Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

More irony (no pun intended!):

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.

Uh, not completely. The highlighted sentence (and only the highlighted sentence) happens to be (almost) true.

Yes, Einstein used lambda to keep spacetime from collapsing. More precisely, Einstein used lambda for his ideologically motivated attempt to keep spacetime from collapsing. He had no empirical justification for lambda, but he was ideologically committed to a static spacetime that would neither expand forever nor collapse. Without lambda, adding enough mass to prevent expansion would cause collapse. Adding lambda to the equation allowed what Einstein thought would be an ideologically acceptable static solution; as was soon pointed out, however, that solution's instability makes it physically unacceptable.

Long after Hubble's law, the microwave background radiation, and other evidence for the Big Bang and an expanding universe had led Einstein and other physicists to conclude lambda was zero and should be dropped, physical evidence overcame that historical bias against lambda and brought it back into the equation. As sol invictus wrote, that's the true irony here.

As this thread appears to be winding down, I'd like to thank all the knowledgeable contributors for their efforts, which taught me a little of what's been discovered since I last read up on this some thirty years ago.

I'd also like to thank Michael Mozina for starting this thread, without which those efforts might not have appeared necessary.

 

[Michael Mozina]

More irony (no pun intended!):


Uh, not completely. The highlighted sentence (and only the highlighted sentence) happens to be (almost) true.

Yes, Einstein used lambda to keep spacetime from collapsing. More precisely, Einstein used lambda for his ideologically motivated attempt to keep spacetime from collapsing.

Yes, but that is radically different from what you're proposing. He simply tried to keep spacetime "static". At no time did he claim "space" (physically undefined) was "expanding".

He had no empirical justification for lambda, but he was ideologically committed to a static spacetime that would neither expand forever nor collapse.

You're wrong on that count Mr. Spock. Perhaps you could claim he had no *observational* evidence to support his theory (I think however that a static universe was the 'accepted' idea of that time), but he certainly had *EMPIRICAL* justification for using the *ATTRACTIVE* aspect of gravity as a lambda. We can "empirically experiment" with "gravity" and specifically the "attractive" aspects of gravity right here on Earth, and gravity consistently shows up in the lab here on Earth. His theory was "empirically qualified", whereas your expanding space stuff is pure woo.

Without lambda, adding enough mass to prevent expansion would cause collapse. Adding lambda to the equation allowed what Einstein thought would be an ideologically acceptable static solution; as was soon pointed out, however, that solution's instability makes it physically unacceptable.

The irony of course is that because gravity *does* show up in the lab and *does* have "empirically quantified" properties, it is possible to falsify such a theory. Compare and contrast that with inflation genies and mythical dark energies who's "properties" are entirely "ad hoc" and cannot be falsified, because they are simply "modified to fit". Einstein didn't have that luxury.

Long after Hubble's law, the microwave background radiation, and other evidence for the Big Bang and an expanding universe had led Einstein and other physicists to conclude lambda was zero and should be dropped, physical evidence overcame that historical bias against lambda and brought it back into the equation. As sol invictus wrote, that's the true irony here.

Well, the irony IMO is the fact you *refuse* to see the difference between "explaining" lambda with a KNOWN force of nature that *CAN* be "falsified", vs. simply "making up" woo on the fly and stuffing it into the staring role of "lambda". You simply refuse to acknowledge that you have no empirical justification for your claims. You have never established a real "cause/effect" relationship between lambda and what you're calling "dark energy" or "inflation". You simply "assumed" they are somehow related to your "expanding space" woo. The really ironic part from my skeptical perspective, is that you took at perfectly good empirical physics theory and stuffed it so full of woo, you can't even tell where the physics ends and where the woo begins. The woo begins with your "expanding space' nonsense. GR relates to "spacetime" and "space" is not physically defined in GR. Your notion of a metric expansion of a "empty space" is the outcome of that "woo" being inserted into lambda. Instead of coming up with an "expanding spacetime". you instead think that "space expands", yet another thing that fails to happen in the lab. The whole thing is woo because you stuffed woo into the staring role of lambda. The fact you refuse to acknowledge that you failed to empirically justify any cause/effect relationships between lambda and your invisible friends is simply sad IMO. I guess this conversation needs to 'wind down' because there really isn't any further for it to go. You cannot and never will empirically justify any cause/effect relationships between lambda and your mythical friends. You'll continue instead to blame me as though I'm somehow responsible for your lack of empirical qualification, much like any creationist blames me for "not having faith" in their invisible forces. I'm afraid we're simply reaching the end of the line on this topic. I've shown you that Einstein never stuffed "woo" into the staring role of lambda. The worst you could accuse him of is not having enough "observational evidence" to support an "empirically qualified" concept.

