Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

[Michael Mozina]

On its own it doesn't mean much. But backed up by a a century of progress in physics the inevitable conclusion (if we're preserving our law of gravity) its that the matter MUST be exotic.

Due to work and home constraints I am going to have to pick my battles this week, and this particular battle may fall to the wayside for awhile. Don't take it personally please (or prematurely consider it some sort of victory either. )

Ultimately the quote above sums up our basic differences. You and I both seem to accept that some form of "dark matter" probably exists in galaxies. I seem to chalk up that "missing mass" to a limitation related to our technologies and our primitive models. I believe it could be made of any known material, but I don't profess to know exactly how it's arranged or exactly what it's made of. You seem to believe that the current galaxy mass estimate models are entirely accurate and therefore an exotic form of matter is necessary. I simply disagree with you on that particular issue. We can't even see a rock the size of baseball in our own galaxy, let alone a distant galaxy but you insist I believe that all that missing mass must be composed of exotic matter. I don't agree.

I would (and might) feel quite if the LHC (or some other experiment) had(does) demonstrate the existence of an exotic form of matter that has all the attributes you need to fill the gaps of your otherwise falsified theory on galaxy mass estimates, starting with longevity, "invisibility" and all the relatively "hard to believable" aspects of such matter can be demonstrated. IMO "dark matter" is the *LEAST* problematic of the three metaphysical holes in mainstream theory because unlike non-existent inflation, and "mythical energies", this particular idea has some possibility of actually being demonstrated in a standard empirical experiment here on Earth. I'll concede that much to you, but only that much to you for the time being.

In terms of "exotic" matter, SUSY theory is but one of several different non standard particle physics theories that *might* have merit. If and when you produce some physical empirical evidence to support that concept, I'll be willing to concede that exotic forms of matter exist in nature. Until then I'll remain a skeptic. Even assuming I do concede that exotic forms of matter exist in nature, I will expect to see you demonstrate each and every assumed/presumed "property" you assigned to it, starting with longevity, it's ability to pass through solid objects, and it's "dark" attributes. A simple demonstration of a fleeting exotic particle will not plug the gaps of your galaxy mass estimates. You need (to demonstrate) very specific attributes from such an exotic particle, and I'll want to see each and every attribute demonstrated empirically in some way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

One more question for you Tubbythin:

Is there any kind of time limit on your "belief" in exotic forms of matter? In other words, if you and I are both here in cyberspace 10 years from now, and LHC has been banging away all that time and hasn't found anything even remotely like the type of exotic matter you're looking for, will you try another approach?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have no singularity in "my" theory and I never said as much. I was just pointing out the limitations of ANY mathematical model to real life.

Klein or no Klein.

I never advocated the need for such a thing, (in fact, personally, I suspect I actually abhor it!).

I just wanted to help as it seems you may have become overly defensive.

You are right. My apologies.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'll throw you one more bone Tubbythin before I head off to bed....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0316

This is a new and very well written paper on the topic of dark matter IMO.

 

[Tubbythin]

Due to work and home constraints I am going to have to pick my battles this week, and this particular battle may fall to the wayside for awhile. Don't take it personally please (or prematurely consider it some sort of victory either. )

Ultimately the quote above sums up our basic differences. You and I both seem to accept that some form of "dark matter" probably exists in galaxies. I seem to chalk up that "missing mass" to a limitation related to our technologies and our primitive models. I believe it could be made of any known material, but I don't profess to know exactly how it's arranged or exactly what it's made of. You seem to believe that the current galaxy mass estimate models are entirely accurate and therefore an exotic form of matter is necessary. I simply disagree with you on that particular issue.

I don't believe I have ever said our current galaxy mass estimate models are completely accurate. I've even said before you can have a factor of two in the visible distribution and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.

We can't even see a rock the size of baseball in our own galaxy, let alone a distant galaxy but you insist I believe that all that missing mass must be composed of exotic matter. I don't agree.

We don't have to be able to resolve individual rocks to know the galaxy isn't largely made up of rocks any more than we need to be able to resolve individual water molecules to know we are mostly made of water.

