Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

The part of standard BB theory where the 'woo' seems to reach it's zenith, is right at the beginning where none of you really want to go, or care to go. It's a scary place. The mainstream theory is in fact a "creation event" where all the energy and matter of the universe originates from a single "clump". I've seen *PLENTY* of claims that the whole thing was around the size of a single atom.

You're confusing physics with religion, again (you seem to do that a lot).

LCDM models have well-defined domains of applicability; the Planck regime is outside any such domain of applicability.

If you're looking for physics theories/models/whatever that include the Planck regime in their domains of applicability, you need to turn to something like LQG or string theory.

Oh, and, once again, you have not put the effort in to try to understand the difference between popularisations and the models themselves.

Now of course you would all love to disown this part of the "creation mythology", and ignore the implications of starting with nothing but light elements and a "hot" starting point.

Depending on which model you're considering, the initial conditions are nearly always well before BBN, but the details of baryogenesis and, even more, leptogenesis (the symmetry breaking(s) which resulted in baryons and leptons, respectively) are rather uncertain.

Unfortunately however you are stuck with the implications of your own theory.

What makes your theory almost impossible to "falsify" is the fact it's all built on "pretend" forces of nature from the very start,

I have no idea what a ""pretend" force" is, but I doubt that LCDM models contain any (perhaps you'd care to take my advice, and define every term you use double quotes for?).

none of which enjoy any sort of empirical support in a lab.

Don't be silly, of course they do.

The thing they do not enjoy is "empirical" support in the lab, which is a mysterious, magical beast that no one - except possibly you - have ever seen, or even understands (perhaps you'd care to take my advice, and define this term?).

It's all "hypothetical" stuff, starting with Guth's negative pressure vacuum and "inflation".

Having seen how epic your fail was, and no doubt still is, on the Casimir effect, you'll understand, I'm sure, why I'm going to ask you what you mean by ""hypothetical"" and ""inflation""; otherwise this sentence makes no sense.

Since none of your claims can be verified in a lab,

Which is, to repeat, to misunderstand what physics is, today.

It's a bit like saying that a theory in biology is woo because it cannot deliver €1 billion to my bank account tomorrow ("none of your claims can be verified by delivery of €1 billion to my bank account tomorrow")

about the only thing we can ever hope to verify or falsify is your notion of "evolution" of galaxies.

Don't be silly; lots of other JREF members have already given you examples of what might falsify any particular LCDM model, from the polarisation of the CMB, to the details of the ISW (Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect), to inconsistencies between the acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum and observations of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations), to inconsistencies between angular distance estimates (via the SZE - Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect - perhaps) and luminosity distance estimates (via SN1a's perhaps), to inconsistencies to do with stochastic primordial GWR (gravitational wave radiation), to ...

(I'll hazard a guess that you've likely not heard of many of these, and do not understand any of them at all).

Even on that issue you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't really seem willing to commit to any particular timeline. You don't seem to know when galaxies became "mature". You're trying to leave as much wiggle room as possible even on that issue!

What are galaxies made of?

Stars, supermassive black holes (except, perhaps, in some dwarf galaxies), CDM halos, gas and dust.

How are they structured, and how do the components interact?

In extremely complex ways; for example, the gas and dust which forms the interstellar medium has at least four distinct phases.

What's the starting point?

The almost entirely homogeneous and isotropic soup of protons, electrons, helium atoms (and some helium ions), lithium-7 ions, blackbody photons, and CDM, at z ~1100.

How did the incredibly complex systems of objects which are galaxies form out of that?

No one knows, and models on galaxy formation are very poorly constrained by observational results.

Etc.

The basic problem with your theory is that defies any sort of empirical support and it's completely unfalsifiable based on the laws of physics as we understand them. You've literally created a "make believe" world based on three different forms of metaphysics. In that imaginary universe *anything* can happen. Massive objects can somehow "expand" away from each other at faster than the speed of light. Galaxies can form instantly and become "mature" is the earliest era's of the universe. No specific prediction actually allows us to falsify anything related to your theory. That's really what makes it "woo". There's no logical foundation for any of it, and no logical way to falsify any of it's three main metaphysical components. Even when the "Dark matter" thing goes down in flames in the lab, you ignore that finding entirely! This is certainly the single most "faith based" brand "science" known to man. Not a single part of it can be falsified or verified in any logical manner that isn't ultimately based on a completely circular argument.

