Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[The Man]

http://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/Jaffe2005_Casimir.pdf



Any "scientific" paper that begins with this sort of obviously *false* assertion is hard to take seriously. Give me a break. *Almost *EVERY* lab experiment on absolute zero demonstrates the influence of the energy from the vacuum.

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

Care to give examples of those experiments? It should not be a problem since you have “*Almost *EVERY* lab experiment on absolute zero” to choose from.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Casimir Pulls

It says the plates are "pushed" together. Why? ... No, it says they are "pushed together" Tim,not "pulled together from the inside.".

• See Quantum Field Theory; Claude Itzykson & Jean-Bernard Zuber; McGraw-Hill Inc., 1980; section 3-2-4 (Vacuum Fluctuations), pages 138-142, for a derivation of the force that pulls the plates together.
• See Quantum Field Theory In A Nutshell; A. Zee; Princeton University Press, 2003; chapter 1.8, page 67 (Casimir Effect), for a derivation of the force that pulls the plates together.

The Casimir Force is a force which pulls the plates together, end of story. I don't care what picture you try to fob off on us that shows otherwise, from any source; it is wrong. I don't care whose writing you rely on; anyone who says that the Casimir force is not a force that pulls the plates together is dead wrong, period. Anybody. Most likely this is a side effect of the difficult task of re-interpreting complex physics for the mythical "layman". I don't know. But I do know, beyond any doubt and a fact for certain, that the Casimir Effect is a force that pulls the plates together. They are pulled not pushed. Fact. Period. Done.

That's why I said "Go look in a physics book for a change." You appeal to secondary sources, but avoid a direct derivation of the force, which settles the matter at once. You keep relying on PR diagrams, and avoid the real physics at all costs. Your case is hopeless, and it will remain hopeless, as long as you are so determined to avoid the real physics.

 

[sol invictus]

Any "scientific" paper that begins with this sort of obviously *false* assertion is hard to take seriously. Give me a break. *Almost *EVERY* lab experiment on absolute zero demonstrates the influence of the energy from the vacuum.

What a ridiculous statement - you haven't a clue what you're babbling about. Name one - just one.

FYI, Robert Jaffe (the author of that paper) holds a endowed chair in physics at MIT, is a world-renowned expert on quantum field theory and particle physics, and specifically the Casimir effect.

 

[temporalillusion]

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/05/can_dark_matter_help_make_star.php

Thought that was interesting but didn't warrant a new thread, and kind of fits on the thread topic (remember the thread topic? ).

 

[Reality Check]

Posted by mistake in the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread.

Abstract: For more than a half century cosmologists have been guided by the assumption that matter is distributed homogeneously on sufficiently large scales. On the other hand, observations have consistently yielded evidence for inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter right up to the limits of most surveys. The apparent paradox can be understood in terms of the role that paradigms play in the evolution of science.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.2643.pdf



