Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Vermonter]

Of course not, it typically takes years of study to begin to understand QM.

Absolutely! I'm still processing ideas as they come along, but even as an undergrad I have a solid idea of the basics and fundamentals. My primary focus for a while was pulsar astronomy, actually.

On this particular point, that one illustration does in a single picture what would take thousands of words to adequately explain verbally. It's a good picture and it clearly demonstrates QM "pressure" on both sides of both plates.

Ah, but you see, you need the thousands of words to quantify and qualify what you are seeing. I could draw a similar design and it could be entirely wrong. I could draw a diagram of quark interactions on a quantum level and sure, it'd look pretty, but it'd be wrong.

That is not always necessarily true, and in this case it is definitely not true. The formula in use *intentionally* ignores the outside "pressure". As long as you recognize that it shows "relative pressure", it's not a problem relying on the math formula alone for an "understanding" of the physical process that it attempts to describe. If you don't recognize the limits of the math formula however, it can lead to all sorts of "wacky" ideas like "negative pressure in a vacuum", when such a thing is physically impossible. There is "pressure" from the atoms in the chamber, and there is "pressure" from the VP's in the chamber, but there is no form of "negative pressure" in that chamber.

I've seen math do some pretty funny things. I've seen it create beautiful graphs and lines, and also try and prove that 1 = 2. It can be right, kinda right, and wrong. I learned that going through calculus I and II. I fully admit I'm not sure how negative pressure works. I haven't sat down with the proof and formula and worked it out to see for myself. After this semester gets out I'll take a look at it and see. But dismissing it out of hand because you disagree with what Wikipedia says is, however, foolish. Get a book on the subject, read articles showing their arguements. Don't rely on Wiki for anything more than a brief, possibly unreliable, overview.

If you rely *only* on the mathematical presentation alone, you can also end up with an extremely "oversimplified" understanding of what is going on. Chapman's theories looked great on paper, and worked out correctly on paper, but they did not accurately represent "reality" at it exists in nature. Math formulas are often *oversimplified* ideas that do not always accurately represent nature.

I disagree. When I took intro physics, looking at the picture alone did nothing! It gave me an idea for what it could do, but it wouldn't give me the answer I wanted. And unfortunately describing what you -think- should happen in a physics final won't cut it (true story). Sometimes reality isn't what it first appears to be. As stated before, you cannot make decisions purely on what you immediately see. You have to investigate it further. In astronomy it is impossible to do, as you call, controlled experiments. Astronomers observe using several instruments and do some calculations, and then make predictions based upon what they think is the correct answer. If the data shows that the theory is wrong, change or modify the theory to fit the data, and then make more observations. It does not mean that you throw the theory out because of a currently unexplained phenomenom. There's no shame in saying, "We currently don't know, but we're trying." In some cases (such as general relativity) it can be decades before a theory can be tested in a meaningful way. Until then, it's all about the math.

Except of course my "understanding" matches that which is published on WIKI, and in that picture on Wike, and also in the article I cited. Why is that? How do you know I'm wrong when others agree with my presentation of this idea?

As stated before, Wikipedia is not the end-all, be-all of science. It's useful for presenting general ideas, and can frequently be incorrect or inconcise. I believe that when the other posters are arguing against your interpretation of the illustration, it is because you're missing part of the story. Is this an incorrect guess? If so, could others show me what they are trying to convey?

I've been learning quite a lot over the last few years. Ever since I opened my mind to Birkeland's EU ideas it's been a growth process.

Learning is a good thing. I have no issue with you learning about Birkeland's ideas, I think he had some very good ideas for his time. However, he was performing experiments and making observations at a time when even the brightest of scientists were still grappling with the idea of atomic structures, much less the composition and structure of the sun. His theory is akin to applying vacuum tube mechanics to the chip structure design of a new Intel processor. It is outdated and incorrect.

It only demonstrates that I have no respect for your personal brand of 'religion' and I have no faith in things that do not exist and cannot be shown to exist in nature. Inflation does not exist. It never existed. Guth literally "made it up" and attached some math to the idea. It's a figment of a human imagination that has become a social "MEME". His original theory was falsified as has every other brand of inflation in recent observations, and yet you refuse to acknowledge these observations? What else can I do but mock this denial song and dance routine?

