Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[edd]

You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept. It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.

If this were true there would be no C in "CDM".

 

[edd]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist
I think this is a pretty excellent review of good alternatives to dark energy - and I think the existence of good alternatives and the science that's being planned to test these and dark energy models shows that LCDM is not woo.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is not a serious criticism. As I have already said, when that which is known fails, then you appeal to new ideas. All you can do is resort to insulting references to "Elves" simply because you actually have no argument with substance, and we all know it.

No Tim. Your whole premise is based on an "inflation of the gaps" argument. Your argument seems to be that If I cannot "explain" something to your personal liking this gives you an automatic free pass to stuff the gaps of our mutual ignorance with "inflation". This doesn't fly. You can't just "make up" stuff on a whim and add math.

Inflation does not exist in nature and never will exist in nature anymore than elves exist in nature. Slapping on some math to a new metaphysical label doesn't justify the concept. Ditto on "dark energy". Acceleration doesn't need a "dark mysterious label name". Purely hypothetical SUSY particles are now being assigned various "properties" by astronomers that are being "studied" in space, without ever verifying anything at all here on Earth. The whole theory is one giant series of ad hoc assertions built upon more ad hoc assertions, and it is devoid of actual "explanations" in terms of physics. What *is* "dark energy"?

Assuming that the unknown "inflation" is responsible is absolutely valid science in every sense, except perhaps in your own private version of science.

God did it must be "ok" then as well. If you cannot ever justify your ad hoc assertion in an empirical experiment here on Earth, what differentiates your beliefs from a religious belief?

Nonsense. Neutrinos are "invisible" as it relates to photon interaction, so that is not being "made up".

I have pointed out that anything *known to exist* is fine by me. When however you don't have any 'experiments' to justify any of your claims, *then* it's a problem. SUSY particle physics theory is a *non standard* brand of particle physics theory. It has no empirical support in a lab in controlled experiments. We have never seen any such particles. It is irrational to simply *assume* they have various "properties", and even more ridiculous to be pointing at the sky and claiming SUSY particles did it!

And it is not just common, but almost mandatory that all massive particles decay; high energy physics is full of decaying particles. So why should "dark matter" particles be any different?

Why should they not show up in a lab if they are "no different'?

In fact, quite the contrary to what you think, "invisibility" as relates to photon interaction, and decay, are both standard particle physics, very much typical of controlled laboratory experiments, and are chosen specifically to avoid going any farther into the realm of new ideas than the empirical data require. They are both not made up, but chosen to force dark matter particles to act like any other particle would. Every property alleged of dark matter particles is already found in empirical particle physics, nothing made up anywhere.

Except the particles themselves you mean? Come on Tim. Lambda theory has invisible friends pushing around other invisible friends that were all pushed apart by deceased invisible friends. Only 4% of that theory is based on *tested* empirical physics.

On the contrary, it is all actual physics involving previously established control mechanisms from well known particle physics. On this argument you are not just wrong, but extremely so.

That would be fine except the small fact that you have no evidence that they actually exist in nature!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Uh, sure , right Michael, you don't answer direct questions, that is well established.

That's a bunch of baloney. It's your side that won't answer anything useful, like the size of the near singularity thingy, the "trigger" that made it "blow/inflate" one fine day, etc. When I ask for a physic physical demonstration of concept, I get a big run around and a bunch of math assignments. I can just see some guy coming to my door trying to sell me a vacuum cleaner that runs on "inflation" and dark energy". "Sure Mr. Mozina, I'll be happy to turn on the vacuum and demonstrate that it works as advertised for you but first you'll have to do this calculus problem for me......." Ya right.

So you can explain the 'solar wind' being composed of all three kinds of partciles, sure you can!

Huh? Have you ever even bothered to read the sig line at the bottom of all my posts? I can certainly explain how electrons cause protons to be carried away from the sun. I can explain how charge separation creates full sphere emissions from a sphere in a vacuum. It's been done.

That is why you have avoided answering it.

Answering "what" exactly? The only thing I have "avoided" here is being sucked into a black hole of a million threads on separate topics that I can't keep up with.

Electricity "works" in a lab. It has been *shown* to heat plasma to millions of degrees here on Earth. It has been *shown* to emit gamma rays in the atmosphere of Earth. It has been *shown* to exist in nature.

