Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

Actually none of those "interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon are actually an act of faith. It's when Lambda proponents suggest that 'inflation and dark energy and dark matter did it" that it becomes an "act of faith". In other words, I don't object to your belief that the universe is expanding or accelerating. What I object to is the "belief" that "inflation did it", or "dark energy did it".

Its not a belief in the belief without evidence sense since we have have evidence.

Lambda theory has dead inflation elves, dark energy acceleration leprechauns, and big fat invisible dark matter fairies doing all the work, and it *includes math*! Wheeeeeeee!

Please try to separate those crazy Alice in wonderland thoughts of your about elves and leprechauns from observational cosmology. Thanks.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Cosmic plasmas" cannot be responsible for the key cosmological observations of the Universe. Fairly simple really.

How can you *know* that?

We're talking about the accelerated expansion of the universe as a whole. Or I was. You, for some very bizarre reason that I can't quite fathom, keep talking about elves.

The one force of nature that does cause plasma to accelerate is the EM field. What's the big deal about accelerated expansion of a plasma universe?

Dark energy is just a name. How is this name a dogma?

"Acceleration" is just a name. "Dark energy" is a dogma.

What is the cause of the fine structure constant being what we observe it to be?

I'm asking you to explain what *set it in motion*?

a) They're not my theories.

Ok, but you are defending them. Why?

b) The only one mentioning elves and pixies.

Others have noted the excessive need for "fudge factors" in Lambda theory.

c) You really don't get this science malarkey do you.

I get "science" when it has some useful purpose and has no "malarkey" components. It's the dead inflation deities I have no faith in.

I'll repeat:
1) Make observation(s).
2) Construct theory to describe said observation(s).

"Inflation Elves did it and killed the monopole clan" is not a "theory", it's a bizarre postdicted dogma thingy.

3) Make predictions from said theory.

How does one make a "prediction" based on something they made up in their head?

4) Compare prediction with observation/experiment.

Oh look, inflation elves *did it*, and here's the math to prove it.

When we're observing on scales when it is observable?

So, we can't observe it here. We can only observe it somewhere "out there" where we can never measure it? If it's not observable on scales on Earth, what makes you think dark energy is observable at any scale? Acceleration is not "dark energy".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Its not a belief in the belief without evidence sense since we have have evidence.

You might be able to effectively argue that you have evidence of accelerating expansion. You could never show evidence that "inflation or dark energy did it".

Please try to separate those crazy Alice in wonderland thoughts of your about elves and leprechauns from observational cosmology. Thanks.

Ditto on "inflation" and "dark energy". They don't exist in nature, they have never existed in nature and they will never exist in nature. Whatever the "cause" of an accelerating expansion of a mostly plasma universe might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either of these ad hoc constructs.

 

[Ziggurat]

The one force of nature that does cause plasma to accelerate is the EM field.

Nonsense. Gravity causes plasmas to accelerate too. And at sufficiently large scales, much more easily too, since it works on neutral plasmas and can't be shielded.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nonsense. Gravity causes plasmas to accelerate too. And at sufficiently large scales, much more easily too, since it works on neutral plasmas and can't be shielded.

Is that a "gravity" formula with or without the constants of inflation and dark energy?

Gravity should be slowing your whole party down, not causing it to accelerate.

 

[Tubbythin]

How can you *know* that?

Well. I don't "know" it. But since nobody's shown how to explain eg the CMBR or Olbers' paradox I have no reason to believe it.

The one force of nature that does cause plasma to accelerate is the EM field. What's the big deal about accelerated expansion of a plasma universe?

Erm. You have no model to describe how it happens or how it matches other cosmological observations.

"Acceleration" is just a name. "Dark energy" is a dogma.

Dark energy is just the name for whatever is causing the acceleration.

I'm asking you to explain what *set it in motion*?

I don't really know what you mean. What set the fine structure constant?

Ok, but you are defending them. Why?

I'm not really defending them per se. I'm just defending good honest science that explains cosmological observations from the rubbish you keep spouting that does not.

Others have noted the excessive need for "fudge factors" in Lambda theory.

