Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[GeeMack]

I can do math.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sure. The area between the plates is simply a *lower* pressure than outside the plates. The kinetic energy from outside the plates pushes them together. What's the big deal with that? When was the Casmir effect ever demonstrated in a "negative pressure" vacuum? There is "positive pressure" inside the chamber. Even if we could take out every atom from the chamber (which we cannot), there are neutrinos that blow through all our experiments by the trillions.

So are you going to do us a bit of maths and show us how the Casimir effect is explained by neutrinos and how it is not an effect of second quantization?

 

[Ziggurat]

The kinetic energy from outside the plates pushes them together.

It's not kinetic energy. Why do you keep calling other forms of energy kinetic energy?

Even if we could take out every atom from the chamber (which we cannot), there are neutrinos that blow through all our experiments by the trillions.

Irrelevant. The pressure has nothing to do with neutrinos. Furthermore, the fact that it's positive pressure in this case is likewise irrelevant: you asked how you can add or subtract anything from a vacuum. The Casimir effect shows one example of how that can happen. If the vacuum energy increases with volume, you get negative pressure. Your objection was essentially that the vacuum can't have energy (disproven by the Casimir effect), not that its energy can't increase with volume.

And I'm still waiting on a demonstration of any mathematical ability. Seems like it's one of those made-up things that can't ever be demonstrated that you keep complaining about.

 

[Tubbythin]

Why? If I said "invisible unicorns" do not exist, you would not complain. In most science it is typical to "lack belief" in something unless it has been demonstrated, or might be demonstrated.

MM might be demonstrated. Plenty of people "believe" in the Higgs boson which has yet to be demonstrated. Plenty of people believed in the top quark prior to it being found. Ditto the W and Z bosons, neutrinos etc etc.

No, and in science I am not required to have prove of this. The onus of responsibility is on you to demonstrate it exists. One cannot ever demonstrate a negative. That is why it is up to you to demonstrate they exist. They don't exist. They violate *laws* of physics.

Erm, at the minute the onus is on you to demonstrate that Guth is/was wrong. This MM thing is just a distraction from the fact that you have failed to do so so far.

Nature enjoys it's laws of physics too. Gauss' law of magnetism assures me that monopoles do not exist, and conservation of energy laws tell me that energy has always existed. I have faith in most laws of physics.

Actually, we think MaxwellII works because we have not seen any MM to date. If we saw MM then MaxwellII would be altered to look more like MaxwellI. Its current form would still be right when MM weren't present however.

Please distinguish between them for me. What would you add or subtract from a pure vacuum to achieve "negative pressure"?

Second quantization effects.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gauss' law of magnetism assures me that monopoles do not exist

No, it doesn't. All it actually does is describe what magnetism looks like in the absence of magnetic monopoles. There's nothing about it that prevents the existence of such monopoles. In fact, the modification of Gauss's law to include magnetic monopoles is trivially easy. The current non-existence of magnetic monopoles is an experimental observation, NOT a necessary result of anything Maxwell ever did. For someone so insistent upon basing physical theories in experimental confirmation rather than mathematical abstraction, your failure to comprehend this distinction is richly ironic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ever hear of the Casimir effect? Vacuums very much can (and do) have associated energies. If the derivative of that energy with respect to volume is positive, then you have negative pressure. Quite simple, really. Oh, but that's math. Sorry.

It's not nearly as *simple* as you seem to believe. You put all your faith in math to the exclusion of actual *physics*. You are *oversimplifying* the problem to the point of absurdity. There has *never* been a "Casmir" effect experiment done in a "negative pressure" environment, and there never can be. The most we might ever achieve is a zero pressure, zero kinetic energy environment. The "pressure" between the plates will be "lower than" the pressure outside the plates, but no area in the chamber experiences "negative pressure". You need to look at *more than* simple math equations, and look at the kinetic energy in the system.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's not nearly as *simple* as you seem to believe. You put all your faith in math to the exclusion of actual *physics*. You are *oversimplifying* the problem to the point of absurdity.

Nope. You can do the Casimir effect in a lab. You can even play witht he shape of the plates. Still agrees with the theory.