I think every substantive part of this has already been addressed, so there's no need for me to say more, is there?

 

[Michael Mozina]

DE IS based on known physics to the limit that it currently can be.

Since "DE" is not known to exist in nature, your statement really isn't meaningful. It's not based on known physics, rather it's based on "creative wishful thinking".

Being difficult or even impossible to replicate in a lab does not mean it doesn't exsist.

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

There is a problem here however as it relates to falsification. Inflation for instance no longer even exists in nature according to you folks, and it's properties are "made up". They are "tweaked" to fit and there isn't even a single "brand' of inflation anymore. It is outside of any sort of falsification process as a result.

The same is true of 'dark energy' and your concept of "expanding space" (as opposed to expanding spacetime). There is never going to be a way for humans to test such a concept in an empirical manner. Such a concept will forever be an "act of faith" in the 'unseen'. How exactly is that "science"?

Trust in math is meaningless. Math is math. If you feel the maths describing dark energy or dark matter are wrong then please feel free to show where. Use math if you can.

You sort of missed the point, and DRD did correctly explain my position. Your "math" is this case relates to a "mythical" form of energy. Likewise the math related to inflation is applied to a "mythical" form of energy. There's no physical justification (qualification) for either of these claims. Your math is meaningless IMO because you failed to demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. The "properties" you've then assigned to your various mythical items were all "made up', they are not based upon actual physical properties that have been determined by rigorous experimentation.

Intuition isn't necessarily based on faith. It can be based on experience.

Guth had no 'experience' with "inflation". In fact no human being ever had such an experience. The "leap of faith' he took in "negative pressure vacuums" and 'inflation" was simply and completely a "pure act of faith", along with every "property' he assigned to it.

Nobody has ever "experienced" dark energy either, so that intuitiveness cannot relate to 'experience', but rather a 'desire" to find any way to mathematically express it, lest you not even get within 20% of that power spectrum.

Lack of direct empirical experience with something doesn't always equate to faith. Has anyone touched the Andromeda galaxy? Can you replicate it in the lab?

In the sense that we have a star in our own backyard to study, and galaxies are composed of stars, nothing new is being created. Inflation however has *NEVER* shown up on Earth in the whole history of humanity.

DE mostly fits what we experience. It may or may not be right but it does fit what we know. It should be explored and not hand waved away because it makes us uncomfortable.

My impression is that what makes you most "uncomfortable" is having to compete with empirical physics on equal terms. Instead of "settling" for a "good fit', you're willing to "make up" something that gives you a "better" one.

DE can be falsified. If the CMB didn't match expectations DE would have been falsified.

The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.

If the math didn't work it could have been falsified. This is no mystery. What is a mystery is why you have an aversion to DE. Exploring it might lead us as a species to some very profound answers about ourselves and the universe we live in.

It could also be leading you down the primrose path to metaphysical nonsense. By putting constraints on the concept you may just as easily be ruling out things you should not.

I understand discomfort with an idea. String theory annoys me. I don't understand how or why the universe could work like that. I also accept that there are things that I don't know personally and things that no one knows yet. We must chase what seems to work and follow it to its logical end for answers. Why discard ideas because we don't like them?

It's not so much a matter of liking or disliking as being able to physically justify the math, or not. String theory is a great example of something that is being "made to fit". It started as a particle physics theory and didn't work out. It is now being applied to a macroscopic creation event and there is no way to falsify or verify that concept either.

There is point where your math is "speculative" and completely devoid of "qualification". You've quantified an imaginary friend, in fact you've quantified several imaginary friends, all in an effort to fit a power spectrum "better" than you might achieve with empirical physics right now, only to turn around and claim empirical solutions are "less valid" only because they aren't "made up and made to fit".

 

[ben m]

From a philosophical viewpoint, if your theory cannot be falsified in any logical manner, it can't actually be considered a form of science.

