Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Can you demonstrate that it exists outside of your imagination in a real "experiment"?

Going on your rather bizzarre definition of real, probably not.

Why didn't you just throw out the theory of inflation instead? What *exactly* is it going to take to falsify inflation?

What are you talking about? Inflation refers to the early period of the Universe, dark energy the later stages. These are independent.

So they just "made up" a new force in nature instead?

No.

Guth invented it. The fact I can cite the actual human imagination that invented it should be your first clue. The second clue is that if failed to accurately predict anything since that time.

I can cite the actual human being who devised Newton's law of gravity. So what?

I would really like to know exactly what it would take to falsify inflation at this point? How about that dark flow? Where it inflation actually "predict" that? Why didn't it predict these structures?

See my earlier post. And please make up your mind. It can't be both dead and unfalsifiable.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. The Lambda term was in the Friedmann equation back in the 1920's. Observational evidence seemed to suggest it was 0 so people generally ignored it. When observation suggested it wasn't 0, people stop ignoring it.

Obviously then, the term 'lambda' doesn't by definition have anything to do "inflation". Can you demonstrate that inflation exists and has some effect on nature?

Make your mind up. You kept saying it was dead before. The frequency with which you contradict yourself is disturbing.

Inflation supposedly no longer exists in nature and hasn't existed now for billions of years, but the hypothesis/theory never dies.

As you've been told we have to be sure dark flows are real first. Check out "pentaquarks" for an excellent example of probable false positives in physics.

So....

If it turns out that "dark flows" are actually confirmed, will that observation falsify inflation? If not, why not?

 

[Tubbythin]

Obviously then, the term 'lambda' doesn't by definition have anything to do "inflation". Can you demonstrate that inflation exists and has some effect on nature?

Can you explain why the Universe is flat without it?

If it turns out that "dark flows" are actually confirmed, will that observation falsify inflation? If not, why not?

You've already had perfectly good answers to this question (from others more knowlageable on this subject than me).

 

[Ziggurat]

It's mostly a handwave of an argument. Didn't you see my link? It would depend entirely on where we find the ambiplasma layers are located, and what sort of process was in play in the double layer.

No. If Aflven is right, then ambiplasma should surround us in all directions. His cosmology faces a variant of Olbers' paradox.

Those emissions from the core of the galaxy may suggest that the galaxy itself has an inner antimatter section and an outer matter section for all I know.

Then evidently you don't know much. The annihilation rates are not high enough to come from entire sections of the galaxy being antimatter.

I have no idea why you think we should be awash in proton-antiproton radiation,

Because if Alfven is right, we should be surrounded by ambiplasma, which should be giving off such radiation on a continual basis.

but we do observe matter-antimatter "clouds" in the core of even our own galaxy.

You seem to be reading far too much into the term "cloud". This is NOT a cloud made up of mostly antimatter. It is just a large region in which electron-positron annihilation is occurring. And it's occurring throughout that region, not simply at the edges as you would expect if there was really a separate antimatter region to the galaxy. As I already stated, the intensities are far too low for completely separate matter/antimatter regions coming into contact. In fact, the article suggests a likely source:

"Equally importantly, Integral found evidence that a population of binary stars is also significantly off-centre, corresponding in extent to the cloud of antimatter. That powerfully suggests these objects, known as hard (because they emit at high energies) low mass X-ray binaries, are responsible for a major amount of antimatter."

None of this matches an ambiplasma scenario.

 

[Reality Check]

Can you demonstrate that it exists outside of your imagination in a real "experiment"?

Like I said: Dark energy is an observation.

Why didn't you just throw out the theory of inflation instead? What *exactly* is it going to take to falsify inflation?

Like I said: Finding that the predictions of the inflationary period of the early universe are false.

So they just "made up" a new force in nature instead?

There is no new force "made up". If dark energy is the vacuum energy then it was always in GR (the cosmological constant). But it may be something else. That is the point. Dark energy is a label for an observation. It is not what causes the effect that was observed. That is still to be determined.

Guth invented it. The fact I can cite the actual human imagination that invented it should be your first clue. The second clue is that if failed to accurately predict anything since that time.

Citation please MM.

I would really like to know exactly what it would take to falsify inflation at this point? How about that dark flow? Where it inflation actually "predict" that? Why didn't it predict these structures?