I would (and might) feel quite if the LHC (or some other experiment) had(does) demonstrate the existence of an exotic form of matter that has all the attributes you need to fill the gaps of your otherwise falsified theory on galaxy mass estimates, starting with longevity, "invisibility" and all the relatively "hard to believable" aspects of such matter can be demonstrated.

How are longevity and invisibility hard to believe? A neutrino is stable and pretty much invisible. The only reason we don't believe neutrinos are the dark matter we're looking for is because they're too light and so wouldn't clump.

IMO "dark matter" is the *LEAST* problematic of the three metaphysical holes in mainstream theory because unlike non-existent inflation, and "mythical energies", this particular idea has some possibility of actually being demonstrated in a standard empirical experiment here on Earth. I'll concede that much to you, but only that much to you for the time being.

None of these things are mythical. They may be wrong

In terms of "exotic" matter, SUSY theory is but one of several different non standard particle physics theories that *might* have merit.

I agree with this (except possibly words 14 and 15, depending on how you define standard).

If and when you produce some physical empirical evidence to support that concept, I'll be willing to concede that exotic forms of matter exist in nature. Until then I'll remain a skeptic.

We have conclusive evidence for the existence of exotic matter (at least as far as I'd define exotic). I've given examples before. We just don't have conclusive evidence on the nature of dark matter, only some of its properties.

Even assuming I do concede that exotic forms of matter exist in nature, I will expect to see you demonstrate each and every assumed/presumed "property" you assigned to it, starting with longevity, it's ability to pass through solid objects, and it's "dark" attributes.

Again, these are hardly mind-blowing properties. The neutrino is stable, can pass through light years of lead(!!!) and doesn't absorb or radiate EM (ie is dark).

A simple demonstration of a fleeting exotic particle will not plug the gaps of your galaxy mass estimates.

They're not gaps in our mass estimates. There's nothing wrong with our estimates. Otherwise we wouldn't (at least it'd be extremely improbable) get the same results from different techniques.

You need (to demonstrate) very specific attributes from such an exotic particle, and I'll want to see each and every attribute demonstrated empirically in some way.

Its not my job to demonstrate these things. I'd like to see somebody else do it though, of course.

 

[Tubbythin]

One more question for you Tubbythin:

Is there any kind of time limit on your "belief" in exotic forms of matter? In other words, if you and I are both here in cyberspace 10 years from now, and LHC has been banging away all that time and hasn't found anything even remotely like the type of exotic matter you're looking for, will you try another approach?

Well (assuming the LHC doesn't keep braking down) then it'll be possible in a decade to set various limits on SUSY particles in the ~ 1 TeV regime if there is no evidence for their existence. Ie (I think) we may be able to say that with X sigma confidence that the neutralino of the MSSM, if it exists, does not have a mass between Y and Z.
But I'm quite open to other possibilities (more massive SUSY particles, heavy neutrinos, axions, possibly MOND...).
However, the idea that the LHC must find direct evidence for exotic dark matter or we can conclusively say exotic dark matter does not exist is absurd. The LHC probes a certain energy range (and is dominated by certain types of interactions). It is not, and was never intended to be, the answer to all nature's questions.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'll throw you one more bone Tubbythin before I head off to bed....

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0316

This is a new and very well written paper on the topic of dark matter IMO.

I'll take a look later.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well (assuming the LHC doesn't keep braking down) then it'll be possible in a decade to set various limits on SUSY particles in the ~ 1 TeV regime if there is no evidence for their existence. Ie (I think) we may be able to say that with X sigma confidence that the neutralino of the MSSM, if it exists, does not have a mass between Y and Z.
But I'm quite open to other possibilities (more massive SUSY particles, heavy neutrinos, axions, possibly MOND...).
However, the idea that the LHC must find direct evidence for exotic dark matter or we can conclusively say exotic dark matter does not exist is absurd. The LHC probes a certain energy range (and is dominated by certain types of interactions). It is not, and was never intended to be, the answer to all nature's questions.

I guess the problem I have with your response is that you don't appear (at least from the outside looking in) to have any motivation whatsoever to seek alternative answers to exotic forms of matter, even if LHC finds nothing at all that fits your necessary criteria. That's a tad too much like religion for my tastes.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I guess the problem I have with your response is that you don't appear (at least from the outside looking in) to have any motivation whatsoever to seek alternative answers to exotic forms of matter, even if LHC finds nothing at all that fits your necessary criteria. That's a tad too much like religion for my tastes.

