Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Reality Check]

So in your opinion, this paper from Guth that I have been critiquing is 100% accurate and it is the same precise mathematical model being used today?

Is that your list of postdictions?

But to answer your question:
Here is his original paper: A. H. Guth, "The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems", Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).
It was "100% accurate" for less than a year until the bubble collision problem was solved by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt.
(Linde, "A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution Of The Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy And Primordial Monopole Problems", Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982).
and A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, "Cosmology For Grand Unified Theories With Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking," Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982). )

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf



It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.

Question about source ...

MM - or anyone else - what is the source of the image of the Sun (right-hand of the two)? And what are the details of the image?

I think it's from Yohkoh, but have no idea about which instrument, what filter (if any), integration time, date, time, etc.

 

[derekmcd]

They come from the EM fields that surround everything in this solar system. They vibrate inside the chamber and create "pressure" on both sides of the plates. The pressure on one side is simply 'greater than' the pressure on the other side, depending on the specific geometry in play.

How do the photons get inside the chamber? It's not too terribly difficult to block EM radiation.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf



It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.

We do know that empirical "prediction" does not consist of comparing things that just look alike (e.g. are galaxies whirlpools? - they look like them!). Pictures are of little use unless there are numbers and a theoretical basis as well.

Your pictures are especially useless since you are claiming that Birkeland predicted solar physics and yet you compare his pictures with modern pictures of the Sun at a cherrypicked point in time. Most pictures of the Sun do not look like the one you have.

 

[edd]

I don't know how old you are. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's just a personal choice issue. I'm old enough to have studied cosmology theory *before* Guth's monopole slaying inflation theory became "vogue". I've "been around the block" a few times and seen under the hood of more than a few "theories' on cosmology. Maybe your too young to have had that kind of exposure, or perhaps you simply made different conscious choices than I have made. I do understand that there are *many* cosmology theories, not just the *one* that you seem to prefer.

I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to have had to change my opinion on the best cosmological model based on new evidence. It might surprise you but I initially found the idea of a cosmological constant weird and wasn't willing to accept it too readily.

I also understand that there are many theories of cosmology. Note that several times in past posts I've written about the effects of dark energy 'if it exists'. This is an indication that I recognise there are some alternatives that are or may in the future become competitive.

I also recognise that some theories of cosmology are not competitive now and seem unlikely ever to be competitive.

The majority of my comments are aimed at dealing with what I see as unfair and unfounded criticism against certain theories, not in pushing those theories as being any more favoured than they already are.

Just so you better understand my position.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Question about source ...

MM - or anyone else - what is the source of the image of the Sun (right-hand of the two)? And what are the details of the image?

I think it's from Yohkoh, but have no idea about which instrument, what filter (if any), integration time, date, time, etc.

Follow-on question, re MM's post #1507 (that I quoted)...

I have searched the ~160MB document in MM's post ("birkeland.pdf"), but could not find info on "images of his loops", specifically the one presented in that post. There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

So, a question for MM - or anyone else who knows - how was that image created (or taken)? What is the (presumably photographic) medium? The exposure time? The (type of) camera (presumably it was a camera)? When (date) was the image taken? What are the experimental conditions?

 

[Reality Check]

Follow-on question, re MM's post #1507 (that I quoted)...

I have searched the ~160MB document in MM's post ("birkeland.pdf"), but could not find info on "images of his loops", specifically the one presented in that post. There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

So, a question for MM - or anyone else who knows - how was that image created (or taken)? What is the (presumably photographic) medium? The exposure time? The (type of) camera (presumably it was a camera)? When (date) was the image taken? What are the experimental conditions?

Hi DRD.
The Birkeland image seems to be to be from CHAPTER VI (ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE) of the book, figue 247a or maybe figure 253 which look the same.

The book was written in September 1913. Thus the images were taken before then.

I see that Birkeland compares the appearance of the Terralla discharges to solar flares and sunspots but is careful to use term analogy (e.g. "experimental analogies" on page 670) rather than model.
(There are photos of his lab around page 667).

