Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

What you're doing with Lambda is in fact fundamentally different than what Einstein attempted to do in two significant ways. First of all, he did not otherwise violate any known laws of physics by suggesting a "static" universe. Your theory however presupposes "faster than light speed expansion".

This is completely wrong. Relativity prohibits faster than light motion through space. Spacetime expansion does not move through space. This is probably the most basic of fails it's possible to achieve in cosmology.

The second fundamental difference is your selection of invisible friends rather than known forces of nature to provide that lambda. Einstein's lambda was presumably "caused" by simply gravity. Gravity did not ever become "repulsive" in his lambda, rather it was consistently "attractive".

Michael, how can you possibly believe this. Without lambda, the result is attractive. Einstein added lambda to make a static universe. How could he have possibly made a static universe by adding something else attractive? That's lie saying "If I push on the gas peddle of my car it will move forward, but if I set off my rocket booster pointing out the back then it will stop." Talk about violating the laws of physics. This is probably the most basic of fails in physics.

 

[Tubbythin]

Except GR theory as Einstein consistently used it. Even if we assume he made a mistake, at no time did he ever try to claim that "space" (physically undefined) somehow "expands". Never!

Why the hell do you keep making stuff up when you have absolutely no idea about its historical accuracy. After Hubble's discovery of the expanding Universe, Einstein became a very strong proponent of LeMaitre's model of an expanding spacetime. In short, you could not be more wrong.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

First Birkeland, then Alfvén, now Einstein ... MM seems to treat what they wrote as some sort of gospel, revealed truth, which will forever be correct, and which should never be subject to any questioning (much less any empirical testing).

Yet one more example of how MM approaches physics from a religious perspective.

 

[sol invictus]

It actually would depend on the nature of lambda.

lambda is a parameter, a number. The lambda Einstein had in his theory is absolutely identical in every way to the lambda modern cosmologists think is really there, except for its precise numerical value.

Except GR theory as Einstein consistently used it. Even if we assume he made a mistake, at no time did he ever try to claim that "space" (physically undefined) somehow "expands". Never!

Umm, what?

Friedmann wrote down expanding solutions to Einstein's equations in 1922. At the time Einstein may have still believed the universe was static - which is why he introduced lambda - but when he heard about Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding, he supposedly declared its introduction his "greatest blunder". So he certainly knew that space expands - stopping it from doing so was his motivation for introducing lambda.

The irony now is that we know it expands and lambda is evidently non-zero.

You're peddling a whole different sort of cosmology theory sol, and a whole different sort of 'expansion'. Einstein's positive lambda did not cause "space" to expand. It simply prevented spacetime from collapsing into itself (at least according to him).



Your "interpretation" is a violation of the "faster than light" speed rule that applies to all objects of mass sol! You're trying to do something fundamentally different with lambda than Einstein ever tried to do with lambda. Even if you're going to claim some kind of acceleration applies, how can you be so sure it involves 'faster than light expansion'?

You have no idea what you're talking about, Michael. Anyway we've already been over this, including discussing those papers. As usual with you, everything goes in circles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

lambda is a parameter, a number.

There is however a physical cause/effect relationship that relates (causes) that number which you seem to be overlooking IMO.

The lambda Einstein had in his theory is absolutely identical in every way to the lambda modern cosmologists think is really there, except for its precise numerical value.

No, there are some other important differences sol. The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab. At no time did Einstein's use of lambda imply either: A) expanding "space" (physically undefined), or B) repulsive gravity. Neither of these things were true in Einstein's use of lambda. He simply used lambda to keep "spacetime" from collapsing. To do that, he simply "assumed" the existence of (external/eternal) matter and the attractive aspects of gravity. At no time did he try to make "space" (physically undefined) go through any sort of "acceleration". You're completely overlooking some important fundamental differences between the way Einstein used lambda in his own attempt to create a "static" universe and your use of that term to create a metaphysical mythology related to "expanding space". These are two *ENTIRELY* different ideas sol, and I know that you have the ability to see that for yourself.

Friedmann wrote down expanding solutions to Einstein's equations in 1922. At the time Einstein may have still believed the universe was static - which is why he introduced lambda - but when he heard about Hubble's discovery that the universe was expanding, he supposedly declared its introduction his "greatest blunder". So he certainly knew that space expands - stopping it from doing so was his motivation for introducing lambda.

