Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

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.

You said:

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.

This is quite simply untrue. We have no neutron-degenerate macroscopic systems in the Solar System so how can it be a simple scaling factor? 0*any real scaling factor still = 0.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is quite simply untrue. We have no neutron-degenerate macroscopic systems in the Solar System so how can it be a simple scaling factor? 0*any real scaling factor still = 0.

The obvious difference between inflation and neutrons is that one shows up in an actual experiment with real control mechanisms and the other never could. I know that neutrons exist in nature. I can't scale them to a size necessary to be certain they "degenerate under pressure", but so what? I can't stuff enough mass together to build something with an event horizon either. I can't put enough hydrogen together to create a working sun here on Earth. I have no trouble letting anyone scale a known thing/force/curvature to size *as long as* they can demonstrate they aren't trying to scale an imaginary thing, like invisible dead inflation unicorns.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quick question:

Is there any "real empirical physics" That is entirely devoid of numbers? of measurements?

In today's physics labs there are many very impressive gadgets (instruments, detectors, and so on). Presumably you agree that these devices are an essential part of doing "real empirical physics" (do you?). To what extent would you say that the design and construction of these started "real empirical physics, not a postdicted mathematical equation" (or many such equations)?

I suppose the primary difference here between something like a Higgs and inflation is that a Higgs presumably still exists and can be confirmed/falsified experimentally whereas inflation cannot.

The second major difference is that the mathematical model of a Higgs is based upon a series of other particles that have been identified and who's "properties" can be confirmed experimentally in the standard fashion.

Inflation on the other hand was not based on anything except "gap filler" and wild imagination. It was literally designed from the start to "fill in the gaps" of what we could not explain, with something that was entirely "new" and has never been seen before or since. It was a wild imaginary fabrication from one guy's imagination.

Since that time, every single *hole*, *flow* or acceleration is simply stuffed with more gap filler that has also never been seen before or since on Earth. Come on. These aren't even in the same league as it relates to the use of mathematics. One mathematical models is based on empirical physics, and physical hardware has been built to "verify" these models one step further. The other one doesn't exist. It can't *ever* be verified. It's a pure fabrication from one guy and the mathematical models are changed every time another "gap' appears.

I *love* mathematics and physics when they are put together. I love physics even when I don't understand the math. I love the math even if I don't understand it sometimes. The only thing I don't like is mathematical postdicted pseudoscience being passed off as "science".

 

[Michael Mozina]

No fail - MM still does not know anything about inflation.


No fail - MM still does not know anything about inflation.

Which version, the old ones or the "new and improved" postdicted versions?

Show me where the prevailing inflation model "predicted" those "dark flow"?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Huh? I already said "Goddidit" was unfalsifiable.

But that's my point. "Inflation did it" is equally unfalsifiable! The weird part is that most folks believe God to exist today, whereas inflation does not. I mean the only difference between these leaps of faith is that one belief *might* be verified someday, whereas one could never be verified experimentally ever! Can't you see the irony in that?

How did you observe that God loves us?

I have this "natural experiment" you see. It demonstrates that humans have believed in God and claimed to have experienced God's love in large numbers throughout recorded human history.

The paper is wrong.

We'll see. I'll have to look it over and email the author if I have any questions once I've checked it out.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The link is nothing to do with "A nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial density perturbations"

Your point being? Where was a hole that size "predicted" in an inflation theory prior to that observation?

 

[sol invictus]

Your point being? Where was a hole that size "predicted" in an inflation theory prior to that observation?

Sadly, when the analysis is done correctly no such hole exists.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It was certainly an interesting discovery, and as you might expect, it lead to quite a few papers (>40 cite Rudnick et al.'s ApJ paper, according to ADS).

The subsequent, independent, research seems to agree that there's *something* interesting there, but the PR you quote is rather over the top.

Over the top? Why? You want time to postdict a new inflation theory? What not let it die a natural death based on it's failed predictions?