Ah ah ah, you're falling into your own trap again. My personal brand of religion? My theory? Come on man. This is why others don't respect you. If you spent more time focusing on legitimate concerns and less time mocking inflation you might accomplish something. Do not assume for a moment, however, that I believe one thing or the other. For all you know I could be an EU proponent as well. I'm trying to help you by demonstrating to you what you are doing wrong, what you could do better to present a coherent and accurate arguement. If you choose to ignore that and take the shotgun approach and label me, then that's too bad.

Why should I not mock your theories when you folks go out of your way to mock PC/EU theory and real forms of "empirical science" that show up in a lab? Someone needs to knock you folks down off that high horse of yours and get you to acknowledge the value of "empirical physics", complete with "real experimentation".

PC/EU theory is rediculed because it is based upon incorrect information and poor science. Not all science can be done within the confines of a laboratory with test tubes and Geiger counters. Most astronomical science is at such a scale that laboratory experiements are impossible. If I am wrong, please demonstrate an experiement where we have created a planet or a star. Even radio astronomy is done through radio observations, and strenuous computational work to try and get a clearer picture of what is going on. I can personally attest to this, having worked with a radio astronomer a few years ago.

Why should I not mock what does not exist? I mock invisible unicorns and monopoles and inflation and dark energy theories because these things do not exist in nature and have no effect on nature. If you believe otherwise, it is up to you to provide "empirical evidence" to support your opinions on these topics. That fact you cannot do that is not my fault, nor am I beholden to "have faith" in things that do not exist only because you collectively happened to believe in them.

You know, you're right. If inflation exists, we will likely be dust in space by the time we figure out if it can affect us or not. That does not make it invalid. Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean, by your standards, that anything outside of Earth-bound experiments are invalid and therefore pointless? Why should we care about EU/PC if it has no effect on nature? Scientists have provided mountains of empirical evidence stemming from years of observations coupled with number crunching and predictions. According to my physics and chemistry professors, that is the definition of empirical evidence.

*cough* I'm quoting from Wikipedia here, so this may be wrong. However, from my studies, this seems quite correct.

Scientific Method:

• 
  [1]Define the question
  [2]Gather information and resources (observe)
  [3]Form hypothesis
  [4]Perform experiment and collect data
  [5]Analyze data
  [6]Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
  [7]Publish results
  [8]Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

This is a standard list. I will bet you that nearly every scientist will agree that this is how it is done. If I am wrong, please correct me.

One thing I've learned is that you folks don't even have a "singular" belief system in the first place. Some folks like DRD reject inflation, but offer no explanation as to how things "got started". Some folks have little or no faith in "dark energy" theories. Some folks aren't be "dark matter" fans, especially the SUSY brand of dark matter. Some folks have definite theories about the "size" of the physical universe prior to expansion, whereas others do not. In spite of your suggestion, there is no 'singular' viewpoint, even among the 'experts' in this field. It's very much like a "religion" too because all of it requires "faith" on the part of the "believer", and there are individual's that deviate from the standard dogma.

That's true! Not everyone agrees with each other. It's a boring situation. That is why we discuss things. I am still considering what the best possible answer is, and I fully admit I don't know if I agree with what is being presented. Unfortunately, my own skills as a scientist aren't up to par to properly challenge and defend my own idea. In the meantime, I will observe, compare, and retest. If a theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, it will be discarded if it cannot adapt. There is fame to be had in overturning an established theory. If I knew I had a good chance of disproving the current view of cosmology, I would pour my efforts into making sure that I could get it right and disprove what is wrong. I'd write my paper and push to get it published in respected journals, and do the work to make it as correct as possible. If it gets torn apart, I didn't do a good enough job. If I can defend it and others can't disprove it, then maybe, just maybe, I'd make a name for myself.

 

[edd]

Insightful post, thank you Vermonter.

 

[Vermonter]

Insightful post, thank you Vermonter.

You're welcome. I hope that an outside view will help things a little. I've been reading this thread since it started.

 

[Tubbythin]

You could only rightfully accuse me of hypocrisy if I had intentionally lied about RC's level of education.

Not at all. Telling a blatant lie and then calling someone a "brazen liar" makes you a hypocrite and a liar in my book.