Exactly what would these "alternatives" be?

 

[Tubbythin]

I guess the problem I have with your response is that you don't appear (at least from the outside looking in) to have any motivation whatsoever to seek alternative answers to exotic forms of matter, even if LHC finds nothing at all that fits your necessary criteria. That's a tad too much like religion for my tastes.

On the contrary, to conclude from limited evidence that something does not exist when the limited evidence does not show this to be the case would be, if not religious, utterly stupid.
You're right in that I personally have no motive to seek alternative answers. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with It not being my field. But others certainly do have motivation to seek alternative answers. Thats why others do do this.

 

[Michael Mozina]

On the contrary, to conclude from limited evidence that something does not exist when the limited evidence does not show this to be the case would be, if not religious, utterly stupid.

Imagine me saying the same thing to you about some idea that you lack belief in, say a new hypothetical particle called a "Michaelton". Sure, there is no direct evidence that "Michaeltons" do not exist, but what physical evidence do either of us have that they do exist? The "norm" in science is typically to require the proponent of the idea to provide the physical evidence to support the idea.

In the sense that the galaxy rotation studies and the lensing data does suggest there is more mass present than we can currently account for, there is some observational evidence of *some* additional mass in these galaxies.

There is no empirical physical evidence however that Michaeltons actually exist in nature or that they are responsible for this additional mass, even if I provide you with ample math formulas to support the idea.

You're essentially taking an "unproven/hypothetical" particle/form of mass and *assuming* that it's not only present in nature, but that it's more abundant than any other item on the periodic table, and every subatomic particle we've ever identified by a factor of 5 or more. You aren't the least bit uncomfortable with that idea?

You're right in that I personally have no motive to seek alternative answers. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with It not being my field. But others certainly do have motivation to seek alternative answers. Thats why others do do this.

From the skeptics perspective, that's hard to accept. It's a bit like me stating that I'm not personally interested in skeptically reviewing my religion, but I'll let the pastors of my church worry about it. If they all change their mind, I'll change my mind too.

 

[Reality Check]

MM - Please present your alternate explanation of all of the evidence for inflation

No, not at all. I can reject "magic elves did it", even with pretty math because magic elves never show up in empirical experiments. It's not a "personal bias", it's an "empirical bias" and a "scientific bias" when the same observation can be explained without inventing new and mythical forces of nature.

That is dumb - no one says that "magic elves did it". Everyone says that the evidence is that the universe did it.

First asked 6 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Please present your explanation of all of the evidence for inflation without "new and mythical forces of nature".

The "result" has always been "postdicted" since Guth first made up inflation in his head to "explain" an already recognized homogeneous layout of matter.

Demonstrating your ignorance again MM.
Inflation postdicted predictions, e.g. a flat universe.
It made predictions which have been confirmed (as you have already been told).

Boloney. Guth's argument is a religious argument based on faith, it is not a scientific entity because his make-believe friend is dead.

Boloney. Inflation is a scientific theory based on explaining the existing data, making testable, falsifiable predictions, and being confirmed by the predictions being tested.

I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" and would that be a religion?

Of course not. That is merely you being weird.
It is the same logic as:
"I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Dogflation", "Dog energy" and "Dog matter" and would that be a dog show?"

 

[Tubbythin]

Imagine me saying the same thing to you about some idea that you lack belief in, say a new hypothetical particle called a "Michaelton". Sure, there is no direct evidence that "Michaeltons" do not exist, but what physical evidence do either of us have that they do exist? The "norm" in science is typically to require the proponent of the idea to provide the physical evidence to support the idea.

Sure

In the sense that the galaxy rotation studies and the lensing data does suggest there is more mass present than we can currently account for, there is some observational evidence of *some* additional mass in these galaxies.

Overwhelming evidence.

There is no empirical physical evidence however that Michaeltons actually exist in nature or that they are responsible for this additional mass, even if I provide you with ample math formulas to support the idea.

Right, that's because you just made them up.