WMAP catastrophe
This month, we’ve chosen to highlight a paper that is causing a stir in cosmology. Serious doubt is cast upon the validity of the entire body of WMAP analysis. Thanks to Eric Lerner for the following analysis:
An important new paper shows that there are serious errors in the WMAP team’s analysis of the satellite’s data. The new paper, Observation number correlation in WMAP data By Ti-Pei Li et al, which has been accepted by MNRAS, shows that a spurious apparent temperature is introduced into the map of the CMB by the WMAP team’s analyses. As a result, the conclusions based on this analysis, including the widely-publicized supposed agreement with some predictions of the dominant LCDM cosmology, are thrown into doubt. Li et al’s recent paper on WMAP observation number effects arXiv 0905.0075 is a follow-up to Liu and Li’s earlier paper on the same subject, 0806.4493, which was reported in this newsletter, but whose significance was not fully recognized at the time.
WMAP mapped the tiny variations of anisotropies in the CMB by comparing the inputs of two receivers or horns placed 141 degrees apart, as the satellite spun and scanned the entire sky. Complex mathematical procures were used to transform these differences in inputs into a map of absolute temperature or intensity at every point in the sky. In outline the authors argue that:
1. The way temperature is calculated by the WMAP team based on the differential between the two WMAP horns is in error, as is best explained in the Li et al paper. When the number of observations of a given pixel by the “plus” horn (the number of times that point in the sky is scanned) is different than the number of observation by the “minus” horn, there is a spurious temperature added, dependent on transmission imbalances, which are different for different bands. (Esq. 5 and 6 of Li et al). These spurious temperatures, up to 10-20 micros K are clearly shown in figure 3, which shows the pixel-by-pixel correlation of the
2
difference in observation number and temperature. This spurious temperature, dependent on observation number, in turn produces a spurious fluctuation in temperature which is dependent on the number of observations. The number of observations in turn is a strong function of declination. See figure 2 of Liu and Li, which tells the story very well. Li explains procedures by which the raw data can be re-analysed to eliminate these artefacts.
2. The method by which WMAP temperatures are calculated also does not accurately correct for the fact that pixels 141 degrees way from hot spots are measured too cold. In Liu and Li, p.18, they show that pixels 141 degrees away from the 2000 hottest pixels in the map are on average 12-14 micro Kelvin cooler than average pixels, depending on the band. This is several hundred times above the expected random variation. Since each circle contains 15,000 pixels spread across a good section of the sky, the average temperature should be very close to the average of the whole sky. This is even truer for 2,000 such circles. But that is not what Liu and Li found.
So, from these papers, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models. The fact that the Li et al paper was accepted by MNRAS is perhaps an indication that some of the leading journals are becoming more open to work that challenges conventional assumptions in cosmology.
13. Title: Observation number correlation in WMAP data
Authors: Ti-Pei Li, Hao Liu, Li-Ming Song, Shao-Lin Xiong, Jian-Yin Nie
arXiv:0905.0075
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.06.pdf

 

[Reality Check]

The first link ignored the fact that the universe is actually mesured to be homogeneous on sufficiently large scales. In addtion it is a not even a scientific preprint (no citations).

The second link is the usual overstated nonsense that we see from the Alternative Cosmology Group. The "analysis" is from Eric Lerner whose expertise in astronomy and cosmology has often been brought into doubt. I will wait until the paper is published and astronomers or cosmologists review it:
Observation number correlation in WMAP data

However Eric Lerner should have read the paper more carefully:
The discussion states the authors position clearly:

Unexplained large scale anomalies, e.g. the orientation of large scale patterns in respect to the ecliptic frame, the north-south asymmetry of temperature fluctuation power etc, have detected in WMAP data. Their origin has long puzzled scientists. Several radical explanations with an anisotropic cosmology have already been proposed. However, it is, in particular, hard to imagine that there exists a special direction related to the ecliptic or Galactic plane in the early universe. In this work, we show that the large-scale features of the WMAP observation number map and observation number fluctuation distribution are very similar to the large-scale non-Gaussian modulation feature in released WMAP temperature map (§2), and find that significant correlation between pixel temperature and observation number exists in WMAP data (§3.1), such correlation can be produced by the systematic effect of WMAP instrument and observation imbalances on temperature maps (§3.2).
The detected observation number correlation should contribute, at least partly, to the apparent similarity between the large-scale features of the WMAP observation exposure and temperature maps, and hopefully provide a natural way to explain some large-scale anomalies in released WMAP temperature maps.

In other words - if the sky was observed equally then there would be none of the large scale anomalies that plasma cosmology crackpots like Eric Lerner mistakingly think are evidence for their theory.

 

[edd]

Quite. From Lerner's point of view the existence of the axis of evil doesn't invalidate the rest of the data which is in excellent agreement with the standard cosmological model. The axis itself is only of a mildly worrying statistical significance and if it turns out not to be related to the scan profile it's probably still not a cosmological signal (the alignment with the ecliptic being one of its peculiar aspects).
Further than that, I'm not convinced that a scan profile that's aligned with the ecliptic and an axis of evil that is aligned with the ecliptic goes beyond a correlation to indicate causation. If the correlation could be shown to link beyond just the gross structure to the finer details of the WMAP scan strategy I would be more convinced, as I understand from experts in the area that it's quite hard to find a mechanism by which this sort of effect can propagate through from the scan strategy (the scan maps are shown in one of the 2007 WMAP papers I think, and have not only an increase in Nobs at the poles but in a ring around the poles, and a cross-like structure around them as well - that's the sort of thing that if it were shown to be in the data maps would make me be less tentative).
I will add the caveat that a large part of my reluctance to be convinced can probably be attributed to me finding it difficult to grasp the more technical parts of the argument - it's not my area.