No sol, he didn't know that "space" expands, he knew at that point that 'spacetime" expands and there was therefore no need to explain a static universe, and no need for lambda any longer. You're still not recognizing the difference between "expanding spacetime" and "expanding space". They are two different ideas as those paper I cited try to explain. You can "interpret" a lambda in many different ways. Einsteins use of a positive lambda had nothing at all to do with "expanding space". That's a whole different mythology.

Even if lambda is non-zero sol, that is not evidence that "inflation did it" or that "dark energy did it". You still have a giant gaping "qualification" problem related to *your* use of "lambda" that did not apply to Einstein's use of that lambda. Einstein's lambda was 'qualified" in that it related strictly and entirely to an 'attractive' form of gravity. You're completely changing the nature of GR theory however when you insert invisible friends into that lambda. It's no longer a qualified form of pure empirical physics, it's a kludged metaphysical theory based on invisible friends staring in the role of "lambda".

I know that you can see these distinctions in the way lambda is being used sol.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why the hell do you keep making stuff up when you have absolutely no idea about its historical accuracy. After Hubble's discovery of the expanding Universe, Einstein became a very strong proponent of LeMaitre's model of an expanding spacetime.

I don't have a problem with the concept of "expanding spacetime". It's your metaphysical claim of "expanding space" that I lack belief in. Do you understand this distinction?

 

[Michael Mozina]

First Birkeland, then Alfvén, now Einstein ... MM seems to treat what they wrote as some sort of gospel, revealed truth, which will forever be correct, and which should never be subject to any questioning (much less any empirical testing).

Oh you're welcome to empirically test all of their theories. What you can't do is kludge them with metaphysics and pseidoscience, and expect me to be happy about it.

 

[ben m]

No, there are some other important differences sol. The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab. At no time did Einstein's use of lambda imply either: A) expanding "space" (physically undefined), or B) repulsive gravity.

Wrong again. Wrong again on exactly the detail that five consecutive posts corrected you on. Don't you read?

 

[Perpetual Student]

We can conclude from your refusal to respond that you do not understand the following equation:

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

Consequently, it is irrefutable that you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't have a problem with the concept of "expanding spacetime". It's your metaphysical claim of "expanding space" that I lack belief in. Do you understand this distinction?

So what do you think is meant by "expanding spacetime"? What makes this OK, but not "expanding space". How is such a distinction consistent with SR?

 

[Tubbythin]

There is however a physical cause/effect relationship that relates (causes) that number which you seem to be overlooking IMO.



No, there are some other important differences sol. The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab. At no time did Einstein's use of lambda imply either: A) expanding "space" (physically undefined), or B) repulsive gravity. Neither of these things were true in Einstein's use of lambda. He simply used lambda to keep "spacetime" from collapsing. To do that, he simply "assumed" the existence of (external/eternal) matter and the attractive aspects of gravity. At no time did he try to make "space" (physically undefined) go through any sort of "acceleration". You're completely overlooking some important fundamental differences between the way Einstein used lambda in his own attempt to create a "static" universe and your use of that term to create a metaphysical mythology related to "expanding space". These are two *ENTIRELY* different ideas sol, and I know that you have the ability to see that for yourself.



No sol, he didn't know that "space" expands, he knew at that point that 'spacetime" expands and there was therefore no need to explain a static universe, and no need for lambda any longer. You're still not recognizing the difference between "expanding spacetime" and "expanding space". They are two different ideas as those paper I cited try to explain. You can "interpret" a lambda in many different ways. Einsteins use of a positive lambda had nothing at all to do with "expanding space". That's a whole different mythology.

Even if lambda is non-zero sol, that is not evidence that "inflation did it" or that "dark energy did it". You still have a giant gaping "qualification" problem related to *your* use of "lambda" that did not apply to Einstein's use of that lambda. Einstein's lambda was 'qualified" in that it related strictly and entirely to an 'attractive' form of gravity. You're completely changing the nature of GR theory however when you insert invisible friends into that lambda. It's no longer a qualified form of pure empirical physics, it's a kludged metaphysical theory based on invisible friends staring in the role of "lambda".

