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

[Michael Mozina]

"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

I'm sure glad I qualified my answer.

 

[PingOfPong]

So, the quantum mechanics that Tesla was talking about (which built your computer that you may or may not have bought from Wal-Mart) is still a problem?

ETA: MM's post #603 originally said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I'm sure glad I qualified my answer. I see that the problem is not limited to cosmology." The underlined part is my remembrance of what he posted before he edited it.

EETA: It doesn't even say that he edited that post (time limit perhaps?). Anyway, I swear I saw it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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

Your analogy is only applicable if you can empirically verify your beliefs at some point in the future (and you eventually do). It's doesn't apply here because inflation is non-existent and you can never hope to justify this claim via empirical physics, now or at anytime in the future. Dark energy is considered by most to simply be a placeholder term for human ignorance. The analogy tends to fall apart because there is no hope you'll ever be vindicated via empirical physics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, the quantum mechanics that Tesla was talking about (which built your computer that you may or may not have bought from Wal-Mart) is still a problem?

I'd have to see the whole conversation in context to understand the point he was attempting to make, but if you read my previous response, it's not particularly applicable to your faith in a non existent thing. Gravity has always showed up in empirical experiments and QM applies to real physical things.

ETA: MM's post #603 originally said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I'm sure glad I qualified my answer. I see that the problem is not limited to cosmology." The underlined part is my remembrance of what he posted before he edited it.

I removed it, because it supposedly related back to GR theory which is part of astronomy theory. Even in my original post I realized it might apply to other branches of science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

EETA: It doesn't even say that he edited that post (time limit perhaps?). Anyway, I swear I saw it.

Sure, sure....

(I did actually edit the post in question)

 

[PingOfPong]

Your analog is only applicable if you can empirically verify your beliefs at some point in the future (and you eventually do).

So, when people are building dark matter detectors (here on Earth) to find particles that meet the demands of their theory what are they doing? By the way, like many people have said here, the dark matter theory doesn't have to be correct, the question is if it is scientific.

In fact, I'm sick of you accusing me of "faith". I haven't said once that dark matter is there. I will say that dark matter is a logical inference. Inferences are not always correct. I read your other thread and your explanation of things falls flat before we can even get to a point where we should do observational science.

I have little to comment on dark energy. I'll read up on it a bit.

The analogy tends to fall apart because there is no hope you'll ever be vindicated via empirical physics.

The analogy stands up because you agreed with Tesla's quote with only the one quibble that scientists in this cosmology case should be relabeled. Tesla said those things at a time when observations for QM were not very robust and the idea itself was not well understood. Sound familiar?

I'd have to see the whole conversation in context to understand the point he was attempting to make

Not really. Tesla was known to be against Einstein's (and others) work on quanta and relativity. You can look it up for yourself, or, you know, trust the neutral source I gave you.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's sorta what I do.

But I also admit that science isn't an absolute. "Proof" is a word best used for math and alcohol.

LOL! I agree.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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?

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.

MM, the following is the conclusion from the paper by Matts Roos you referred to earlier.

"What we have termed dark matter" is generic for observed gravitational effects on all scales:
galaxies, small and large galaxy groups, clusters and superclusters, CMB anisotropies over the
full horizon, baryonic oscillations over large scales, and cosmic shear in the large-scale matter
distribution. The correct explanation or nature of dark matter is not known, whether it implies
conventional matter, unconventional particles, or modifcations to gravitational theory. but
gravitational effects prove its existence in some form.

Only a few per cent of the total mass of the Universe is found in stars and hydrogen
clouds, and this amount of baryonic matter is well accounted for by nucleosynthesis. If there
exist particles which were very slow at time teq when galaxy formation started, they could be
candidates for cold dark matter. If dark matter were composed of such new particles, they
must have become non-relativistic much earlier than the leptons, and then decoupled from the
hot plasma.
Whenever laboratory searches discover a new particle, it must pass several tests in order
to be considered a viable DM candidate: it must be neutral, compatible with constraints
on self-interactions (essentially collisionless), consistent with Big Bang nucleosynthesis, and
match the appropriate relic density. It must be consistent with direct DM searches and
gamma-ray constraints, it must leave stellar evolution unchanged, and be compatible with
other astrophysical bounds.
Theories attempting to explain dark matter without new particles, with new interactions
or modifed gravity, likewise have the burden to explain all the observed gravitational effects
described in here. Thus there remains much to be done."

