Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

No he didn't.

Of course he did. He physically made the plasma move Zig. Acceleration of plasma is a direct "prediction" that came from his experiments. If you can't figure out acceleration, he sure could.

No, you do. There's no "we" here. And you can call it whatever you want to, though choosing a name that's already being used for something else is... what's the word? Stupid.

FYI, that's my beef with your "dark energy" label. You don't know the real "cause", so you claim the 'cause'' is "dark energy. It's circular feedback loop.

Nope. You need to start with a model. You don't have a model. Go get yourself a model.

Birkland created a *WORKING MODEL* in the lab, as well as a mathematical model. It's all in his book Zig.

It's not our "dark energy", it's your "dark energy". The cosmological dark energy model cannot produce solar winds, because unlike what you believe in, it's actually constrained by observation and theory, and makes specific and limited predictions.

So at first you had no idea what the actual "cause" might be, but now you've created a theory so specific and so impotent in the lab that it entirely unfalsifiable because it's entirely impotent outside of your mythology. It has no influence on anything we might experiment with. It's a "Dark energy of the gaps" argument in the final analysis because you cant' demonstrate a lick of it, and you can't show that your deity is real. All you can show is a pattern of acceleration and no cause/effect link to your dark deity.

The fact that your conception of EM fields can do anything is a pretty damned good indicator that your conception of EM fields is wrong.

I didn't say they could do anything, I said they are the "cause" of "acceleration" of plasma. You cannot show your mythical entity even exists, let alone that it "accelerates" anything.

Because plasmas shield EM fields but they don't shield gravity? Duh.

Huh? Care to connect a few more dots?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Newton alone doesn't really work for this, because dark energy is an intrinsically relativistic thing. It has a pressure that's comparable to its energy density, which is impossible for any non-relativistic form of energy. That's why you need the fudge factor when you try to use Newtonian gravity.

Aren't photons (the carrier particles of the EM field) intrinsically relativistic things?

 

[ben m]

Now we look back 100 years in time and we notice that Kristian Birkeland came up with an empirical "prediction" about "flying electric ions' of all sorts coming from the sun. How did he accomplish this feat? He used the EM field, and specifically "electricity".

Unless both you and Birkeland are incorrect, the EM field *MUST* be responsible for that "unknown acceleration" and our term "dark energy" is now understood to be directly related to the EM field.

This is the most nonsensical thing you've said yet, Michael, and that's saying something. You've made jaw-dropping mistakes of science knowledge, but this is a complete and utter failure of rationality.

"Alfred Wegener used plate tectonics to make correct predictions. Einstein used GR to make correct predictions. Tom Appelquist used GIM (quark flavor) theory to make correct predictions. Steve Weinberg used electroweak theory to make correct predictions. THEREFORE the unknown acceleration MUST be caused by plate tectonics, GR, quark flavors, and electroweak theory." It's utter baloney.

(That's *leaving aside* the many things that Birkeland got wrong.)

You're wrong, Michael. The reason we say that EM theory does not explain the acceleration is that EM theory does not explain the acceleration. We have equations which completely describe what EM theory can do. We have data for the acceleration. The one does not work like the other.

 

[sol invictus]

Aren't photons (the carrier particles of the EM field) intrinsically relativistic things?

Pancakes are flat. Does that mean the Milky Way is made from flour and eggs?

 

[sol invictus]

Aren't photons (the carrier particles of the EM field) intrinsically relativistic things?

For anyone capable of sentience, yes, photons are intrinsically relativistic, which means that Newton's theory of gravity cannot properly describe their gravitational effects (or the effects of gravity on them, like gravitational lensing).

Photons have a pressure equal to +1/3 their energy density (in units where c=1). According to general relativity, it is rho+3p (energy density + 3*pressure) that determines the acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe. If rho+3p>0, as it is for photons, it means the acceleration is negative (the expansion of the universe slows with time). Therefore, photons (or EM fields) cannot be responsible for the observed acceleration.

A cosmological constant or vacuum energy has a pressure equal to minus its energy density. Therefore rho+3p=-2 rho<0 as long as rho>0 (which is called a positive cosmological constant or vacuum energy), and hence resulting acceleration is positive.