 

[Tubbythin]

That is not always necessarily true, and in this case it is definitely not true. The formula in use *intentionally* ignores the outside "pressure". As long as you recognize that it shows "relative pressure", it's not a problem relying on the math formula alone for an "understanding" of the physical process that it attempts to describe. If you don't recognize the limits of the math formula however, it can lead to all sorts of "wacky" ideas like "negative pressure in a vacuum", when such a thing is physically impossible. There is "pressure" from the atoms in the chamber, and there is "pressure" from the VP's in the chamber, but there is no form of "negative pressure" in that chamber.

So...
The Casimir Research School are lying... yes or no?

 

[Tubbythin]

Specifically (no weaving or dodging) which physical experiment demonstrates that this "pressure" become "infinite", or even say "100 ATM"?

PFFT. QM blows your ideas out of the water, you just refuse to listen to anyone outside of yourself for an answer. I gave you two perfectly good references which you simply *ignored*. QM demonstrates my position, not yours. There is no "negative pressure", just "more pressure" on one side of the plate than the other.

There is nothing wrong with QM, just your understanding of QM. The person who created that diagram on Wiki didn't suffer from your same delusions, nor did the author of the article I cited. You simply refuse to listen or learn.

I really don't get it. Why does a person who must by now realise he is completely out of his depth continue to slag off the people to show him how he is consistently wrong.
Michael:
You tried to claim neutrinos could be responsible. You tried to use the ideal gas equation as a definition of pressure. You tried to use the ideal gas equation to show that negative pressures cannot exist. You tried to claim the wiki article agrees wth you. (despite the fact the wiki article explicitly states This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization" in direct contradiction to your claims).When will you stop with your ridiculous claims? Its clear to everybody that you have a very poor understanding of classical mechanics and absolutely no understanding of quantum mechanics whatsoever.

 

[GeeMack]

I really don't get it. Why does a person who must by now realise he is completely out of his depth continue to slag off the people to show him how he is consistently wrong.

But he doesn't realize that he's completely out of his depth. It may be that he can't realize it. He truly believes that his hare brained notions are correct. He is actually convinced that every last professional scientist in the fields of physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and related scientific endeavors are unable or unwilling to know his truth. He thinks most of them, including nearly everyone he's engaged in conversations on various forums, are just not intelligent enough to get it.

He has a crazy idea that those who do get it aren't going to make waves for fear of losing funding and damaging their potential to make a living. He believes there is an international conspiracy to squelch the real science, to preach the status quo regardless of the facts. He sees himself as a potential hero to the world of science whose job it is to break down that wall of resistance and educate the unwashed masses.

Interestingly enough, he doesn't understand that if he were right about any of the jazz he spews, he has proven wholly incapable of making a convincing case to anyone else. In all the years Mozina has been jabbering this nonsense, not a single legitimate, professional scientist has yet said, "Aha! I see it now. Michael is right. Let's pitch in and help him do the math necessary to support it!" Not a single professional scientist agrees with his wacky conjectures. And he has the audacity, the sheer arrogance, to think the problem lies with other people not understanding him. Not for a moment has he, or will he ever, stop to think that since no legitimate scientist on Earth agrees with him, it most likely means he's just plain wrong.

 

[derekmcd]

Note that the blue arrows point *towards* (not away from) all the surfaces of both plates.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Casimir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png[/qimg]

Michael,

This is like using the rubber sheet analogy to explain General Relativity. It's a simple enough explanation for 8th grade kids... "The marble follows a geodesic towards the bowling ball". Well, that's a fine and dandy description using a visual aid. What it does not do is explain the real physics (something you claim folks here don't understand).

It's really kinda sad you are basing your entire knowledge of the Casimir effect from an illustration.

It's embarrassing that you are ridiculing folks that actually understand the physics behind the Casimir effect based on a illustration.

Let me try a different approach (in the same vein as Sol is attempting).

Certainly you would agree with the inverse square law for such things as radiation and gravity. Double the distance, divide the intensity or force (respectively) by 4... triple the distance, divide by 9, and so on.

There's a common phrase used when infinities are used. "Tends towards". Obviously, when discussing distances, infinities can not be reached. The whole Zeno paradox thing. So, for gravity and electromagnetism, the increasing distances "tend" towards infinitity.

The Casimir effect is quite opposite and exponentially stronger based on quadratics (empirical, laboratory experiments have defined this to be quite accurate) . Double the distance (closer this time), the measured force is 8 times stronger... triple, 12 times stronger. As the two plates "tend towards" infinitesimally close, you measure an infinite force pushing on the plates.