So, do you agree that you also have the burden of proof he mentions above? If so, what is your proof? It must be quite substantial for you to be so strident that non-baryonic matter cannot be the cause of the observed gravitational effects.

 

[Reality Check]

"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.

"My dead invisible inflation did it" isn't an "explanation" MM.
The physical evidence that inflation exists is an explanation.
The fact that that universe is not a "clump" means that something caused it not to be a "clump". What do you call that?

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.

I have read about Kaluza-Klein cosmologies.
You of course will dismiss Klein's model out of hand since it can never be verified in a controllable empirical (your definition not the scientific one) experiment.

There is evidence for inflation

Observational status
Inflation is a concrete mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of the standard model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft.[42] This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000.
In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations called a nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random field (or Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum) is very specific and has only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe).[43] Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background experiments,[42] and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey.[44] These experiments have shown that the one part in 10,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index, ns is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest models of inflation predict that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98.[45][46][47][48] From the data taken by the WMAP spacecraft it can be inferred that ns = 0.960 ± 0.014,[49] implying that it differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is considered an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[42]

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.

A homogeneous universe is is a standard assumption in cosmology and is supported by evidence, e.g. the WMAP data.
That is not a postdiction. It is a piece of evidence to be explained by a scientific theory. One scientific theory that explains it is inflation.

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

Asking the question
"I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Dogflation", "Dog energy" and "Dog matter" and would that be a dog show?"
is rather stupid but has the obvious answer of no.

Asking the question
"I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Michael Mozinaflation", "Michael Mozina energy" and "Michael Mozina matter" and would that be a Michael Mozina theory?"
is rather stupid but has the obvious answer of no.

Asking the question
"I could blatantly pilfer your math, call it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter" and would that be a religion?"
is rather stupid but has the obvious answer of no.

Dark matter and dark energy are scientifically viable. Inflation is less scientifically viable than then because it has less evidence.

 

[Tubbythin]

How do you know SUSY particles aren't "made up"?

Well I suppose they are made up in the sense that any theory is made up. But your Michaeltons were something you made up on the spot. There at least some properties that SUSY particles must haveto be SUSY particles, and a very definite link to the standard model.

You do understand its a *NONSTANDARD* particle physics theory, correct?

Well, they're not part of the Standard Model. But from what I understand, there is a widespread belief in the particle physics community that the SM is ...looking for appropriate word... incomplete shall we say.

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

New evidence for some alternative. Better alternative theories for explaining the things that SUSY is supposed to explain. Evidence from some place other than the LHC that supersymmetry is not realised in nature.
All I was saying was that (to the best of my limited knowledge) the LHC will not be able to conclusively rule out the existence of SUSY particles. Trying to prove a negative can be very difficult.

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.

None of these articles support the idea that the rotation curves may be fixed with baryonic matter.

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.

You'll be glad to know then that SUSY may also allow for a grand unified theory.

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.

No it couldn't. Most forms interact electromagnetically and therefore are not dark.

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.

None of this helps! The visible and total matter distributions are completely different. You can add as much visible mass to the disk as you want. Its not going to solve the problem.

Your position seems very limited from my perspective because you seem to only be willing to look in one place for that missing mass.

Not at all. I've only concentrated on SUSY because you kept actively misrepresenting it.

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.

Which means its excellent that there's loads of people coming up with lots of different potential solutions.

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.

Me too. That's why I've tried to learn about what is and isn't known and how its known. But its not easy. Physics is technical. And rejecting something because you personally can't understand the maths doesn't make it wrong.

Yes, but "progress" is usually measured by progress at the level of empirical physics, typically followed by tangible products like our computer.

Empirical knowledge is just knowledge gained through experiment rather than theory. There's no reason to suspect that all physics discoveries should be useful to humans unless your of the opinion that the Universe was created for our benefit... which is bordering on religion IMO.

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?

No it couldn't. Not unless we reject the past century of discoveries in atomic, nuclear and particle physics.

 

[Reality Check]

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

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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.

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".



Note:

1. The highlighting.
2. Kaluza-Klein cosmologies also involve "new and mythical forces of nature" (i.e. the extra dimensions) and that there are more of these than inflation (one additional field or particle).