Your theories however lack any sort of empirical justification because your lambda is composed entirely of woo in the form of inflation genies and evil invisible energies who's "properties" are assigned in a purely ad hoc manner. While Einsteins' theories were empirically justified, and were therefore empirically falsified based on that reality, your theories are "ad hoc" from the very start and they are simply "modified to fit" whatever you want them to fit.

I do also thank you for your participation in this thread. I'm sorry we were not able to see eye to eye. I want you to know however that it's nothing personal, as a rule I simply do not have "faith" in things that fail to show up in the lab.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense. As theories they are absolutely identical.

That is simply completely wrong. They are not even close to "identical". Einstein's lambda was justified via empirical laboratory physics. It may have lacked observational support, although I believe that a static universe was the accepted theory of the time, but his lambda was empirically "qualified".

Your inflation genie has *never* been empirically justified. It consistently fails to show up in the lab. It consistently fails to have any empirical effect on anything. It's the ultimate mathematical woo. It's never been empirically justified in terms of demonstrating any cause/effect relationship, or in terms of demonstrating any of it's presumed "properties". Guth simply "made them up" in his head. There was no precedent for "inflation" sol. It came right out of a single human being's overactive postdicted imagination. At no time did that theory *ever* enjoy any sort of cause/effect empirical support.

Dark energy has never been shown to have any cause/effect relationships either. It's another purely 'ad hoc' creation. It's a "custom fit' to salvage an otherwise falsified theory.

The net result of all this "woo stuffing' into the staring role of lambda is yet another mythology you folks created about "expanding space". That is another thing that never occurs in the lab.

In no way is your expanding space woo even remotely related to GR other than you happened to stuff it into GR, specifically into lambda. By doing so, you took a perfectly good empirical physics theory and turned it into pure creation mythology woo.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
Einstein's lambda was justified via empirical laboratory physics. It may have lacked observational support, although I believe that a static universe was the accepted theory of the time, but his lambda was empirically "qualified".
...

What? Exactly the opposite was true. At that time, lambda was introduced because limited observational support lead to accepting a static universe. There was no laboratory justification "via laboratory physics." As I have pointed out, since you have no clue what this means:
[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]
you are not qualified to participate in this discussion. Learn from those here who understand this subject. Your comments expose you as confused and uneducated. You don't even understand the history of GR let alone the mathematics and physics.

 

[ben m]

Yes, but that is radically different from what you're proposing. He simply tried to keep spacetime "static". At no time did he claim "space" (physically undefined) was "expanding".

I don't know why you fixated on this "space (physically undefined)" thing so I'll ignore it.

How many times are you going to assert that, and how many times are we going to tell you: Einstein did NOT think lambda was a magic-static-enforcing term. He thought it was a term which (if large) causes outward acceleration, and if small causes (or fails to prevent) inward acceleration. At the time when he thought the Universe was static, he picked the unique value in between these two extremes. But he knew about the other extremes, because he wasn't a moron, and because Friedmann, Robertson, Walker, Lemaitre, Milne, et. al. would have pointed it out to him in the early 1930s.

But you've heard this a million times, and you've ignored it a million times, and you're still Stating The Thing You Decided Must Be The Facts.

And it still doesn't matter, because the data is the data. If you absolutely think that GR can't have a lambda term, then you must think the data says GR is wrong. Where's your alternative?

 

[Ziggurat]

That is simply completely wrong. They are not even close to "identical".

Wrong.

Einstein's lambda was justified via empirical laboratory physics.

Wrong. He pulled it out of his rear end, to justify an assumption that had no justification other than an aesthetic preference, and which has since been falsified by observations.

It may have lacked observational support,

Correct. It lacked any support when he introduced it.

although I believe that a static universe was the accepted theory of the time,

Accepted by whom? It was already widely known that a static eternal universe was problematic.

but his lambda was empirically "qualified".

Again, wrong.

Your inflation genie has *never* been empirically justified.

Also wrong. But then, you don't understand the meaning of the word "empirical" so it's not surprising that you would make this mistake.

In no way is your expanding space woo even remotely related to GR other than you happened to stuff it into GR, specifically into lambda. By doing so, you took a perfectly good empirical physics theory and turned it into pure creation mythology woo.

Quite the reverse. The original lambda had no empirical justification, the current one does. And yes, Michael, observational evidence is empirical.

 

[ben m]

Einstein's lambda was justified via empirical laboratory physics.

If you really think "einstein's lambda was justified" then we're done. If you think Einstein got lambda from "empirical laboratory physics" then "empirical" must include fits to cosmological data, so we're also done.

If this is "give Michael Mozina eight random words out of the dictionary, and he'll think they are a sentence that proves him right" then we're right on the usual track.

 

[GeeMack]

Yes, but [...]

A few more words added to the list below...

I guess this conversation needs to 'wind down' because there really isn't any further for it to go. [...] I'm afraid we're simply reaching the end of the line on this topic.

