Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[sol invictus]

Maybe that is the problem.

Anyway,here goes. References are:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9912003v1

When I said gravity isn't a field theory, by "gravity" I meant GR. This paper isn't about GR - it's about an attempt to reproduce Newtonian gravity using a spin-2 field in flat space.

Many attempts like that have been made over the years... and none have worked. It's worth trying, if only to see how it fails. I flipped though that particular paper and didn't find an action or even a clear statement of what the equations of motion are, and I'm not going to waste my time reading it carefully to try to figure out what he does.

Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.

 

[Skwinty]

Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.

Evidence please.

How do you observe a body whose gravity is so high that light cannot escape from it.

The same way that dark matter is directly observed?

 

[sol invictus]

Evidence please.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7209/full/455039a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v419/n6908/abs/nature01121.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081209-blackhole-stars.html
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06nov97_1.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10736

 

[Skwinty]

The equations don't copy and paste but the equations are 37 and 38 page 12.
Would you not ascribe the blackhole issue as one of grammar or the use of the english language.
Perhaps he meant that black holes as described by GR ie. Infinite density in zero volume.​

I don't know, just asking.​

"It follows from here that there is a natural limit of contraction of a body and it is the condition that the energy of the field should be less than that of the rest-mass energy of the body:"

PS thanks for the links, very interesting​

 

[Dancing David]

Evidence please.

How do you observe a body whose gravity is so high that light cannot escape from it.

The same way that dark matter is directly observed?

You aren't going to start the sophomoric stuff are you?

1. Gravity bends light, therefore it is possible to have a gravitational field strong enough to bend light so much it does not leave the local area (a black hole).
2. Mass that large have been observed through motion of bodies near the center of our galaxy. IE there is a mass taht is very, very large at teh center of our galaxy.

Therefore it appears there are bodies which are large enogh to keep light from escaping their local area, now if a way to hold such a large mass in an area without it undergoing gravitational collapse to black hole is found, or a way for light to escaper a gravitational field is found,
then there is not evidence of black holes. Albeit indirectly.

 

[sol invictus]

The equations don't copy and paste but the equations are 37 and 38 page 12.

Those don't define the theory - they're supposed to be consequences of it. I took another flip through, and I don't see anywhere where he says what the theory actually is (like writing down an action for it). And just about everything in the "astrophysical tests" section is wrong.

Everyone would be ecstatic if there were really such a thing as a field theory for gravity. Life would be much easier and simpler. But there just doesn't seem to be one.

Actually many of the points we've made to MM apply here as well. It's impossible for gravitational potential energy to be positive, for the simple reason that gravitational bound states exist. That is, start with two masses (say the earth and the sun) very far away. The total energy is the sum of the energies of each (mc^2, say). Now put the earth in orbit around the sun. In Newtonian gravity that state has less energy than the state where they were far away (the simplest way to see that is to notice that the KE of the earth in orbit is half what it would have if it fell from far away to the orbit radius). Therefore gravitational energy must be negative.

Notice that including the term for energy in the gravitational field, as he tries to do, makes this even worse. That term is the field strength squared. But the field squared is larger when the masses are close together - so if that's how you want to account for the energy, you must have a negative sign in front of it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

????

I can't even fathom how this is an argument for anything.

It demonstrates there is *energy* is this physical universe. Hoy. The Lambda theory is evidently *far* worse than I thought. It seems to be band-aided together with bubble gum goofy physics concepts and bailing wire math formulas.

Stand in the sunshine. Did the positive energy in gravity add to the heat from the sun to you? No? Then positive energy doesn't exist. <--- This of course doesn't make any kind of sense at all.

What's mind boggling is you missing the point willfully or otherwise. There is kinetic energy in this universe. The energy to create it predates whatever "event" you're calling the bang. This is *not* a zero energy universe, or a "net zero" energy universe. It's accelerating boys and girls! You're whole belief system is stupid IMO. I demonstrated to you in my two bomb analogy that it's entirely possible to have a *positive energy* universe from start to finish, prior to, and including them being detonated. To Derek's credit, he actually took a shot at that analogy while the rest of you cower in the corner like children.

I had no idea you folks were this "lost" as it comes to pure physics. I had always assumed it was "bad", but this is utterly pathetic.

The laws of conservation of energy *insist* that the energy that manifests itself in this universe has *never* been created or destroyed. I guess the notion of eternity simply scares the hell out of you, or simply doesn't register, but that is exactly what's going on here. There was *never* a time when energy did not exist. That is what the conservation of energy laws insist.

