hoc constructs that have been used to band-aid this pitiful theory together over the years. Every failed prediction (acceleration was not predicted in early BB models), is swept under the carpet, and a new creation theory emerges that is stuffed with metaphysical "gap filler" galore. Just ad 75% "dark energy", and viola, our failed prediction no longer matters, and we now have a new theory that "correctly predicts (postdicted nonsense)" acceleration. Wee, how fun. As long as you never have to demonstrate this stuff isn't a figment of your collective imagination, anything is possible. Lambda theory is a religion. It is based upon a made up, "superluminal space expanding" dead inflation deity, dark evil energies and dark potato matter. All these things are purely ad hoc gap filler to patch up an otherwise falsified creation theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I think became clear quite some time ago, MM's mental model(s) is so overwhelmingly qualitative, and quantitative aspects (such as calculations) so peripheral, that this line of reasoning likely comes across as little more than noise (if it registers at all).

Of course, I could be wrong ...

You really don't "get it" because you really only understand math. You do not posses even the slightest understanding of what occurs at the level of actual "physics" that your math is attempting to describe, albeit imperfectly and in an oversimplified manner. All that matters or "registers" to this crew is that there is a minus sign in your math formula of choice.

I'm sure that the number is "greater than zero" and "much less than infinity". While such calculations are "interesting', they in no way convey the actual physical process at the level of QM, and therefore you are "lost" and incapable of accepting truth, even when it's spoken in plain English, and comes with pretty diagrams and everything.

The quantum Casimir effect comes about because a vacuum always contains fluctuating electromagnetic fields. Normally these fluctuations are roughly the same everywhere, but two close conducting surfaces set “boundary conditions” that limit the number of allowed field frequencies between them. Only waves that can fit multiples of half a wavelength between the surfaces resonate, leaving non-resonating frequencies suppressed. The result is that the total field inside a gap between conductors cannot produce enough pressure to match that from outside, so the surfaces are pushed together.

I neither wrote the article, nor created the diagram, yet both are entirely consistent, and entirely consistent with my explanation DRD. Why is that?

 

[Ziggurat]

The only thing I "focused" on was a physical impossibility (negative pressure in a vacuum)

What makes it a physical impossibility? Nothing, really. You yourself don't know of a mechanism which can produce negative pressure in a vacuum, but that says nothing, really. No conservation laws would be violated by negative pressure in a vacuum, there's no violation of any thermodynamics laws by negative pressure in a vacuum, so what's the objection? Simply that you don't believe in the proposed mechanism.

But why should your objection carry any weight? After all, you've had an enormously difficult time even coming to a definition of pressure, and repeatedly confused an equation of state for a definition. Furthermore, at one point you objected to the idea of negative pressure in general, a position I already demonstrated was quite wrong. So your intuition in the matter of pressure is simply not to be trusted.

No, if we are to determine whether or not negative vacuum pressure is possible, we need to be far more rigorous about all of this than you have been. We cannot rely on Wikipedia drawings. We need to construct a quantitative model of what's under discussion. Which is exactly what I've been trying to do by starting with a definition of pressure. To my amazement, though, you have continually balked at the very first step in any logical discussion of the possibility of negative vacuum pressure: namely, arriving at a working definition of pressure.

So once again, I ask: do you understand and accept the definition [latex]$P=-\frac{\partial E}{\partial V}$[/latex]?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM,

How about if we talk about 'attractive' forces and how GR then might lead to a model of inflation and expansion?

Do you agree that gravity is an attractive force?

Since I tend to favor GR over any current QM gravity model, I'd have to say no, gravity IMO is a "curvature" of spacetime. It "may" be shown to be an actual "force" of some sort in some future quantum gravity theory, and I remain open to that possibility.

 

[edd]

You really don't "get it" because you really only understand math. You do not posses even the slightest understanding of what occurs at the level of actual "physics" that your math is attempting to describe, albeit imperfectly and in an oversimplified manner. All that matters or "registers" to this crew is that there is a minus sign in your math formula of choice.