As above.

Dark flow was not predicted because no one thought of it. In any case as people have pointed out to you

1. Dark flow is a single analysis with an unknown cause.
2. Even if it is found to be a real feacture of the universe it may just place an upper limit on inflation. as sol posted:

At this point it's impossible to tell. First off, the result is probably systematic error. As I said before it's extremely difficult to remove the effect of coherent motions of galaxy clusters from this.

But let's say it's real - that if you average the peculiar velocities of clusters over our entire Hubble volume, you get a non-zero result. As far as I can see that immediately falsifies any theory of inflation which lasted even a few more than the absolute minimum number of e-foldings necessary to explain horizon and flatness. And depending on the magnitude of the velocity, it could falsify even minimal inflation too. Without doing a careful analysis I don't know where that cross-over point is, but there certainly is one - and this is one of an infinite number of observations we could make which would falsify inflation.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Yet another of MM's inexhaustible supply of complete self-contradictions is that he screams about how inflation isn't scientific and can't be tested, and then turns around and rants about how it's already been falsified by dark flows. I don't think I've ever seen any poster reach quite that level of blatant hypocrisy. In fact at this level it's more like schizophrenia than hypocrisy.

 

[Reality Check]

It's mostly a handwave of an argument. Didn't you see my link? It would depend entirely on where we find the ambiplasma layers are located, and what sort of process was in play in the double layer. Those emissions from the core of the galaxy may suggest that the galaxy itself has an inner antimatter section and an outer matter section for all I know. I have no idea why you think we should be awash in proton-antiproton radiation, but we do observe matter-antimatter "clouds" in the core of even our own galaxy.

No. It is an exact prediction of ambiplasma. In an eternal, static universe with massive amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation the gamma rays from the annihilation form an observable background. They have not been observed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you explain why the Universe is flat without it?

If I can't explain it without it, that is not an automatic "inflationofthegaps" option that allows you to stuff inflation in there. It's flat because it's always been that way for all I know. A better answer is "I don't know why it's flat". Again however, my inability to explain it's flatness is not an excuse for instantly stuffing inflation into the gaps.

You've already had perfectly good answers to this question (from others more knowlageable on this subject than me).

In other words, no, someone will just tweak the alleged properties of inflation until they "postdict" another fit, and away we go again. What *possible way* is there to falsify a constantly postdicted theory based on no less than 3 different fudge factors and only 4% real physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. It is an exact prediction of ambiplasma.

Wouldn't that depend on *where* the double layer is located? The article I cited suggests such a layer could exist at near the core of every galaxy. The "glow" from such a matter-antimatter annihilation zone can be seen from our solar system. The amount of light will be directly related to the layout and density and the manner of interaction within that layer.

In an eternal, static universe

First off, I'm not attached to either of these options. In other words Alfven also wrote a "Bang" theory that I entertain, and I'm not attached to a static or an eternal physical universe as we understand it.

with massive amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation the gamma rays from the annihilation form an observable background. They have not been observed.

I agree, we have not observed such a thing, but we do observe positron-electron annihilation from the core of our own galaxy and I have every reason to believe it could happen in any galaxy. The actual layout of matter and antimatter would determine the "rate" of annihilation and it need not necessarily be "massive" as you suggest. I'm open to lots of options. I don't profess to know how the universe got started, when it got started or anything of the sort. All I know is "inflation" didn't have anything to do with it because inflation does not exist in nature. The same is true of "dark energy".

 

[Reality Check]

Wouldn't that depend on *where* the double layer is located? The article I cited suggests such a layer could exist at near the core of every galaxy. The "glow" from such a matter-antimatter annihilation zone can be seen from out solar system. The amount of light will be directly related to the layout and the manner of interaction within that layer.



First off, I'm not attached to either of these options. In other words Alfven also wrote a "Bang" theory that I entertain, and I'm not attached to a static or an eternal physical universe as we understand it.



I agree, we have not observed such a thing, but we do observe positron-electron annihilation from the core of our own galaxy and I have every reason to believe it could happen in any galaxy. The actual layout of matter and antimatter would determine the "rate" of annihilation and it need not necessarily be "massive" as you suggest. I'm open to lots of options. I don't profess to know how the universe got started, when it got started or anything of the sort. All I know is "inflation" didn't have anything to do with it because inflation does not exist in nature. The same is true of "dark energy".