It's going to be a busy day at work for me, so my responses will likely be sporadic today. I can see it's not really much of a problem however since you folks are *so* lost, this part of the conversation is obviously going to take days all by itself. Hoy.

There is not now, and never has been a "zero" energy universe. There is not now, and never has been a time when energy did not exist. The energy has changed form and layout perhaps an infinite number of times now, but there is a *net positive* energy in this universe as demonstrated by your "acceleration/DE" fudge factor.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Newsflash MM, photons are energy,

PFFT. Newsflash, the universe is full of them. It's not a "net zero" place we live in. It's full of kinetic energy and it is even *accelerating* in Lambda-ThisHasToBeTheDumbestTheoryEver theory.

Let's ignore the rest of this for a second and just tell me how the hell you figure the universe is accelerating and still has *zero net* energy? That part alone is enough to blow your whole show.

they act as waves all the time (just like all particles), the particle/wave duality is another false philosophical construct. At higher energies, partcles in interactions with other wave forms show limited constraints on intersection that we lable as 'partcile' properties.

But they are waveforms the whole time.

That was my point by the way.

 

[Skwinty]

You aren't going to start the sophomoric stuff are you?

Sounds better than Soph**ing Moronic, thanks DD

1. Gravity bends light, therefore it is possible to have a gravitational field strong enough to bend light so much it does not leave the local area (a black hole).
2. Mass that large have been observed through motion of bodies near the center of our galaxy. IE there is a mass taht is very, very large at teh center of our galaxy.

Therefore it appears there are bodies which are large enogh to keep light from escaping their local area, now if a way to hold such a large mass in an area without it undergoing gravitational collapse to black hole is found, or a way for light to escaper a gravitational field is found,
then there is not evidence of black holes. Albeit indirectly.

Can one assert that these blackholes, that have been indirectly observed, exceed the natural limit of contraction, as asserted by Baryshev.


Sol:

Could you be a bit more specific about the erroneous nature of "Astrophysical tests of FTG"

I cant comment on the math, but does the math in the paper not bear witness to his theory.

Once again, I ask the question, if you are right about his capacity to theorise on these matters, how come he gets to participate in these conferences and publish his work.

Please point me in the direction of reliable papers.

IMO, GR may well suffer the same fate as Newtonian Physics, not that my opinion is of relevance here.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It demonstrates there is *energy* is this physical universe. Hoy. The Lambda theory is evidently *far* worse than I thought. It seems to be band-aided together with bubble gum goofy physics concepts and bailing wire math formulas.



What's mind boggling is you missing the point willfully or otherwise. There is kinetic energy in this universe. The energy to create it predates whatever "event" you're calling the bang. This is *not* a zero energy universe, or a "net zero" energy universe. It's accelerating boys and girls! You're whole belief system is stupid IMO. I demonstrated to you in my two bomb analogy that it's entirely possible to have a *positive energy* universe from start to finish, prior to, and including them being detonated. To Derek's credit, he actually took a shot at that analogy while the rest of you cower in the corner like children.

I had no idea you folks were this "lost" as it comes to pure physics. I had always assumed it was "bad", but this is utterly pathetic.

The laws of conservation of energy *insist* that the energy that manifests itself in this universe has *never* been created or destroyed. I guess the notion of eternity simply scares the hell out of you, or simply doesn't register, but that is exactly what's going on here. There was *never* a time when energy did not exist. That is what the conservation of energy laws insist.

It's going to be a busy day at work for me, so my responses will likely be sporadic today. I can see it's not really much of a problem however since you folks are *so* lost, this part of the conversation is obviously going to take days all by itself. Hoy.

There is not now, and never has been a "zero" energy universe. There is not now, and never has been a time when energy did not exist. The energy has changed form and layout perhaps an infinite number of times now, but there is a *net positive* energy in this universe as demonstrated by your "acceleration/DE" fudge factor.

(bold added)

I too had not appreciated just how deep and wide the gulf is between your ideas MM and the bases of modern physics*.

With the existence of such a yawning chasm demonstrated to exist, empirically, it's no wonder much of this thread is so confused and confusing!

Perhaps you should take a break from this thread MM, and start a new one, on what you see as the differences between your views of key parts of classical physics and those found in high school textbooks on that topic?

* actually, it seems much (most? all??) of classical physics, never mind all the 20th century stuff

 

[Tim Thompson]

Evidence

Anyway one of the selling points for him appears to be that there are no black holes in his theory. Sadly, black holes have been observed.

Evidence please. ...

