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

[Perpetual Student]

What we observe is a pattern of "acceleration". "Acceleration" already has a proper scientific term. It needs no other term to be scientifically "described" in an accurate manner.

This ties right back to my conversation with TBT too:



We don't have a "hypothesis" for any new form of "energy". What's in name? If it doesn't matter what we call it, why not call it "God energy"? If so, how do we no empirically verify it's existence?

Do you see the problem here PS? Acceleration may in fact have a physical "cause", it has nothing whatsoever (as far as we know) have anything to do with 'dark energies'. That's like a religious person blaming something they can't explain on the devil. There is nothing "explained" by claiming that acceleration process is due to "dark energies". It may have nothing to do with with a "force", but be related to a "stretching" of our local "spacetime" in some sort of multiverse gravitational interactive process. It could be related to something well "known" like an expanding, all pervasive EM field. I have no possible way of knowing what "causes" that acceleration other than known forces of nature.

Claiming it is "caused by" something called "invisible/dark/magical energy does nothing to enhance our understanding of that expansion process, in fact it could be easily leading on us on an unnecessary wild goose chase, looking for something "exotic", when the answer is nothing of the sort.

When I start reading those articles that do not say "acceleration is real", but claim "dark energy is real", I want to scream. That is not what we observe. We do not observe "dark energy". We observe a pattern that suggests an accelerating universe, not "dark energy".



"Dark energy" is not an "explanation". It is a "made up label", just as in my example to TBT. It's not a "cause" of the acceleration because "dark energy" never "caused" even two atoms to accelerate in a controlled experiment, so why should I think it makes a whole universe of plasma suddenly "accelerate"?

So, since you accept that we observe a cosmic acceleration, how can you avoid the conclusion that energy is involved? Use your own criteria, we know of no way to accelerate something in a lab without energy -- is that not so? If no energy is involved you are the one left with magic or god-did-it!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't know if this is "the" source of MM's trouble, but it's worth emphasizing: to understand the effect of "negative pressure" in cosmology,

Er, Guth used the term "vacuum". I don't think you could describe it as "cosmology" at that moment in time.

you do NOT ask "what is the pressure pushing on, and from what side".

Of course you do, particularly if you intend to use that "vacuum' to "pull" (not push) the whole thing apart. You damn well better have some idea of what is physically possible (from the standpoint of empirical physics) and what's not.

From the standpoint of kinetic energy, the possible "pressure" states of a primordial "vacuum" could be (theoretically) zero to infinity. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it's likely "energy" in some "form" has always existed. It is therefore unlikely that the "zero" state is even possible. The limits of pressure in a vacuum should be:

0 <= Pressure < infinity

Guth used an impossible physical state for the vacuum. It cannot contain "negative pressure" from the standpoint of kinetic energy. The kinetic energy state will always be "positive". You can't add anything to a "pure" vacuum (no particle flow of any sort) to create a negative kinetic energy transfer in a vacuum.

What's it going to take with you folks? First of all, I identified the "high priest'' of your dead deistic religion. It's like any good "cult" in that analogy, it has a "first proponent". It has a group of "earlier followers" too. Unlike some religious ideas and scientific ideas, this idea doesn't even have any "roots" in earlier scientific proposals, it came straight from the one individual.

Now I'm not blaming anyone for proposing the idea, but the idea itself is clearly "made up" by one guy and there is no scientific history of "inflation" (or anything like it) prior to the one individual.

I've also demonstrated that Guth made a mathematical error in his work. He chose an impossible pressure limit to his 'vacuum'.

I've also demonstrated that in terms of creating "homogeneity', inflation is utterly and completely irrelevant. What's it going to take to get you to second guess your dead religion, er "now non existent, but used to be relevant scientific hypothesis"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yes, I see what you mean.

Back to an earlier question, and assuming you've been following the various 'MM threads' for some time, how much of the content is new, in the sense of the topics covered in the various posts, and the extent to which MM's presentation has become more cogent, coherent, consistent, etc (even if it's the same old ideas recycled for the Nth time)?

Without wishing to do anyone a disservice most of the posters that I have responded have a very similar behaviour.