The ambiplasma that I am talking about (and the one in the original posting) is the one in Alfvén plasma cosmology.
On second thoughts nothing to do with this thread and so this is my last post on the subject.

There have clouds of antimatter detected at the center of the Milky Way. These have nothing to do with cosmological ambiplasma. They are not even remnants of cosmological ambiplasma.

If you read the article you would have read that the source of the antimatter is very probably hard low mass X-ray binaries:

The new results give astronomers a valuable new clue and point away from dark matter as the origin of the antimatter. Beyond the galactic centre, the cloud is not entirely spherical. Instead it is lopsided with twice as much on one side of the galactic centre as the other. Such a distribution is highly unusual because gas in the inner region of the galaxy is relatively evenly distributed. Equally importantly, Integral found evidence that a population of binary stars is also significantly off-centre, corresponding in extent to the cloud of antimatter. That powerfully suggests these objects, known as hard (because they emit at high energies) low mass X-ray binaries, are responsible for a major amount of antimatter.

 

[Perpetual Student]

"Spacetime" can certainly 'expand' as the objects that makeup spacetime "spread out" and coast away from each other over time. There are many people that believe "space expansion" is a complete misnomer, and that the only form of 'expansion' that actually occurs in nature is simple object expansion, not "space expansion". Here's a recent paper on this topic:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

I don't get it. What's the difference between space-time expanding and space expanding?

 

[temporalillusion]

Please explain the difference between making an observation in the lab and making an observation in an observatory.
I'm sure you can buy a $50 telescope at Walmart and discover Venus , Jupiter etc.

That's my point, I don't think there is a fundamental difference, MM thinks there is (although not always, the distinction of when there's a difference is unclear).

A lab observation is (or has the possibility to be anyway) easier because you can control variables. Move the lens, put it in a Faraday cage, factor out the earth's movement, whatever. It's harder to do when you have no control over what you are observing; coming up with different ways of looking at things to isolate variables.

How about giving me an actual example. Field "experiments" are fine as long as there is a control mechanism involved. "Observational studies" can be ok as well as long as I can be sure what you claim "did it" actually exists in nature and has some effect on nature. I can't tell if inflation once existed based *only* upon an observation.

Field experiments can involve a control, but the observations are made in the "wild" rather than in a lab. Medical studies where a control group receives a placebo.

Observational studies can lack a control, you can't run a medical study of a life saving drug by giving a placebo and seeing who dies, so these are more difficult.

You left out natural experiments... This is what astronomy and cosmology mostly utilize. Natural experiments rely on observations only, because variables can't be manipulated. So the observations are made to try and isolate the variables.

As for examples of fields that depend on natural experiments.. ecology, economics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, sociology, and medicine are all fields that will depend heavily on natural experiments where observations are the main (or only) kind of experiments that can be done.

 

[Reality Check]

"Spacetime" can certainly 'expand' as the objects that makeup spacetime "spread out" and coast away from each other over time. There are many people that believe "space expansion" is a complete misnomer, and that the only form of 'expansion' that actually occurs in nature is simple object expansion, not "space expansion". Here's a recent paper on this topic:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

The paper is not what MM thinks it is. It is an exploration of the consequences of looking at an empty Friedman universe. Its conclusions are applicable to that model and only that model.


From my non-expert point of view, the author makes a couple of dubious statements:

• His comments on page 2 about the expansion not being experienced locally suggests that he does know that the expansion is locally overwhelmed by gravity.
• He mentions several times that the superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies conflicts with SR. This is not the case and he even quotes a SciAm article stating so!

 

[Michael Mozina]

The ambiplasma that I am talking about (and the one in the original posting) is the one in Alfvén plasma cosmology.
On second thoughts nothing to do with this thread and so this is my last post on the subject.

Alright.

There have clouds of antimatter detected at the center of the Milky Way. These have nothing to do with cosmological ambiplasma. They are not even remnants of cosmological ambiplasma.

I agree. They simply "could" be remnants of a layer between two types of matter that form every galaxy for all I know.