In general, any form of energy with p<-rho/3 will cause acceleration. However observations have ruled out any form of energy with p>-.9 rho or so as the primary driver for the acceleration. That leaves very little room for anything other than a cosmological constant (with p=-rho).

 

[ben m]

Photons have a pressure equal to +1/3 their energy density (in units where c=1). According to general relativity, it is rho+3p (energy density + 3*pressure) that determines the acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe. If rho+3p>0, as it is for photons, it means the acceleration is negative (the expansion of the universe slows with time). Therefore, photons (or EM fields) cannot be responsible for the observed acceleration.

Michael, I want to repeat this once again. What Sol is saying is basically the same thing I said below:

(sigh) Neutrinos, electrons, protons, plasmas, and so on---no matter how many of them you put in, and in what combinations---always, always, always predict that the supernova distance-luminosity curve would bend down. The data shows that the distance-luminosity curve bends up. http://www.supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/expansionhistoryphystoday.pdf

Stop saying "plasma effects did it". No they didn't. Stop saying "photons did it". No they didn't. Stop saying "EM fields did it". No they didn't. It doesn't work. The phenomena you keep proposing to fill empty space have the opposite effect to what is observed. Are you listening? Please reply.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For anyone capable of sentience, yes, photons are intrinsically relativistic, which means that Newton's theory of gravity cannot properly describe their gravitational effects (or the effects of gravity on them, like gravitational lensing).

Photons have a pressure equal to +1/3 their energy density (in units where c=1). According to general relativity, it is rho+3p (energy density + 3*pressure) that determines the acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe. If rho+3p>0, as it is for photons, it means the acceleration is negative (the expansion of the universe slows with time). Therefore, photons (or EM fields) cannot be responsible for the observed acceleration.

That argument entirely depends on whether the acceleration is *internally driven* or *externally* (to this physical universe) driven. An attraction of matter on this side of a void to something on the other side of a void might lead to acceleration over time as the objects of attraction move closer together.

Then again we'd have to give up this idea that all matter and energy was ever lumped together.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course he did. He physically made the plasma move Zig.

Using a device intended to simulate the earth.

Acceleration of plasma is a direct "prediction" that came from his experiments. If you can't figure out acceleration, he sure could.

Actually, he couldn't. His numbers (such as they are) were wildly wrong. Quite excusable given the limited information he had to work with, but it was still just plain wrong.

FYI, that's my beef with your "dark energy" label. You don't know the real "cause", so you claim the 'cause'' is "dark energy. It's circular feedback loop.

No, Michael. It's a hypothesis.

Birkland created a *WORKING MODEL* in the lab

... of the earth.

as well as a mathematical model.

Not of stellar winds he didn't.

So at first you had no idea what the actual "cause" might be, but now you've created a theory so specific and so impotent in the lab that it entirely unfalsifiable

But it's not unfalsifiable. You keep claiming it is, but that's simply not true. This belief of yours is simply another in a seemingly endless stream of things you just don't understand.

I didn't say they could do anything

And yet, you remain perpetually ignorant about what they cannot do.

Huh? Care to connect a few more dots?

Wow. You really missed the boat on that one. And no, I don't think I'll bother. Repeated attempts to educate you have met with consistent failure. You have chosen ignorance, and have received accordingly.

For example, you still can't define pressure.

 

[ben m]

That argument entirely depends on whether the acceleration is *internally driven* or *externally* (to this physical universe) driven. An attraction of matter on this side of a void to something on the other side of a void might lead to acceleration over time as the objects of attraction move closer together.

a) "externally driven" sure doesn't sound like "the universe is plasma and plasma exerts forces so plasma did it", which you were presenting a post or two ago.

b) "That argument depends on ..." So what? That's how hypotheses work. We have presented a hypothesis under which the acceleration is caused by (yes, "internal") vacuum energy. If the hypothesis is false, then the hypothesis is false.

c) "an attraction to something ... might lead to ..." Aha, so you're hypothesizing that space has feature X (and that you don't know whether actually exists---OMG unempirical bunnies) and you want to say that that might explain the data. This is called an "alternative hypothesis". Do you want to talk about this alternative hypothesis? We can do that. That is not what you've been doing; you've been ignoring the word "hypothesis" and complaining that the mainstream hypothesis is a woo dogma religion that's not even worthy of being named.

