Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Let's change one word here: We can make predictions from creation theory, then test them by observation. God created the heavens and the Earth with inflation. Please demonstrate that I'm wrong. Keep in mind that I have all of your math to support my claim and I have identified the *cause* of the inflation phase.

"Goddidit" is not falsifiable (at least not without a very precise definition of God). LCDM is falsifiable.

So when I go out looking for a cosmology theory, inflation isn't high on my priority list. I'm looking for something scientifically useful, something that actually might help explain something in real experiment, or inside of our solar system. That is what draws me towards Birkeland's work. I know it works in a lab, and I know many of his key 'predictions' (real predictions, not postdicted ones) have been verified by satellites in space. I know that MHD theory and GR theory work here on Earth and I have every reason to believe they work in space. That combo of GR and MHD theory is attractive to me for it's *practical value*, where inflation is pure ad hoc "prophetic" creationism, albeit on a much longer time line than YEC.

Why should the cosmos be useful? Science isn't about what's useful or not (that would be technology). The second law of thermodynamics (for example) is, in some senses, an arse. Doesn't make it wrong.

But papers don't tell us cause, only *experiments* can do that.

Experiment and observation. Observations are reported in those papers.

The "lambda term" as you call it is simply a "change over time" variable. It isn't related to any particular "cause/effect" relationship. Inflation did it is not acceptable because inflation doesn't exist. Likewise "DE" did it is an unacceptable Lambda variable because it doesn't exist in nature either. Lambda existed *before* DE and inflation were stuffed into these equations. Since no cause/effect relationship between inflation and DE and movement was ever shown, these cannot be related to any real force that might be used as Lambda. DE can actually be replace with EM fields right now. Why not get rid of DE and use EM fields in your Lambda?

I don't really understand most of the above. However, we know very well how EM fields work and thus we know they cannot be responsible for an accelerated expansion.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not one of your examples cannot be explained using ordinary *standard* particle physics theory. No new elements or particles are required, no new forms of energy are necessary, and there is nothing in them that cannot be gathered here on Earth. They are simply larger versions of what we already know physically exists inside our own solar system.

Not really. A neutron star is a different kind of matter to anything producible in the lab. It is a macroscopic object with roughly a nuclear density! 1 cm³ of neutron star has a mass of something like 100 million tonnes! And bound states of lots of neutrons certainly isn't part of the "*standard* particle physics theory", we already know there is no bound state of just 2 neutrons. Its is only when you go to scales well well well outside the lab that the idea of a neutron star makes the slightest bit of sense.

 

[Reality Check]

Which specific observation do you believe was an actual "prediction" that was actually accurate before something was actually "measured" in advance? If you claim the CMBR temp was actually predicted accurately I'm going to point out that this prediction was off by at least a factor of 10.

You are making the claim that ""every one of its current so called "predictions" are actually all postdicted from observation".
Where is your evidence?
Or are you just lying?

The CMBR temp is a minor property of the CMBR and has several different historical predictions. The 1964 detection of the CMB was postdicted by BBT. As far as I know the more accurate modern measurement of the CMBR temp were predicted by the BBT. If you have other evidence I would be glad to hear about it, e.g what was the BBT prediction before the COBE measurement?

What about the CMBR thermal and power spectrums? A perfect match from BBT for the thermal spectrum. A good match for the power spectrum (the experimental data for the last 3 peaks have large error bars).

Put yourself in my shoes for just one moment. I've watch the current theory morph from what was once a pretty reasonable theory to one that has been stuffed with so many variables I can never hope to verify or falsify that it has become useless IMO. It's completely postdicted from observation, and there isn't any key prediction that has held up to close scrutiny, not ever. I can't personally put any faith in the idea at all. It's just a big curve fitting exercise with 96 percent fudge factor and 4% physics, and only 4% of the theory is even "testable" here on Earth.

I have tried. But you think that science does not "morph". That is in fact a basic part of science - it changes to explain the facts that the universe presents us and that we measure about the universe.
And you still have not presented your evidence that "It's completely postdicted from observation".

Until you do then I have to think that you are either deluded or a liar since I happen to know at least 1 prediction that was not postdicted.

I am not ignorant of the distinction, I just don't happen to believe in either one of them. DE can already be replace with an EM field, but that would put Lambda-CDM theory dangerously close to EU/PC territory, and therefore the resistance to that idea is intense. Inflation would still be Lambda's Achilles heal and you'd ultimately be left with pure EU/PC over time.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970

If you are not ignorant of the distinction then why do you keep making the mistake of confusing the inflationary phase of the early universe with dark energy?