It is nice that theory is elegant. It is better, however, that it is not, however, trivial false.

I get "science" when it has some useful purpose and has no "malarkey" components. It's the dead inflation deities I have no faith in.

So science just for the a desire what's going on around you is not your cup of tea? Your loss. The only one talking about deities is you. I suggest you head over to the religion forum if you want to talk about them. This is the science forum.

"Inflation Elves did it and killed the monopole clan" is not a "theory",

Correct.

it's a bizarre postdicted dogma thingy.

Incorrect. Its a strawman you just constructed in your head. You really need to get this whole idea of what is reality and what is made up in your head sorted.

How does one make a "prediction" based on something they made up in their head?

So the world's leading cosmologists just made it up their head did they. They didn't study physics to degree level and then to a PhD in their chosen area. They didn't become intimiately familiar with General relativity or the results of observational cosmology? Seriously. Got any evidence for that?

Oh look, inflation elves *did it*, and here's the math to prove it.

Oh look. Strawman!

So, we can't observe it here. We can only observe it somewhere "out there" where we can never measure it?

Things can't be measured by observation? Blimey! Better get rid of the heliocentric model of the solar system then hadn't we?

If it's not observable on scales on Earth, what makes you think dark energy is observable at any scale?

Neutron stars aren't observable on scales the size of the Earth. But you're fine with them. Funny that.

Acceleration is not "dark energy".

See above.

 

[Tubbythin]

You might be able to effectively argue that you have evidence of accelerating expansion. You could never show evidence that "inflation or dark energy did it".

Well nobody is claiming inflation did it. So I can't fathom you're point. As I keep saying, dark energy is just a label.

Ditto on "inflation" and "dark energy". They don't exist in nature, they have never existed in nature and they will never exist in nature.

So explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem and the accelerated expansion of the Universe then. If you're so certain you must have a better alternative.

Whatever the "cause" of an accelerating expansion of a mostly plasma universe might be, it has nothing whatsoever to do with either of these ad hoc constructs.

So what is it then?

 

[Tubbythin]

Gravity should be slowing your whole party down, not causing it to accelerate.

My God. He doesn't even understand what acceleration is.

 

[ben m]

One thing at a time. Please agree or disagree:

1) I can set up some currents over here and get some magnetic fields in a vacuum over there. Yes or no?

2) If yes, those magnetic fields---way over there in the vacuum, not just in the middle of the source current---can change topology in the way that everyone refers to as "reconnection", as in the several explicit Maxwell's Equations-obeying examples we've shown you. Yes or no?

Let's start there. Notice: no plasma yet, no energy releases. I just want to see if you've gotten it straight on the easy part.

I repeat the question.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is that a "gravity" formula with or without the constants of inflation and dark energy?

Do you even know what the word "acceleration" means? It's not clear that you do. For our current discussions, it actually has two meanings:
1) the rate of change in velocity of an object moving through space
2) the rate of change in the rate of expansion of space itself

You asked a question about accelerating plasmas. That means you must be refering to 1), not 2). What causes accelerations of objects moving through space? Well, forces do. Electric forces act on charges, and so can accelerate charged plasmas or the charged components of neutral plasmas (though typically not for very long in the latter case, as that motion will then create shielding). Gravitational forces can also act on plasmas, and accelerate them. And that applies whether we're talking about GR (with or without a cosmological constant/dark energy) or even just plain old vanilla Newtonian gravity.

Gravity should be slowing your whole party down, not causing it to accelerate.

Slowing down is acceleration. Talk about a fail at the most basic level.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Clouding the issues

Slowing down is acceleration.

I don't think this is really a fair criticism, and it is the kind of thing that causes discussions like this, if we can call it a "discussion", to derail into quipy one-liners and fill up with semantic arguments. Of course in physics, any change in velocity is an acceleration. However, we all know enough colloquial English to be familiar with the colloquial usage of accelerate and decelerate, where the former always means "speed up" and the latter "slow down"; that's why the thing in your car is called an accelerator. That's obviously how Mozina was using the word, as anyone would in common, everyday English.