You're essentially taking an "unproven/hypothetical" particle/form of mass and *assuming* that it's not only present in nature, but that it's more abundant than any other item on the periodic table, and every subatomic particle we've ever identified by a factor of 5 or more.

No I'm not. You asked a question about whether if the LHC didn't find SUSY particles I would come to the conclusion that they didn't exist (that's how I interpreted your question anyway). I said no, because its not a question the LHC can definitively answer (at least not in the negative). In much the same way, in fact, that predecessors to the Tevatron that couldn't find the top quark couldn't be used to definitively say the top quark didn't exist.
I'm not assuming anything (other than the laws of physics are logical and that our theory of gravity is good enough for the job). I'm not made any conclusive statements about what dark matter is. Only about what it isn't. And that certainly isn't based on assumptions but on a whole host of experiments.

You aren't the least bit uncomfortable with that idea?

With the idea that we haven't found every single particle in existence and that there may be particle which are difficult to produce/detect that we have yet to produce/detect. Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I find it fairly improbable, in fact, that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence I should happen to be alive when the last fundamental building block of our Universe is discovered.

From the skeptics perspective, that's hard to accept. It's a bit like me stating that I'm not personally interested in skeptically reviewing my religion, but I'll let the pastors of my church worry about it. If they all change their mind, I'll change my mind too.

I have a job of my own. It doesn't involve the search for fundamental particles. Therefore, not only am I not devoting my time to such a search I feel I would probably be unqualified to do so. Much like a GP doesn't concern himself with brain surgery.
I would, however, be quite happy to read and, to the best of my ability, analyse somebody else's work. I don't have to find something myself in order to skeptically review the evidence of the finding. Otherwise I'd never make any progress.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Exactly what would these "alternatives" be?

Black holes, dust, a greater number of stars in a galaxy than we imagine, "brown dwarfs", iron ions, meteorites, cosmic rays, neutrinos, light, electrons, or some combination of all of the above?

I really don't know. I can speculate about a lot of possible options, but none of them alone are likely to come up with a large enough number. I may even have to eventually shrug my shoulders and admit I simply "don't know". I still see no evidence to suggest any of that missing matter is found in exotic forms of matter that have never (yet) been seen on Earth.

 

[Reality Check]

Black holes, dust, a greater number of stars in a galaxy than we imagine, "brown dwarfs", ion ions, meteorites, cosmic rays, neutrinos, light, electrons, or some combination of all of the above?

I really don't know. I can speculate about a lot of possible options, but none of them alone are likely to come up with a large enough number. I may even have to eventually shrug my shoulders and admit I simply "don't know". I still see no evidence to suggest any of that missing matter is found in exotic forms of matter that have never (yet) been seen on Earth.

You have already been told that dark matter cannot be black holes, dust, a greater number of stars in a galaxy than we imagine, "brown dwarfs", meteorites, neutrinos .
Ion ions, cosmic rays, light, electrons are visible - not dark.

The evidence that dark matter is found as non-baryonic matter has already been presented to you but try reading and understanding the wiki article for once.
Note that SUSY particles are not exotic. They are a well known extension of the Standard Model that explains its failings that has been around for decades. For exotic matter you have to look at axions, etc.

 

[PingOfPong]

MM, I have a quick question. Would a summary of your views be that today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Is that it in a nutshell?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right, that's because you just made them up.

How do you know SUSY particles aren't "made up"? You do understand its a *NONSTANDARD* particle physics theory, correct?

No I'm not. You asked a question about whether if the LHC didn't find SUSY particles I would come to the conclusion that they didn't exist (that's how I interpreted your question anyway). I said no, because its not a question the LHC can definitively answer (at least not in the negative). In much the same way, in fact, that predecessors to the Tevatron that couldn't find the top quark couldn't be used to definitively say the top quark didn't exist.

Ok, but then how is it possible for your beliefs to change or be "falsified" in any way?

I'm not assuming anything (other than the laws of physics are logical and that our theory of gravity is good enough for the job). I'm not made any conclusive statements about what dark matter is. Only about what it isn't. And that certainly isn't based on assumptions but on a whole host of experiments.