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have read about Kaluza-Klein cosmologies.
You of course will dismiss Klein's model out of hand since it can never be verified in a controllable empirical (your definition not the scientific one) experiment.

I can anticipate MM's response here. Klein's model involves a primordial ion mist and we can produce ions in a laboratory. Guth's model involves inflation which cannot be produced in a laboratory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, when people are building dark matter detectors (here on Earth) to find particles that meet the demands of their theory what are they doing?

That's hard to classify since there's evidently no "control mechanism" of any sort in some detection methods I've read. Personally I would think that the LHC is a 'better' type of 'experiment' IMO.

By the way, like many people have said here, the dark matter theory doesn't have to be correct, the question is if it is scientific.

That depends on what you're claiming dark matter is made of. I don't have any trouble with someone claiming that MACHO forms of "dark matter" make up part of the mass of a galaxy. I don't have a problem with suggesting that neutrinos mass makes up part of the 'dark matter' of the universe. As long as you stick to empirically verified forms of matter, I'm fine with the "dark matter" concept. If however you stuff in a new form of matter, I'll expect empirical verification that it actually exists in nature.

Is a "Michaelton" a scientific theory if I pilfer some SUSY math and endow the particle with mathematical and physical qualities similar to a SUSY particle? What makes it "scientific" exactly? I'm willing to give some on the topic of "exotic" DM because in theory at least it could be empirically verified in a controlled experiment here on Earth. Compared to "inflation', it seems a lot more "scientific" from my perspective.

Even still when people I respect like Tubbythin suggest that they might never abandon that idea even if LHC finds nothing, I can't help but wonder how this "faith in the unseen" differs from any form of religious faith?

In fact, I'm sick of you accusing me of "faith". I haven't said once that dark matter is there.

Keep in mind that even I concede that "dark matter" (missing mass) is there. We're really arguing about what that missing matter is made of. If you do not have empirical physical evidence to demonstrate that exotic forms of matter exist, and yet you believe they do exist, what else can we call that but "faith"?

I will say that dark matter is a logical inference.

If by that you mean to say 'there is more mass in a galaxy than we can account for', I actually agree with you. We do seem to have observational evidence to suggest there is additional mass in and around a galaxy than our mass estimation techniques account for.

Inferences are not always correct.

The inference that I believe to be incorrect is that just because we can't account for that mass with current techniques it must necessarily be related to some form of exotic matter. That's the basic inference that I'm objecting to in the final analysis.

I read your other thread and your explanation of things falls flat before we can even get to a point where we should do observational science.

I'm not sure which thread you meant exactly, but I've been swamped at work and I haven't done any of the threads much justice recently IMO.

I'm all for observational evidence when you're talking about known things that show up here on Earth. If however we observe something like "acceleration", that observation of acceleration is not evidence that "God energy did it" or that "dark energy did it", math or no math.

I have little to comment on dark energy. I'll read up on it a bit.

The first two question you might ask yourself is 'is the concept falsifiable, and if it's so abundant in the universe, why don't we experience here in our solar system?

The analogy stands up because you agreed with Tesla's quote with only the one quibble that scientists in this cosmology case should be relabeled.

FYI, I actually disagree with Tesla as it applies to the specific topics that he tried to apply it to.

Tesla said those things at a time when observations for QM were not very robust and the idea itself was not well understood. Sound familiar?

No, not really because I've never had a problem with QM. QM is and has always applied to "real things" like photons and things that show up in empirical experiments. I don't grok his complaint about QM because that particular math can be compared to the outcome of real physical experiments.

On the other hand I can "sort of" sympathize with his beef with GR because some of it still remains difficult/impossible to validate via active experimentation. Even still, gravity shows up on Earth.

Not really. Tesla was known to be against Einstein's (and others) work on quanta and relativity. You can look it up for yourself, or, you know, trust the neutral source I gave you.

That isn't necessary. I believe you. The problem from my perspective is that you're comparing metaphysical (no show) apples to empirical oranges.

Tesla's position could be (I believe even then) empirically falsified via active experimentation, at least in the case of QM. QM describes a tangible effect on real physical objects in controlled experiments. The math related to QM could always be compared to the outcome of physical experiments. Gravity always shows up in the lab too.