"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.

We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?

 

[GeeMack]

"Falsified in a logical manner?" I asked you for a cost threshhold. Is a theory "logically unfalsifiable" if there's a simple trillion-dollar "lab experiment" that would test it? $100 trillion? I asked you for the threshhold.

We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?

So your answer to Ben's question is, "I don't know?"

 

[edd]

The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.

No it wasn't. Dark energy was brought in in 1998 to fit supernova data, and was predicted by some before that. In 1984, for example, there were a couple of papers, like one by Peebles, that suggested it as a possibility. It wasn't an entirely popular possibility as obviously introducing it has to have a good reason. Which we now have.

Regardless, I think it's quite wrong to say it was postdicted to fit the CMB, although the flatness problem and inflation solving it formed part of those early discussions of it. Remember, WMAP's first year data release was in 2003 - 5 years after the first supernova evidence for a cosmological constant.

 

[ben m]

We just saw the results of the xenon 100 experiment. It failed to show any evidence for exotic brands of dark matter. How many expensive tests must we run to "rule out" something that has no business being "ruled in" in the first place?

"No business being ruled in"? A minute ago you were claiming that dark energy was logically impossible to falsify. Stay on topic---what's the experiment-cost-threshhold that you're assuming makes it "logically impossible"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Lack of direct empirical experience with something doesn't always equate to faith. Has anyone touched the Andromeda galaxy? Can you replicate it in the lab?

In the sense that we have a star in our own backyard to study, and galaxies are composed of stars, nothing new is being created. Inflation however has *NEVER* shown up on Earth in the whole history of humanity.

So where do you draw the line MM?

Is it "controlled experiments in the lab" (or some such)?

You do not have a Sun in your lab, nor will you ever.

Indeed, you do not have a Moon there either, nor the solid core of the Earth, nor the Canadian boreal forest, nor ...

No doubt you expect the Sun to rise tomorrow, and for what comes from the sky next time (rain) to not be 99.9% pure hydrofluoric acid, and so on.

IOW, you accept the inductive principle, but baulk when abstractions you cannot understand^ are used (i.e. math).

Why not cut to the chase? For you, only visual inspection of remote images counts as valid when testing ideas about how the universe works, beyond your lab.

DE can be falsified. If the CMB didn't match expectations DE would have been falsified.

The concept was *POSTDICTED* to fit the CMB! Hoy. You can't use the same observation to attempt to falsify or verify your mythical energy because you created it to fit that very same observation in the first place! That's a circular argument, nothing more.

You're kidding, right?

After all this time, have you still not understood what you're (presumably) read?

Have you ever actually *read* any of the relevant papers?

HINT: DE was discovered by two teams, working independently, from observations of high-z supernovae.

DOUBLE HINT: high-z supernovae are not the CMB.

May I ask: do you simply make this stuff up? or do you really, truly not understand what you read?

It's not so much a matter of liking or disliking as being able to physically justify the math, or not.

Coming soon to a movie theatre near you! The Return of the Casimir Force!

^ or simply don't want to try to understand?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So where do you draw the line MM?

I draw that line at "inflation". It was a purely ad hoc creation from the very start without a single bit of scientific history behind it. It came from a single human imagination and "caught on".

I also draw that line at mythical forms of energy that cannot ever be demonstrated in a lab in an empirical manner. As best as I can tell, all the "properties" you assigned to this magical stuff are simply "ad hoc" in nature, their sole purpose being to salvage an otherwise falsified theory.

I draw the line at mythical forms of matter that fail every empirical test.

Somehow you've built yourself a nice little "religion" based on multiple leaps of faith in the 'unseen', only so you can claim "superiority" over an empirical solution that was evidently "in the ballpark" to start with. It sounds like you're completely unwilling to try to "tweak" an empirical solution with anywhere near the same sort of "creativity" you've applied to your own theories. Why is that?

Coming soon to a movie theatre near you! The Return of the Casimir Force!

Oh joy, I can hardly wait. Start with explaining exactly what you intended to add to a perfect vacuum to achieve 'negative pressure". You folks always run from that question. Why is that?