There has *never* been a "Casmir" effect experiment done in a "negative pressure" environment, and there never can be. The most we might ever achieve is a zero pressure, zero kinetic energy environment. The "pressure" between the plates will be "lower than" the pressure outside the plates, but no area in the chamber experiences "negative pressure". You need to look at *more than* simple math equations, and look at the kinetic energy in the system.

What are you talking about? Its the Casimir effect that leads to the negative pressure.

 

[Ziggurat]

You need to look at *more than* simple math equations, and look at the kinetic energy in the system.

Again with the kinetic energy thing. There is no kinetic energy in the system. Which should surprise no one, as nothing is moving. And no, neutrinos don't play any role in the Casimir effect. Boy does your confusion run deep.

Still waiting on evidence that you can do any math. Seems like a myth to me.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, it doesn't. All it actually does is describe what magnetism looks like in the absence of magnetic monopoles. There's nothing about it that prevents the existence of such monopoles.

Ya, it would in fact violate a *law* of physics, whereas most *theoretical entities* would not necessarily violate laws of physics.

In fact, the modification of Gauss's law to include magnetic monopoles is trivially easy.

I'm sure the math is "trivially easy". It's the *physics of nature* that doesn't conform to your trivial math.

The current non-existence of magnetic monopoles is an experimental observation, NOT a necessary result of anything Maxwell ever did.

It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or math, but rather the *physical universe we live in*. Monopoles do not exist in nature anymore than invisible faeries exist in nature. I don't have to demonstrate something *does not exist*. You must demonstrate they do exist. Since they don't exist, I don't need to know *why* they don't exist. More importantly, there is no merit in trying to claim an "explanation as to why they don't exist" somehow supports *another* nonexistent entity!

For someone so insistent upon basing physical theories in experimental confirmation rather than mathematical abstraction, your failure to comprehend this distinction is richly ironic.

What is ironic to me is that you do not understand that difference between "trivial math" and real physics and yet you *still* seem to think it has something to do with me. You have faith in monopoles, dark evil stuff, inflation, expanding space, etc, none of which show up in a lab. Somehow though you expect me to simply accept your "trivial math" as the final explanation of everything, as though physics is unimportant.

What exactly did you folks intend to add or subtract from a "pure" (zero energy) vacuum to create "negative pressure"?

You may understand math, but when it comes to actual physics, you folks go down in flames, clinging pitifully to your trivial math every second of the fall.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. You can do the Casimir effect in a lab. You can even play witht he shape of the plates. Still agrees with the theory.

You can't create the Casmir effect in a "negative pressure" scenario. The best vacuums on Earth don't even remove all the atoms in the chamber! For crying out loud, no wonder you folks are so gullible.

What are you talking about? Its the Casimir effect that leads to the negative pressure.

There is no *negative pressure* between the plates. There is *higher pressure* on the outside of the plates and *lower pressure* (not zero) between the plates. The plates therefore move together. No area of the vacuum experiences "negative pressure". That is impossible since the whole thing has *positive pressure* inside the vacuum, including all that atoms still in the chamber also providing "pressure" inside that chamber.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again with the kinetic energy thing.

Ya, again with that "physics" thing. How ridiculous of me to talk about the real *physics*.

There is no kinetic energy in the system.

Fail. There are atoms still in the system, particles blowing through by the trillions and plenty of *KINETIC ENERGY* moving though all the "vacuums" we have ever created.

Which should surprise no one, as nothing is moving. And no, neutrinos don't play any role in the Casimir effect. Boy does your confusion run deep.

I simply mentioned that there is kinetic energy in the system. Boy does your denial run deep.

Still waiting on evidence that you can do any math. Seems like a myth to me.

If the problem were related to math, I'd point out the error in the math. Since the problem is unrelated to the math, and related to the *physics* itself, what's the point of me 'barking math' at your leisure?

 

[Tubbythin]

Ya, it would in fact violate a *law* of physics, whereas most *theoretical entities* would not necessarily violate laws of physics.

WHich law in particular are we talking about here.

I'm sure the math is "trivially easy". It's the *physics of nature* that doesn't conform to your trivial math.

Explicity?