The Preface to part II has (page 414):

The experimental investigations which at first were designed to procure analogies capable of explaining phenomena on the earth, such as aurora and magnetic disturbances, were subsequently extended, as was only natural, with the object of procuring information as to the conditions under which the emission of the assumed helio-cathode rays from the sun might be supposed to take place.
The magnetic globe was then made the cathode in the vacuum-box, and experiments were carried on under these conditions for many years.
It was in this way that there gradually appeared experimental analogies to various cosmic phenomena, such as zodiacal light, Saturn's rings, sun-spots and spiral nebulae.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

This is actually a pretty accurate statement in general, not just in regards to your question.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But in any case, I can find no reference to electric currents in the sun, either as the source of the sun's heat, or as the source for his "corpuscular precipitation". Since you are so convinced that Birkeland has demonstrated the electrical source of the solar wind, and since you are the self-appointed expert on things Birkeland, you will have to stop guessing and show explicitly where Birkeland has modeled, or even mentioned, the electrical source of the solar wind, assuming you want to maintain any credibility at all on that point.

You'll probably find this website to be an easier read, but you can also go to page 661 of Birkeland's PDF file as well.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

Notice how Birkeland compares the images to the images of the sun's corona, and notes the "ray structures" near the poles and compares that to solar activity as well. In these experiments his sphere is charged as a cathode. In various parts of the book he talks about having to clean the soot from the glass due to the discharge activity from the sphere and the oils inside the chamber and on the sphere.

 

[Reality Check]

You'll probably find this website to be an easier read, but you can also go to page 661 of Birkeland's PDF file as well.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

Notice how Birkeland compares the images to the images of the sun's corona, and notes the "ray structures" near the poles and compares that to solar activity as well. In these experiments his sphere is charged as a cathode. In various parts of the book he talks about having to clean the soot from the glass due to the discharge activity from the sphere and the oils inside the chamber and on the sphere.

That is correct - that is exactly what Birkeland does in (his own words) his "experimental analogies". He states that the images in his terrella ("little earth") look like some images of the Sun.
He suggests various theories in the pages after 661. e.g.

Sun-spots may be considered as the eruptive centres of similar disruptive discharges, and the question then immediately arises: Where shall we seek for the positive pole of these discharges, in which the spots, or that which surrounds them, represent the cathode?
There are several possible solutions to this question. [Followed by a list of 3 solutions]

For some reason science has not stood still since 1913. Birkeland did not know about fusion and so explained his analogy in terms that he knew, e.g. electrical discharges. His explanations have been superceded by better data.

The image you keep posting just happens to be useless. It is a comparison of a pre-1913 image with a cherry-picked image from the millions of modern images of the Sun. I could pick any of the other modern images that do not look like his picture and say that disproves his analogy.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

This is actually a pretty accurate statement in general, not just in regards to your question.

I did learn one thing ...

... in this thread, MM has said, in many posts, how critical empirical research is, in science.

Presumably, his own website provides a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like.

If that presumption is so - and it'd be nice to have MM say so explicitly - then anyone can use it as data, for testing hypotheses concerning the nature of "empirical research", as actually practiced by MM.

Although I did not go through the website with a formal hypothesis in mind, nor did I seek to test any such in an objective, quantitative way, I was nonetheless struck by just how different the (presumed) practice of (empirical) science is from what I would have expected, based on what MM has said, so stridently, in posts in this thread.

For example - as my efforts to track the Yohkoh and Birkeland "images" to their sources has shown - it is actually quite difficult to independently verify that images displayed on the website are what they purport to be* ... if only because MM seems to do a very poor job of referencing his sources.

ETA: to take just one example of what sorts of things you might want to check: image orientation. The two images appear to have some symmetry around an axis that is ~vertical (Yohkoh), and close to vertical (perhaps ~15^o off?) (Birkeland). Now if you wanted to check what the orientation of the Yohkoh image is (wrt the Sun's rotational axis), you can't ... without any info on that image; similarly, if it's the orientation of the magnetic field (if there is one) in the Birkeland image, you can't ... without any info on that image.

* I'm not saying they aren't, just that it's hard to check

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is correct - that is exactly what Birkeland does in (his own words) his "experimental analogies". He states that the images in his terrella ("little earth") look like some images of the Sun.
He suggests various theories in the pages after 661. e.g.

By the way, did you happen to notice all his mathematical calculations after that?

What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.

For some reason science has not stood still since 1913. Birkeland did not know about fusion and so explained his analogy in terms that he knew, e.g. electrical discharges. His explanations have been superceded by better data.

Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light. The idea in his day is that "gas" might be drifting by at low speed, but Birkeland's "experimental predictions" suggested otherwise. That's what a real "prediction" is all about. He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures, and all the core tenets of what is "EU/PC theory" today. Guess what? It works in a lab, and it has provided real "predictions", including coronal loops, "jets" from the poles, things we now see in Hinode images of the sun. How can that be a "pure coincidence"? Give me a break! No wonder your industry is so confused. It forgot how to "empirically test" anything. If it can't be simulated on a computer, they aren't interested in getting their hands dirty.

The image you keep posting just happens to be useless.

How in your infinite scientific wisdom did you arrive at that conclusion?

It is a comparison of a pre-1913 image with a cherry-picked image from the millions of modern images of the Sun. I could pick any of the other modern images that do not look like his picture and say that disproves his analogy.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did learn one thing ...

... in this thread, MM has said, in many posts, how critical empirical research is, in science.

Presumably, his own website provides a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like.

What? No. *Birkeland* demonstrated a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like. I just put together an introductory website to the whole concept of a Birkeland solar model. I have referenced my sources. You just have refused to read them or respond to them meaningfully.

Care to address Birkeland's "predictions"? Care to explain Kosovichev's Doppler image, or that LMSAL image on my website for us DRD?

It seems to me that you spend all your time not focused on providing empirical evidence to support beliefs, and all your time on ignoring the data entirely so that you might focus your attention on the individual rather than the "science" that has been presented by *Birkeland*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to have had to change my opinion on the best cosmological model based on new evidence.

The concept of "best" becomes a "subjective choice", particularly when Lambda theory starts by inserting ad hoc forces of nature that cannot be demonstrated, nor can we *ever* demonstrate it in the case of inflation.

I know that Birkeland's core theories work in a lab. I know we observe large scale Birkeland currents in space. I see large coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as he 'predicted'. I observe high speed solar wind blowing by Earth. I observe "jets" around the poles of the sun. I observe all the key things that I would expect to observe based on Birkeland's experimental "predictions". That to me makes EU/PC theory a better "predictor" of events in space. It's obviously not as "refined" at larger scales or as "curve fitted' to redshift phenomenon, but as a basic cosmology theory, it has already shown that it has *predictive value*.

It might surprise you but I initially found the idea of a cosmological constant weird and wasn't willing to accept it too readily.

It depends I guess on your age. The notion of an expansion or contraction was not surprising. The ad hoc "additions" like inflation and DE are what turn me off in the final analysis.

I also understand that there are many theories of cosmology. Note that several times in past posts I've written about the effects of dark energy 'if it exists'. This is an indication that I recognise there are some alternatives that are or may in the future become competitive.

It seems to me that the most "likely" force of nature to explain the acceleration of a plasma body is an EM field. "Dark energy" doesn't exist in nature.

I also recognise that some theories of cosmology are not competitive now and seem unlikely ever to be competitive.

I guess it depends on how you define "competitive", and whether you place an emphasis on how that theory "predicts" observations *inside* of our solar system.

The majority of my comments are aimed at dealing with what I see as unfair and unfounded criticism against certain theories, not in pushing those theories as being any more favoured than they already are.

Just so you better understand my position.

That is good to know. I accept you might believe my criticisms of Lambda-CDM theory are unfair, but then why would it be "unfair' to expect a physical demonstration of concept?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What? No. *Birkeland* demonstrated a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like. You just have refused to read them or respond to them meaningfully.

Care to address Birkeland's "predictions"?

[...]

If you will recall ...

... considerably earlier in this thread, TT said he'd look at "solar wind", wrt what you claimed and what was (is) actually in the Birkeland material.

I said I'd look at "coronal loops" and "jets".

TT asked you for page numbers to help him (the source doc is, after all, >900 pages long); you helpfully provided them.

I made the same request, wrt coronal loops and jets, but you ignored that request. No surprise, then, that it is taking me longer than it took TT to check out your claims.

I just put together an introductory website to the whole concept of a Birkeland solar model. I have referenced my sources.

You did?!?

What is the source of the Yohkoh image? On what date was it taken, at what time? What is the integration time? With what instrument? Using what filter? What is the orientation of the image?

This is what one reads as the caption to the Yohkoh image you included in an earlier post in this thread:

"Yohkoh's view of the chaotic surface of the sun and its increased electrical activity at the dawn of the new millennium. The highest energy is concentrated at the base of the electrical arcs and around the arcs themselves. The light we see in these images is concentrated in the arc itself, indicating this is the hottest iron on the sun. It is being heated by electrical activity." - no date, no orientation, no instrument (Yohkoh has what, three?), no filter, nothing!

