Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Yes. *(in relationship to Guth' free lunch)

Ok, so that there are no misunderstandings here, you believe the universe has zero energy, it was a "free lunch", and yet it's expanding and accelerating? Why is it accelerating if there is zero energy again?

 

[sol invictus]

Ok, so that there are no misunderstandings here, you believe the universe has zero energy, it was a "free lunch", and yet it's expanding and accelerating? Why is it accelerating if there is zero energy again?

Why do two masses in otherwise empty space accelerate towards each other?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I think that this is relevant to the philosophical issues at play in this thread.


"The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious. It is unrealistic, for it takes too simple a view of the talents of man and of the circumstances which encourage, or cause, their development. ... Feyerabend

And what does Feyerabend propose? The universe has no universal rules? The universe is random; the rules change without pattern? Is it chaotic? What do the talents of man have to do with it? It sounds like nonsense and mysticism to me!

 

[Ziggurat]

And what does Feyerabend propose? The universe has no universal rules?

I'm guessing here, but it's possible that the quote isn't referring to the universe not having fixed rules, but to scientists not having fixed rules. In other words, he may be arguing that how we do science should be flexible and subject to change. That would be a very different argument from how you're reading it, although again, I'm only guessing as to his possible intentions.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wow are you a theist, you sure act like one.

As far as your dead inflation deity is concerned, I am *definitely* an atheist. I lack belief in that one to be sure.

radiation from something, that is so silly.

Radiation from nothing? That is so silly. How exactly do you figure they know which photons come from which atoms and ions?

Where does the vacum energy come from?

All you know is that there is *energy* in that vacuum today. That tells you virtually nothing about anything related to the past. You don't find whole atoms popping in and out of existence in a vacuum on Earth, even with all that energy flowing through the system today, but you expect me to believe a whole physical universe goes "poof" into existence one fine day and then inflates itself to epic proportions?

Or virtual partciles?

What about them? There are simply energy waves in the "not zero energy state" vacuum. The are trillions of neutrinos flowing through us right now for instance and perhaps countless photons of all wavelenghts bombarding us. Nothing in nature is quite a zero energy state today not even 'space' as we perceive it.

Or gravitation?

This is another "hypothetical" particle by the way. It's possible that QM will prevail and end up replacing GR altogether some day, and frankly that might be a good thing IMO. I love GR today however, but not when it is stuffed with metaphysics. For now though I do see the value of GR in it's ability to make accurate "predictions" about the *attractive* force of gravity. When GR gets stuffed with invisible evil energy gnomes however, it's no longer physics, it's religion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do two masses in otherwise empty space accelerate towards each other?

With your Gumby brand of GR, you're telling me they accelerate *away* from each other and the whole thing has a zero energy state! Talk about bizarre religions.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm guessing here, but it's possible that the quote isn't referring to the universe not having fixed rules, but to scientists not having fixed rules. In other words, he may be arguing that how we do science should be flexible and subject to change. That would be a very different argument from how you're reading it, although again, I'm only guessing as to his possible intentions.

Yes, that's exactly what he means. My mistake.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

My post#683 (posted on the 24th), covers similar ground:

While MM has made many sweeping statements about aurorae, the solar wind, planetary rings, coronal loops, and solar jets, the data are most consistent about just three:

1) coronal loops: these are "electrical discharges", which were predicted, simulated and explained by Birkeland.

2) solar jets: predicted, simulated and explained by Birkeland.

3) the solar wind: there are three separate things mentioned, "solar wind acceleration", "high speed solar wind", and "solar wind concepts". For all three, MM claims that Birkeland successfully predicted, described, simulated, and explained them ("actually been physically shown to work empirically, in a lab, with control mechanisms").

I feel a pause would be a good idea, before going on to Part III, to give readers a chance to comment and ask questions, and also for MM to perhaps make clarifications of anything I've written - or that he's written - so far.

May I ask, MM, for a similar pointer or two for coronal loops (as being electrical discharges) and solar jets?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

TASI Lectures on Inflation

This may have been posted earlier, but in case it hasn't ...