From my perspective, you seem to be way too firmly convinced it can't be "normal" matter. Considering the recent discoveries I linked to in that last response to PS, your confidence that this "missing material" must be "exotic" matter seems very misplaced IMO.

With the idea that we haven't found every single particle in existence and that there may be particle which are difficult to produce/detect that we have yet to produce/detect. Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite. I find it fairly improbable, in fact, that in the hundreds of thousands of years of human existence I should happen to be alive when the last fundamental building block of our Universe is discovered.

Well, since I'm a fan of QM and have some faith in a grand unified field theory, I confess that I tend to agree with you on this point. Even still, there is no evidence as I see things to suggest that *must* leap to the conclusion that the missing mass we're looking for is necessarily an exotic form of matter. It could be that the matter is contained in virtually any form, but at the moment there are only so many known forms of matter in nature.

It's "possible" we may need to revisit our calculations of the mass of the black holes in galaxies, the number of stars in a galaxy, the mass in cosmic rays, and neutrinos, and electrons, etc. I'm willing to do all of it. Your position seems very limited from my perspective because you seem to only be willing to look in one place for that missing mass.

I have a job of my own. It doesn't involve the search for fundamental particles. Therefore, not only am I not devoting my time to such a search I feel I would probably be unqualified to do so. Much like a GP doesn't concern himself with brain surgery.

Well, specialization is a good thing, but too much faith in "group think' tends to lead to a herd mentality scenario that can often get very stagnant. I have a day job too, but I also love astronomy. I guess that is related to the fact that I was 9 when we landed men on the moon. I'm fascinated with space and I always will be fascinated by astronomy. I want to know how the universe works.

I would, however, be quite happy to read and, to the best of my ability, analyse somebody else's work. I don't have to find something myself in order to skeptically review the evidence of the finding. Otherwise I'd never make any progress.

Yes, but "progress" is usually measured by progress at the level of empirical physics, typically followed by tangible products like our computer. In the case of 'missing mass', that matter could be composed of virtually anything and everything we know to exist in nature. Why not look there first?

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, I have a quick question. Would a summary of your views be that today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Is that it in a nutshell?

The term "scientists" is way too broad a category. I tried to be clear earlier in the thread that this sort of argument doesn't apply to "empirical sciences" that produce tangible goods like my computer, my car, satellites in space, etc. It might apply to some other branches of science, but mostly to astronomy as a general branch of science.

If you substituted the phrase "Lambda-CDM proponent" for "scientists", yes, that would sum up my argument quite nicely.

 

[PingOfPong]

MM, I have a quick question. Would a summary of your views be that today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Is that it in a nutshell?

The term "scientists" is way too broad a category. I tried to be clear earlier in the thread that this sort of argument doesn't apply to "empirical sciences" that produce tangible goods like my computer, my car, satellites in space, etc. It might apply to some other branches of science, but mostly to astronomy as a general branch of science.

If you substituted the phrase "Lambda-CDM proponent" for "scientists", yes, that would sum up my argument quite nicely.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Tesla, commenting on the movement of the scientific community and public interest towards relativity and quanta (1934)


source


ETA: I think you'll have a much harder time denying this analog

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is dumb - no one says that "magic elves did it". Everyone says that the evidence is that the universe did it.

"My dead invisible inflation did it" isn't an "explanation" RC. Your "universe" would be nothing but a 'clump' without Guth's "make-believe" magic elixir.

First asked 6 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Please present your explanation of all of the evidence for inflation without "new and mythical forces of nature".

Your "all the evidence for inflation" can simply be replaced with "the universe has always been homogeneous", and then there is *NO* evidence for inflation whatsoever. PS actually read Klein's model so he might grasp the concept, but since you never will read it, that comment will likely go flying right over your head.

Demonstrating your ignorance again MM.
Inflation postdicted predictions, e.g. a flat universe.
It made predictions which have been confirmed (as you have already been told).

Guth makes it very clear in his writings that he's already convinced that the universe is homogeneous and therefore it's a "property" that he's ascribing to his invisible friend. It was "postdicted" from day one.

Of course not. That is merely you being weird.
It is the same logic as:
"I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Dogflation", "Dog energy" and "Dog matter" and would that be a dog show?"

It would be as scientifically viable as the nonsense you're peddling.