The paper does not "replace" DE. It suggests two (count them: 1 + 1 = 2) more possible theoretical candidates for DE.

• A generic vector field whose action resembles that of electromagnetism with a mass term could be a good candidate for dark energy
• A temporal electromagnetic field on cosmological scales.

We can add them to the list and once we test them once predictions are produced.

Oh sorry - they have not been tested in the lab and so are probably false according to your criteria.
On the other hand you have cited this paper many times. So can you give us a list of the tests that have been done to establish the existence of the "generic vector field" or the "temporal electromagnetic field on cosmological scales"?

Pure EU/PC is fatally flawed - see the Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not thread which came to the conclusion that PC is merely a collection of mutually inconsistent theories which are mostly wrong (before being high-jacked by you). For example of the several PC theories about the CMB none has matched the power spectrum and I am not aware of any that has even produced the CMBR thermal spectrum. If you have one could you mention it in that thread?

 

[Reality Check]

To help you in your quest for evidence for the claim that ""every one of its current so called "predictions" are actually all postdicted from observation", I suggect that you research sol's list:

• A near-perfect blackbody spectrum for CMB photons
• A nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial density perturbations
• A particular and very characteristic pattern of peaks and valleys in the spectrum of temperature fluctuations (as a function of angle) in the CMB sky
• A particular spectrum for the galaxy and galaxy cluster distribution
• Spatial curvature which is very close to zero.

All you have to do is give the dates and citations of the papers predicting (or postdicting) the above and the dates of the observations of the pre/postdiction.

 

[Dancing David]

But even in such studied you have the ability to ask questions of real people, find out who was malnourished, etc. Again, you have a real and specific physical change "malnourishment", caused by human activity, being traced to a human disease. All of these things involved real known physical changes to real known physical people. The ability of humans to convey direct information to other humans plays a major role in these studies and all of them take place here on Earth where the variables are changed by human beings in most cases.

You're still not doing "experiments", your just taking "measurements", unless of course the stars are talking to you and giving you specific information about their past.

Whatever, you are getting an 'F' on your term paper for not addressing the point. This is spin doctoring. You have not addressed the issue, retropsective data is the same as observational data.

Please continue to undermine your credibility with tehse faux responses.

You can't address the main point, go ahead make you self look worse by changing the topic

It is not "nonsense" to expect you to be able to empirically demonstrate your claim in a real physical way. The fact you cannot do so, does not make my argument nonsense, it makes your argument nonsense. I'm interested in empirical physics, not pure leaps of faith in non existent entities that have no material affect on the real world.

Sure whatever, you did not asnwer my point but just dodge and weave.

All of the "natural experiments" you mention are done *here on Earth*, mostly involving human beings that can communicate with each other, affect one another, and study one another up close and personal. You can do that with distant stars.

Uh huh, okay , sure wahtever.

You are beggining to show that you are not here to discuss.

You are very wrong. Go ahead make a fool of yourself, it shows that you have your political agenda and you are not here other than to tout your personal agenda.

I await your answers to the questions i asked, but you are not interested in science.

You have now said geology and archaeology are not science. next you will go for the trifecta by saying we can not prove the theory of evolution.

You still don't get what proving a theory means, do you?

 

[Dancing David]

I am interested in real answers, but you avoided my question. I asked you it's original "size" prior to the "bang". Care to answer the specific question with specific answers?

And if you were interested in the answer it is
"We don't know."
Given the current closed state of the universe (according to the theory), we can not see past the Big band starting to play, we can not see the hall of the Sheet Music, so it is a moot point.

We are observing what we can not asking what color shoes angels wear when they dance on the head of a pin.

It could be god, it could be branes, it could be an outrush of gas from the Cosmic Coyote after they ate the Primordial Burrito.

But again you can not tell the difference, so what point is there in asking.

Ontology is moot at this point. We from the nature of the theory of GR live in a universe that we can not tell what is outside the bounds of the universe in space or time.

Moot question, try answering a real one, what about the fact there there do not appear to be enough microlensing events to account for MACHOs making up the DM component?

