Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Exactly what type of "credentials" do I need to see a physical empirical idea demonstrated in real life in an empirical experimental setting?

I think it's rather ironic and rather revealing that the word you chose: "layman" originally had a religious overtone. The idea is that one needed to be a "cleric" to understand the "faith' properly. The irony here is that this whole Lambda-inflation-free-lunch belief system is also based on "leaps of faith", several of them in fact. The reason my "credentials" seem to be required now is due to the fact that none of these claims can be empirically demonstrated, and therefore the conversation turns to me instead of the claims within the theory.

Inflation? Evidently no one can or ever will demonstrate it. It will forever be an act of "pure faith".

Or you could just look at the evidence that's already be given to you eg:
here

Dark Energy? Nobody knows what it is, but they absolutely postively *certain* that is has no net energy and yet it somehow accelerates a whole universe. Neat stuff! Where do I get some? Oh ya, nobody knows.....

Expansion of space? It never happens here on Earth, only in their "religion".

And in Einstein's field equations which you previously admitted to agreeing with. Make your mind up Michael.

Zero net energy in the universe? Well, only if you *ignore* all the energy contained in mass, light, etc and pay no attention whatsoever to kinetic energy or the sunshine on your face.

Dark Matter? I hear the non baryonic variety is quite tasty in the springtime. Supposedly the universe has many times more of this stuff than the dirt in my backyard, but the whole lot of astronomers on the planet can't produce a single gram of the stuff in a real "experiment".

If you're talking about WIMPS, the clues in the name.

Now of course I would obviously understand this 'faith' so much better if I'd only taken more Calculus courses in college. FYI I did take several of them by the way but my real love was software. Alas I will forever be a "layman" as well, forever unable to "see the light" only because I "lack faith" in metaphysical mumbo jumbo wrapped up in endless math.

I think the only way I'll overcome this view and turn the attention where it belongs is to take apart Guth's original inflation paper and point out his errors. I've got programming to finish up tonight and at work tomorrow, but when I get time, I'll start with Guth's monopole killing inflation mythology paper and point out the errors.

I'll look forward to it.

Note that I offered you a legitimate physical way to explain an expanding physical universe based on "positive energy density" from start to finish, where potential energy is simply turned into kinetic energy. Do you really think that any of these guys/gals will demonstrate an expanding matter scenario from a "vacuum" here on Earth? Honestly? They can't even make a single atom go "poof" in a vacuum today. What makes you think they'll get a whole universe to go "poof" out of a vacuum, ever? Guth does not understand the nature of a vacuum or the kinetic energy inside of a "non-vacuum". That's where all this trouble began.

What, you're complaining that we'll never make our own Big Bang... like its a bad thing?

I think the only way I will overcome this view as a "layman" is to simply take apart Guth's original paper, idea by idea and show how it falls apart in terms of kinetic energy and conservation laws of energy. Stay tuned.

Popcorn at the ready.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'll work at this today as I go, stating with the abstract of an early paper that started it all.

THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE:
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE HORIZON AND FLATNESS PROBLEMS*
Alan H. Guth**
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
ABSTRACT
The standard model of hot big bang cosmology requires initial conditions
which are problematic in two ways: (1) the early universe is
assumed to be highly homogeneous, in spite of the fact that separated
regions were causally disconnected (horizon problem); and (2) the initial
value of the Hubble constant must be fine tuned to extraordinary accuracy
to produce a universe as flat (i.e., near critical mass density) as‘the
one we see today (flatness problem). These problems would disappear if,
in its early history, the universe supercooled to temperatures 28 or
more orders of magnitude below the critical temperature for some phase
transition.

Hmmm. What physical entity is "hot" and posses heat?

A huge expansion factor would then result from a period of
exponential growth, and the entropy of the universe would be multiplied
by a huge factor when the latent heat is released.

Latent "heat"? From what? Heat related "expansion" sure sounds like a *net positive* energy scenario to me! Where do you guys get a "net zero" energy idea from again?

Such a scenario is completely natural in the context of grand unified models of elementary particle interactions.

Er, last time I checked there were no *agreed upon* grand unified models. That sounds like justification based on his personal act of faith in a specific type of GUT theory that has even been discovered yet. This claim is pretty meaningless.

In such models, the supercooling is also relevant to the problem of monopole suppression. Unfortunately, the scenario seems to lead to some unacceptable consequences, so modifications must be sought.