Inflation is dead and utterly non existent. No human being can ever hope to validate inflation via empirical physical experimentation, not today, not tomorrow, not ever. It's "non existent" today, and will be non existent forever. There is not even the slightest "hope" of empirically validating that theory. Your comparison of inflation to QM or GR is therefore irrelevant. They aren't really even comparable ideas. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Dark energy is also a big fat no show in the lab. Again, any comparison to gravity theories or QM is therefore rather meaningless because we can't compare our math related to "dark energy" to any experimental tests on Earth.

The only place your analogy might be relevant is on the topic of 'dark matter' or more specifically "exotic matter" and/or SUSY theory. On that topic however I have been clear to acknowledge that my position "could be" falsified with additional physical (empirical) tests. I'm fully aware of that possibility but IMO it's unlikely. Even still, the revelation of exotic forms of matter in massive quantities with all the necessary attributes to explain 'dark matter' wouldn't fix the other problems with Lambda-magic theory.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM, the following is the conclusion from the paper by Matts Roos you referred to earlier.


So, do you agree that you also have the burden of proof he mentions above?

Sure. Would you agree that a proponent of a new particle of mass has the burden of proof to physically demonstrate that it actually exists in nature and has all of the ascribed "properties" that it is claimed to have?

If so, what is your proof?

Well, if you read those links carefully, you'll notice that they found some of that missing mass. Evidently we underestimated the amount of mass in the black hole at the core of a galaxy by up to a factor of 4. We found there is substantially more 'dust" than we first believed and therefore the galaxies are twice as bright as we first thought. That is certain to affect the mass estimates. We also evidently underestimated the number of smaller stars in a galaxy by several multiples.

Now, what "proof' do you or I have that any of that "missing matter" comes from an exotic form of matter?

It must be quite substantial for you to be so strident that non-baryonic matter cannot be the cause of the observed gravitational effects.

I didn't say it "could not be" the cause, I said that there are more likely causes. Surely you can appreciate that position?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I can anticipate MM's response here.

That is because you are a real scientist and you actually educate yourself. RC constantly argues from a place of blind ignorance and he likes it that way.

 

[Reality Check]

That is because you are a real scientist and you actually educate yourself. RC constantly argues from a place of blind ignorance and he likes it that way.

That is because I was a real scientist and I actually educate yourself. MM constantly argues from a place of blind ignorance and he likes it that way.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And which of the three of us has not read Klein's model?

 

[Reality Check]

Well, if you read those links carefully, you'll notice that they found some of that missing mass. Evidently we underestimated the amount of mass in the black hole at the core of a galaxy by up to a factor of 4. We found there is substantially more 'dust" than we first believed and therefore the galaxies are twice as bright as we first thought. That is certain to affect the mass estimates. We also evidently underestimated the number of smaller stars in a galaxy by several multiples.

MM: You need to learn some astronomy:

• The mass contained in supermassive black holes is a small proportion of the mass of their host galaxy.
  For example Sagittarius A* has a mass of ~4.1 x 10⁶ solar masses. The Milky Way has a mass of 5.8 x 10¹¹. You do the math.
• You are still ignoring the facts that have been pointed out to you a few times:
  • The masses of galaxies are measured using multiple methods. These give compariable results.
  • Even if the brightness was a factor then it would lead to a about 20% change in mesaured mass.
  • We also evidently underestimated the number of smaller stars in a specific type of galaxy by several multiples.

 

[Reality Check]

And which of the three of us has not read Klein's model?

I read about Kaluza–Klein cosmologies. But you really need to tell us which Kaluza–Klein model you are thinking of.
I know that it involves "new and mythical forces of nature" and so you will throw it out.

ETA
But you are probably talking about the debunked Alfvén and Klein plasma cosmology which has been ruled out on physical grounds.
You will rule it out because it involves "new and mythical forces of nature" to explain the proportion of the universe that starts to collapse and then reverses to expand.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That is because you are a real scientist and you actually educate yourself. RC constantly argues from a place of blind ignorance and he likes it that way.

I would be flattered if it were even remotely true. As it is, I'm merely an old guy with a masters degree in mathematics and an interest in science -- especially physics and cosmology. Sorry, it appears to me RC argues from a position of a great deal of knowledge.