 

[edd]

And incidentally the two main authors wrote this last year:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4493

 

[edd]

And incidentally the two main authors wrote this last year:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4493

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I concur with RC's post; the first link should not be taken seriously (unless it gets published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, which is most unlikely without considerable editing).

I too cannot see how Lerner managed to draw the conclusions stated from the Li et al. paper itself (and the earlier one by them) ... and as brantc has, apparently, decided to copy the unethical posting behaviour of a certain Z ("the seagull"), it seems no one here will explain.

One piece of very good news: Planck appears on track to meet its objectives, so there will soon be a completely independent dataset of CMB observations to use.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So how many flaws have been pointed out with the originial predictions that LCDM made in this thread and how they match with observations? The best way to test a theory is by its predicative power, and another the amount of free parameters it uses, and a few more. Time for a search of this thread and a looooooong list soon me thinks.

So what are the amazing predictions we can expect in the future? Or has LCDMs predicative power faded to nothing? (not from extrapolating easy trends from already existing data, please)

 

[Reality Check]

So how many flaws have been pointed out with the originial predictions that LCDM made in this thread and how they match with observations? The best way to test a theory is by its predicative power, and another the amount of free parameters it uses, and a few more. Time for a search of this thread and a looooooong list soon me thinks.

So what are the amazing predictions we can expect in the future? Or has LCDMs predicative power faded to nothing? (not from extrapolating easy trends from already existing data, please)

What date do you mean by "original"?

Don't be lazy Zeuzzz - count the flaws yourself.
As far as I know that only flaw in LCDM is the abundance of Li.

What do you mean by "predictive power"?
It seems that you are about to state that a theory should be discarded when its "predicative power" fades to nothing. But this not the case - otherwise we wuld throw away Maxwell's Equations since their predictive power has been faded.

 

[edd]

So what are the amazing predictions we can expect in the future? Or has LCDMs predicative power faded to nothing? (not from extrapolating easy trends from already existing data, please)

LCDM's predictive power in certain areas is very high. The obvious one is in the value of w. If it isn't -1, LCDM is wrong. Many experiments are in progress or being developed to determine exactly that. Or is that 'extrapolating easy trends'?

 

[sol invictus]

So how many flaws have been pointed out with the originial predictions that LCDM made in this thread and how they match with observations?

Science works by testing predictions, and when they fail to match experiment, modifying the theory so that it fits the data and then testing it again. To regard the existence of such past modifications as reasons to abandon a theory entirely is completely absurd - it would be like abandoning vaccinations on the discovery that sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disorder.

It's true that if you look at the history of LCDM, or big bang cosmology more generally, you will find many examples where observations failed to match the theory as it stood when they were made. However in all or nearly all such cases either the observations turned out to be incorrect, or could be accounted for by a change in the numerical value of one of the small number of parameters of the theory. For example some early estimates of the CMB temperature were off, for the simple reason that the data wasn't good enough to determine the value with other measurements. In a few rare cases - acceleration is one - something really new needed to be added (although even that can be regarded as simply determining one parameter, the cosmological constant).

So what are the amazing predictions we can expect in the future? Or has LCDMs predicative power faded to nothing? (not from extrapolating easy trends from already existing data, please)

Can you give an example of "extrapolating easy trends"?

LCDM is extremely predictive and is constantly being tested by new experiments. I could link to thousands of papers over the last few years that illustrate that.

 

[edd]

What about all the so called "properties" of dark matter? How do we verify or falsify these ideas?

Released today, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1912 is a lecture series that gives an overview of the evidence for dark matter, candidates for what it is, and what experiments can be done to test models of it and find out more about its properties. It's pretty technical in places, just as a warning.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Released today, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1912 is a lecture series that gives an overview of the evidence for dark matter, candidates for what it is, and what experiments can be done to test models of it and find out more about its properties. It's pretty technical in places, just as a warning.

The concept that this 'missing mass' is *NECESSARILY* composed of "nonbaryonic" material is the weakest part of this paper and the weakest part of the dark matter argument in general. His whole argument seems to be hinged on the concept that mass calculation methods are "accurate". If they aren't accurate, the whole argument falls apart. I see no evidence that galactic baryonic mass estimates are "accurate" in the first place. The whole thing seems to be hinged on the validity of baryonic mass estimates. If we don't take that for granted, the rest of the argument is moot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What do you mean by "predictive power"?