Right or wrong, any theory that combines gravity and electricity isn't "woo". It might be "wrong" obviously, but it can never be "woo' because it is based upon known laws of physics. Inflation does not exist in nature. It will never exist in nature. Acceleration is not caused by "dark energy" because "dark energy" does not exist in nature. SUSY particles are hypothetical particles related to a *non* standard brand of particle physics theory, and even there you're betting on the dark horse of "science". At best case, only 4% of this Lambda-CDM "hypothesis" is based on actual physics. It will forever remain "woo" because you folks can never demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of your collective imagination, and "dark energy" is not physically "explained".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Right... so we can either take the observation that the Universe is flat, use to construct a theory that makes predictions and then test those predictions against empirical observations.

But if I start by saying the universe is flat because it is flat, and it has electrical current running through it, somehow your theory is "superior"?

Or we can say "I don't know, I don't want to know and I'm gonna hurl abuse at anybody who does". Now... which is the more scientific.

Didn't you guys hurl abuse at PC/EU theory before I even got here? How many views does the PC (is woo) thread have now? Did you think your own theories were somehow immune from or above criticism?

The fact that you have to resort to phrases like "creation mythos", "elves" "deities" etc is a clear sign to everybody that you are not arguing with science.

You aren't arguing with "science" either, your arguing with words you made up like "inflation" and "Dark energy".

You're arguing against the little strawmen you made up in your head. This is a particularly pathetic form of debate.

Trying to ignore the fact that Lambda theory is based on 3 different hypothetical entities, none of which can be empirically demonstrated is rather pathetic IMO too. I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. I could not compare elves to EM fields or to gravity, or to kinetic energy, or anything that exists in nature because these things show up in nature, and in the lab. The only reason I can compare inflation to elves is because both of these items have exactly the same "predictive" value when it comes to determining the outcome of controlled experimentation, and neither exists in nature.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm not sure it was intended, but this part of your post, MM, is richly ironic.

Especially in light of the posts you and I have exchanged re the Birkeland photograph and Yohkoh image.

For starters, the Yohkoh image is, itself, heavily processed data (as I discovered when I finally tracked down the source - more later), and its representation as an image is - at heart - nothing more and nothing less than curve fitting!

It's more of a "photon observation" process actually, but sure there are "processing routines" involved.

Indeed.

And what, are "photons"?

Why they are figments of the imagination, the only way they can be "*demonstrated*", as "physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" is via curve fitting.

So the Yohkoh image is curve fitting applied to curve fitting applied to curve fitting ...

But more critically, the turn of the 19th century was about the last time any serious physics could be done without curve fitting^, in the sense that "*demonstrated* physical entities that have *physical* effects in nature" do so only through the mediation of "curve fitting".

And I must say I'm a little surprised to read what you wrote (the parts I'm quoting) ... after all, your name, as author, is on a published paper whose key content includes nuclear physics!

I'm intrigued ... would you care to describe how any particular nuclear transition that I may choose to specify (i.e. a 'physical entity') can be "*demonstrated*" (in the lab, in controlled experiments) without curve fitting? Ditto, wrt *demonstrating* that such a nuclear transition has "*physical* effects in nature"?

^ and, if you you want to be strict about this, it's hard to make a case that any serious physics was done since the time of Galileo, without 'curve fitting'

You still seem to be overlooking the one obvious difference between a curve fitting exercise based on known forces of nature, vs. curve fitting exercises with inflation elves.

(bold added)

You've said this - or something like - many, many times in the life of this thread.

Several folk have tried to explain that the difference is neither obvious nor non-scientific.

I think it's fair to say that no one has yet explained this sufficiently well that you are able to grok it, much less accept it ... and I'm curious to understand why.

I went back and re-read parts of the this thread, and I think I have a better grasp of why you find it so hard to even comprehend what people have been saying.

The clue, to me, comes from the apparent ease with which you elided from Birkeland photographs to Yohkoh images, apparently seeing consistency galore, and being (apparently) quite blind to amazing assumptions you were making.

That, and 'curve fitting'.

Let's review some of the earlier posts, shall we? Bold added unless otherwise noted.

MM (#254): "Here is a Yohkoh image (orange) next to a black and white image of coronal loops (and polar jets) simulated by Birkeland in his lab"

DRD (#458): (quoting Peratt) "He then shot clouds of electrons towards this simulated Earth to produce light phenomena that looked like aurora. (We now know that the solar wind also consists of positive ions, as well as negative electrons.) [...] While the actual process is somewhat more complicated than he envisioned [...], his results were surprisingly good."