Easy. The key thing to realize here is that every manner of massive compact objects known or proposed (including the elusive MECO) has a hard surface, except for black holes. Matter falling onto anything except a black hole will encounter that hard surface and react accordingly. But in the case of the black hole, anything falling in simply falls through the event horizon and disappears. So the presence or absence of an event horizon can be distinguished observationally by examining the flare behavior of massive objects. Such observations have been carried out now for many years and the evidence for the presence of event horizons is now quite strong.

Here are a few references. These papers and the citations thereto should give you enough to chew on for a while. I have not checked to see if any of them are duplicates of those already mentioned by Sol Invictus.

• The Rates of Type I X-Ray Bursts from Transients Observed with RXTE: Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons; Remillard, et al., Astrophysical Journal 646(1): 407-419, July 2006.
• Observing the effects of the event horizon in black holes; Done & Gierliński, Monthly Notice of the Royal Astronomical Society 342(4): 1041-1055, July 2003.
• On the Lack of Type I X-Ray Bursts in Black Hole X-Ray Binaries: Evidence for the Event Horizon?; Narayan & Heyl, Astrophysical Journal 574(2): L139-L142, August 2002.
• New Evidence for Black Hole Event Horizons from Chandra; Garcia, et al., Astrophysical Journal 553(1): L47-L50, May 2001.
• Quasi-regular X-Ray Bursts from GRS 1915+105 Observed with the IXAE: Possible Evidence for Matter Disappearing into the Event Horizon of the Black Hole; Paul, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters 492(1): L63-L66, January 1998.
• Advection-dominated Accretion and Black Hole Event Horizons; Narayan, Garcia & McClintock, Astrophysical Journal Letters 478(2): L79-L82, April 1997.

Another way to observationally distinguish a black hole is to observe its "shadow" as predicted by general relativity. But that requires higher resolution observations than we can currently do, though it may be doable in the foreseeable future, for the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (Falcke, et al., 2001).

 

[Skwinty]

Thanks Tim,
More late night reading for me.
Please comment on what can be asserted about the actual density/volume of blackholes and what Baryshev asserts about "Natural limits of contraction" vis a vis his math..

 

[Michael Mozina]

Easy. The key thing to realize here is that every manner of massive compact objects known or proposed (including the elusive MECO) has a hard surface, except for black holes. Matter falling onto anything except a black hole will encounter that hard surface and react accordingly. But in the case of the black hole, anything falling in simply falls through the event horizon and disappears. So the presence or absence of an event horizon can be distinguished observationally by examining the flare behavior of massive objects. Such observations have been carried out now for many years and the evidence for the presence of event horizons is now quite strong.

I think the resistance to the idea is notion of *infinite* density at a *point*. I don't have a problem with the idea of a massive object with an event horizon, but I have to admit to being skeptical about the notion of infinite density.

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

I too had not appreciated just how deep and wide the gulf is between your ideas MM and the bases of modern physics*.

Excuse me, but modern *physics* outside of the inflation faerie cult seems to accept that the universe has *energy* in it. Only your one cosmology theory requires the idea of *zero net* energy in the universe.

With the existence of such a yawning chasm demonstrated to exist, empirically, it's no wonder much of this thread is so confused and confusing!

That is entirely your fault, not mine. If you could empirically demonstrate your claim like I can show EM fields are not a figment of my imagination then there would be no chasm at all. Since you seem to be incapable of doing so, you expect me to now have faith in the following irrational beliefs:

A) Inflation did it and it's gone and can never been observed directly. "Just have faith".
B) An accelerating universe has 'zero net' energy!
C) Dark evil energy somehow continues to accelerate the universe, but evidently it also has zero net energy somehow.
D) Dark evil invisible matter controls the movements of our galaxy and universe, it's at least 5 times more abundant than the dirt in my backyard, and yet you can't produce a gram of the stuff in a controlled experiment.

Did I miss anything else that is particularly hard to swallow and defies actual "physics"? E=MC^2, and E has *always* existed. That's what *physics* says on this topic DRD. Your math mythos has *nothing* (well, 4%) to do with actual physics, and is a completely ad hoc religion based on entirely irrational ideas and gross violations of the *laws* of physics.

 

[Dancing David]

PFFT. Newsflash, the universe is full of them. It's not a "net zero" place we live in. It's full of kinetic energy and it is even *accelerating* in Lambda-ThisHasToBeTheDumbestTheoryEver theory.

Let's ignore the rest of this for a second and just tell me how the hell you figure the universe is accelerating and still has *zero net* energy? That part alone is enough to blow your whole show.