It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or math, but rather the *physical universe we live in*. Monopoles do not exist in nature anymore than invisible faeries exist in nature. I don't have to demonstrate something *does not exist*. You must demonstrate they do exist. Since they don't exist, I don't need to know *why* they don't exist.

You brought this whole thing up. Now you're complaining we haven't demonstrated they exist! We never claimed to have. If you want to say we have no experimental evidence they exist then fine, you're might be right. But if you're going to claim you know they don't exist then the burden of proof is on you.

More importantly, there is no merit in trying to claim an "explanation as to why they don't exist" somehow supports *another* nonexistent entity!

They were predicted by some theories. Theories which may be wrong anyway. The fact that these theories may be wrong does not in any way make Guth's theory wrong... unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

What is ironic to me is that you do not understand that difference between "trivial math" and real physics and yet you *still* seem to think it has something to do with me. You have faith in monopoles, dark evil stuff, inflation, expanding space, etc, none of which show up in a lab. Somehow though you expect me to simply accept your "trivial math" as the final explanation of everything, as though physics is unimportant.

The trivial maths was just a correction to MaxwellII. I don't think anyone is saying the maths of GR is trivial. Next strawman.

What exactly did you folks intend to add or subtract from a "pure" (zero energy) vacuum to create "negative pressure"?

Read up about the Casimir effect.

You may understand math, but when it comes to actual physics, you folks go down in flames, clinging pitifully to your trivial math every second of the fall.

Er, no. You've completely failed to show any grasp on physics at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

MM might be demonstrated. Plenty of people "believe" in the Higgs boson which has yet to be demonstrated. Plenty of people believed in the top quark prior to it being found. Ditto the W and Z bosons, neutrinos etc etc.

Ditto on neutrinos too. All of these ideas came from active experimentation and were verified via active experimentation with the single exception of one particle that is being looked for even as we speak. Inflation is dead. I can't test it. Ditto on monopoles. How then would anyone ever be able to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between inflation and the non existence of monopoles?

Erm, at the minute the onus is on you to demonstrate that Guth is/was wrong.

I did that already. He was wrong when he claimed a vacuum has "negative pressure". It cannot have such a state. It either contains kinetic energy or not.

This MM thing is just a distraction from the fact that you have failed to do so so far.

I get the impression that this is pure denial at this point unless of course you can show me what you'd add or subtract from a pure vacuum (no energy) to achieve a "negative" pressure.

Second quantization effects.

What does that term mean to you in terms of actual "physics"? What are you physically adding or subtracting from the pure vacuum to achieve "negative" pressure?

 

[Tubbythin]

You can't create the Casmir effect in a "negative pressure" scenario. The best vacuums on Earth don't even remove all the atoms in the chamber! For crying out loud, no wonder you folks are so gullible.

The Casimir effect creates the negative pressure.

There is no *negative pressure* between the plates. There is *higher pressure* on the outside of the plates and *lower pressure* (not zero) between the plates. The plates therefore move together. No area of the vacuum experiences "negative pressure". That is impossible since the whole thing has *positive pressure* inside the vacuum, including all that atoms still in the chamber also providing "pressure" inside that chamber.

Prove it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ya, it would in fact violate a *law* of physics

Plenty of physics *laws* get violated. Hooke's Law. Ohm's Law. Hell, even Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws, in the forms typically presented in Freshman physics.

It has nothing to do with Maxwell, or math, but rather the *physical universe we live in*.

You just contradicted yourself. You said you knew that magnetic monopoles don't exist because they would violate Gauss's law. But in fact, they don't exist because we can't find any. Like I said, richly ironic.

I don't have to demonstrate something *does not exist*.

Actually, that is very much a requirement. It's been done, BTW (or more precisely, we have upper limits on any possible density of magnetic monopoles), but there is no theory which can categorically forbid them. We ONLY know they don't exist because searches for them turn up empty.

You have faith in monopoles, dark evil stuff, inflation, expanding space, etc, none of which show up in a lab.

That was rather my point: monopoles don't show up in lab. And that is the important point, not that Gauss's law doesn't include a monopole term.

You may understand math

And you don't. You make that clearer and clearer every day.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not kinetic energy.

Yes, it is.