They seem to decry certain aspects (or whole big chunks!) of current physics or maths, without really understanding that subject to, say, undergraduate level.

The actual topics are pretty varied (and also seem to vary wildly once discussion is seriously engaged.. perhaps in an attempt to evade? confuse?)...but the posters themselves behave in a very similar way.

As I said, I am not attacking anyone in person, most of those comments apply to people who have since left or been banned actually!

Thanks.

I guess I wasn't very clear ... I'm trying to find out how active participants like you feel about the extent of any progress (in the two specific senses I mentioned - topics covered, and MM's presentations becoming more cogent, coherent, consistent, etc), if any.

This is somewhat related to a puzzle I'm interested in; namely, at what level is it possible to have a meaningful, non-repetitious discussion with the posters you refer to (generally)? A second part: how quickly can that level be identified and characterised? For example, to paraphrase Tubbythin, {proponents of X} seem to be adept at hand-wavy explanations, but completely fail to understand that physics is quantitative subject ... so any discussion on X is doomed, unless and until said proponents begin to grasp just what "physics is quantitative subject" means (and are willing to enter into a meaningful discussion of this foundational issue). In this case, how quickly can this root cause of non- (or mis-) communication be identified?

 

[ben m]

Er, Guth used the term "vacuum". I don't think you could describe it as "cosmology" at that moment in time.

What?

Of course you do, particularly if you intend to use that "vacuum' to "pull" (not push) the whole thing apart.

Sorry, you are wrong. Look at Einstein's curvature equation. Where do you see a surface that gets pushed on (or pulled on)? Where do you see a distinction between conductors and insulators, things that feel the push and those that do not (as you do in any equation involving mechanical force?) YOU DON'T. Where do you see the "pressure"? Over on the source side, alongside the mass energy density. All energy densities are positive. All energy densities create curvature in GR. "negative pressure" is just a positive energy density with an unusual volume derivative.

The limits of pressure in a vacuum should be:

0 <= Pressure < infinity

That's the limit on kinetic pressure, the pressure that arises from particles bumping into things and exerting non-gravitational forces.

Dark energy "pressure" is not kinetic pressure. Nor is inflation "pressure". The universe isn't accelerating because of a bunch of molecules bouncing off the galaxies and exerting forces on them, for crying out loud.

The kinetic energy state will always be "positive". You can't add anything to a "pure" vacuum (no particle flow of any sort) to create a negative kinetic energy transfer in a vacuum.

For the millionth time: the vacuum energy density IS positive. The gravitational pressure (not the kinetic pressure) can be positive or negative.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, since you accept that we observe a cosmic acceleration, how can you avoid the conclusion that energy is involved?

No, but I can avoid the conclusion that "magic energy" (or some other mythical form of energy) did it. I am free to choose from any *KNOWN* force of energy I like, but "deity energy" isn't an option, lest I create a religion rather than a form of empirical physics.

Use your own criteria, we know of no way to accelerate something in a lab without energy -- is that not so?

Sure, but I know of know ways to accelerate things with known forces of nature. I don't need to invent new ones.

If no energy is involved you are the one left with magic or god-did-it!

I'm willing to entertain any "known" form of energy or "spacetime curvature" option in the case of that multiverse scenario. I don't however see much point in the exploring whole new mythological energies.

This is a lot too much like that "magnetic reconnection" issue. "Acceleration" has a proper scientific term, just like induction has a proper scientific name. Astronomers have a way of "bending" the name of a physical process in way that creates the "illusion" of creating "something new", when in fact we could be talking about something quite old, and quite well understood. We don't need to start our search for answers by "making up" a term that has no scientific value. Dark energy did do it anymore that deity energy did it and neither one of these are legitimate scientific "explanations".

 

[Tubbythin]

We don't have a "hypothesis" for any new form of "energy". What's in name?

We have several hypotheses for what dark energy actually is, e.g. a cosmological constant or quintessence.

If it doesn't matter what we call it, why not call it "God energy"?