I know that you can see these distinctions in the way lambda is being used sol.

You quite clearly have not even the slightest clue what you are talking about. The weird thing is, you don't appear to even have the slightest clue that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about either.

 

[Perpetual Student]

You quite clearly have not even the slightest clue what you are talking about. The weird thing is, you don't appear to even have the slightest clue that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about either.

 

[sol invictus]

There is however a physical cause/effect relationship that relates (causes) that number which you seem to be overlooking IMO.

Nonsense. As theories they are absolutely identical. They are the same thing, the same theory, the same effect, and the same physics.

You obviously have no idea how absurdly ironic your position is. You are defending Einstein for including a parameter he had zero empirical justification for and added due to a wrong theoretical prejudice, while condemning modern cosmologists for including exactly the same parameter because they were reluctantly forced to by strong empirical evidence.

No, there are some other important differences sol. The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab.

What??

At no time did Einstein's use of lambda imply either: A) expanding "space" (physically undefined), or B) repulsive gravity. Neither of these things were true in Einstein's use of lambda. He simply used lambda to keep "spacetime" from collapsing. To do that, he simply "assumed" the existence of (external/eternal) matter and the attractive aspects of gravity. At no time did he try to make "space" (physically undefined) go through any sort of "acceleration". You're completely overlooking some important fundamental differences between the way Einstein used lambda in his own attempt to create a "static" universe and your use of that term to create a metaphysical mythology related to "expanding space". These are two *ENTIRELY* different ideas sol, and I know that you have the ability to see that for yourself.

That is completely wrong.

No sol, he didn't know that "space" expands, he knew at that point that 'spacetime" expands and there was therefore no need to explain a static universe, and no need for lambda any longer. You're still not recognizing the difference between "expanding spacetime" and "expanding space". They are two different ideas as those paper I cited try to explain. You can "interpret" a lambda in many different ways. Einsteins use of a positive lambda had nothing at all to do with "expanding space". That's a whole different mythology.

And that is literally nonsense.

Einstein's lambda was 'qualified" in that it related strictly and entirely to an 'attractive' form of gravity.

You are completely wrong.

Is there anything we can explain to you, any equation we can write, any reference we can give you, that will get you to understand and admit that you are mistaken? If not, do you think there is any point in continuing the conversation?

Would you continue to argue with someone who claimed that the primary language spoken in France was Japanese, and stubbornly kept insisting on that no matter what evidence and logic to the contrary you presented? To make the analogy more exact you are a linguist, you live in France, speak French fluently, have many French friends from all walks of society and from all over the country, and travel regularly across France doing research on French dialects. The other person lives in Australia, speaks only English, and has never traveled outside her small town in the outback.

Yes or no?

 

[ben m]

The funny thing about Mozina's insistence that Einstein only used "attractive gravity". Einstein was able to show that his theory predicted that a low-mass test particle would accelerate towards a large mass. If I remember correctly, it took decades before anyone (and it wasn't Einstein) could solve the equations showing that two non-negligible masses would accelerate towards each other---as in the Earth-Moon system, or the Cavendish balance, or whatever.

Keep this in mind next time Michael casually insists that Einstein intended for GR to represent "attractive gravity". Nope. Einstein intended GR to be a general theory of Lorentz-invariant motion in curved spacetime, and of mass-energy as a source of curvature. The "two point masses in an asymptotically flat background spacetime will attract one another" thing is one aspect of it; "everything attracts" is not.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmological Constant III

The physical "cause" of Einstein's lambda was the *purely attractive* thing called "gravity" that consistently shows up in the lab.

What??

The truly astounding depth of Mozina's insight into physics is perhaps best demonstrated by this exchange. Who else could have realized that the universe is flying apart because of a fundamental force which only manifests itself by pulling things together. A truly amazing intellectual feat.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh you're welcome to empirically test all of their theories.

Birkeland: a lot of his ideas on aurorae did well, when subject to detailed, in situ observation. Most of the rest, well, his work is no longer cited for good, empirical, reasons.