The end of the line was reached when you chose to talk all sciency and pretend to have some understanding of physics without in fact having any such understanding. Your qualifications to communicate in a sane, rational, and intelligent way on this subject has been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications. And because of that, every argument you've made in this thread has been pure unadulterated nonsense.

The list...

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
• accepted
• 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
• empirically qualified
• empirically quantified
• empty space
• expanding
• expanding space
• explaining
• extra energy
• falsified
• 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
• making up
• mathematical perfection
• measurable
• metaphysical baggage
• modified to fit
• narrow the range
• negative
• negative pressure
• negative pressures in a vacuum
• no show
• not having faith
• observational evidence
• 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
• space expands
• spacetime
• spin
• static
• superiority
• test
• throw it out
• tweak
• tweaked
• tweaked to fit
• unseen
• unseen entities
• unusual
• verification
• verify
• wind down
• woo
• woo with make believe math
• zero

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you really think "einstein's lambda was justified" then we're done.

His attractive gravity concept was "well empirically qualified" as a potential "cause" of lambda in terms of pure empirical experimentation ben. His lambda turned out to be falsified eventually because of the very fact that it was based on empirical physics!

You never showed any empirical (qualified) cause/effect relationships between your lambda and any of your invisible friends. Since you modify the presumed properties of these invisible entities on the fly, they are simply unfalsifiable by any logical means. They were never "qualified" as a potential "cause" of lambda in the first place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong. He pulled it out of his rear end, to justify an assumption that had no justification other than an aesthetic preference, and which has since been falsified by observations.

No. His lambda was "qualified" in the lab. Gravity always shows up in the lab. His beliefs may not have been "justified by observation", but they were always "qualified by lab tests". That's what you lack with your invisible friends. There is no cause/effect relationship between your lambda and your invisible buddies.

You're confusing "observational justification" and "empirical qualification". They are not the same concept. A well qualified idea can still be proven false. You may claim to have "observation justification" for lambda, but you have no empirical qualification to claim "dark energy did it", or "inflation did it". See the difference?

 

[Steve]

Lurkers and other interested readers need to understand, if they don't already, that this serious departure from logical standards is the primary reason that Mozina stands alone with all of his ideas in astronomy, physics & cosmology. It is not some vague fear or bias on the part of mainstream scientists that brings out the opposition to his ideas, but rather his own decision to abandon reason for madness.

Another excellent post by Tim.

Keep up the good work Michael. Your fractal wrongness produces value for us lurkers as long as Tim stays engaged.

I agree completely with D'rok. By skipping over Michael Mozina's nonsense and reading the replies by Tim, Sol, DeiRenDopa, Ben, and all the other knowledgeable folk in these threads I have learned an amazing amount about physics and cosmology (although a lot has also gone waaay over this layman's head). Keep up the good work folks - your time is not being wasted.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I agree completely with D'rok. By skipping over Michael Mozina's nonsense and reading the replies by Tim, Sol, DeiRenDopa, Ben, and all the other knowledgeable folk in these threads I have learned an amazing amount about physics and cosmology (although a lot has also gone waaay over this layman's head). Keep up the good work folks - your time is not being wasted.

Did you learn where they established an empirical cause/effect relationship between lambda and inflation genies?

 

[Steve]

Did you learn where they established an empirical cause/effect relationship between lambda and inflation genies?

Michael,
Nothing you have to say has any interest for me. I stopped reading your posts a long time ago. I only read this one because it was a direct reply to my post. I will now continue to skip over your nonsense and learn from the posts of those who know what they are talking about. Goodbye.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael,
Nothing you have to say has any interest for me.

I was really a very simple question. I take it that means "no"?

 

[Tubbythin]

His attractive gravity concept was "well empirically qualified" as a potential "cause" of lambda in terms of pure empirical experimentation ben.

That's an impressive sentence. Shame it makes no sense whatsoever.

His lambda turned out to be falsified eventually because of the very fact that it was based on empirical physics!

His value for lambda may have been falsified. Didn't actually need any empirical physics for that though (other than we observe we exist, more or less).

You never showed any empirical (qualified) cause/effect relationships between your lambda and any of your invisible friends.

You have no idea what empirical means Michael.

Since you modify the presumed properties of these invisible entities on the fly, they are simply unfalsifiable by any logical means.

"We" modify the theory so that the theory better matches the data. Then "we" test the theory against new data. That's how science progresses. How we got from Aristotle to Newton and from Newton to Einstein. How we got from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Hubble. Its what is commonly known as "scientific progress".

They were never "qualified" as a potential "cause" of lambda in the first place.

Well unless you're gonna explain what you mean by "qualified" I'll just ignore this sentence for the nonsense it appears to be.

 

[Tubbythin]

I was really a very simple question. I take it that means "no"?

IMO, I'd take that as N/A.