Monopole suppression? Excuse me? There are no "monopoles" in nature. That would be a violation of Gauss' law of magnetism. Magnetic fields only come in *dipole* configurations. We don't need an "reason" why they don't exist in nature, and speculating about the "cause" of a "non existent" entity is absurd. It's like claiming this idea is necessary for invisible unicorn suppression. That's two claims in two sentences about it agreeing with a GUT theory when no actual GUT theory has been agreed to. This is his idea from start to finish based on *his* belief about what a final GUT might be.

The claims here are dubious at worst case, vague at best case, and just plain *assumption oriented* from the very start.

I'm going to go through his paper line by line and take it apart one claim at at time.

Already his abstract has begun with the following assumptions.

A) Energy exists in the form of "Heat"
B) Energy in the form of heat is contained in an unidentified particle/entity.
C) Phase transitions of some presumed state to another state takes place but he hasn't identified either the entity *prior to* the transition nor identified the state after transition, other than to claim that whatever it is has "supercooled" in the process.
D) GUT theories somehow apply to this concept
E) Understanding the cause of a non-existent entity is somehow a necessity and it somehow supports his ideas.

The obvious question then is *where did you get the idea that this was a "net zero" energy exchange if all started with "heat"?

 

[Tubbythin]

The claims here are dubious at worst case, vague at best case, and just plain *assumption oriented* from the very start.

Its an abstract!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Its an abstract!

Ya, we haven't even gotten to the fun part yet, but what the heck are monopoles doing in there as a justification for this theory? Where did you guys get the idea it was a *net zero* energy process? What's all the heat doing in there from the start in a zero energy scenario?

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, we haven't even gotten to the fun part yet, but what the heck are monopoles doing in there as a justification for this theory? Where did you guys get the idea it was a *net zero* energy process? What's all the heat doing in there from the start in a zero energy scenario?

If you examine the paper you might find out. From wiki (fwiw):

The magnetic monopole problem (sometimes called the exotic relics problem) is a problem that suggests that if the early universe were very hot, a large number of very heavy, stable magnetic monopoles would be produced. This was a problem with Grand Unified Theories, popular in the 1970s and 1980s, which proposed that at high temperatures (such as in the early universe) the electromagnetic force, strong and weak nuclear forces are not actually fundamental forces but arise due to spontaneous symmetry breaking from a much simpler gauge theory.[18] These theories predict a number of heavy, stable particles which have not yet been observed in nature. The most notorious is the magnetic monopole, a kind of stable, heavy "knot" in the magnetic field.[19][20] Monopoles are expected to be copiously produced in Grand Unified Theories at high temperature,[21][22] and they should have persisted to the present day, to such an extent that they would become the primary constituent of the universe.[23][24] Not only is that not the case, but all searches for them have so far turned out fruitless, placing stringent limits on the density of relic magnetic monopoles in the universe.[25]

Should anyone one day discover a MM (that's a magnetic monopole not a Michale Mozina) then we'd have to change Maxwell's 2nd equation. I think basically it'd look like his first one.

 

[sol invictus]

Hmmm. What physical entity is "hot" and posses heat?

??

Latent "heat"? From what?

The first order phase transition in his model. If you'd read (and understood) the paper, you'd know that.

Heat related "expansion" sure sounds like a *net positive* energy scenario to me! Where do you guys get a "net zero" energy idea from again?

That's already been explained over, and over, and over, and over...

Er, last time I checked there were no *agreed upon* grand unified models. That sounds like justification based on his personal act of faith in a specific type of GUT theory that has even been discovered yet. This claim is pretty meaningless.

The claim that this model emerges naturally from GUT models is "meaningless" because we aren't sure those GUT models are real? Huh?

Monopole suppression? Excuse me? There are no "monopoles" in nature. That would be a violation of Gauss' law of magnetism.

Magnetic monopoles exist in many extensions of the standard model of particle physics, and are created in great abundance in the early universe. One virtue of inflation is it reduces their density to acceptable levels (i.e. we wouldn't detect them).

As for Gauss' law for magnetism, that's simply a consequence of the lack of monopoles. It doesn't tell you they can't be there - just that if they are, they're rare.

By the way, the inflation model in that paper is ruled out by observation (something which according to you is impossible).

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, we haven't even gotten to the fun part yet, but what the heck are monopoles doing in there as a justification for this theory? Where did you guys get the idea it was a *net zero* energy process? What's all the heat doing in there from the start in a zero energy scenario?

Er, you do realise you said

I think the only way I will overcome this view as a "layman" is to simply take apart Guth's original paper, idea by idea and show how it falls apart in terms of kinetic energy and conservation laws of energy.