Get real. Guth literally "invented" himself a little mythology based on "postdicting a fit'. The SN data is just another piece of data you never actually "predicted" with your theory, so you 'postdicted' another fit based on another mythological form of energy. You'll simply ignore those outright fails in the lab, so what else can this be except a pure "act of faith" on the part of the "believer"?

The whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on myth and legend and nothing more than imaginary friends. It fails every empirical test. It won't ever show up in a lab. It's never going to be anything other than "woo" for the whole of eternity.

I'd personally much rather start with a "ballpark" solution that is based entirely upon empirical physics and work from there. You can go right ahead and waste your entire life chasing dark invisible friends, but I have no desire to do that.

The only thing that might possibly salvage that sad little theory is something "unusual" found at LHC. Even still, I seriously doubt it will have any of the characteristics and "properties" necessary to fit your postdicted brand of matter or energy. If that last lab test on dark matter is any indication, that's not looking good.

I am frankly stunned that you realize that there is already a "decent" explanation based on pure empirical physics, but you'd prefer to 'put faith' in the unseen. That's simply a leap of faith into pure metaphysics IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"No business being ruled in"? A minute ago you were claiming that dark energy was logically impossible to falsify.

Yes, and therefore it (and DM and inflation) never should have been "ruled in" to begin with.

Stay on topic---what's the experiment-cost-threshhold that you're assuming makes it "logically impossible"?

Well, it's "logically impossible" to ever verify or falsify inflation in an empirical experiment. It's evidently dead now. It now longer exists. For the purposes of other "sciences", it's irrelevant. Only you need it, and it seems to be an 'emotional" need rather than a physically necessary one.

If there is a power spectrum solution on the table that is based upon pure physics and is with 20% of the 'correct' answer, don't you figure it's worth the time to "tweak' that theory with the kind of gusto you've put into inventing invisible friends?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No it wasn't.

I stand corrected.

 

[GeeMack]

I draw that line at "inflation". It was a purely ad hoc creation from the very start without a single bit of scientific history behind it. It came from a single human imagination and "caught on".

I also draw that line at mythical forms of energy that cannot ever be demonstrated in a lab in an empirical manner. As best as I can tell, all the "properties" you assigned to this magical stuff are simply "ad hoc" in nature, their sole purpose being to salvage an otherwise falsified theory.

I draw the line at mythical forms of matter that fail every empirical test.

Somehow you've built yourself a nice little "religion" based on multiple leaps of faith in the 'unseen', only so you can claim "superiority" over an empirical solution that was evidently "in the ballpark" to start with. It sounds like you're completely unwilling to try to "tweak" an empirical solution with anywhere near the same sort of "creativity" you've applied to your own theories. Why is that?

Oh joy, I can hardly wait. Start with explaining exactly what you intended to add to a perfect vacuum to achieve 'negative pressure". You folks always run from that question. Why is that?

Get real. Guth literally "invented" himself a little mythology based on "postdicting a fit'. The SN data is just another piece of data you never actually "predicted" with your theory, so you 'postdicted' another fit based on another mythological form of energy. You'll simply ignore those outright fails in the lab, so what else can this be except a pure "act of faith" on the part of the "believer"?

The whole Lambda-CDM theory is based on myth and legend and nothing more than imaginary friends. It fails every empirical test. It won't ever show up in a lab. It's never going to be anything other than "woo" for the whole of eternity.

I'd personally much rather start with a "ballpark" solution that is based entirely upon empirical physics and work from there. You can go right ahead and waste your entire life chasing dark invisible friends, but I have no desire to do that.

The only thing that might possibly salvage that sad little theory is something "unusual" found at LHC. Even still, I seriously doubt it will have any of the characteristics and "properties" necessary to fit your postdicted brand of matter or energy. If that last lab test on dark matter is any indication, that's not looking good.

I am frankly stunned that you realize that there is already a "decent" explanation based on pure empirical physics, but you'd prefer to 'put faith' in the unseen. That's simply a leap of faith into pure metaphysics IMO.

Since you clearly intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've put into the list below. Until you can define them, what you wrote above is gibberish. Thanks.