 

[Dancing David]

To help you in your quest for evidence for the claim that ""every one of its current so called "predictions" are actually all postdicted from observation", I suggect that you research sol's list:

• A near-perfect blackbody spectrum for CMB photons
• A nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial density perturbations
• A particular and very characteristic pattern of peaks and valleys in the spectrum of temperature fluctuations (as a function of angle) in the CMB sky
• A particular spectrum for the galaxy and galaxy cluster distribution
• Spatial curvature which is very close to zero.

All you have to do is give the dates and citations of the papers predicting (or postdicting) the above and the dates of the observations of the pre/postdiction.

Enquiring minds want to know!

 

[sol invictus]

I am interested in real answers, but you avoided my question. I asked you it's original "size" prior to the "bang". Care to answer the specific question with specific answers?

I already did. You ignored them. Game over.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2458/which-came-first-galaxy-or-black-hole

Posting that link illustrates either:

1) a total incomprehension of the discussion we were just having
2) a total incomprehension of the article at the link
3) schizophrenia - you're now arguing my side with the version of you that was arguing with me earlier.

That article is about whether the first objects to form were black holes or galaxies. First objects to form - i.e. there were none of either before some time.

When I ask your for specifics I get the run around. Why is that?

Because you chase yourself in circles.

What is the point of citing this paper? I don't get it.

To prove that his earlier self (the one that ranted about how all energy densities decrease with expansion and anything else is faerie farts) was a stupid idiot. The central claim of that paper was that the energy in EM fields does not decrease with the expansion. The ironic part is that the paper is of course totally wrong (all forms of EM field energy decrease like a^{-4}).

 

[Skwinty]

I suspect that you are right but that does not invalidate inflation - that just makes it into an unconfirmed scientific theory.
You are still ignorant of the fact that inflation has nothing to do with the acceleration & dark energy. Or maybe you have just renamed the Big Bang Theory yet again?
Is it "Big Bang Theory" == "Lambda-CDM Theory" == "Inflation Theory" == the next thing that MM thinks of?

Question here:
I have just read physicsjournal_fall_02_cosmology.pdf by Guth

http://web.mit.edu/physics/alumniandfriends/physicsjournal_fall_02_cosmology.pdf

here are 2 quotes:

"In May 2001 a headline in Astronomy announced
that “Universal Music Sings of Inflation,” and two months later
Physics Today referred to the latest measurements of the cosmic background radiation as “another triumph for inflation.”
In this article I will try to describe the meaning of these new
developments, but to put them in context we should begin by
discussing the big bang theory and cosmic inflation."

"While it may be too early to say that inflation is proved, the case for inflation is certainly compelling. It is hard to even conceive of an alternative theory that could explain the basic features of the observed universe. (The recently proposed cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok claims to reproduce all the successes of inflation, but it does so by introducing a form of inflation, albeit a very novel one.) Not only
does inflation produce just the kind of special bang that matches the qualitative properties of the observed universe, but its detailed predictions for the total mass density of the universe and for the form of the primordial density fluctuations are now in excellent agreement with observations.

While the case for inflation is strong, it should be stressed that inflation is really
a paradigm and not a theory. The statement that the universe arose from inflation,
if it is true, is not the end of the study of cosmic origins"


My question relates to the bold italic(mine)

Have any of these three theories, Big Bang Theory" "Lambda-CDM Theory" "Inflation Theory", been upgraded from paradigm to theory.

Apparently, pedantry is important in science, hence the question.

PS I realise that Guth said this in 2002, jusy wondering if there was anything as exciting as "Universal Music Sings of Inflation" since then, that would promote the paradigm to official theory.

The word paradigm (Greek:παράδειγμα (paradigma), composite from para- and the verb δείχνυμι "to show", as a whole -roughly- meaning "example") (IPA: /ˈpærədaɪm/) has been used in linguistics and science to describe distinct concepts.

 

[sol invictus]

Have any of these three theories, Big Bang Theory" "Lambda-CDM Theory" "Inflation Theory", been upgraded from paradigm to theory.

It's not really a question of "upgrading". What he means by that is that there is a whole class of different models for inflation, all of which are consistent with the evidence so far (although the new WMAP data, which is very precise, has now ruled out some of those that were OK before). The more data there is, the more that class will be constrained, eventually (hopefully) leaving one specific model standing.

Similarly you might say that Darwin's version of evolution was a paradigm - he recognized that variability plus selection pressure leads to evolution, but he didn't know the origin of heredity or variability, and there were many gaps in the specifics of how the evolution of life on earth actually happened. There remain many gaps in our knowledge, but the evidence has become strong and varied enough that most people now think of evolution as a theory.