This is flat out untrue. We care what happens at the actual level of physics - we care how much energy is physically present between the plates.

Any minus sign is not there as some mathematical trick or convenience. It expresses how that physical quantity changes as the plate separation changes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What makes it a physical impossibility?

What *exactly* (be very specific) did you intend to add or subtract from a "pure" vacuum (one devoid of all atoms and QM processes) to create a "negative pressure" in that vacuum?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is flat out untrue. We care what happens at the actual level of physics - we care how much energy is physically present between the plates.

There is simply "less pressure" on the inside of the plates than on the outside of the plates. There's no mystery here edd, except why this crew is being so damn stubborn.

Any minus sign is not there as some mathematical trick or convenience. It expresses how that physical quantity changes as the plate separation changes.

That minus sign is a *relative* number. It is *relative to* the ambient "pressure" in the chamber from the level of QM. It is "less than" the pressure on the outside of the plates, but that particular math formula *ignores* (actually sets to zero) the pressure on the outside of the plates to make the calculation "simpler". That minus sign does not define the "actual" pressure between the plates, it only defines the "relative" pressure between the plates compared to the quantum pressure on the outside of the plates. That minus sign does not mean that there is "negative pressure" in the chamber. It simply demonstrates that "relative to" the outside pressure, it is "lower than" the outside pressure.

The difference between us edd in all probability is age. You haven't yet had the time to really study this from all the various angles, and to fully get into QM and all the things that I've had a chance to do over my nearly 50 years on earth. Sooner or later, you will have to accept the fact that I didn't write that article, but it is accurate. I didn't create the WIKI diagram either, but it also is accurate. The "pressure" on the surfaces of the plates is "positive" in every direction. It is simply "more positive" on some surfaces than on others, and therefore there is a pressure differential that causes the plates to be pushed together.

 

[Tubbythin]

I have a basic understanding in how void of reality and how untestable and unfalsifiable they are. And how little predictions they make.

Do you have an understanding of them? I very much doubt it, I dont think anyone does.

I have a little understanding of supersymmetry. Or at least, I used to know what sort of experimental signatures people would be looking for at CMS and ATLAS in the hunt for evidence of supersymmetric particles in the MSSM. Which of course is in complete contradiction to your claims about supersymmetry.

Lets take a quick look at Nobel Laureate David Gross's views on some of these exotic theories.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825293.700



Quite.

Quite what?

It doesn't.

....but it gets flipping close.

But in the models used, the value tends to zero as distance tends to inifinity right?

I dont know what I have to respond to. Point it out.

What I actually said. Namely that requiring all physics to be in situ, lab based "controlled" experiments is utterly absurd.

 

[sol invictus]

Sooner or later, you will have to accept the fact that I didn't write that article, but it is accurate.

You're the only one that doesn't accept that the article is correct, MM. I quote from it:

The Casimir force per unit area Fc / A for idealized, perfectly conducting plates with vacuum between them is

[latex] $ {F_c \over A} = - \frac{d}{da} \frac{\langle E \rangle}{A} = -\frac {\hbar c \pi^2} {240 a^4}$ [/latex]

Case closed. If you agree with the article, you agree the pressure is negative. Can we end this idiotic discussion now?

 

[edd]

The difference between us edd in all probability is age. You haven't yet had the time to really study this from all the various angles, and to fully get into QM and all the things that I've had a chance to do over my nearly 50 years on earth. Sooner or later, you will have to accept the fact that I didn't write that article, but it is accurate. I didn't create the WIKI diagram either, but it also is accurate. The "pressure" on the surfaces of the plates is "positive" in every direction. It is simply "more positive" on some surfaces than on others, and therefore there is a pressure differential that causes the plates to be pushed together.

You might be older, but it would perhaps be unwise to suggest I haven't had sufficient time to study it. I'm not a QM expert, but I know a decent amount and enough to understand the relevant aspects I believe, and know my limitations. I certainly understand the cosmology and the relevant physics better than you it seems, given you continue to avoid the subject of the dE/dV definition.