MM (#463): "Even with relatively low technology [Birkeland] *explained and simulated* what still seems to mystify your entire industry to this day. Ditto on coronal loops, jets, plasma filamentary structures, etc."

DRD (#479): "One problem (of several) is that [Birkeland] was lucky in his simulations ... for example, the solar wind is quite different from the stream of electrons in his terrella, in terms of density and speed, and the mismatch persists even after one applies the well-known plasma scaling rules (due to Alfvén?)."

MM (#488): "Why can't you "explain" or "simulate" something Birkeland was able to both explain and simulate over 100 years ago? [...] He created coronal loops in his lab and wrote all about them! [...] you *can't* explain solar wind acceleration and you *refuse* to accept the one "solution" that has actually been physically shown to work empirically, in a lab, with control mechanisms"

DRD (#504): "Why not put "the mainstream" out of its misery, by writing a paper which shows, once and for all, in great clarity and quantitative detail, how "Birkeland was on to something as it relates to solar activity"? [...] So, how about this for a plan: You write up a paper (or papers) showing - in considerable, quantitative detail - just how good/accurate/right/etc Birkeland's "explanations" "for things the mainstream cannot explain *TO THIS VERY DAY*" are. You then put it up on your website and let us all know about it. One (or more) of us will then take that material, make some trivial edits to it, change the name of the author, and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal. When the phone call from Stockholm comes, we promise to give you (and Birkeland) full credit for the ideas, in our acceptance speeches. Sound like a plan to you? [...] Surely the most potent blow you could deal to "the mainstream" would be to put fingers to keyboard and show us all what is apparently so blindingly obvious to you?"

(suggestion repeated in #654)

MM (#656): "Er, they'd give a Nobel to some guy that rides Birkeland's coattails and is himself 100 years late to the party? Wow, what a "discovery' I made by actually reading Birkeland's work. [...] Birkeland did me one better already. Have you bothered to even read his work?"

So, a month or more ago, MM stated, as clearly as could be, that the 994-page Birkeland document provided all the data, math, logic, etc that anyone - including a certain committee in Stockholm - could ever ask for regarding a complete and fundamental explanation of the solar wind, coronal loops, and polar jets (and, no doubt, much more). Further, all these were, in fact, actually simulated in Birkeland's lab.

However, since then some active contributors to this thread have actually gone and read that 994-page document, and have concluded that MM's claims are inconsistent with the facts.

And one active contributor - DRD - with the support of several others (e.g. GM, DD, TT), has shown that the only logical basis for MM's claims is "looks-like-a-bunny science" (to quote GM)^.

Now we can remove one more plank in MM's repeated assertions: "known forces of nature".

Recall that "curve fitting" is OK if is based on such a thing as a "known force of nature", doubly so if such a known force can be empirically demonstrated in real experiments in real labs under controlled conditions.

Now most of us accept gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong (nuclear) force, and the weak (nuclear) force as "known forces of nature" ... and MM apparently does too.

But what if these have this exulted status only by benefit of "curve fitting"?

It would appear, from all that MM has written - including the falling plasma ball from Tesco and the 9v battery on the tongue - that these known forces of nature come first and the curve fitting comes second.

But how can that be? For example, how can there be a weak and a separate strong force independent of "curve fitting"? Using MM logic, aren't the existence of two separate (nuclear) forces merely elaborate mathematical contrivances, curve fitting par excellence? Or, perhaps, simply convenient shorthand ways of describing the results of a very large number of interesting experiments and observations?

Quite some time ago, several folk tried to get MM to show how even the Newtonian formula for gravity could be empirically demonstrated in the lab, using controlled experiments, within a century or two of Newton's publication of it. IIRC, MM simply ducked and weaved and didn't answer any of the questions (I may be wrong; if so, please someone set the record straight). So even gravity becomes curve fitting!

Which brings me to electromagnetism ...

Is electromagnetism one known force of nature? or two? or more??

Key question for MM: how can you answer, other than by an elaborate exercise in curve fitting?

I don't mind you "scaling' something to size, or using mathematical models based on controlled known forces of nature. When you start slapping math to invisible made up stuff, then I'm no longer interested. A good example of how far your industry takes this idea is the notion that Dark Matter has various "properties", like "invisibility" as it relates to photon interaction and it's ability to "decay" or emit gamma rays. You're industry is making this stuff up as it goes without any empirical support of concept. It's purely a point at the sky exercise devoid of any actual physics or physical control mechanisms.