Why don't you face facts, there are questions without answers. the universe may be positive, it may be neutral, in terms of energy balance. But please keep asserting that you know teh answers.

That was my point by the way.

The statement I made as opposed to your straw man is that the universe may be positive in energy, it may be neutral to energy, these are things that can not be determined (at this time).

But please continue wrestling with yourself, I await your answers in the Plasma Comsology thread. Which I think you are smart enough that you will just avoid them.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the resistance to the idea is notion of *infinite* density at a *point*. I don't have a problem with the idea of a massive object with an event horizon, but I have to admit to being skeptical about the notion of infinite density.

Considering that the rules we think we can model break down at the point of a black hole, it would be really hard to say what a black hole it, we know it is smaller than the Plank length and has very high denisty but anything beyond that awaits the unification theory.

Why doesn't it contract to the Plank length?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Considering that the rules we think we can model break down at the point of a black hole, it would be really hard to say what a black hole it, we know it is smaller than the Plank length and has very high denisty but anything beyond that awaits the unification theory.

Why doesn't it contract to the Plank length?

Well, since I can't observe inside the event horizon, I don't know what the energy arrangement might look like inside that event horizon. It could be a flowing mass of Higgs particles for all I know. It could be that some "structure" is able to resist compression. I don't really know. I just have a hard time believing that there isn't a *physical* process involved that has a larger than zero diameter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why don't you face facts, there are questions without answers.

Sure, but this isn't one of them.

the universe may be positive, it may be neutral, in terms of energy balance. But please keep asserting that you know teh answers.

The term "neutral" is a bit vague. Even a net "neutral" (in terms of math) universe would not accelerate.

The statement I made as opposed to your straw man is that the universe may be positive in energy, it may be neutral to energy, these are things that can not be determined (at this time).

How many things that cannot be demonstrated must I have faith in to believe in your theory?

A) inflation
B) net zero energy
C) expanding space
D) dark energy
E) non baryonic "dark matter"

Are there anymore skeletons in that closed that I should know about?

But please continue wrestling with yourself, I await your answers in the Plasma Comsology thread. Which I think you are smart enough that you will just avoid them.

I'm not avoiding anything, unlike you and sol and DRD and others that have never once touched my two bomb "bang" analogy. To his credit at least Derek took a shot (that's why I like him by the way). You folks are just plain cowards IMO. When you can't handle something you turn your back and start running while hurling personal insults as you go. Step up to the plate and address my point now. We can begin with a *positive energy* scenario and create a *bang* from preexisting energy. It's easy to envision and it's easy to even demonstrate in a lab.

Please now tell me how I might create a "bang" out of "zero net energy"? I don't suppose you can do that in lab?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

"Dark radiation as a signature of dark energy"

A recent arXiv preprint (should be a fun read! ):

Dark radiation as a signature of dark energy (link is to the arXiv preprint):

We propose a simple dark energy model with the following properties: the model predicts a late-time dark radiation component that is not ruled out by current observational data, but which produces a distinctive time-dependent equation of state $w(z)$ for $z < 3$. The dark energy field can be coupled strongly enough to Standard Model particles to be detected in colliders, and the model requires only modest additional particle content and little or no fine-tuning other than a new energy scale of order milli-electron volts.

 

[sol invictus]

Could you be a bit more specific about the erroneous nature of "Astrophysical tests of FTG"

The middle paragraph is vague enough to verge on correct, but take a look at the references I posted above. The last paragraph is flat-out wrong - the matter distribution in galaxies is not fractal, nor does it violate the homogeneity approximation used in FRW cosmology.

I cant comment on the math, but does the math in the paper not bear witness to his theory.

Like I said, I can't find the theory written down anywhere in the paper.

Once again, I ask the question, if you are right about his capacity to theorise on these matters, how come he gets to participate in these conferences and publish his work.

I'm not saying he's a crackpot or an idiot - just that he's wrong. There are many, many wrong papers out there, published and not. The reasons for that are going to take us way off topic for this thread. But one clue you might have noticed is that this paper was written in 1999. I find 9 papers that reference it, of which three are his own. Of the other six, at least one is about problems with this class of models. If he were right - or even close to right - it would be a revolution, and correct revolutionary ideas get snapped up and explored with incredible rapidity (Einstein's early work is a prime example).

Please point me in the direction of reliable papers.

On what topic? If you mean on energy in GR, I gave two very good references above.

IMO, GR may well suffer the same fate as Newtonian Physics, not that my opinion is of relevance here.

Actually I share your view. But it took a very long time for Newtonian physics to be overturned, so don't hold your breath.