Why give it a stupid name when we can give it a (vaguely) meaningful one. And if you really want to have your objections heard, giving it a different name so that nobody except you knows what you're talking about except you is probably the most counter productive thing you could possibly do.

If so, how do we no empirically verify it's existence?

Same way we normally test things in physics. Make testable predictions from a given theory then test the predictions.

Do you see the problem here PS? Acceleration may in fact have a physical "cause", it has nothing whatsoever (as far as we know) have anything to do with 'dark energies'.

By definition the accelerating expansion of the Universe has everything to do with dark energy.

That's like a religious person blaming something they can't explain on the devil.

No it isn't. Its nothing like that whatsoever.

There is nothing "explained" by claiming that acceleration process is due to "dark energies". It may have nothing to do with with a "force", but be related to a "stretching" of our local "spacetime" in some sort of multiverse gravitational interactive process. It could be related to something well "known" like an expanding, all pervasive EM field. I have no possible way of knowing what "causes" that acceleration other than known forces of nature.

You may not. But others know it can't be due to the EM field.

Claiming it is "caused by" something called "invisible/dark/magical energy does nothing to enhance our understanding of that expansion process, in fact it could be easily leading on us on an unnecessary wild goose chase, looking for something "exotic", when the answer is nothing of the sort.

The only one who it seems to be leading on a wild goose chase is you. Rather than considering the physics, you're going on a wild goose chase over semantics. That's not in the least bit productive.

When I start reading those articles that do not say "acceleration is real", but claim "dark energy is real", I want to scream. That is not what we observe. We do not observe "dark energy". We observe a pattern that suggests an accelerating universe, not "dark energy".

Dark energy is the name we give to the cause of the accelerated expansion. Therefore, we do observe the effects of dark energy (assuming the observations are correct).

"Dark energy" is not an "explanation". It is a "made up label", just as in my example to TBT. It's not a "cause" of the acceleration because "dark energy" never "caused" even two atoms to accelerate in a controlled experiment, so why should I think it makes a whole universe of plasma suddenly "accelerate"?

Can you show me an example of gravity causing two free molecules to come together? And you expect me to believe gravity is strong enough to make the Earth orbit the Sun when it can't even make the molecules come together.
I think that's a pretty good analogy of your argument.

 

[Tubbythin]

No, it's not the ONLY pressure I know of, but if we're describing the possible "pressure" states of a 'vacuum', it's the most appropriate place to start a rational discussion on the topic.

No it isn't. It makes no more sense to talk about gas pressure than it does to talk about the pressure exerted by African elephants on a really big set of scales.

Let's hear you put this whole thing into some sort of "physical" context and answer some of those questions I posed earlier that outlines the sequences of events where inflation did it's magic and explain how your 'vacuum' ends up with a "negative pressure" for us. Don't be coy, don't be shy, step up to the plate and offer us a physical model of some sort to work with.

Read up about it yourself. There are plenty of people in the world who have written excellent articles on this that are freely available that are much more adept at discussing GR than I am.

 

[Tubbythin]

Er, Guth used the term "vacuum". I don't think you could describe it as "cosmology" at that moment in time.



Of course you do, particularly if you intend to use that "vacuum' to "pull" (not push) the whole thing apart. You damn well better have some idea of what is physically possible (from the standpoint of empirical physics) and what's not.

From the standpoint of kinetic energy, the possible "pressure" states of a primordial "vacuum" could be (theoretically) zero to infinity. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed it's likely "energy" in some "form" has always existed. It is therefore unlikely that the "zero" state is even possible. The limits of pressure in a vacuum should be:

0 <= Pressure < infinity

You're talking about gas pressure AGAIN. We're really not goin to get anywhere until you realise that vacuum and gas pressure are completely different things. Just like the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. Completely different things.

 

[Tubbythin]

It then deevolved into the Casmir debate where it seems to make no difference how many articles from QM or pretty diagrams on the topic I present, they all get ignored.

They didn't get ignored at all. Several of us responded showing how you were wrong. You are the one clearly ignoring the posts where we showed you were wrong.
As for the QM bit. You were the one who, only a few posts back denied the existence of a vacuum energy!