If you read the article you would have read that the source of the antimatter is very probably hard low mass X-ray binaries:

This goes back to my previous point about how one chooses to "interpret" the data. Such ideas are well mathematically quantified, and scientifically sound principles, but they require a significantly large change in the number and layout of x-ray binaries. How they would sustain such a layer in a whole spherical (more like a teardrop) shape remains relatively unexplained.

Alfven's "bang" was predicated upon a massive collision of matter and antimatter galaxies that presumably rearranged themselves as the annihilation process unfolded. Because Alfven put forth so many different theories, I'm not even sure we're discussing the same theory.

All I'm noting is that the only evidence I see of an ambiplasma layer are those annihilation signatures we observe near the core of our own galaxy. I'm not suggesting it's the *only* viable explanation for those observations however.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't get it. What's the difference between space-time expanding and space expanding?

Superluminal expansion is not possible in the former scenario, only in the later. We could not live in a universe that was larger than 27.4 billion light years across in an "objects in motion" sort of expansion, at least not if the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. That is because objects of mass cannot travel faster than light. That might not be necessarily true by the way if they were not claiming that all the matter and energy in the universe was once condensed into something that was once smaller than a breadbox.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's my point, I don't think there is a fundamental difference, MM thinks there is (although not always, the distinction of when there's a difference is unclear).

A lab observation is (or has the possibility to be anyway) easier because you can control variables. Move the lens, put it in a Faraday cage, factor out the earth's movement, whatever. It's harder to do when you have no control over what you are observing; coming up with different ways of looking at things to isolate variables.

Sure, I agree. I do however see dirt in my backyard. I have no doubt that there is "dirt" on Mars too and potentially lots of planets. We can build high powered telescopes and see planets in orbit. As long as you aren't trying to claim that a planet is made of something other than ordinary elements, you aren't making any extraordinary claims. If however I tried to claim they were made of some other kind of element or particle or something unknown in any other branch of physics, that would be an extraordinary claim. Guth's inflation was an "extraordinary' claim. That part also requires a demonstration of concept.

You left out natural experiments... This is what astronomy and cosmology mostly utilize. Natural experiments rely on observations only, because variables can't be manipulated. So the observations are made to try and isolate the variables.

These are not "natural experiments". They are simply "uncontrolled observations followed by a bunch of subjective individual and collective interpretations". There is no "experiment" without a control mechanism. It's simply an observation of nature, nothing more.

As for examples of fields that depend on natural experiments.. ecology, economics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, sociology, and medicine are all fields that will depend heavily on natural experiments where observations are the main (or only) kind of experiments that can be done.

I'm not sure I follow you. Most such studies are done here on earth using real things in controlled experiments. Even your placebo experiment is in fact a physical control mechanism. It's not fancy mind you, but it's a physically tangible control mechanism.

The only field of science that I'm aware of that confuses "experiment" with "observation" is the field of astronomy. Astronomers have their own lingo entirely when it comes to science. An observation of nature is not and never has been an "experiment". If you cannot control any of the parameters, its impossible to determine "cause", and ultimately that is what this debate is all about. Inflation believers are claiming they have isolated the "cause" of expansion without experimental support of concept.

 

[sol invictus]

Guth's inflation was an "extraordinary' claim. That part also requires a demonstration of concept.

That's a completely subjective judgment based on your personal estimate of the relative likelihood of theories. Making such estimates is dicey at best, and when the person doing it is totally uninformed about the basics of the topic in question, the result could hardly be less relevant.

And of course in the case of inflation, the evidence for is overwhelming.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Like I said: Dark energy is an observation.

No. You *subjectively* choose to "interpret" redshift as being primarily related to expansion. Subjective choice was involved in this process. Arp for instance doesn't choose to "interpret" these same phenomenon as you do. Individuals can easily interpret observation differently which is why 'experimentation' is so helpful.

Like I said: Finding that the predictions of the inflationary period of the early universe are false.

Like? Please, be specific. What exactly would it take to convince you that inflation has been falsified once and for all?

There is no new force "made up". If dark energy is the vacuum energy then it was always in GR (the cosmological constant). But it may be something else. That is the point. Dark energy is a label for an observation.