In any case, I'm curious to know why you seem to uncritically accept anything like this that you read that you conclude is somehow a falsification of some part of contemporary concordance cosmological models ("dark flows" is another example),

The term "seem to uncritically accept" is false. I just don't "uncritically accept inflation" like you do, nor am I attached to any particular "big picture" cosmology model. Big difference. I'm fine with an expanding universe. I'm fine with a static universe. I'm just not attached to mainstream beliefs either.

and equally uncritically accept anything that you think hints at a cosmic role for "EM fields"

Again, the term "uncritically' is false. The difference here is that a theory can attempt to use EM fields and fail and still not be woo. A theory however that is based on magic elves may mathematically describe the expansion of two particles in a lab, but I guarantee you they had nothing to do with that expansion.

(especially if you think it can provide an alternative explanation to something you don't like about contemporary cosmological models).

You're missing something important. I personally believe that Birkeland's solar model 'explains' some things that standard theory does not. I would however not try to suggest that the standard solar model is "woo" because nobody is stuffing it full of metaphysics. It may be wrong at worst case, but it could never be "woo" from the standpoint of physics. Likewise Birkeland's model may be wrong, but it can't be "woo" because it's based on known physics.

Inflation theory however is pure "gap filler" since Guth stuffed the gaps of his ignorance with it 25+ years ago! It's never been *anything except* gap filler for human ignorance.

Surely, to be consistent, you should be insisting that
a) all these astronomical observations and theoretical papers be independently verified first

Ok.

b) those that rely upon stuff that hasn't been tested, in controlled experiments, on Earth (or perhaps in near Earth orbit), should be rejected out of hand.

With the exception of what *must* be scaled, that is pretty much my attitude.

Shouldn't you?

I should be "consistent" in my application of these principles, yes.

I appreciate that you are OK with 'scaling by size', but you didn't answer my questions on whether you're OK with scaling by any other attribute, how you go about determining the limits of any scaling (10 Mpc? 100 Mpc? 1 Gpc? 10 Gpc? 100 Gpc??),

I would actually hope that some attempt to "scale" an idea has been tried and verified to work over some measurable range. EM fields for instance seem to "scale" very well over a pretty large range. Ultimately I suppose I have no problem letting you "scale" other attributes, as long as you can somehow confirm the "attribute' you're talking about exists in nature. I have no problem letting you scale distance.

and how you get from what's confirmed as 'existing in nature' from controlled experiments in the lab (neutrons, for example) to dramatic extrapolations of such (neutron stars, for example).

These are directly associated with "scaling factors", in this case gravity and pressure. Then end result is something I can't duplicate on Earth, much like an object with an event horizon. It's simply a scaling factor of a known thing, in this case neutrons.

May I ask that you have a go at answering my questions this time?

May I ask you to start now at the beginning and explain the various "sizes" of things and the and "causes" of events in Lambda theory for us? How big was the universe prior to inflation?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Birkeland

Birkeland did me one better already. Have you bothered to even read his work?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

OK, I have a 994 page pdf compendium of Birkeland's writings. That's a lot. But since you have already read it perhaps you can tell me exactly where Birkeland tells us that the solar wind comes from electrical discharges? Or just point me to where in all those 994 pages that Birkeland explicitly models the solar wind generation process at the Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sadly, when the analysis is done correctly no such hole exists.

It will take me some time to digest that paper. I found this introductory material however to be quite amusing, and I'm fascinated that he's already discussing philosophical concepts about data interpretation from the start. I haven't finished it yet, but I found this part quite amusing. He lists the various "anomalies" of inflation theory and then only focuses on one of them.

Notably, various anomalies have been claimed pertaining to the alignment of largest modes in the CMB (de Oliveira-Costa et al. 2004; Hajian & Souradeep 2003; Slosar & Seljak 2004; Tegmark et al. 2003; Schwarz et al. 2004; Land & Magueijo 2005b,a; Copi et al. 2006), the missing power on large angular scales (Spergel et al. 2003; Copi et al. 2007), and the asymmetries in the distribution of power (Eriksen et al. 2004; Bernui et al. 2006; Hajian 2007). In the future, temperature maps obtained by the Planck experiment, and large-scale polarization information (Dvorkin et al. 2008)
may be key to determining the nature of the large-scale anomalies. For a review of the anomalies and attempts to explain them, see Huterer (2006).
Recently, a paper by Rudnick et al. (2007) attracted particular attention, as it claimed to have detected a ’cold spot” — a drop in the source density and brightness in the NVSS survey.