I would like to see less of the penny ante stuff, and more of the real stuff. Mozina makes quite enough mistakes on the real stuff that this kind of complaint just clouds the issues.

 

[Tubbythin]

I don't think this is really a fair criticism, and it is the kind of thing that causes discussions like this, if we can call it a "discussion", to derail into quipy one-liners and fill up with semantic arguments. Of course in physics, any change in velocity is an acceleration. However, we all know enough colloquial English to be familiar with the colloquial usage of accelerate and decelerate, where the former always means "speed up" and the latter "slow down"; that's why the thing in your car is called an accelerator. That's obviously how Mozina was using the word, as anyone would in common, everyday English.

This doesn't stop the fact that the statement:

The one force of nature that does cause plasma to accelerate is the EM field

is just plain wrong (if we assume by "one" he meant "only").

 

[Ziggurat]

That's obviously how Mozina was using the word, as anyone would in common, everyday English.

I understand what you're saying. The problem is, it's rarely really clear what MM means when he uses physics terms. He appears to have confused the two uses of acceleration I mentioned above, for example.

Mozina makes quite enough mistakes on the real stuff that this kind of complaint just clouds the issues.

If you're hoping for clarity, the length of this thread should already demonstrate the futility of that. I've given up hope of actually educating MM on any of this. So yeah, my responses are snarky now. Honest effort on my part in the past has produced no results, I'm tired of trying.

 

[The Man]

My God. He doesn't even understand what acceleration is.

Naturally, since all forces, energy, momentum, pressure and even acceleration must be positive is his imaginary 'kinetic' universe there can be no negative acceleration or a conservation of energy and Newton’s third law.

ETA:

In light of Tim Thompson’s more recent remarks I should point out that terms like deceleration tend to play into MM confusion and sustain his positive only perception, since a negative acceleration is just a positive deceleration. We must specifically address the issues that MM is having a problem with like negative energy, pressure, force and perhaps acceleration, not enabled his confusion by speaking only in positive references like declaration as opposed to the more technically correct and vector application of a negative acceleration.

 

[sol invictus]

I would like to see less of the penny ante stuff, and more of the real stuff. Mozina makes quite enough mistakes on the real stuff that this kind of complaint just clouds the issues.

I'm not sure I agree that's the right strategy. It's obvious that MM doesn't understand even basic physics, let alone the advanced stuff we're supposed to be discussing here. It's equally obvious that he doesn't recognize his lack of understanding - on the contrary, he is deluded enough to think he understands things better than all the experts. His posting history demonstrates that he is extremely unlikely to correct either deficiency. Therefore the only point in these threads is to educate others that happen to read them, and to ensure that they do not believe any of the absurdities MM is spouting (or at least arm them with the minimum information they need to check them for themselves).

So what's the best strategy? After having demolished his absurd statements many times over, mine is to ignore him. Yours is to respond in more generality, and take the opportunity to explain some correct physics. Most others respond to specific false statements he makes and explain why they are wrong. All these approaches have their advantages and disadvantages, and it's not clear which is the best.

 

[Tim Thompson]

The title of this thread is Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?. We are off on some tangent about plasma that really belongs in the other discussion on plasma cosmology, and off on some tangent about electricity and the sun that belongs off in a thread of its own. So I would like to take the opportunity to return to the title topic.

• Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Answer: Certainly not

Just because one person, or even a few people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Just because some really smart person or a few really smart people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Even if at least one Nobel Prize winner though that it was "woo" does not make it so. Despite some feelings to the contrary, science actually is in part determined by consensus. But is is a moving consensus, not a fixed consensus. Opinions change, and indeed whole scientific disciplines change from time to time, sometimes significantly so.

In the context of physics as we know it today, there simply is no cosmological theory which can muster the level of observational support that the concordance model of cosmology (Lambda - CDM cosmology) can muster. Indeed, plasma cosmology is no longer a serious contender, having lost out on merit, pure & simple, to big bang cosmology, during the cosmology wars of the 50's & 60's, and on into the 80's. Lambda-CDM cosmology is indeed the last cosmology standing.