(bold added)

In light of what I wrote above, in this post, it should be much clearer to all readers where the deep disconnect is, in your approach MM ...

^ well, there are still various i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed, ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Huh? Have you ever even bothered to read the sig line at the bottom of all my posts? I can certainly explain how electrons cause protons to be carried away from the sun. I can explain how charge separation creates full sphere emissions from a sphere in a vacuum. It's been done.

[...]

(bold added)

You can?

If so, then you admit that you can do much more than Birkeland could do?

And that you can, by building on what he wrote - in that 994-page document - provide a complete explanation for all the observed properties of the solar wind, coronal loops, and (solar) polar jets? An explanation that you have asserted, many times, continues to elude space scientists today?

And the reason you have not written a paper on this, much less got one published, is because ...?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Define "physically "explain'".

I'd like to see you physically explain the "cause" of "acceleration".

EU can be used to make predictions about the cosmos. Unfortunately for EU, these predictions have a nasty habit of being completely and utterly inconsistent with empirical observations.

That is totally and completely *untrue*. Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora. He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis. He observed high energy discharges in his solar terrella atmosphere, and we *observe* them in modern satellite images. He predicted "jets", particularly near the poles, and indeed we observe these phenomenon.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I[...] Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora. He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis. He observed high energy discharges in his solar terrella atmosphere, and we *observe* them in modern satellite images. He predicted "jets", particularly near the poles, and indeed we observe these phenomenon.

(bold added)

Really?

I thought you stated, earlier, that Birkeland did not make images in the soft x-ray band?

I thought you also stated, earlier, that the work necessary to show that the Birkeland simulations do, in fact, correspond to the physical conditions of the solar corona has not been done (certainly not by you)?

And so on.

So, without all the hard work to actually show - empirically - that there is even a feasible correspondence between Birkeland's photographs and what's "in modern satellite images" (based on "known forces of nature", of course), then perhaps one may say this of what you wrote: that is totally and completely *untrue*?

Oh, and I note that there's a certain, um, change in the language you use wrt these assertions MM; shall I make a side-by-side comparison to highlight them?

 

[Ziggurat]

That is totally and completely *untrue*. Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora.

He also hypothesized that planets formed by such solar wind particles condensing over time.

He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis.

Except his method is simply wrong. The sun is not a highly charged sphere with a 6x10⁸ volt potential. Hell, even the sign of his proposed net charge is wrong: it should be weakly positive, not strongly negative. Its actual maximum charge is closer to 100 Coulombs, but Birkeland would require a charge many orders of magnitude larger. Doing the calculations to show what would happen with such absurdly large voltages isn't hard. Any guesses as to what would happen with this large a voltage?

Oh, and he also thought that the earth's atmosphere may have formed from radioactive decay of heavier elements on earth.

Birkeland was very wrong about a lot of stuff involving the sun. And that, frankly, should surprise no one. Before we knew about fusion, any theories about the sun were bound to be at least a little bit screwy.

 

[Tubbythin]

But if I start by saying the universe is flat because it is flat, and it has electrical current running through it, somehow your theory is "superior"?

Its not my theory. How many times do you need to be told this to comprehend such a simple fact?
Look. We have this theory of gravity which is called General relativity. GR tells us that space can have positive or negative curvature or it can be flat. Empirical measurements of the curvature of space have been done and they show that the Universe is very very near to being flat. But without inflation there is no particular reason (that I know of) why it should be damn near flat. So a testable, falsifiable theory which can account for this and matches the other cosmological data is better than one cannot.

Didn't you guys hurl abuse at PC/EU theory before I even got here?

I don't recall anyone who completely failed to understand even the most basic grasp of PC/EU throwing abuse, no.

How many views does the PC (is woo) thread have now?

I dunno. How many?

Did you think your own theories were somehow immune from or above criticism?

Er, no.

You aren't arguing with "science" either, your arguing with words you made up like "inflation" and "Dark energy".

I didn't make up either of these words. The first was around before I was born! The fact that you cannot understand that theories like inflation can make predictions that can be then compared with new observations is no problem of mine.

Trying to ignore the fact that Lambda theory is based on 3 different hypothetical entities, none of which can be empirically demonstrated is rather pathetic IMO too.