Do you want to stop arguing that the dark energy hypothesis is obviously wrong, and stop arguing that EM forces obviously explain everything, and start asking whether some sort of cosmic void hypothesis is a good alternative hypothesis? Go right ahead.

 

[sol invictus]

That argument entirely depends on whether the acceleration is *internally driven* or *externally* (to this physical universe) driven.

You are correct that what I wrote assumed that the energy and pressure in question are distributed approximately homogeneously and isotropically in the universe (or at least inside one Hubble volume of the universe). That assumption is consistent with all cosmological observations, but there is still room for an isotropic but inhomogeneous universe (i.e. a configuration with the earth at a special symmetric point in the center). That hypothesis is disfavored for reasons that should be obvious, and in any case is possible to test.

An attraction of matter on this side of a void to something on the other side of a void might lead to acceleration over time as the objects of attraction move closer together.

Yes, but it would also lead to a direction dependence. No such dependence has been observed.

Then again we'd have to give up this idea that all matter and energy was ever lumped together.

Actually no, we wouldn't. But in any case, see Ben's reply.

 

[Michael Mozina]

a) "externally driven" sure doesn't sound like "the universe is plasma and plasma exerts forces so plasma did it", which you were presenting a post or two ago.

I think you've just had a hard time visualizing the idea correctly from my perspective.

b) "That argument depends on ..." So what? That's how hypotheses work. We have presented a hypothesis under which the acceleration is caused by (yes, "internal") vacuum energy. If the hypothesis is false, then the hypothesis is false.

Well, the fact you can't create "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" really should be your first clue Ben. That's certainly how I see things anyway. You're looking for a physical impossibility by expecting to find an 'energy" that is unlike any other form of energy known to exist in nature.

c) "an attraction to something ... might lead to ..." Aha, so you're hypothesizing that space has feature X (and that you don't know whether actually exists---OMG unempirical bunnies) and you want to say that that might explain the data.

But Ben, I'm not proposing any *NEW* forces of nature! I'm simply rearranging *KNOWN* forms of matter and energy and looking for empirical solutions to existing problems. You're simply 'making up" a new kind of energy that has to have a "negative pressure" unlike an EM field, unlike any known form of energy.

How then can your fantastic sounding "hypothesis" (if you can call it that) possibly be considered more likely than the one I just suggested? You're fixated on finding your invisible negative pressure bunny that you haven't even bothered to fully explore other options IMO.

 

[GeeMack]

How then can you "hypothesis" (if you can call it that) possibly be considered more likely than the one I just suggested?

Maybe because, "Go read Birkeland," or, "I'm so stupid I can't understand what you're saying so it must be something else," aren't hypotheses at all?

​

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you've just had a hard time visualizing the idea correctly from my perspective.

Your perspective is one of ignorance.

Well, the fact you can't create "negative pressure" in a "vacuum" really should be your first clue Ben. That's certainly how I see things anyway.

Of course you do. But you don't even know what pressure is, so your opinions on what sorts of pressure are possible are quite irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I agree that "placeholder term" is way too simplistic and general for what dark energy is. But given the problems that MM has with understanding anything complex, I have tried to keep things simple -probably too simple.

FYI, your concept was never all that 'complex', just too "general" and self serving. It's also based on a circular feedback loop:

Acceleration is observed. You don't understand it. You created a name to describe your ignorance (mythical dark energy). You give this imagined energy all sorts of "imagined" properties (negative pressure, darkness, zero charge,etc). You create a scenario where it cannot ever even be physically "tested" by a human being, now or ever. You made the term so vague that even if your "main" set of claims is falsified, it cannot ever undermine your "faith" in your new invisible magical energy. There's always room to recreate a ton of new presumed "properties" when you never have to demonstrate any of it in a lab. That's all you're doing RC.

GM and you seem to "imagine" that dark energy *MUST* exist simply because you personally can't explain acceleration you observe with known forces of nature. You imagine that 'dark energy" *must* exist, just because acceleration exists. There is no correlation between the observation of acceleration and "dark energy' except in your head. It's entirely impotent in the lab!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your perspective is one of ignorance.