 

[tusenfem]

No. His lambda was "qualified" in the lab. Gravity always shows up in the lab. His beliefs may not have been "justified by observation", but they were always "qualified by lab tests". That's what you lack with your invisible friends. There is no cause/effect relationship between your lambda and your invisible buddies.

Ofcourse lambda is the antithesis of gravity as it is a repulsion it has never ever been shown in the laboratory. So much for Einstein's "*empirical*" lambda (whatever quotation marks and asterisks may mean).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's an impressive sentence. Shame it makes no sense whatsoever.

It means that the attractive form of gravity shows up in a lab, unlike your invisible friends, and unlike your claims of 'repulsive gravity". There is an empirical link between gravity and acceleration. There is no empirical link between "inflation" and acceleration, or any empirical link between dark energy and acceleration.

"We" modify the theory so that the theory better matches the data. Then "we" test the theory against new data. That's how science progresses. How we got from Aristotle to Newton and from Newton to Einstein.

Nope. Gravity shows up on Earth. Your invisible friends are no shows in the lab. There's an empirical cause/effect relationship between "acceleration" and you invisible friends that you forgot to bother to demonstrate.

Gravity is easy to "qualify" in an ordinary manner. We can see it do it's thing in every experiment we might come up with. There is no qualified link between acceleration and your dynamic metaphysical duo. That's the part you don't want to cop to.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ofcourse lambda is the antithesis of gravity

Er, no. Gravity causes 'acceleration'. Depending on where you put the bulk of the mass, it could even create a "lambda" effect due to greater acceleration in one direction or another. That "lambda" however would directly relate to the expansion (or contraction) of "spacetime", and would not in any way related to the expansion or contraction of "space". Only in your metaphysical realm created by deadbeat no shows in the lab, does "space" ever expand or contract. That trick *never* happens on Earth.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're wrong on that count Mr. Spock. Perhaps you could claim he had no *observational* evidence to support his theory (I think however that a static universe was the 'accepted' idea of that time), but he certainly had *EMPIRICAL* justification for using the *ATTRACTIVE* aspect of gravity as a lambda.

Balderdash and poppycock. If you had the slightest idea what lambda means, you wouldn't be associating Einstein's positive value for lambda with "the *ATTRACTIVE* aspect of gravity".

The woo begins with your "expanding space' nonsense. GR relates to "spacetime" and "space" is not physically defined in GR. Your notion of a metric expansion of a "empty space" is the outcome of that "woo" being inserted into lambda. Instead of coming up with an "expanding spacetime". you instead think that "space expands", yet another thing that fails to happen in the lab. The whole thing is woo because you stuffed woo into the staring role of lambda.....I'm afraid we're simply reaching the end of the line on this topic. I've shown you that Einstein never stuffed "woo" into the staring role of lambda.

Balderdash and poppycock. "Space" has meaning even in GR; as with velocity, part of its meaning is relative to the observer's choice of coordinates, but some things are absolute; for example, world lines are time-like, never space-like. Einstein stuffed the magic (critical) value of lambda into his field equations for no other reason than to allow a theoretical (but physically impossible) static solution that satisfied his aesthetic preferences.

In no way is your expanding space woo even remotely related to GR other than you happened to stuff it into GR, specifically into lambda. By doing so, you took a perfectly good empirical physics theory and turned it into pure creation mythology woo.

Balderdash and poppycock. Einstein stuffed lambda into his equations because that was the only way he could see to prevent space from expanding or contracting (in the presence of matter).

Perpetual Student has identified the central problem with your argument:

As I have pointed out, since you have no clue what this means:
[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]
you are not qualified to participate in this discussion. Learn from those here who understand this subject. Your comments expose you as confused and uneducated. You don't even understand the history of GR let alone the mathematics and physics.

Look, I know it's hard to understand that equation. Einstein himself made an error when transforming that equation in his original 1915 paper. Even today, you can complete an undergraduate degree in physics at some schools without understanding that equation.

But if you're going to proclaim the meaning of lambda to one and all, then you ought to get a clue. At the very least, you should listen to the dozen or so experts who've been trying to explain it to you. For example:

The original lambda had no empirical justification, the current one does. And yes, Michael, observational evidence is empirical.

How many times are you going to assert that, and how many times are we going to tell you: Einstein did NOT think lambda was a magic-static-enforcing term. He thought it was a term which (if large) causes outward acceleration, and if small causes (or fails to prevent) inward acceleration. At the time when he thought the Universe was static, he picked the unique value in between these two extremes. But he knew about the other extremes, because he wasn't a moron, and because Friedmann, Robertson, Walker, Lemaitre, Milne, et. al. would have pointed it out to him in the early 1930s.

But you've heard this a million times, and you've ignored it a million times, and you're still Stating The Thing You Decided Must Be The Facts.