MM:
I find cosmological theories fascinating. I personally long for an explanation for the origin of the universe, but for this layman, evidence appears to be somewhat thin for all theories. When the standard model brings us back to a singularity, my reaction is, "OK, then what?" As you have pointed out, so where is this inflationary field now? From Wikipedia, "At the end of inflation, a process called reheating occurs, in which the potential energy of the inflation field is converted into Standard Model particles, starting the radiation dominated phase of the Universe." How could we ever demonstrate that?
Similarly, where would Klein's primordial matter/antimatter mist come from? How could it ever be demonstrated?
As you know, it can't.
I believe you overlooked one very important difference however. Klein's model requires no 'new' forms of mass or energy. Matter and antimatter do actually exist in nature today. From an Occum's razor perspective, his theory "beats" any theory that requires the introduction of a new and "hypothetical" form of matter or energy. Klein's "bang" requires no "'singularity" to have ever existed.
All we currently have are our observations and models that have a reasonable fit to those observations. I don't like inflation any more than you do, but it's the best answer we currently have.
In the end you and I only disagree on the concept of what is considered a "better" theory. The skeptic in me just can't call a theory that requires three hypothetical entities "better than" one that requires none at all. Even if Klein's model still needs a lot of work mathmatically, it's still way 'better than' anything IMO that introduces even *ONE* hypothetical form of energy/matter, and certainly any theory that requires two or more hypothetical forms of matter/energy just to make the math fit.
If Alfven's theories made any sense, the scientific community would pay attention.
They do and they don't.
I've seen them in action now for years. Even when I bring them new papers that support Alfven's views on "circuits", they simply ignore them. Those last three papers for instance all used satellite data to confirm the presence of return current in coronal loop activity. Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven all PREDICTED that observation. Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere release gamma and x-rays all the time, so why call it "magnetic reconnection" when we observe the same energy signatures from the sun's atmosphere? I'm sorry, I wish I believed you, but I've had too many conversations over the last few years to believe that way any longer. I *USED* to think that way, but I've been tarnished by the conversations over the years.
I have known too may scientists in my life who also passionately long for explanations; they are brilliant people who have a genuine lifelong mania to understand the origins of the universe. It is beyond far fetched that there could be a global mind block to Alfven's theories.
There isn't. I promote them. Many individuals who post here promote them as well. I've shown you papers by about a dozen different authors that all supported parts of Alfven's solar views. In no way can you call this a global conspiracy. There is simply a "mainstream' that is resistant to his idea and a "minority opinion" that continues to point out the importance of his work.
I think you would be better served if you attempted to understand the basis for the virtually universal acceptance of the inflation model among the world's cosmologists
And what do you figure I've been doing for the last 28 years or so since Guth first introduced the idea? The basic problem with inflation hasn't changed in all those years PS, it's always been plagued and always will be plagued by the fact inflation is dead. It was always an "imaginary" force that Guth "imagined" in his head. It will never show up in an empirical test of concept. It will never move a single atom so why should I believe it ever did? I even know who "made it up" PS. I can't ignore the skeptic in me that sees the whole thing as a dead deistic religion devoid of empirical support. All the math in the universe won't fix that lack of physical verification. The math gets modified all the time anyway. How many different forms of inflation are there anyway?
and got a better handle on why EU theories do not fit observations.
I've only been aware of EU theory myself for about 5-6 years and I've spend those years attempting to understand both the theory itself and the criticisms of that theory. I'm not quite as "well versed' on that idea as say 'inflation' that I've studied now for over 25+ years.
I can tell you this much however. Most mainstream scientists are just like I was 6 years ago, blissfully ignorant of the whole concept. The ones that do understand anything about it tend to know very little about it. Most of the loudest critics of PC/EU theory are usually the most willfully ignorant on the topic too.
I know you have been given a considerable amount of information from many on these threads but refuse to even try to understand why the EU model is flawed.
I understand why some here "percieve" there to be 'flaws' in the theory. I concede that it lacks mathematical qualification on some levels too. I understand it's limitations better than most, I simply accept them, just as you accept the fact you'll never be able to empirically demonstrate inflation. What's the worse flaw?
Finally, don't you find it a bit troubling that Alfven's area was plasma physics -- not astrophysics or cosmology?
No, not at all. He was the most qualified to explain to cosmologists that magnetic fields do not disconnect or reconnect to other magnetic fields. He understood the physics well. He understood both the B *AND* E field orientations of MHD theory. If anyone had the qualifications to apply MHD theory to objects in space, it was Alfven. Like it or not he *EARNED* those qualifications. Plasma is a part of cosmology and always will be.
I don't have a ax to grind here; I just find your adherence to this EU stuff peculiar and not very dissimilar to the blind acceptance of creationists.
I find that troubling frankly because I see things exactly the opposite. A YEC can *NEVER* physically demonstrate their claim. They always rely upon an "act of faith" to promote their beliefs. When push comes to shove and you ask for physical evidence, you get a song and dance faith based routine. Inflation has the same feel. "Dark energy did it' sounds just as unlikely to me as Goddidit. What's the empirical difference?
EU theory is pure empirical physics. Sure, it has limitations and it has "flaws", but it is and always will be a form of pure empirical physics. Anything that EU theory *CAN* figure out (like those circuit in coronal loop activity) should be considered and accepted. The mainstream refuses to do so.
Anything it can't explain is irrelevant from my perspective because "inflation" isn't a "real" explanation, nor is "dark energy" a "real" explanation. So what if EU theory doesn't compete with metaphysical make believe things?
Sooner or later the mainstream is going to have to accept some or most EU tenets and theories because we live inside an electric universe. They can't hide from reality forever.