It is consistent with the original observations of Edwin Hubble (Hubble, 1929), and remains consistent with the current observations of high redshift type-Ia supernovae (Wood-Vasey, et al., 2007). Indeed, better than the minimum requirement of being consistent with the observations, an examination of multiple cosmological models against the supernova data shows that the standard, Lambda-CDM cosmology is in fact statistically favored (Davis, et al., 2007). It is also consistent with observations of the cosmic microwave background (Dunkley, et al., 2009).

Inflation is a perfectly valid concept, and the constant complaint that inflation cannot be directly observed in a laboratory is so weak as to be almost irrelevant. The fact remains that inflation passes the observational test of being consistent with physics as we know it (i.e., Baumann & Peiris, 2008; Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007; Amruth & Patwardhan, 2006; Pieris, et al., 2003 & etc.). The same is true for both dark matter & dark energy, the latter being the Lambda of Lambda-CDM cosmology; see, for instance, Ellis, 2008 which importantly discusses the role of laboratory experiments.

Note that my purpose is not to assert that Lambda-CDM cosmology is correct, or even that it is not wrong. Rather, my point is that it is not "woo", which is clearly meant to mean something far worse than just plain wrong. Rather, the real science clearly shows that Lambda-CDM cosmology is clearly not "woo", and has good chances of being in fact "right".

 

[Tim Thompson]

Educating the Lurkers

It's obvious that MM doesn't understand even basic physics, ...

Indeed so.

... Yours is to respond in more generality, and take the opportunity to explain some correct physics.

I find it to be the only alternative to fits of insane rage . I use my posting opportunities to review what I know, consult my books & papers, and either remind myself of the relevant physics, refine my own knowledge, or learn it for the first time. I have no false illusions about miraculous conversions, but at least I get something out of it for my time.

I note that while I have been in this forum since Dec 2008, this will be, I think, my 59th post (we'll see if I remember well enough), while Mozina, who has been in this form since Feb 2009 has already amassed over 700 posts. And all that time I have posted 2 or 3 messages on other boards, and have been active only here, while Mozina has been active evidently on multiple boards, and busy on all of them. How can there be any time at all for consideration, thought, or even eating & sleeping, with a post rate so high?

Therefore the only point in these threads is to educate others that happen to read them, and to ensure that they do not believe any of the absurdities MM is spouting (or at least arm them with the minimum information they need to check them for themselves).

Emphasis mine, and I could not agree more. It is really the only reason I bother at all.

 

[derekmcd]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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.

My question was:

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

Just reposting in case you missed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't think this is really a fair criticism, and it is the kind of thing that causes discussions like this, if we can call it a "discussion", to derail into quipy one-liners and fill up with semantic arguments. Of course in physics, any change in velocity is an acceleration. However, we all know enough colloquial English to be familiar with the colloquial usage of accelerate and decelerate, where the former always means "speed up" and the latter "slow down"; that's why the thing in your car is called an accelerator. That's obviously how Mozina was using the word, as anyone would in common, everyday English.

I would like to see less of the penny ante stuff, and more of the real stuff. Mozina makes quite enough mistakes on the real stuff that this kind of complaint just clouds the issues.

It's comments like this one that make it hard not to appreciate your level headed rational thinking Tim, even when we disagree on issues.

Now if we can just agree that "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" are the same process, things would proceed rather quickly.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The title of this thread is Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?. We are off on some tangent about plasma that really belongs in the other discussion on plasma cosmology, and off on some tangent about electricity and the sun that belongs off in a thread of its own. So I would like to take the opportunity to return to the title topic.

• Question: Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?
• Answer: Certainly not

Just because one person, or even a few people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Just because some really smart person or a few really smart people think it is "woo" does not make it so. Even if at least one Nobel Prize winner though that it was "woo" does not make it so. Despite some feelings to the contrary, science actually is in part determined by consensus. But is is a moving consensus, not a fixed consensus. Opinions change, and indeed whole scientific disciplines change from time to time, sometimes significantly so.

I agree with everything you said to this point in the post.