So everyone is expecting you to show us how it falls apart. How it violates the laws of thermodynamics (eg explicitly show us the maths). Not for us to show you how it works. Asking "us" questions (rhetorical or otherwise) isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and men.... It was a very busy evening on the home front tonight so I didn't get a chance to put together my critique yet, but you have an *enormous* problem in your understanding of Guth's claim, or this paper isn't the one I should be reading as it relates to the "net zero" energy concept:

??

The first order phase transition in his model. If you'd read (and understood) the paper, you'd know that.

....That's already been explained over, and over, and over, and over...

You keep glossing over this part of Guth's statements.....

These problems would disappear if, in its early history, the universe supercooled to temperatures 28 or more orders of magnitude below the critical temperature for some phase transition. A huge expansion factor would then result from a period of exponential growth, and the entropy of the universe would be multiplied by a huge factor when the latent heat is released.

In order for the universe to have "supercooled" 28 OOMs, it would have to have been incredibly HOT to begin with. This is a *positive energy density* scenario folks. The term "heat" as Guth uses it seems to have no actual physical meaning as it does in "standard" physics (photons). Even still, "latent heat" implies a positive energy density.

The claim that this model emerges naturally from GUT models is "meaningless" because we aren't sure those GUT models are real? Huh?

It means there isn't a GUT that anyone agrees to at this time and therefore a lot of his claims are pretty "out there" as it relates to agreed upon physics. The idea of "monopoles" for instance is pretty non standard stuff. Monopoles simply don't exist. Period. There's no great need to explain why they don't exist anymore than there is a great need to explain why anything doesn't exist. No GUT absolves him of this mythological problem solving of monopoles because there isn't a real GUT that ties back into actual physics in a lab.

Magnetic monopoles exist in many extensions of the standard model of particle physics,

AKA: He's using "non standard" concepts of particle physics. In the real world of *empirical physics* (things that actually show up in a lab), monopoles are another big fat no show. Shall we add faith in monopole suppression via inflation as another "leap of faith" associated with Lambda-Faith theory?

and are created in great abundance in the early universe.

Which universe might that be? It isn't our universe because in our universe magnetic fields only form as full dipole fields and monopoles are a violation of Gauss's law. That's just the way nature manifests itself.

One virtue of inflation is it reduces their density to acceptable levels (i.e. we wouldn't detect them).

How handy that something that doesn't exist can explain why we can't detect another thing that violates the laws of physics and that also does not exist! You must realize how irrational that sounds to a skeptic, right?

As for Gauss' law for magnetism, that's simply a consequence of the lack of monopoles.

So what? Monopoles don't exist. I don't need any theory to explain why something *does not* exist in nature. The notion that a non existent monopole is somehow "explained" by another nonexistent entity is more than a little irrational and dubious.

It doesn't tell you they can't be there - just that if they are, they're rare.

I have no evidence they exist at all, do you?

By the way, the inflation model in that paper is ruled out by observation (something which according to you is impossible).

Note that his inflation theory didn't die a natural death, it got the first of many facelifts instead. That's what you folks always do instead of actually "falsifying" the model.

I'm struggling to understand how (if) any of you actually believe that this particular paper supports a "zero net" energy scenario. Is there a different paper that supports this specific claim? This particular paper doesn't seem to support that assertion. Guth is starting with a very *hot* energy state, and assuming a supercooling process over many OOMs. He even assumes that the supercooling process is related to monopole suppression. How is the universe a "zero net" energy state if it is "hot" to start with?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The false vacuum state is Lorentz-invariant, so T W = PO Q)’ It follows that p = -po: the pressure is negative. This negative pressure allows for the conservation of energy, Eq. (2.3).

I will have to do the rest tomorrow, but I'll focus on one of the more important issues in Guth's paper.

Here's the part where Guth defies actual "physics". There is no such thing as "negative pressure" vacumm. There is always "positive pressure" when particles like neutrinos are blowing through the whole experiment by the trillions. There could in theory be a "pure" or "perfect vacuum" with no particles and no kinetic energy transfers between particles in the vacuum, but not in our universe. What there cannot ever be is a "negative pressure" vacuum. No such thing exists or could exist. This particularly claim is unsupportable and here's where it hits the skids in a big way. Not only is it not possible to achieve "negative pressure", it also demonstrates how and why his theory fails. There is no physical possibility of achieving a "negative" pressure. Even antimatter would have kinetic energy and it would not create "negative pressure". All particles posses some form of kinetic energy, either in terms of actual mass, or in the case of the photons, simply kinetic energy. There is no way to achieve "negative pressure" in a vacuum. The best vacuums on Earth and space never quite reach a zero pressure scenario, but it is physically impossible to achieve "negative pressure.". This seems to be where his theory falls apart.