With that distinction in mind I would say that the "Big Bang Theory", as you term it, is really a paradigm - there is a big bang in any of an enormous range of models. That's because the existence of a big bang is implied by just two facts: that gravity is attractive and that the universe is expanding. Just about any theory in which those two facts hold has a big bang - which I suppose makes the big bang itself more of a paradigm than a theory. Lambda-CDM, on the other hand, is much more specific (although it still has some undetermined or barely constrained parameters in it). I would call that a theory, or at least a model.

But clearly these are word games. The truth lies not in the names we give these things but in their actual content and predictive power.

 

[Skwinty]

But clearly these are word games. The truth lies not in the names we give these things but in their actual content and predictive power.

Thanks for the concise answer.

Question about word games:

Are word games not a part of Science, having to express complex mathematical equations and concepts into understandable language?

According to Kuhn,

1. When paradigms enter into a debate about fundamental questions and paradigm choice, each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense—the result is a circularity and inability to share a universe of discourse.

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks for the concise answer.

Question about word games:

Are word games not a part of Science, having to express complex mathematical equations and concepts into understandable language?

I could say no, that the equation is all one needs... but I don't actually believe that. Equations are not much use without a context and an interpretation.

According to Kuhn,

1. When paradigms enter into a debate about fundamental questions and paradigm choice, each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense—the result is a circularity and inability to share a universe of discourse.

That evidently doesn't apply to cosmology. If it did, a heliocentric solar system would never have replaced an earth centered one, an expanding universe would never have replaced a static one, etc. Presumably Kuhn has some more fundamental kinds of paradigms in mind - but even then I don't really agree. What works in the simplest and easiest way wins. What fails to work, loses and disappears into history books.

If you accept the existence of an external reality that follows logical rules then you must accept that some models are closer to that and some are farther away. Those that are closer work better, and they succeed.

If philosophers were in charge, we'd still be living in mud huts .

 

[Skwinty]

IIf philosophers were in charge, we'd still be living in mud huts .

Once again, good answer!

I would say upgrade the mud huts a bit, and humanity would probably be happier, (die sooner initially, until the genes improved), have far fewer problems and of course there would be a lot less of us. Now, imagine a world like that.

But, the philosophers of old missed their chance, they conjured up science. If one considers the rate of "progress" today it should be almost at infinity, When is the bubble going to burst.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What is the point of citing this paper? I don't get it.

Lambda's DE can already be replaced with EM fields, so essentially it is classifiable as a PC/EU theory with a supernatural inflation component.

Inflation is a testable hypothesis.

False. It's gone now, so no experiment on Earth will ever verify it, and nothing could possibly falsify it. All it's "predictions" were all postdictions, and every "failure" just results on a new inflation model. It's the ultimate in unfalsifiable theories.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Goddidit" is not falsifiable (at least not without a very precise definition of God). LCDM is falsifiable.

God loves us and created the physical universe for us. There, I assigned an unfalsifiable "quality" to it. That is *exactly* the kind of thing you are doing with inflation by the way.

Why should the cosmos be useful?

Why shouldn't it be connected to events here in this solar system?

Science isn't about what's useful or not (that would be technology). The second law of thermodynamics (for example) is, in some senses, an arse. Doesn't make it wrong.

I can experiment and *test* the laws of thermodynamics.

Experiment and observation. Observations are reported in those papers.

I observe that others love God and God loves us so obviously Goddidit. It's a "natural experiment" by the way.

I don't really understand most of the above. However, we know very well how EM fields work and thus we know they cannot be responsible for an accelerated expansion.

That paper says otherwise. It suggests DE can be replaced with any vector field, and the author demonstrated it works with EM fields. It means Lambda theory is actually a PC/EU theory with an unfalsifiable inflation deity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really. A neutron star is a different kind of matter to anything producible in the lab. It is a macroscopic object with roughly a nuclear density! 1 cm³ of neutron star has a mass of something like 100 million tonnes! And bound states of lots of neutrons certainly isn't part of the "*standard* particle physics theory", we already know there is no bound state of just 2 neutrons. Its is only when you go to scales well well well outside the lab that the idea of a neutron star makes the slightest bit of sense.

Unlike inflation, a neutron shows up in a real experiment, as does a quark. I therefore have no problem allowing you to "scale" these theories to size and create stars with them if you like. I realize you can't build them here on Earth, and so it's simply a scaling factor.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Cosmos Invictus

I could say no, that the equation is all one needs... but I don't actually believe that. Equations are not much use without a context and an interpretation.