In the context of physics as we know it today, there simply is no cosmological theory which can muster the level of observational support that the concordance model of cosmology (Lambda - CDM cosmology) can muster.

Well, that's not exactly a mystery now is it? The whole thing has been a "curve fitting exercise" from the very start. Guth curve fit the inflation thing into place, and Lambda-CMD filled in the "gaps" rather liberally (75%) with "dark energy" and more gap filler in the form of "dark matter". How could it not fit the postdicted observations with almost 96% metaphysical "gap filler"?

Indeed, plasma cosmology is no longer a serious contender, having lost out on merit,

Sorry Tim, but from my vantage point that sounds like a flat earth "believer" telling me that a round earth theory is no longer a serious contender. Birkeland's ideas work in a lab and "explain" many observations in space that modern cosmology theories have not explained. PC theory started over 100 years ago and it is going to be around long after both of us are dead and buried.

pure & simple, to big bang cosmology, during the cosmology wars of the 50's & 60's, and on into the 80's. Lambda-CDM cosmology is indeed the last cosmology standing.

It's the most "popular" theory at this particular moment in time. So? I've seen a lot of cosmology theories come and go over time, especially the 'prophetic' variety.

It is consistent with the original observations of Edwin Hubble (Hubble, 1929), and remains consistent with the current observations of high redshift type-Ia supernovae (Wood-Vasey, et al., 2007).

But any sort of expansion would do.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

That doesn't necessitate or validate "inflation" or "dark energy", or "SUSY" brands of "dark matter" theory. Without these little fudge factors, your curve fitting exercise is toast.

Indeed, better than the minimum requirement of being consistent with the observations, an examination of multiple cosmological models against the supernova data shows that the standard, Lambda-CDM cosmology is in fact statistically favored (Davis, et al., 2007).

Come now. You must realize how silly that sounds. You do realize that I'm old enough to have seen "dark energy" stuffed into cosmology theories, correct? When it fails, stuff it liberally with any ad hoc terminology and a wee bit of math, and viola, an "new and improved", "statistically favored" theory is born, and all the old ones bite the dust.

It is also consistent with observations of the cosmic microwave background (Dunkley, et al., 2009).

Sure, but so might a lot of things be consistent with some elements of the microwave background. That by itself is not enough to validate a whole cosmology theory based on 3 different non empirically demonstrated entities/terminologies.

Inflation is a perfectly valid concept,

How so? What other *physically demonstrated* force of nature is even remotely like "inflation", and can undergo multiple exponential increases in volume with little or no reduction in density? Light and the EM field certainly don't act that way.

and the constant complaint that inflation cannot be directly observed in a laboratory is so weak as to be almost irrelevant.

In this case however it's not only that this idea cannot be directly observed, it is also that you expect me to believe that it is inconveniently gone forever and can *never* be tested in any empirical context. That's pure "faith".

The fact remains that inflation passes the observational test of being consistent with physics as we know it

Er, only if we suddenly "know" that some new force of nature exist(ed) and and is now gone? I'm sorry, but the notion that "dark energy" or "inflation" is "consistent" with "physics as we know it" is like claiming God is consistent with physics as we know it. Sure, I suppose that's possible, but then what isn't "possible" to include in that list if we start allowing for non empirically demonstrated things?

Note that my purpose is not to assert that Lambda-CDM cosmology is correct, or even that it is not wrong. Rather, my point is that it is not "woo", which is clearly meant to mean something far worse than just plain wrong.

Well, by "woo", I would say it has the same exact "predictive" value in a "controlled experiment" as say numerology or astrology. Inflation is gone, so it has no effect on anything anymore so it has no usefulness today. "Dark energy" isn't even defined, so it's not even an "explanation" of anything, and again it has no "predictive" value in a controlled experiment.

SUSY theory oddly enough is the one ace up Lambdas sleeve that *may* save it from total humiliation, but other than that it has zero in the way of "predictive" value in a controlled experiment to this point in time.

Rather, the real science clearly shows that Lambda-CDM cosmology is clearly not "woo", and has good chances of being in fact "right".

By "right", do you mean *after* you physically identify what "dark matter" actually is?