 

[Michael Mozina]

We have several hypotheses for what dark energy actually is, e.g. a cosmological constant

A "cosmological constant" isn't an "explanation", it too is simply an "observation". Hoy.

or quintessence.

Is it dead too, or might you actually hope to empirically demonstrate it isn't a figment of your imagination one day? Where do I get some to see that it causes things to "accelerate" like you claim?

Why give it a stupid name when we can give it a (vaguely) meaningful one.

So let's just call it "God energy" and give it a "more meaningful" name?

And if you really want to have your objections heard, giving it a different name so that nobody except you knows what you're talking about except you is probably the most counter productive thing you could possibly do.

Then stop calling "acceleration" something it's not. IT's not "dark energy". It's "acceleration". Likewise the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the charged particle is called "induction", not "magnetic reconnection". You guys are really "sloppy" when it comes to the proper use of proper scientific terms.

Same way we normally test things in physics. Make testable predictions from a given theory then test the predictions.

I "predict" you'll never tel me where your "dark energy" comes from, let alone show me it "accelerates" anything in a controlled experiment.

By definition the accelerating expansion of the Universe has everything to do with dark energy.

Only by *YOUR CIRCULAR DEFINITION*! That' bogus. The physical universe may in fact be expanding. It may in fact be accelerating. None of those things have anything at all to do with "dark energy" or "deity energy" because neither "dark" not "deity" energy exists in nature as separated or known force of nature.

But others know it can't be due to the EM field.

Ya, just like they "know" that coronal loops or not "discharges" of the EM field. I'm sorry but the industry is so EU phobic, I think they would do or say anything to irrationally exclude the one force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful that gravity.

The only one who it seems to be leading on a wild goose chase is you.

Oh baloney. I'm not the one chasing giant dark snipes everywhere in the universe. I'm looking for "real" (empirically real) answers.

Rather than considering the physics, you're going on a wild goose chase over semantics. That's not in the least bit productive.

It's not just semantics TBT, it's a matter of principle. That last author we looked at claimed dark energy is a "real thing". It's not. "Acceleration" is a real observation. There's an important scientific difference between these two statements and it's worth fighting for.

Dark energy is the name we give to the cause of the accelerated expansion.

Just like I might call it "God energy". It's just a "make believe" term until you empirically show it's not a figment of your overactive imagination.

Therefore, we do observe the effects of dark energy (assuming the observations are correct).

That's a circular feedback loop. God is causing acceleration with God energy. We observe the observation of acceleration, hence we have evidence of "God energy". See a problem with my religion?

Can you show me an example of gravity causing two free molecules to come together?

Er, easily. Go outside and jump up as high as you can. When you feel your feet hit the ground about, that is gravity causing two free molecules to come together.

 

[Michael Mozina]

They didn't get ignored at all. Several of us responded showing how you were wrong.

How exactly in your mind did you "show me I was wrong"?

As for the QM bit. You were the one who, only a few posts back denied the existence of a vacuum energy!

Er, no. You have a weird way of "interpreting" my words to suit your own though processes. I don't even know where you came up with that idea. I have always insisted that the vacuum contains lots of kinetic energy/pressure in the form of the carrier particles of the EM field.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You're talking about gas pressure AGAIN. We're really not goin to get anywhere until you realise that vacuum and gas pressure are completely different things. Just like the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force. Completely different things.

We're talking about the "pressure" of Guth's supposed "vacuum" and gas pressure is the only thing I *CAN* compare it to unless one of you would like to give tell us a "creation story" so we can see where you intend to stick "gravity" in your theory.

 

[DazzaD]

A "cosmological constant" isn't an "explanation", it too is simply an "observation". Hoy.

If you accept GR as being an accurate description of the universe on a cosmological scale then what is it about the cosmological constant that you deny exactly?

 

[DazzaD]

We're talking about the "pressure" of Guth's supposed "vacuum" and gas pressure is the only thing I *CAN* compare it to unless one of you would like to give tell us a "creation story" so we can see where you intend to stick "gravity" in your theory.

Again.. are you familiar with the stress-energy tensor in GR? Have you had a chance to read the page I linked to?