• act of faith
• ad hoc
• ballpark
• believer
• caught on
• creativity
• decent
• in the ballpark
• inflation
• invented
• negative pressure
• postdicted
• postdicting a fit
• predicted
• properties
• properties
• put faith
• religion
• superiority
• tweak
• unseen
• unusual
• woo

 

[Michael Mozina]

This strikes me as a pretty substantial misunderstanding of what a good/strong theory is, and how we go about verifying the accuracy of a theory.

I'll cover the topic you were responding to (dark energy) in the rest of the post, but I'd like you to look at your statement as it applies to other parts of current theory for a moment.

Start with inflation for me. With all the various 'flavors' of inflation out there, how would you suggest I go about falsifying that concept? You seem more than willing to "verify' the idea, but how do we even attempt to falsify something that was literally 'invented' in someone's head, without a shred of scientific history behind it, and in light of the fact it no longer exists? It's the ultimate catch-22 in terms of falsification, so what's left except "verification"?

If a theory is very restrictive, it means it's specific, and thus easily falsified. The narrower the range of allowed observations are, the easier it would be that a new observation would violate the theory, rendering it falsified. But on the flipside, this means that each new observation that doesn't falsify the theory makes it much more likely that it is on the right track.

In one's quest to "narrow the range" however, how do you know you aren't accidentally ruling out things you should be ruling out?

I understand what you're saying, but there's a different sort of danger in the desire to 'narrow the range' that I'd like you to consider.

I do hear your basic argument however, that *IF* we can narrow the range, it might help isolate an actual *EMPIRICAL CAUSE*.

If Lambda-CDM theory would match any given set of parameters, you would be quite right in calling it useless.

Historically speaking, what has BB theory (now Lambda-CDM theory) actually "predicted" (not postdicted) correctly the first time through in your opinion? It seems to me that it's always been 'tweaked to fit" some new "discovery" that was never "predicted" by the previous BB theory. Dark energy is the latest brand of 'creativity' added to the mix after an epic fail on the slowing universe thing.

But there's the rub: it doesn't. Having fixed a few parameters from observation, the rest are only allowed to be in certain ranges. If they fall outside these ranges, and we are sure that this does not result from observational or mathematical errors, the theory must be modified if possible (and in that case, subject to having other observations in violation), or fall.

How many brands of inflation are there out there now exactly? I've read about 'hairy inflation", Guth's brand of inflation, all new and improved brands of inflation. How many parameters are being 'tweaked" just in that one theory alone since the time Guth invented it?

And when it comes to falsification, quantity is king - how would you go about falsifying a theory on qualitative grounds anyway?

IMO the field of cosmology is way to fixated on quantification to the absolute exclusion of qualification. It's like not only is quantity king, it's the only thing that matters at all to the mainstream. An empirical theory that is within 20% of a real solution is simply discarded entirely for another theory that requires metaphysical add-ons galore. Is that really a "better' theory only because it's a "better' fit from the standpoint of math alone?

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, and therefore it (and DM and inflation) never should have been "ruled in" to begin with.

Well, it's "logically impossible" to ever verify or falsify inflation in an empirical experiment. It's evidently dead now. It now longer exists. For the purposes of other "sciences", it's irrelevant. Only you need it, and it seems to be an 'emotional" need rather than a physically necessary one.

If there is a power spectrum solution on the table that is based upon pure physics and is with 20% of the 'correct' answer, don't you figure it's worth the time to "tweak' that theory with the kind of gusto you've put into inventing invisible friends?

Since you clearly intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've put into the list below. I added them to the previous list of words you use differently than the common usage. Until you can define these terms, what you wrote above is gibberish. Thanks.

• act of faith
• ad hoc
• ballpark
• believer
• caught on
• correct
• creativity
• decent
• emotional
• in the ballpark
• inflation
• invented
• logically impossible
• negative pressure
• postdicted
• postdicting a fit
• predicted
• properties
• put faith
• religion
• ruled in
• sciences
• superiority
• tweak
• unseen
• unusual
• woo

 

[GeeMack]

I'll cover the topic you were responding to (dark energy) in the rest of the post, but I'd like you to look at your statement as it applies to other parts of current theory for a moment.