TASI Lectures on Inflation, by William H. Kinney (link is to the arXiv preprint); I think the abstract is worth copying:

This series of lectures gives a pedagogical review of the subject of cosmological inflation. I discuss Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology and the horizon and flatness problems of the standard hot Big Bang, and introduce inflation as a solution to those problems, focusing on the simple scenario of inflation from a single scalar field. I discuss quantum modes in inflation and the generation of primordial tensor and scalar fluctuations. Finally, I provide comparison of inflationary models to the WMAP satellite measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background, and briefly discuss future directions for inflationary physics. The majority of the lectures should be accessible to advanced undergraduates or beginning graduate students with only a background in Special Relativity, although familiarity with General Relativity and quantum field theory will be helpful for the more technical sections.

Have you read this, MM?

If so, what say you?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Some research into Dark Energy that's being planned

Findings of the Joint Dark Energy Mission Figure of Merit Science Working Group (link is to the arXiv preprint):

These are the findings of the Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) Figure of Merit (FoM) Science Working Group (SWG), the FoMSWG. JDEM is a space mission planned by NASA and the DOE for launch in the 2016 time frame. The primary mission is to explore the nature of dark energy. In planning such a mission, it is necessary to have some idea of knowledge of dark energy in 2016, and a way to quantify the performance of the mission. In this paper we discuss these issues.

Crudely:

"We don't know what accounts for the "DE" signal we see in various sets of observations, so we're going to spend some money and do some research to find out".

Seems pretty darn empirical, doesn't it?

If you and a team had this much money at your disposal, how would you suggest it be spent, MM? Non-negotiable requirement: the money must be spent on research into "Dark Energy".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Predicted in 1967, observed in 2008

The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect was predicted in a 1967 paper by these two guys (link is to the ADS entry).

As it predicts a cosmological observable*, and is both general (a wide range of models and hypotheses should be testable via this effect) and specific (it assumes a universe 'run' by GR), it's no surprise to find that it's been cited nearly a thousand times.

Now if "DE" exists, and the universe is "dominated" by something other than matter (specifically, radiation or DE), then the unambiguous detection of an ISW signal would be confirmation of a prediction ... of something like DE ("dominated" has a rather precise meaning, something like "most of the mass-energy in the universe is in this form").

It would seem, then, that by one of MM's fundamental requirements (prediction, rather than post-diction) an unambiguous detection of an ISW signal would be pretty darn good empirical evidence for the existence of DE, wouldn't it? Especially if, when the actual, quantitative, ISW signal is crunched, it turns out to be consistent with the DE signal in the observations of SNe Ia, the CMB, and BAO, n'est pas?

Now, may I ask all readers to refrain from commenting on whether an unambiguous ISW signal has been observed or not, until MM has had a chance to comment on this post of mine?

* several actually

 

[Tubbythin]

Yep. I can't ever even hope to verify or falsify it's existence experimentally and your equations are constantly changing.

They're not my equations, as I've told you many times. It helps to know what you're talking about before you try to falsify that thing.

You know, this whole debate would be over in an instant if Guth had used a known force of nature or you could empirically demonstrate your case. Since you can't do that, it's all my fault somehow that I lack belief in your dead inflation deity. I've heard this a million times in religious forums too. If I only had a little "faith" in their personal belief I would see it their way.........

Its entriely your fault that you chose to dismiss something without having the slightest idea what you were talking and have ended up looking really rather silly.

There was an earlier discussion about "control mechanisms" that you evidently missed. Your side was trying to insist that a "natural experiment" was fine and could be used to determine the existence of something new in nature.

You make up a ficticious experiment and then expect to be taken seriously? Its a work of fiction MM. Please try to separate the ideas you make up in your head from the real world.

 

[Tubbythin]

No. The Higgs for instance is not "woo". It can be found experimentally so it can be verified or falsified in the conventional manner. Experiments to find it are already in the works, and already running.

Compare and contrast that to your dead inflation field/particle. It can *never* be found experimentally because it's dead, and it can never be falsified because you keep changing your equations, and therefore it's "woo".

Its not dead since it was never alive. And, once again, its not mine.