That explains how, in GR, pressure can arise via means other than a direct (GCSE level) "bouncing about of particles on a wall".

The creation story as you mention is neither here nor there, all that is required is an acceptance of GR as being the best theory we have to describe gravity and the universe at present.

From that follows the cosmological constant, pressure other than that from gas pressure and negative pressure from a positive energy density.

 

[DazzaD]

Er, no. You have a weird way of "interpreting" my words to suit your own though processes. I don't even know where you came up with that idea. I have always insisted that the vacuum contains lots of kinetic energy/pressure in the form of the carrier particles of the EM field.

That is not really the source of what we mean by vacuum energy.

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

Thats the point.

 

[DazzaD]

Thanks.

I guess I wasn't very clear ... I'm trying to find out how active participants like you feel about the extent of any progress (in the two specific senses I mentioned - topics covered, and MM's presentations becoming more cogent, coherent, consistent, etc), if any.

This is somewhat related to a puzzle I'm interested in; namely, at what level is it possible to have a meaningful, non-repetitious discussion with the posters you refer to (generally)? A second part: how quickly can that level be identified and characterised? For example, to paraphrase Tubbythin, {proponents of X} seem to be adept at hand-wavy explanations, but completely fail to understand that physics is quantitative subject ... so any discussion on X is doomed, unless and until said proponents begin to grasp just what "physics is quantitative subject" means (and are willing to enter into a meaningful discussion of this foundational issue). In this case, how quickly can this root cause of non- (or mis-) communication be identified?

Hmm.. unmoderated discussion? then you are effectively at the whim of the "respondent" and how willing they are to address the shortcomings of their particular pet theory.

If they choose to evade the issue, without being forced to directly reply (as might happen in a real life debate at a university for instance, as directed by the independent arbiter) then you can go round in circles as they tick off the classic logical fallacies one by one.

It can be determined (or guessed at) quite quickly by an expert in the field I believe (so they would need to be the moderator).

However, I sometimes (often actually) play devil's advocate or just simply play stupid in order to encourage and tease out these very points and debates, so it may be hard to spot if someone is doing that or is genuinely ignorant or evasive.

 

[Tubbythin]

A "cosmological constant" isn't an "explanation", it too is simply an "observation". Hoy.

In that case gravity isn't a definition of why stuff falls out of trees. Its just an observation.

Is it dead too, or might you actually hope to empirically demonstrate it isn't a figment of your imagination one day? Where do I get some to see that it causes things to "accelerate" like you claim?

So you don't understand the word "hypothesis".

So let's just call it "God energy" and give it a "more meaningful" name?

It's not more meaningful. Most people have an idea of the literal and the metaphorical meaning of dark. And we can draw parallels with dark matter. God energy gives people idea of religion when what we're discussing is one of the most significant collection of physics observations of the 20th century.
Besides. You're over a decade too late. There's no point changing the name when everyone else is quite happy with the old one. It makes no more sense than changing the EM force to the God force.

Then stop calling "acceleration" something it's not. IT's not "dark energy". It's "acceleration". Likewise the transfer of energy from the magnetic field to the charged particle is called "induction", not "magnetic reconnection". You guys are really "sloppy" when it comes to the proper use of proper scientific terms.

Scientists can be sloppy at times. That is undoubtedly true. In this case, its just you talking rubbish, however.

I "predict" you'll never tel me where your "dark energy" comes from, let alone show me it "accelerates" anything in a controlled experiment.

It accelerates stuff by definition. If it doesn't accelerate stuff its not dark energy.

Only by *YOUR CIRCULAR DEFINITION*! That' bogus.

How can you possibly have a circular definition? Oh, I remember, you don't know what "defintion" means.

The physical universe may in fact be expanding. It may in fact be accelerating. None of those things have anything at all to do with "dark energy"

You're arguing AGAINST a tautology! My mind is boggling.

or "deity energy"

Now you're arguing against yourself. (Can anyone tell me which is a more ridiculous form of argument?) The only person that recognises the term "deity energy" is you. I suggest that if you want to discuss deities you go over to the religion forum. This is the Science, Maths and Technology forum where people are meant to discuss science, maths and technology (surprisingly enough).

because neither "dark" not "deity" energy exists in nature as separated or known force of nature.