The list of "anomalies" seems to be even more extensive than I even realized. How convenient they provided me with an extensive list of reading materials. I can see I'll be busy for awhile.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Christ this thread has progressed quickly.

Nice to see that Nereid has returned to the discussion under her DeiRenDopa mantra (well, not nice really, more annoying, like a stubborn spot that wont pop)

I'm guessing that no-ones come up with any verifiable in situ experiments that demonstrate inflation yet, judging by the length this thread has gone on for. Maybe it will be discovered when the Dark Matter, and Strange Matter, and Dark Quark Matter, and Dark Quark Strange Imaginary Matter pop up to show they exist.

Till then we should avoid patching up the holes in our models with entities like these like the plague.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Over the top? Why? You want time to postdict a new inflation theory? What not let it die a natural death based on it's failed predictions?



The term "seem to uncritically accept" is false. I just don't "uncritically accept inflation" like you do, nor am I attached to any particular "big picture" cosmology model. Big difference. I'm fine with an expanding universe. I'm fine with a static universe. I'm just not attached to mainstream beliefs either.



Again, the term "uncritically' is false. The difference here is that a theory can attempt to use EM fields and fail and still not be woo. A theory however that is based on magic elves may mathematically describe the expansion of two particles in a lab, but I guarantee you they had nothing to do with that expansion.



You're missing something important. I personally believe that Birkeland's solar model 'explains' some things that standard theory does not. I would however not try to suggest that the standard solar model is "woo" because nobody is stuffing it full of metaphysics. It may be wrong at worst case, but it could never be "woo" from the standpoint of physics. Likewise Birkeland's model may be wrong, but it can't be "woo" because it's based on known physics.

Inflation theory however is pure "gap filler" since Guth stuffed the gaps of his ignorance with it 25+ years ago! It's never been *anything except* gap filler for human ignorance.



Ok.


With the exception of what *must* be scaled, that is pretty much my attitude.



I should be "consistent" in my application of these principles, yes.



I would actually hope that some attempt to "scale" an idea has been tried and verified to work over some measurable range. EM fields for instance seem to "scale" very well over a pretty large range. Ultimately I suppose I have no problem letting you "scale" other attributes, as long as you can somehow confirm the "attribute' you're talking about exists in nature. I have no problem letting you scale distance.



These are directly associated with "scaling factors", in this case gravity and pressure. Then end result is something I can't duplicate on Earth, much like an object with an event horizon. It's simply a scaling factor of a known thing, in this case neutrons.



May I ask you to start now at the beginning and explain the various "sizes" of things and the and "causes" of events in Lambda theory for us? How big was the universe prior to inflation?

Thanks.

Just so that I don't misunderstand:

** a theory or model which can account for the "DE" observations, consistently - and once independently verified, checked, etc - is acceptable within your view of cosmology as a science if
a) it can be shown to be (related somehow to) "EM fields",
b) is simply lambda, the cosmological constant, an aspect of GR (a theory you accept as comprising the core of your own cosmological theory, or theories), or
c) it makes predictions which can be tested in Earthly labs, in controlled experiments.

Otherwise it is, by definition, scientific woo.

So, for example, quintessence is, by definition, scientific woo, no matter how well it ends up accounting for all the DE observations (and any other astronomical ones it is subsequently shown to be relevant to).

Yes? No? Something else?

** because you believe that no aspect of inflation can ever be tested in an Earthly lab, in a controlled experiment - even in principle - is it, by MM definition, scientific woo.
For avoidance of doubt, may I ask if you have tried to understand how, even in principle, any aspect or consequence of any inflation theory or model could be so tested?

** CDM (cold, dark, non-baryonic matter) is not scientific woo, in the MM definition, because
a) it may turn out to be some form of particle that can be shown to exist, via some extension of controlled experiments in Earthly labs,
b) CDM particles may be discovered any day now (just as Neptune was discovered, and the neutrino eventually detected in a lab), or
c) there are, in principle, controlled experiments that could be performed to test the properties of CDM (even if no such is possible today in any Earthly lab)?

Yes? No? Something else?

** there is no other aspect of modern cosmology that meets your (current) criteria for being scientific woo.

 

[Dancing David]

The data that matches the models comes from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*! They can check out their models *in a lab* in controlled experiments. Whether they bond in pairs, trios, or some other configuration is irrelevant. Quarks and neutrons, neutrinos, protons, electrons, etc aren't shy around the lab like inflation and they exist in nature.