Like the term "dark energy" isn't a perspective of pure ignorance?

Of course you do. But you don't even know what pressure is, so your opinions on what sorts of pressure are possible are quite irrelevant.

I know for a fact that not one of you can produce any form of energy that has that -rho component that sol described. You'll dance around that flaw no doubt but it's the 700 pound gorilla in the room. Your theory is based on a physical impossibility. None of you can even tell me what you' would add to or subtract from a "perfect" vacuum (no kinetic energy of any sort) to create a "negative" pressure. You seem to imagine that particle kinetic energy and pressure are somehow unrelated in that "vacuum".

 

[ben m]

How then can your fantastic sounding "hypothesis" (if you can call it that) possibly be considered more likely than the one I just suggested? You're fixated on finding your invisible negative pressure bunny that you haven't even bothered to fully explore other options IMO.

Easy.

1) The one you just suggested is already known to be wrong---i.e. not to agree with the data. It's already ruled out.

2) Everything else you've suggested has also been wrong---i.e. not to agree with the data.

(Any hypothesis, even a surprising one, is better than one which is already ruled out.)

3) All of your "objections" to the dark energy hypothesis have been a mix of (a) blunt ignorance of scientific method or (b) refusal to think about the hypothesis using the actual tools of modern physics (GR, quantum mechanics, field theory).

The dark energy hypothesis is a perfectly reasonable extension of quantum field theory. When you plug its energy into ordinary GR, you find it accounts perfectly for the observations, using only one free parameter.

 

[ben m]

None of you can even tell me what you' would add to or subtract from a "perfect" vacuum (no kinetic energy of any sort) to create a "negative" pressure. You seem to imagine that particle kinetic energy and pressure are somehow unrelated in that "vacuum".

Finally! Yes, particle kinetic energy and pressure ARE unrelated in this aspect of the vacuum. This is not a negative particle pressure. The dark energy can not be a bath of fast-moving particles.

It's a constant energy density. In GR, where what you care about is E and dE/dV, a constant energy density has the same GR properties as a negative pressure. A gas-like, photon-like, or plasma-like energy density has the same GR properties as a positive pressure. Dark energy is not gas-like at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

I know for a fact that not one of you can produce any form of energy that has that -rho component that sol described. You'll dance around that flaw no doubt but it's the 700 pound gorilla in the room. Your theory is based on a physical impossibility.

You used to think negative pressures were impossible under any circumstance. What you "know for a fact" is not, in fact, a fact at all.

None of you can even tell me what you' would add to or subtract from a "perfect" vacuum (no kinetic energy of any sort) to create a "negative" pressure. You seem to imagine that particle kinetic energy and pressure are somehow unrelated in that "vacuum".

A perfect encapsulation of your ignorance. You still don't even know what pressure is. Let me give you a hint: particle kinetic energy doesn't define pressure. Not in a vacuum, not in a plasma, not in a gas, not in a liquid, not in a solid, not ever.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You used to think negative pressures were impossible under any circumstance. What you "know for a fact" is not, in fact, a fact at all.

Which other "natural" form of energy has that -rho component to it Zig? I think you're purposefully avoiding my point. What were you intending to add or subtract from that pure vacuum state (no kinetic energy) to achieve a "negative pressure"?

A perfect encapsulation of your ignorance. You still don't even know what pressure is.

Oh, the irony.

Let me give you a hint: particle kinetic energy doesn't define pressure. Not in a vacuum, not in a plasma, not in a gas, not in a liquid, not in a solid, not ever.

Then what does (physically speaking) define pressure in vacuum Zig?

 

[ben m]

I know for a fact that not one of you can produce any form of energy that has that -rho component that sol described.

a) "... because I blustered my way through the Casimir Effect threads".

b) Remember HYPOTHESIS, Michael? The dark energy hypothesis is indeed positing something that has not been confirmed to exist. If we already had detected dark energy directly---for example, in a lab experiment---then it wouldn't be a hypothesis. The fact that we have not detected it is not an argument against it---that's what makes it (still) a hypothesis. HYPOTHESIS.