Elsewhere on that page you say:

"The following theories are based on concepts that came from downloading, observing and analyzing gigabytes worth of "raw EIT" and other types of SOHO and TRACE videos over many months, and actively viewing TRACE SOHO, and YOHKOH satellite images and other videos and photos of the sun over many years. It is also based in large part on the work of Dr. Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce, and Dr. Oliver Manuel." (bold added; as a side note: nowhere do you describe, much less present, just what analyses you performed).

And:

"I have provided quite a bit of video and JPG files on this website from many satellite images to fully support the ideas I am presenting, but by no means have I provided all the video that is available through the Rhessi, Geos, YOHKOH, SOHO's or TRACE websites." For some of the SOHO and TRACE images on the webpage, there is info on the date and filter (for example), so checking against the source is relatively easy; for the Yohkoh image, it is not.

And so on.

 

[edd]

The concept of "best" becomes a "subjective choice", particularly when Lambda theory starts by inserting ad hoc forces of nature that cannot be demonstrated, nor can we *ever* demonstrate it in the case of inflation.

It's not always possible to have things as quantifiable as one might like, but I rather like the idea of Bayesian model comparison. One can penalise the introduction of ad hoc forces in that scheme because they will have unconstrained parameters - their strength for example will not be constrained by preexisting theory.
Note that Lambda in LCDM is not a force. It's a source of bog standard ordinary gravity. It's still penalised in this system though, as we have no a priori reason to say it should have a density (relative to critical) of 0.7. Despite that, the model comes out well due to its excellent fit with observation from relatively few parameters.
So I would respectfully disagree that the addition of new kinds of physics and the determination of the best model must be subjective and that introducing new physics cannot lead to a quantitative decision procedure between competing models.

That is good to know. I accept you might believe my criticisms of Lambda-CDM theory are unfair, but then why would it be "unfair' to expect a physical demonstration of concept?

Not everything can be demonstrated in the lab - which seems to be what you mean by a "physical demonstration of concept". As an example, gravitational lensing cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory but it is quite observable astronomically - I hope you would admit that?

 

[Reality Check]

By the way, did you happen to notice all his mathematical calculations after that?

By the way, did you notice his mathematical calculations after that are mostly to do with the terrella?
He does have

The energy 1/2 E² C = 5.9X10³⁶ ergs, transformed into heat, will be sufficient to heat to 175 C. globe of iron the size of the earth.

What this has to do with the observed temperature of the Sun is uncertain.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?

Birkelands analogies do not "*include the math and everything*". For example where are his calculations for the shape of sun spots? How does he explain the about 11 year sun spot cycle?

But I do agree with you: His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation with the numbers (empirics?) and knowledge of his time.
The part in bold is the point that you are missing.

P.S. I have not seen any predictions in Birkelands analogies. Since he is comparing his terralla pictures to existing images of the Sun shouldn't these be postdictions? From your previous postings this then invalidates his analogies in the same way as the (as yet unlisted) "postdictions" of inflation invalidate inflation.

Please give a list of Birkelands predictions.

P.S. We are still waiting for your list of "postdictions" of inflation.

Perhaps you can at least give us an idea of the size of the list - is it more than 1? more than 10? more than 1,000,000? Or maybe it is a great big whopping zero, nada, nothing, just something you made up?

 

[Tubbythin]

I know that Birkeland's core theories work in a lab. I know we observe large scale Birkeland currents in space. I see large coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as he 'predicted'. I observe high speed solar wind blowing by Earth. I observe "jets" around the poles of the sun. I observe all the key things that I would expect to observe based on Birkeland's experimental "predictions". That to me makes EU/PC theory a better "predictor" of events in space. It's obviously not as "refined" at larger scales or as "curve fitted' to redshift phenomenon, but as a basic cosmology theory, it has already shown that it has *predictive value*.

How can this possibly be the case when it predicts (and explains) none of the cosmological observations?

 

[Tubbythin]

What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.

None of this has anything to do with cosmology.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?

Hypocrisy at its finest. The man who cannot explain any of the important cosmological observations of the last century trying to pour scorn on theories that do then accuses others of being "arrogant" for allegedly not being able to explain some things he hand-picked (which having nothing to do with cosmology).

 

[ben m]

What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.

Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.
2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.
3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light. High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.
4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures,

This is called a "hypothesis". He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures. That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways. Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"