 

[sol invictus]

Here's the part where Guth defies actual "physics". There is no such thing as "negative pressure"

A piston full of energetic particles tries to expand. Positive pressure. A piston full of stretched elastic bands tries to contract. Negative pressure.

Fail.

I'm struggling to understand how (if) any of you actually believe that this particular paper supports a "zero net" energy scenario.

You haven't "struggled" with that - you've ignored everything said about it. You still refuse to admit you are wrong about Newtonian gravitational potentials being positive, despite being contradicted by every textbook and high school physics teacher in the world. There's no point in discussing GR with someone that fails grade school dynamics.

Zig has also made it quite clear that (like 95% of physics cranks) you know no math. You couldn't even answer the trivial question he asked you several times. Guess what - physics is a mathematical science. That's what makes it useful. That's what allowed that computer you're using to be built. If you can't handle the math, you're a quack.

You're a quack.

 

[Tubbythin]

I will have to do the rest tomorrow, but I'll focus on one of the more important issues in Guth's paper.

Here's the part where Guth defies actual "physics". There is no such thing as "negative pressure" vacumm. There is always "positive pressure" when particles like neutrinos are blowing through the whole experiment by the trillions. There could in theory be a "pure" or "perfect vacuum" with no particles and no kinetic energy transfers between particles in the vacuum, but not in our universe. What there cannot ever be is a "negative pressure" vacuum. No such thing exists or could exist. This particularly claim is unsupportable and here's where it hits the skids in a big way.

Erm, I take it you've never heard of the Casimir effect?

 

[derekmcd]

Is this objection related to him treating the single photon as both a particle and wave?

No. Why would I object to the wave-particle duality associated with a photon? My objections were pretty clear.


As for the observable universe having a net zero energy... I'd like to point out that according to the big bang theory, the very early universe had no matter in it other than some elementary particles. Considering that elementary particles do not have 'stored' energy within their mass, the kinetic energy they have is exactly counterbalanced by the gravitational potential energy... hence a net zero. This is where your two bomb analogy fails.

 

[derekmcd]

I see you have moved on to monopoles and negative pressure.

You make a rather extreme statement in stating monopoles do not exist. Do you have proof of this? I don't think there is proof either way. However, there are reasonable suggestions that they have existed and may still exist. They don't violate Maxwell's equations... they add symmetry to them. Nature enjoys symmetry.

As for negative pressure, you are still confusing classic vacuums with quantum vacuums. Until you can distinguish the difference, your argument against Guth is irrelevant.

 

[Michael Mozina]

A piston full of energetic particles tries to expand. Positive pressure. A piston full of stretched elastic bands tries to contract. Negative pressure.

First of all a "piston" is driven in it's power phase by *positive pressure* inside the chamber expanding. A piston in a vacuum, would not create "negative pressure". I might create a "lower" positive pressure inside the piston chamber, as in the intake cycle, but at no time is there "negative pressure' inside the cylinder. You don't have rubber bands in a vacuum. Fail! Are you really this out to lunch at the level of physics? There is no "negative pressure" in *any* vacuum. We can't even get all the atoms out of a vacuum on Earth, let alone the neutrinos etc. There is no such thing as a "negative pressure" vacuum. Even if we removed *everything* from the vacuum, it would only ever achieve a "zero pressure". What would you then add or subtract from the vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"? Even antimatter has kinetic energy and it would result in positive kinetic pressure.

You haven't "struggled" with that - you've ignored everything said about it. You still refuse to admit you are wrong about Newtonian gravitational potentials being positive, despite being contradicted by every textbook and high school physics teacher in the world. There's no point in discussing GR with someone that fails grade school dynamics.

His explanation doesn't match yours. He's *starting with positive energy* in the form of *heat*. There only thing I'm "struggling with" is how you came up with the notion that this is a "zero energy" transaction? Without that heat boys and girls, to "supercool" out of the system, this party isn't going anywhere!

Zig has also made it quite clear that (like 95% of physics cranks) you know no math. You couldn't even answer the trivial question he asked you several times.

I will not bark math on command for you folks. I learned a long time ago that is a pointless exercise. If you folks made an error, someone would point it out and that would be it. If I made the error, you would immediately attempt to use that error as a justification for ignoring the problems in your theory that are unrelated to "math". Guth's "negative pressure" error has nothing to do with "math" and everything to do with physics.
The only "quack" here is you for putting your faith in irrational beliefs like monopoles, negative pressure vacuums, "expanding space", "zero energy" "bangs", inflation, dark evil energies, and dark matter. You can't demonstrate *any* of these beliefs of yours in lab, and anyone who questions your faith is a "quack". I suppose that is better than being told one is gonig to hell like most religions, but it's the same dance, different tune. Your lack of an ability to empirically demonstrate your claim in a real experiment has nothing to do with my math skills, but rather with your belief systems in general.