I don't have any problem allowing you to "scale" any known thing or force or curvature to size. I won't let you scale invisible dead unicorns to size however.

Good job I''m not trying to scale invisible dead uniorns then isn't it?

 

[Dancing David]

TT and others,

The force that 'caused' inflation would still be present would it not. I can not clainm to understand the theory, even the friendly version Guth wrote.

My understanding is that whatever 'drove' inflation is a force that is still with us, changed and transformed but still present.

Am I way off base?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Its not dead since it was never alive.

It never existed. It was a figment of Guth's overactive imagination, and now it's a "meme".

And, once again, its not mine.

I hear ya.

Good job I''m not trying to scale invisible dead uniorns then isn't it?

There's no empirical difference between inflation and invisible unicorns. I can't falsify either one, particularly based on a math formula you slapped to it's forehead. They don't empirically exist in nature, so stuffing either one of them into a math formula is utterly absurd.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This may have been posted earlier, but in case it hasn't ...

TASI Lectures on Inflation, by William H. Kinney (link is to the arXiv preprint); I think the abstract is worth copying:

Have you read this, MM?

Can't say I have.

If so, what say you?

So far all I can say is that it looks "long".

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm curious now....

Is it actually the "consensus" of the Lambda theory supporters that the universe actually has zero energy, or is that a "personal" belief of only some Lambda proponents?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm curious now....

Is it actually the "consensus" of the Lambda theory supporters that the universe actually has zero energy, or is that a "personal" belief of only some Lambda proponents?

Once again, clue for the clueless: zero total energy is not based in any way on Lambda theory. It does not depend in any way, shape, or form on inflation, dark energy, a Higgs field, dark matter, or cosmological constants. It's bog-standard, vanilla General Relativity. You know, that thing you say you believe is basically correct despite having absolutely no clue about.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So you believe that the total energy of the entire universe is zero?

(bold added)

[pedantic]

I'm sure you mean "the entire observable universe" ...

By definition, any part of the universe (should such a thing exist) which is not observable - even in principle - is unconstrained, empirically.

Of course, one can develop any manner of laws, theories, models, hypotheses, speculations, guesses, and so on, about parts of the universe which are not observable ...

[/pedantic]

 

[Michael Mozina]

Findings of the Joint Dark Energy Mission Figure of Merit Science Working Group (link is to the arXiv preprint):

Crudely:

"We don't know what accounts for the "DE" signal we see in various sets of observations, so we're going to spend some money and do some research to find out".

Seems pretty darn empirical, doesn't it?

Well, lets see what they have planned:

A. Prospective Additional Probes of Dark Energy

1. Galaxy Clusters (Number Density, Clustering and Their Evolution) The abundance and clustering of galaxy clusters is another promising technique, and has previously been considered by the DETF [12]. There are many means of identifying and measuring galaxy clusters; the main source of uncertainty in future applications of this method will be in determining the relation of the selection function and observables to the underlying mass of the clusters.

Nope. It sounds like another "point at the sky and add math" exercises and it sounds pretty darn wasteful IMO. Nobody can empirically verify any of the presumed properties of "dark energy" by looking at the sky anymore than this can be done with "inflation". You're just fudging the numbers of mythical entities to fit observation and not you'd like to waste my tax payer money on *another* point at the sky routine with *zip* in the way of a real *control mechanism*.

If you and a team had this much money at your disposal, how would you suggest it be spent, MM? Non-negotiable requirement: the money must be spent on research into "Dark Energy".

I'd invest my money in PC/EU theory research and help you explain solar wind acceleration and coronal loops and stuff that has an affect on us here on Earth. Once you finally "get it" that EM fields exist in space, it probably wouldn't be much of a leap of faith to assume that any "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe would be due to EM fields rather than some mythical fudge factor you stuffed into inflation theory to keep it alive.

Honestly, that has to be the most pointless waste of money I can think of, and in this economy it irks me that you would *waste* my tax money like that and try to pass it off as an "experiment". There are no control mechanisms. How about doing something *USEFUL* with my money like explaining solar wind acceleration? Birkeland could set you straight of course, but then *you* would have to do some reading.