Deity energy is something you made up remember. As for dark energy, if the expansion of the Universe is accelerating then, by definition (ie it is tautologically true that), dark energy exists.

Ya, just like they "know" that coronal loops or not "discharges" of the EM field. I'm sorry but the industry is so EU phobic,

No. It just deplores vague, unquantified, hand-wavy theories.

I think they would do or say anything to irrationally exclude the one force of nature that is 39 OOM more powerful that gravity.

That is the comparative forces between two fundamental particles. The Universe is not made up of two fundamental particles. Therefore your argument is utterly irrelevant.

Oh baloney. I'm not the one chasing giant dark snipes everywhere in the universe. I'm looking for "real" (empirically real) answers.

Yeah. Like the surface of The Sun being iron.

It's not just semantics TBT, it's a matter of principle. That last author we looked at claimed dark energy is a "real thing". It's not. "Acceleration" is a real observation.

And dark energy is the name we give to the cause of the acceleration, whatever it may be. I don't even know what you mean by "real thing" by the way.

There's an important scientific difference between these two statements and it's worth fighting for.

The difference is that one is to be the observation and one is defined as the cause of the observation.

Just like I might call it "God energy". It's just a "make believe" term until you empirically show it's not a figment of your overactive imagination.

Its a real term. I can write it down. Look:
"dark energy".
See. Its not make believe. Lets try again, just in case you didn't get it the first time:
"dark energy".
And one more for luck:
"dark energy".

That's a circular feedback loop. God is causing acceleration with God energy. We observe the observation of acceleration, hence we have evidence of "God energy". See a problem with my religion?

Your analogy fails completely. You said "God is causing acceleration with God energy" but that includes three separate things. Namely God, acceleration and God energy. But the inclusion of God is completely erroneous. I never in my statement said what the cause of dark energy was. I used no analogue of God in my statement. I said "Dark energy is the name we give to the cause of the accelerated expansion. Therefore, we do observe the effects of dark energy (assuming the observations are correct)." I was showing you how it was tautologically true that, given our definition of dark energy, it must exist if the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. I never said. "Therefore there must be a cosmological constant" or anything of that nature.
You are denying a tautology.

Er, easily. Go outside and jump up as high as you can. When you feel your feet hit the ground about, that is gravity causing two free molecules to come together.

By free I meant out there in the cosmos. Not in the vicinity of the Earth.

 

[Tubbythin]

How exactly in your mind did you "show me I was wrong"?

Well you were shown that your sources disagreed with what you were saying. Its also interesting to note, by the way. That your denial of the vacuum energy (see below) is, in essence, denying quantum field theory in general. And also means we'd have no explanation of spontaneous emission.

Er, no. You have a weird way of "interpreting" my words to suit your own though processes. I don't even know where you came up with that idea. I have always insisted that the vacuum contains lots of kinetic energy/pressure in the form of the carrier particles of the EM field.

I dunno. Maybe this rather explicit comment:

IMO, you're mixing terms in a confusing way. The vacuum itself has no energy.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What?



Sorry, you are wrong. Look at Einstein's curvature equation.

Why? When did "mass/matter" begin to exist (at which point those equations have some relevancy)?

 

[Tubbythin]

We're talking about the "pressure" of Guth's supposed "vacuum" and gas pressure is the only thing I *CAN* compare it to unless one of you would like to give tell us a "creation story" so we can see where you intend to stick "gravity" in your theory.

The vacuum has some very weird and wonderful properties. Did you not know this? Many are well known and explain the Casimir effect (or rather the Casimir effect was postulated based on an understanding of the quantum vacuum), spontaneous emission and various other phenomena that are essentially to our understanding of modern phsyics. Understanding of the vacuum is rather important for quantum field theories such as quantum electrodynaimcs (you may have heard of it).
There is no particular reason why we need to compare vacuum pressure to gas pressure. While in some cases it may be useful, in others it'll just confuse.