A real empirical "prediction' is typically something that one has *LEARNED* from active experimentation in controlled experiments. An example of an actual "prediction" would be Birkeland's prediction of "loops" and "jets" and high speed solar with particles from the sun.

It seems that you are about to state that a theory should be discarded when its "predicative power" fades to nothing.

What useful function is served from a theory with zero predictive value?

But this not the case - otherwise we wuld throw away Maxwell's Equations since their predictive power has been faded.

No, you missed the point. We can still *USE THESE FORMULAS TODAY* to *correctly* calculate the current flow inside of a circuit in a controlled experiment and we can verify that this calculation has merit via controlled experimentation too. How can I "verify" the legitimacy of mass calculations related to baryonic matter in a galaxy so that I can tell if there really is such a thing as "nonbaryonic dark matter" or see if you simply blew the original mass calculations?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The concept that this 'missing mass' is *NECESSARILY* composed of "nonbaryonic" material is the weakest part of this paper and the weakest part of the dark matter argument in general. His whole argument seems to be hinged on the concept that mass calculation methods are "accurate". If they aren't accurate, the whole argument falls apart. I see no evidence that galactic baryonic mass estimates are "accurate" in the first place. The whole thing seems to be hinged on the validity of baryonic mass estimates. If we don't take that for granted, the rest of the argument is moot.

(bold added)

If we replace "baryonic mass estimates" with (ISM or IGM) "magnetic field strength estimates", to take just one example, does anything change?

So far as I can see, MM, your objection is logically equivalent to "astrophysics is not a science" (beyond the solar system, and excluding, perhaps, astrometry).

wrt the part I added bold to: given that there is a considerably amount of objective material which shows that you cannot do, or even understand, the math involving making such estimates, why should anyone pay any attention to your opinion?

 

[Tubbythin]

Released today, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1912 is a lecture series that gives an overview of the evidence for dark matter, candidates for what it is, and what experiments can be done to test models of it and find out more about its properties. It's pretty technical in places, just as a warning.

Thanks. The start and end of that was very interesting. The middle bit I got a bit lost.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

If we replace "baryonic mass estimates" with (ISM or IGM) "magnetic field strength estimates", to take just one example, does anything change?

If suns are mostly composed of iron and nickel rather than mostly hydrogen and helium, might that change anything? How do you know that your mass estimates of baryonic material in a galaxy has any merit whatsoever? As far as I can tell you missed it by a mile and now your trying to cover up the mistake by fudging the numbers with mythical objects.

So far as I can see, MM, your objection is logically equivalent to "astrophysics is not a science" (beyond the solar system, and excluding, perhaps, astrometry).

No, my logical question is "where did you *QUALIFY* your theory in the lab"? Neutrino astrophysics is certainly "science" in every empirical sense. Solar astrophysics is "science" even if I don't agree with your solar model. It's only when you start slapping math to the side of dark, invisible friends that I start to expect to see you qualify the idea or I will certainly squeal like an invisible dark pig.

wrt the part I added bold to: given that there is a considerably amount of objective material.....?

You've personally ignored all the objective material I've offered you, and you've run from those RD and Doppler images like a frightened little girl for over four years. Why should anyone care what you think.

I don't need to know the maths related to gasoline to benefit from the product. I can drive my car and benefit from it, regardless of whether or not I can mathematically explain the inner workings of the engine or detail the combustion processes of gasoline during the power cycle. I can do the same thing with electricity. I don't need to know how my computer works in every mathematical detail to be able to benefit from it.

It's only when we come to the dogma of mainstream astronomers where we can never actually benefit from anything they claim exists in nature, and we have to be math geeks to "have faith" in the "proper way". Even though your dark energy supposedly makes up 75% of the universe, it is utterly impotent in any experiment on Earth. Even though you claim non baryonic dark matter makes up 5 times as much of the universe as the dirt my backyard, you can't produce a gram of the stuff here on Earth? Even though inflation is dead and gone, I'm supposed to "have faith" it once existed anyway, no controlled "tests" will ever be possible. Why? Because you whipped up a math formula. Your dogma requires that I make several leaps of faith, starting with 'faith" in your bayonic mass estimation techniques which obviously aren't worth the paper they are printed on.