Quarks are shy, they never travel alone!

Ever.

And your point is shown to just be polemic that is inconsistent. I will stop and await the answers about the iron sun.

Bye!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Christ this thread has progressed quickly.

Nice to see that Nereid has returned to the discussion under her DeiRenDopa mantra (well, not nice really, more annoying, like a stubborn spot that wont pop)

I'm guessing that no-ones come up with any verifiable in situ experiments that demonstrate inflation yet, judging by the length this thread has gone on for. Maybe it will be discovered when the Dark Matter, and Strange Matter, and Dark Quark Matter, and Dark Quark Strange Imaginary Matter pop up to show they exist.

Till then we should avoid patching up the holes in our models with entities like these like the plague.

I don't even mind the quark star theories and the neutron star theories or even the event horizon theories (I have a problem with infinite density however). I'd call myself about as liberal as they come in the PC/EU crowd in that sense. When they just start making stuff up based on pure imagination and postdicted math, then I draw the line.

 

[sol invictus]

The list of "anomalies" seems to be even more extensive than I even realized. How convenient they provided me with an extensive list of reading materials. I can see I'll be busy for awhile.

Some of those are rather interesting, yes. Contrary to your conspiracy theories, the "mainstream" is very aware of them - there are probably thousands of papers over the last 5 years discussing them.

One thing to bear in mind is that if one performs enough different statistical tests on a large data set, one is guaranteed to find anomalies - even if the data is completely random. That makes their statistical significance extremely difficult to asses.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Quarks are shy, they never travel alone!

So maybe a quark star (if it exists) is built of pairs of quarks rather than individual ones?

And your point is shown to just be polemic that is inconsistent.

It is not inconsistent, nor am I attached to particular theories about quark stars. I do however have experimental evidence they exist in nature and therefore there is no inconsistency.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Some of those are rather interesting, yes. Contrary to your conspiracy theories, the "mainstream" is very aware of them - there are probably thousands of papers over the last 5 years discussing them.

Why not just admit it's full of holes and let it die a natural death based on it's extensive list of "anomalies"? Why all the need to postdict another curve fit, or ignore all the problems with it?

One thing to bear in mind is that if one performs enough different statistical tests on a large data set, one is guaranteed to find anomalies - even if the data is completely random. That makes their statistical significance extremely difficult to asses.

I might have some sympathy for your argument if Guth hadn't just made up inflation one day in his head. There is no other way to "falsify' this ugly make believe entity other than to compare it's "predictions" with observation and evidently it's far worse than I thought! Come on.

With all these "anomalies" even in the *only* theory that requires it, how can you not see it's completely useless? It doesn't even supposedly exist anymore so no other physics theory needs or requires inflation, and even with 25+ years of effort and fudge factors galore, you folks cannot even make it *fit properly* into the only theory in the universe that actually uses it. Get real. It's a complete waste of effort and it's inapplicable to physics today anyway. It's nothing but blind faith in a dead and completely useless deity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Thanks.

Just so that I don't misunderstand:

How can you possibly not *understand* my position at this point in the conversation?

** a theory or model which can account for the "DE" observations, consistently - and once independently verified, checked, etc - is acceptable within your view of cosmology as a science if

No. You never should have stuffed "dark energy" in there to begin with. You could have picked anything in nature to stuff in there, but not something you simply "made up".

a) it can be shown to be (related somehow to) "EM fields",

Well, if you could show it is related to EM fields, then why not? Why leave 75% of your theory "unexplained"?

b) is simply lambda, the cosmological constant, an aspect of GR (a theory you accept as comprising the core of your own cosmological theory, or theories), or

If you wish to posit a known force of nature as the *cause of lambda*, I'm ok with it conceptually. If you stuff it with invisible unicorns I'm going to squeal like a stuck pig.

c) it makes predictions which can be tested in Earthly labs, in controlled experiments.

That would be acceptable, yes.

Otherwise it is, by definition, scientific woo.

Invisible dead unicorns in a math formula is "woo", yes.

So, for example, quintessence is, by definition, scientific woo, no matter how well it ends up accounting for all the DE observations (and any other astronomical ones it is subsequently shown to be relevant to).