 

[Ziggurat]

I will not bark math on command for you folks. I learned a long time ago that is a pointless exercise. If you folks made an error, someone would point it out and that would be it. If I made the error, you would immediately attempt to use that error as a justification for ignoring the problems in your theory that are unrelated to "math".

In other words, you don't want to draw attention to your inability to do math. Which is perhaps why you don't have a single calculation on your web page. Physics is a mathematical science: if you can't do the math, you can't do the science. And you can't do the math. That's why when I ask if you can do a trivially easy integration, one so simple that there's shouldn't even be a risk of making a mistake, the kind that any freshman student of physics or even a highschool kid with a year of calculus should be able to do in their sleep, you refuse.

Or perhaps I'm wrong: perhaps you can do the math, but realize that if you did, it would show that your earlier statements were wrong, and you're unwilling to concede that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, you don't want to draw attention to your inability to do math.

FYI, I spent last night working with my daughter on slopes and rudimentary equations. I took my first year of calculus while still attending high school. I can do math. The problem with these papers and these ideas is not *mathematical* in nature, it is *conceptual physical* in nature. That "negative pressure" nonsense is a prefect example. *If* we simply accept the idea on faith, the math works out fine. If however you look at the *physics* that the math relates to, you find it has no meaning whatsoever. What *exactly* did you intend to add or subtract from a "pure" vacuum, a zero energy state vacuum, devoid of all atoms, and wrapped in neutrino block SPF infinity that would make that vacuum contain a "negative" pressure?

 

[Ziggurat]

FYI, I spent last night working with my daughter on slopes and rudimentary equations. I took my first year of calculus while still attending high school. I can do math.

I have only your word for it. You have demonstrated nowhere, on this forum or your web page, that you can do math. Sorry if I'm... skeptical of a claim with no evidence.

The problem with these papers and these ideas is not *mathematical* in nature

Indeed. The math problem is with your understanding of physics. That's why you claimed that the negative sign on gravitational potential was arbitrary. If you could do the math, you'd see it's not arbitrary, it's required.

That "negative pressure" nonsense is a prefect example. *If* we simply accept the idea on faith, the math works out fine. If however you look at the *physics* that the math relates to, you find it has no meaning whatsoever. What *exactly* did you intend to add or subtract from a "pure" vacuum, a zero energy state vacuum, devoid of all atoms, and wrapped in neutrino block SPF infinity that would make that vacuum contain a "negative" pressure?

Ever hear of the Casimir effect? Vacuums very much can (and do) have associated energies. If the derivative of that energy with respect to volume is positive, then you have negative pressure. Quite simple, really. Oh, but that's math. Sorry.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ever hear of the Casimir effect? Vacuums very much can (and do) have associated energies. If the derivative of that energy with respect to volume is positive, then you have negative pressure. Quite simple, really. Oh, but that's math. Sorry.

Moreover, its demonstrable in the lab (if you're very very good at precision measurement).

 

[Michael Mozina]

Erm, I take it you've never heard of the Casimir effect?

Sure. The area between the plates is simply a *lower* pressure than outside the plates. The kinetic energy from outside the plates pushes them together. What's the big deal with that? When was the Casmir effect ever demonstrated in a "negative pressure" vacuum? There is "positive pressure" inside the chamber. Even if we could take out every atom from the chamber (which we cannot), there are neutrinos that blow through all our experiments by the trillions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I see you have moved on to monopoles and negative pressure.

You make a rather extreme statement in stating monopoles do not exist.

Why? If I said "invisible unicorns" do not exist, you would not complain. In most areas of science it is typical to "lack belief" in something unless it has been demonstrated, or might be demonstrated.

Do you have proof of this?

No, and in science I am not required to have proof of this. The onus of responsibility is on you to demonstrate it exists. One cannot ever demonstrate a negative. That is why it is up to you to demonstrate they exist. They don't exist. They violate *laws* of physics.

I don't think there is proof either way. However, there are reasonable suggestions that they have existed and may still exist. They don't violate Maxwell's equations... they add symmetry to them. Nature enjoys symmetry.

Nature enjoys it's laws of physics too. Gauss' law of magnetism assures me that monopoles do not exist, and conservation of energy laws tell me that energy has always existed. I have faith in most laws of physics.

As for negative pressure, you are still confusing classic vacuums with quantum vacuums. Until you can distinguish the difference, your argument against Guth is irrelevant.

Please distinguish between them for me. What would you add or subtract from a pure vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"?