If I may expand on the worthy point made by the Unconquered Sun ...
Indeed Equations need an context & interpretation, but ... One must start with the equation, not with the words. So discussions like the ones we commonly have on forums like this one never amount to much because it's all words. Worse, most of the words are bluster, feint, assertion, insult & etc., and few of the words have any depth of character.

If in fact the standard cosmological model is "woo" (I don't know for sure what "woo" is supposed to be, but I gather from context & interpretation that it is not a sign of respect & admiration), then one should be able to show how the equations fail to produce model universes that are consistent with the observations of the One True Universe (shall we say Cosmos Invictus?).

Absent this truly scientific approach, all of this long discussion really only amounts to an interesting diversion from the hum-drum existence of everyday life. Of course, no one who actually had an "everyday life" would be here doing this, but I digress ...

 

[Michael Mozina]

I already did. You ignored them. Game over.

Bull. You specifically avoided the size issue *entirely* and quite *deliberately*.

Posting that link illustrates either:

1) a total incomprehension of the discussion we were just having
2) a total incomprehension of the article at the link
3) schizophrenia - you're now arguing my side with the version of you that was arguing with me earlier.

Or it just went right over your head.

That article is about whether the first objects to form were black holes or galaxies. First objects to form - i.e. there were none of either before some time.

How much "time"? When I was a kid in school it presumably took *billions* (plural) of years for galaxies form and become stable. Now we're down to less than one billion, probably less than 500 million years. The observations are always a 'surprise' and the numbers have been lowered consistently now for the last 30 something years.

To prove that his earlier self (the one that ranted about how all energy densities decrease with expansion and anything else is faerie farts) was a stupid idiot. The central claim of that paper was that the energy in EM fields does not decrease with the expansion.

That's 'cause they are powered by inflation farts.

The ironic part is that the paper is of course totally wrong (all forms of EM field energy decrease like a^{-4}).

It does not decrease when it's being powered by magic faerie farts. Didn't you read the paper? It "proved" it for you with math.

 

[sol invictus]

Lambda's DE can already be replaced with EM fields, so essentially it is classifiable as a PC/EU theory with a supernatural inflation component.

Gibberish. If EM fields really behaved that way (which they don't) they wouldn't "replace" DE, they could be DE. You still haven't managed to get it through your head that "DE" is just a name for whatever energy is causing the rate of expansion to increase. As for that suddenly turning Lambda-CDM into PC/EU, that's too stupid to even reply to.

My favorite part of all this is how I've pointed out several times what a blatant schizophrenic you're being here - you earlier screamed and screamed about how nothing to fail to dilute with expansion, and now you're promoting a paper that claimed precisely that lack of dilution for standard EM fields - and you've repeatedly ignored that and simply gone on as if there was no problem. As you have with every other substantive issues that have arisen.

False. It's gone now, so no experiment on Earth will ever verify it, and nothing could possibly falsify it. All it's "predictions" were all postdictions, and every "failure" just results on a new inflation model. It's the ultimate in unfalsifiable theories.

Keep arguing with yourself.... you earlier claimed it had already been falsified. Then you said it couldn't be falsified. Then you said it had already been falsified. And throughout you have refused to respond to all the specific falsifiable predictions it has made that have been brought up, or back up any of your wrong claims that it never predicted anything.

You're a troll, and worse - a boring and repetitive one. That's the cardinal sin of trolls.

 

[sol invictus]

Bull. You specifically avoided the size issue *entirely* and quite *deliberately*.

Whatever.

Or it just went right over your head.

[sarcasm]Yes - everyone reading this is convinced of that, I'm sure.[/sarcasm]

How much "time"? When I was a kid in school it presumably took *billions* (plural) of years for galaxies form and become stable. Now we're down to less than one billion, probably less than 500 million years. The observations are always a 'surprise' and the numbers have been lowered consistently now for the last 30 something years.

No idea what you're trying to say. Looks like another burst of incoherence to avoid discussing anything substantive.

That's 'cause they are powered by inflation farts.


It does not decrease when it's being powered by magic faerie farts. Didn't you read the paper? It "proved" it for you with math.

First it was totally impossible, then it was right and refuted the mainstream, then it was so right it was PC/EU, and now it's "faerie farts".

In case anyone else cares, it's wrong (the math is wrong, as is the physics and the conclusion).