Start with inflation for me. With all the various 'flavors' of inflation out there, how would you suggest I go about falsifying that concept? You seem more than willing to "verify' the idea, but how do we even attempt to falsify something that was literally 'invented' in someone's head, without a shred of scientific history behind it, and in light of the fact it no longer exists? It's the ultimate catch-22 in terms of falsification, so what's left except "verification"?

In one's quest to "narrow the range" however, how do you know you aren't accidentally ruling out things you should be ruling out?

I understand what you're saying, but there's a different sort of danger in the desire to 'narrow the range' that I'd like you to consider.

I do hear your basic argument however, that *IF* we can narrow the range, it might help isolate an actual *EMPIRICAL CAUSE*.

Historically speaking, what has Lambda-CDM theory actually "predicted" (not postdicted) correctly the first time through in your opinion? It seems to me that it's always been 'tweaked to fit" some new "discovery" that was never "predicted" by the previous BB theory. Dark energy is the latest brand of 'creativity' added to the mix after an epic fail on the slowing universe thing.

How many brands of inflation are there out there now exactly? I've read about 'hairy inflation", Guth's brand of inflation, all new and improved brands of inflation. How many parameters are being 'tweaked" just in that one theory alone since the time Guth invented it?

IMO the field of cosmology is way to fixated on quantification to the absolute exclusion of qualification. It's like not only is quantity king, it's the only thing that matters at all to the mainstream. An empirical theory that is within 20% of a real solution is simply discarded entirely for another theory that requires metaphysical add-ons galore. Is that really a "better' theory only because it's a "better' fit from the standpoint of math alone?

You obviously intend a meaning different than the common usage for the words and phrases you put in quote marks, so please provide your definitions for those quoted and double quoted terms from your comment above that I've added to the list below. (Others are from your previous comments.) Until you can define these terms, what you wrote above is gibberish. We appreciate it.

• act of faith
• ad hoc
• ballpark
• believer
• better
• caught on
• correct
• creativity
• decent
• discovery
• emotional
• flavors
• hairy inflation
• in the ballpark
• inflation
• invented
• logically impossible
• narrow the range
• negative pressure
• postdicted
• postdicting a fit
• predicted
• properties
• put faith
• religion
• ruled in
• sciences
• superiority
• tweak
• tweaked
• tweaked to fit
• unseen
• unusual
• verification
• verify
• woo

 

[Michael Mozina]

Identifying the accelaration with "dark energy", or with the cosmological constant", actually does something important, because it syncs up the supernovae observations with the observations of the background radiation. Both of these sets of observations measure the amount of dark energy. They get the same number.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Maybe you might start with that paper for me?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Unfortunately the best they could do was a ~+/-20% match to the Wein side of the blackbody curve (or was it the Stefan side?), so their model failed, pretty badly, to match the observed blackbody SED.

Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do not have any metaphysical friends. You may have fairies at the bottom of your garden , I do not !

I do know how to read. I do know how to do research. I do know how to find the research that calculates that the normal matter in the univser is about 4% of the matter & energy needed to explain the observed curvature of the univserse.

So the answer is: You are wrong as usual !
One thing that scientists do know is that the normal matter is ~4% of the content of the universe.
See for example: Seven-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation

The WMAP Cosmological Parameters Model/Dataset Matrix is a good example of the exploration of variations of the Lambda-CDM mode but you may want to start with the Parameters of Cosmology: Overview page.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4643

Has anyone ever responded to this criticism of the WMAP data?

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.2352

How about this one?

 

[Ziggurat]

Define "pretty badly"? It seems to me that's a hell of a lot better than matching it perfectly with a million and one ad hoc entities to make it fit correctly.

Big bang cosmology doesn't need any ad hoc entities to predict a perfect black body lineshape for the CMB. And a 20% error is GIGANTIC compared to the experimental error bars on the actual data of the lineshape. It's many orders of magnitude larger than the error bars for MANY data points. Would you like to engage in an actual analysis of the statistics involved? That requires doing math, but we can do that if you want, Michael.