Alfvén: his work on MHD was an outstanding theoretical contribution, much of which was subsequently tested empirically, and passed with flying colours. His speculative ideas on cosmology (and much of astrophysics) didn't do so well. His ideas on magnetic reconnection have been shown to be inconsistent with scads of empirical tests.

Einstein: GR has now been tested quite extensively, and has passed pretty much all tests with flying colours. As a theory it has been developed considerably since Einstein's first publication on it (this happens to all theories in physics), and many interesting subtleties have been discovered (Einstein would have been delighted). Much of Einstein's later work is rarely, if ever, cited today - do you know why?

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Casbah ... in trying to learn to speak physics French, MM ended up speaking Japanese.

 

[r-j]

Gravity waves redshift with expansion/recession (or blueshift for an object moving towards us) exactly the same way light waves do.

Can you explain more on this?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Gravity waves redshift with expansion/recession (or blueshift for an object moving towards us) exactly the same way light waves do.

Can you explain more on this?

Do you understand the cosmological redshift, which we observe as the Hubble relationship?

If so, then, at a high level, gravitational wave radiation ('GWR' for short; there's potential confusion here because 'gravity waves'^WP also has a completely different meaning) behaves the same way ... GWR with a (rest frame) wavelength of x will be observed to have a wavelength of 2x if it originates from an object which has an observed (photon, light, IR, x-ray, ...) redshift of 1.

If you don't understand cosmological redshift, then New Wright's cosmology tutorial - link as above - may be a good place to start.

 

[sol invictus]

Can you explain more on this?

Sure.

Any wave undergoes Doppler shift, meaning that its frequency is increased when the emitter is moving towards you, and decreased when it's moving away. That applies to light, sound (think engine noise or car horns as the car zooms past you), and gravity waves too.

Gravity waves can be thought of as ripples on spacetime - the space alternately stretches and contracts as the wave passes by. You can detect them using a stretch-o-meter, or to be slightly more technical what's essentially a Michelson interferometer (two long light beams at 90 degrees to each other, a mirror at the end of each, and then you interfere the two beams after they reflect back as a way to measure changes in the relative lengths of the paths).

Redshift due to the expansion of the universe can be thought of fairly accurately as Doppler shift due to the Hubble motion of distant galaxies away from us (the distinction between Doppler shift due to recession and redshift due to the universe's expansion is subtle, although it does exist). So just like light, gravity waves that were emitted by distant sources (i.e. by sources in the past) will be redshifted by the time they arrive at earth now.

 

[GeeMack]

There is however [...]

A few more words added...

Michael applies meanings different than the common usage for the words and phrases he puts in quote marks. Below is an ongoing list of terms which he has surrounded with quotes but is unable or unwilling to define. Until he can define these terms, all of his arguments using any of them amount to meaningless gibberish.

• absolute
• acceleration
• act of faith
• ad hoc
• assumed
• attractive
• background
• ballpark
• bang
• believer
• best
• better
• caught on
• cause
• cause/effect
• confused
• control mechanism
• correct
• create
• creativity
• dark energy
• dark energy did it
• dark energy of the gaps
• dark matter
• dead
• decent
• discovery
• emotional
• empirical science
• empirically
• empirically demonstrated
• expanding space
• extra energy
• flavors
• gravity
• hairy inflation
• hairy moflation
• ignore anything that falsifies the concept of exotic matter
• ignore the cause of the lambda
• in the ballpark
• inflation
• inflation did it
• interpret
• invent
• invented
• it's not my fault
• lab tested
• lamba
• logically impossible
• mathematical perfection
• measurable
• metaphysical baggage
• narrow the range
• negative
• negative pressure
• negative pressures in a vacuum
• no show
• observed acceleration
• physics
• physics in general
• popular
• positive pressure vacuum
• postdicted
• postdicting a fit
• predicted
• pretend
• pretend entities
• properly
• properties
• pseudoscience
• put faith
• qualification
• qualify
• relative
• religion
• ruled in
• scale
• science
• sciences
• simplicity
• space
• spacetime
• spin
• static
• superiority
• test
• throw it out
• tweak
• tweaked
• tweaked to fit
• unseen
• unseen entities
• unusual
• verification
• verify
• woo
• woo with make believe math
• zero