Yes? No? Something else?

I can't really say. I don't understand the theory all that well. I seems a lot like a quantum field theory or an aether theory of sorts to me. It looks about equally 'untestable", although I have no idea about the falsification possibilities as it relates to QM.

** because you believe that no aspect of inflation can ever be tested in an Earthly lab, in a controlled experiment - even in principle - is it, by MM definition, scientific woo.

Ya, that and the fact that I know which individual made up the woo, and th woo doesn't even fit right in the *ONLY* theory that needs it to survive.

For avoidance of doubt, may I ask if you have tried to understand how, even in principle, any aspect or consequence of any inflation theory or model could be so tested?

Sure. I've also seen the way it has been "tested" thus far, and I've seen all the modifications that have been done over the years.

** CDM (cold, dark, non-baryonic matter) is not scientific woo, in the MM definition, because
a) it may turn out to be some form of particle that can be shown to exist, via some extension of controlled experiments in Earthly labs,

It's "hypothetical" to be sure, but nobody is claiming that it can *never* be found in an actual experiment. It's premature to be stuffing a "hypothetical, nonstandard particle physics theory"into your equations, but that particular "fudge factor" is the least of your worries IMO. The fact it *might* be falsifiable or verifiable in LHC gives in an "aire" of credibility. If there was truth in advertising however, since your theory is based on *three* "hypothetical" entities, it should be called the Lambda-CMD "hypothesis" at *best* case.

b) CDM particles may be discovered any day now (just as Neptune was discovered, and the neutrino eventually detected in a lab), or
c) there are, in principle, controlled experiments that could be performed to test the properties of CDM (even if no such is possible today in any Earthly lab)?

Yes? No? Something else?

I personally find it repugnant that you need a hypothetical entity in the first place, but as I said, it's only a "hypothesis" that *could be* verified or falsified. Woo can't be verified or falsified in a controlled experiment.

** there is no other aspect of modern cosmology that meets your (current) criteria for being scientific woo.

The only cosmology theory I have any interest in today is PC/EU theory. Unlike mainstream cosmology theories, it's not useless at predicting events inside of the solar system as Birkeland demonstrated over 100 years ago. It's obviously in it's infancy, and it definitely lacks the mathematical maturity and elegance of current theory, but it works in a lab and it works in space. I can clearly see that EM fields accelerate solar wind as Birkeland predicted and simulated in his lab. I can see those "coronal loops" he predicted and imaged in his lab. I see those jets flying off the sun just as he predicted. His work has real experimental predictive value, whereas inflation is dead, useless to physics today, and doesn't even work right in the only theory that requires or depends on it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, I have a 994 page pdf compendium of Birkeland's writings. That's a lot. But since you have already read it perhaps you can tell me exactly where Birkeland tells us that the solar wind comes from electrical discharges? Or just point me to where in all those 994 pages that Birkeland explicitly models the solar wind generation process at the Sun.

He does his early calculations on page 330ish? Type in "uranium" in the search options, I think that should take you to within a couple of pages of his early calcs.

You'll also want to look at his *experiments* with the spheres in the vacuum, and particularly his solar stuff. When I get home I'll find the page numbers related to his terella experiments, but you can probably find those just by typing in 'terella'. He does a series of later calcs too in that section.

 

[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.

(emphasis added to clarify things for MM).

MM: So far you have not given dates or citations for any item in the list.


This has been said before but MM does not seem to understand it:
Dark flow is not a prediction of inflation because it is an effect of the universe before the inflationary period.

The authors suggest that the motion may be a remnant of the influence of no-longer-visible regions of the universe prior to nflation.^WP

(emphasis added so that MM can ignore it once again)

The evidence for dark flow is a single statistical analysis. Believing that this makes dark flow a reality is rather foolish. There needs to be more analysis done to confirm the existence of dark flow. That will give us an confirmed estimate of the magnitude of dark flow and so whether it has any efffect on inflation.
ETA: This is exactly what the authors of the paper are doing - the paper is based on the 3 year WMAP data set and they are now looking at data from the 5 year WMAP data set.

ETA2: Small thought - dark flow has not been detected in the lab. The kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect used to deduce dark flow also has not been detected in the lab. According to your crtiera this makes it woo. So why do you mention it so much?