You don't seem to have any idea of what "empircal" means.
Along with "definition" and "cosmology".

I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. I could not compare elves to EM fields or to gravity, or to kinetic energy, or anything that exists in nature because these things show up in nature, and in the lab.

I don't see why not. These elves are, after all ficticious things you make up in your head.

The only reason I can compare inflation to elves is because both of these items have exactly the same "predictive" value when it comes to determining the outcome of controlled experimentation, and neither exists in nature.

So, if your so sure inflation never happened... explain the flatness problem and the horizon problem. Go on! That be an awesome way to shut me up.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'd like to see you physically explain the "cause" of "acceleration".

Acceleration of what? And, define "physically explain".

That is totally and completely *untrue*. Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora. He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis. He observed high energy discharges in his solar terrella atmosphere, and we *observe* them in modern satellite images. He predicted "jets", particularly near the poles, and indeed we observe these phenomenon.

I was talking about cosmological observations (this is, after all, a thread on cosmology). Try again.

 

[Reality Check]

That is totally and completely *untrue*. Birkeland predicted that high speed solar wind particles from the sun were the "cause" of aurora. He showed a method whereby a sun *could* emit high speed charged particles from around the whole sphere on a continuous basis. He observed high energy discharges in his solar terrella atmosphere, and we *observe* them in modern satellite images. He predicted "jets", particularly near the poles, and indeed we observe these phenomenon.

The first sentence is correct (if a bit inexact - how fast is "high speed"?).

But then you go into your usual mistakes.

• He demonstrated an experimental analogy (his words) whereby a metal sphere could emit high speed negatively charged particles in paths that look like the emissions form the Sun.
  This as now known to be an model of a system that does not exist since the Sun emits both electrons and protons. Protons are positively charged particles.
• He observed high energy discharges in visible light.
  You keep comparing his visible light images to satellite images (actually only one) that are in the soft x-ray band. Birkeland would never make this elementary mistake.
• This has of course nothing to do with cosmology of any sort.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Lambda-CDM theory is not woo. It is however a non scientific crackpot theory, which is precariously balanced atop of mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive.

 

[Reality Check]

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Lambda-CDM theory is not woo. It is however a non scientific crackpot theory, which is precariously balanced atop of mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive.

And the list of "mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive" are?

There is only one "mathematical abstraction" in Lambda-CDM theory. That is the scientific theory of inflation. This started as a hypothesis to explain the known problems with BB. It made testable, falsifiable predictions. These predictions were tested and confirmed. That makes into a scientific theory.

Everything else is an observation: dark matter, dark energy and all of the evidence for an expanding universe.

 

[Tubbythin]

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Lambda-CDM theory is not woo. It is however a non scientific crackpot theory, which is precariously balanced atop of mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive.

Actually its balanced upon general relativity and some of the most advanced observations of space made my mankind. But don't let that spoil a good PC lie.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Lambda-CDM theory is not woo. It is however a non scientific crackpot theory, which is precariously balanced atop of mathematical abstractions that are far from definitive.

(bold added)

What are your criteria for determining whether some theory is "a non scientific crackpot theory", Z?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Astronomy is a science

So this leads to the obvious question. Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not?

It has no empirical support in a lab in controlled experiments. ... If you cannot ever justify your ad hoc assertion in an empirical experiment here on Earth, what differentiates your beliefs from a religious belief?

You never explicitly answered my question, but this will do. I presume therefore that you deny that astronomy is a science, and you deny that astronomical data are empirical.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The Yohkoh image, in post #254 in this thread, is from Yohkoh's SXT, on 1 Feb 1992; the filter used is the AlMg one. It's actually a composite image, comprising 2 separate images. Considerable processing was involved.

You can find it from the Yohkoh Legacy data Archive, by choosing the year and then the date.

There's also a 'white light' image of the Sun taken on the same day (within hours of the Yohkoh image) in the archive ... rather a lot of sunspots are obvious; however, there is no sign of any coronal loops or polar jets, and certainly none bright enough to make the Sun's surface dark by comparison.

 

[Sol88]

Sounds a lot like the bib bang theory so I call woo

I've read a lot of MM's work or post's at least, and he's interpretation of Birkelands work is on the money!

pity some people here have trouble understanding Birkelands work! but that's not MM's fault.

Any theory that does not take into account plasma/electrical effects as the dominant force are bound to wind up like the BB or Lambda-CDM in serious trouble!