It is simply a placeholder term for human ignorance related to a subjective theory related to a redshift observation. It's not just an "observation", there is "subjective choice" involved in this process. You keep trying to ignore the subjective nature of "interpreting" an observation of nature. This is why a controlled experiment is critical when trying to determine "cause". There could be many possible causes and no sure way to tell which of them applies. Only a real "experiment" can help us determine cause/effect relationships, not pure observations.

 

[Dancing David]

And again, you have not offered counter to DM, part of CDM.

So you don't like it.

Big whoop, it is hypothsized that there are partciles that don't interact except through the gravitational force. that is DM.

I know you won't answer.

How do you explain the rotation curves?

You won't because you can't. Pretty obvious, and again another disappointment. The darn theory (PC) has merit especialyy in the early universe (where the scales and energies would make plasma a dominant force.)
You do not address the fact that DM addresses MM, the rotation curves of galaxies. It is an issue in the observable universe and like the spectrum of the CMB you avoid it. No wonder.

And objects other than galaxies as well. DM is a hypothesis,
1. What is a better explanation for the rotation curve issue?

 

[temporalillusion]

These are not "natural experiments". They are simply "uncontrolled observations followed by a bunch of subjective individual and collective interpretations". There is no "experiment" without a control mechanism. It's simply an observation of nature, nothing more.

And through multiple observations you can isolate variables, which is the whole point of a controlled experiment.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-naturalexperiment.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/experiment/pop3e.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment#Natural_experiments

I'm not sure I follow you. Most such studies are done here on earth using real things in controlled experiments. Even your placebo experiment is in fact a physical control mechanism. It's not fancy mind you, but it's a physically tangible control mechanism.

Not all medical experiments can use a placebo though, in some cases it would be unethical, or impossible to control. You can't setup a "control" country in sociology. You can have a control group, but that's a natural experiment because you're trying to account for variables and isolate for a desired phenomenon.

It's a common creationist outcry that you can't show common descent in a lab. You can't reproduce geological events in a lab.

Yes yes I know you're going to say but those are "real" things and that inflation is magic. Sol already covered that.

The only field of science that I'm aware of that confuses "experiment" with "observation" is the field of astronomy. Astronomers have their own lingo entirely when it comes to science. An observation of nature is not and never has been an "experiment". If you cannot control any of the parameters, its impossible to determine "cause", and ultimately that is what this debate is all about. Inflation believers are claiming they have isolated the "cause" of expansion without experimental support of concept.

Observation of nature can be an "experiment" in the sense that you can observe to isolate variables etc.. To discount a natural experiment is to discount wide swaths of study across many domains.

So I would disagree about the experimental support, based on my defining a natural experiment as an experiment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a completely subjective judgment based on your personal estimate of the relative likelihood of theories.

So is your personal interpretation of redshift. Give me a break. It's an entirely reasonable request to expect you to demonstrate exists in nature and has the effect you claim it can have. I want to see a cause and effect relationship established between inflation and expansion before I start letting you point at objects in the sky and claiming inflation did it.

In the case of inflation, no other branch of science requires it or needs it or hints at it. More importantly, nothing like it exists in nature *that can be demonstrated here and now* in a lab. It's purely an ad hoc creation that cannot ever be empirically demonstrated. It is necessarily an act of faith, not empirical scientific truth.

Making such estimates is dicey at best, and when the person doing it is totally uninformed about the basics of the topic in question, the result could hardly be less relevant.

Spoken like a true numerologist. Get real.

It's a totally reasonable for any skeptic to request a demonstration of concept. If you told me EM fields caused expansion of objects, I'm sure you could demonstrate EM fields exist and have an effect on plasma. The problem is Guth simply 'made up' inflation in his head, it doesn't exist, you can't empirically demonstrate your case, and it's a act of faith on your part.

And of course in the case of inflation, the evidence for is overwhelming.

The really "overwhelming" thing about inflation is its smell. It smells just like numerology and evidently it is equally useful at predicting the outcome of any experiment. The other overwhelming thing about it is the number of excuses you'll make for being unable to empirically demonstrate it empirically. If you can't demonstrate inflation exists or has any effect on nature today or in the future, how in the world can it be a form of "science"? It is a pure act of faith on the part of the believer.

Evidently nothing, not even those "dark flows" that surprised everyone can put a dent in your faith.