Why do you keep calling other forms of energy kinetic energy?

Er. because thay are forms of kinetic energy that have a "positive" pressure.

Irrelevant. The pressure has nothing to do with neutrinos.

I'm simply noting that there is kinetic energy in the system.

Furthermore, the fact that it's positive pressure in this case is likewise irrelevant:

No, it is not. There is ample kinetic energy in the system to 'push' the plates together.

you asked how you can add or subtract anything from a vacuum. The Casimir effect shows one example of how that can happen.

No, it does not. It's only an example of a "positive pressure" environment where a "lower pressure' forms in between the plates. No area of the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

If the vacuum energy increases with volume, you get negative pressure.

No, you get a "bigger" vacuum. Hoy. The fact the vacuum is "larger" does not make it 'negative'. You guys are *so* messed up as it relates to physics it is painful to watch.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did that already. He was wrong when he claimed a vacuum has "negative pressure". It cannot have such a state. It either contains kinetic energy or not.

Once again, energy is not always kinetic. How many times do you need to be told this?

What are you physically adding or subtracting from the pure vacuum to achieve "negative" pressure?

If you think the Casimir effect creates positive pressure, well, what do you think is being "physically adding or subtracting from the pure vacuum" to achieve this positive pressure? Hint: it's not neutrinos.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ditto on neutrinos too. All of these ideas came from active experimentation and were verified via active experimentation with the single exception of one particle that is being looked for even as we speak. Inflation is dead. I can't test it. Ditto on monopoles.

Actually, the W and Z gave from electroweak unification theories.
Given you're complete ignorance of... pretty much everything to do with physics I wouldn't want you to test it.

How then would anyone ever be able to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between inflation and the non existence of monopoles?

Huh?

I did that already. He was wrong when he claimed a vacuum has "negative pressure". It cannot have such a state. It either contains kinetic energy or not.

The Casimir effect shows you are wrong.

I get the impression that this is pure denial at this point unless of course you can show me what you'd add or subtract from a pure vacuum (no energy) to achieve a "negative" pressure.

See here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

What does that term mean to you in terms of actual "physics"? What are you physically adding or subtracting from the pure vacuum to achieve "negative" pressure?

Second quantization is treating the fields in quantum terms as well as the particles. I'm sure someone can give you a better description.

 

[Ziggurat]

Er. because thay are forms of kinetic energy that have a "positive" pressure.

Uh, no. You had this problem with magnetic fields too.

I'm simply noting that there is kinetic energy in the system.

No, there is not. How could there be when nothing is moving? Do you not understand what "kinetic" means?

You guys are *so* messed up as it relates to physics it is painful to watch.

Says the guy who thinks that energy is always kinetic.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate your mythological math skills.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Plenty of physics *laws* get violated. Hooke's Law. Ohm's Law. Hell, even Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws, in the forms typically presented in Freshman physics.

You see no difference between a "demonstration' and "pure speculation"?

You just contradicted yourself. You said you knew that magnetic monopoles don't exist because they would violate Gauss's law. But in fact, they don't exist because we can't find any. Like I said, richly ironic.

It's richly ironic that you can't appreciate *why* it's a "law" and the fact you cannot demonstrate your claim.

Actually, that is very much a requirement. It's been done, BTW (or more precisely, we have upper limits on any possible density of magnetic monopoles), but there is no theory which can categorically forbid them. We ONLY know they don't exist because searches for them turn up empty.

So exactly how many leaps of faith must I make to hold "belief" in Lambda-CMD theory now that cannot be experimentally verified?

A) Inflation
B) monopole suppression by inflation
C) negative pressure vacuums (physically impossible by the way)
D) dark energy
E) SUSY theories.
F) expanding space
G) net zero energy universe

Even Goddidit sounds more appealing to me frankly. That's only *one leap of faith*, vs. a minimum of 7 acts of faith in Lambda-CDM theory.

That was rather my point: monopoles don't show up in lab. And that is the important point, not that Gauss's law doesn't include a monopole term.

How ironic you seem to believe it is "important" that they don't show up, but you fail to think it's important that 7 different assumptions required for Lambda-CDM theory don't show up, but somehow it is a "good" theory.