What this does not imply is an infinite pressure. If you have an infinite pressure, then it is ALWAYS infinite despite the distance of the plates. Obviously, this is not the case.

Now, if you were arguing against a negative 'force', I would agree with you. Force is an act of applying 'work'. Pressure is an, entirely, different beast. Both postive and negative pressures apply 'positive' forces.

Now, you might argue that the pressure inside the plates tend towards zero and thus "any" pressure outside the plates will tend toward infinity. The flaw in this argument is that the pressure outside the plates do not change.... the boundary conditions outside the plate remain constant. It's the boundary conditions inside the plates that are changing.

If the force outside is increasing, then the pressure inside is negative in order to conserve the energy of the system.

I think the problem with this whole conversation is defining the difference between force and pressure.

I've had a few captain and cokes... I hope I made sense. I sounded good in my head


Edited some terrible quadratics...

 

[derekmcd]

Vermonter,

A well composed post. Sadly, it will fall on deaf ears. Michael has had that very same argument handed to him many, many times through various fora. My very first post to him on space.com was not a critique on his knowledge. However, it was a critique on his technique.

Nothing has changed since my first critique. I can gaurantee you will not change anything.

To be quite honest, I respect Michael. If only for his steadfastness (ETA: an incomplete sentence.. doh!).

Occasionally, he achieves a bit of logic to his arguments. Unfortunately, science and physics could careless about human logic.

 

[derekmcd]

Oh dear lord... Mr. Crothers has found space.com. Typical crank path. Work your way down the fora hierarchy... maybe someone will listen...

 

[temporalillusion]

This thread is amazing... I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant example of absolute hypocrisy.

Actually after reading Sol88, I think I really appreciate MM.

By the way, about dark flows - it turns out the error analysis the authors performed, which lead them to conclude the effect is significant, is incorrect (they applied the wrong Wiener filter). So while the effect is probably there in the data, it may be far below the level of statistical significance (in which case it means nothing). We won't know until someone does the analysis correctly.

From a fairly new blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2008/05/hole-in-the-universe-what-hole.php

But dismissing it out of hand because you disagree with what Wikipedia says is, however, foolish. Get a book on the subject, read articles showing their arguements. Don't rely on Wiki for anything more than a brief, possibly unreliable, overview.

Good post, but I had to pick this bit out.

The crazy thing is MM has said over and over that he agrees with the wiki entry on Casimir Effect.

But when I ask him what the sign is when the pressure is calculated, he is silent. After being asked dozens of times over tens of pages of thread, he's never answered even once. Either he cannot even read the simple formula on the wiki, or he knows it disagrees with his positions so he just plugs his ears and goes *lalalalala*.

He's said the formula for pressure is incomplete or wrong, but he won't show a more correct formula or cannot.

Instead he repeats the same thing over and over for dozens of pages, no indication of understanding behind any post.

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[edd]

By the way, about dark flows - it turns out the error analysis the authors performed, which lead them to conclude the effect is significant, is incorrect (they applied the wrong Wiener filter). So while the effect is probably there in the data, it may be far below the level of statistical significance (in which case it means nothing). We won't know until someone does the analysis correctly.

Reference please.....

Ned Wright mentions some problems with it at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/dark-flow-errors.html

I've not read through the papers in question and it's a bit outside my expertise so I couldn't comment how fair that criticism is. I'd certainly go along with what sol invictus says about waiting for another analysis (purely from my own ignorance, a second opinion would be helpful!).

edit: Oh I see from further digging, having also looked at the wikipedia page, there's a rebuttal at http://www.kashlinsky.info/anima/skash.nsf/0/Wright_is_wrong

 

[Vermonter]

Good post, but I had to pick this bit out.

The crazy thing is MM has said over and over that he agrees with the wiki entry on Casimir Effect.

But when I ask him what the sign is when the pressure is calculated, he is silent. After being asked dozens of times over tens of pages of thread, he's never answered even once. Either he cannot even read the simple formula on the wiki, or he knows it disagrees with his positions so he just plugs his ears and goes *lalalalala*.

He's said the formula for pressure is incomplete or wrong, but he won't show a more correct formula or cannot.

Instead he repeats the same thing over and over for dozens of pages, no indication of understanding behind any post.

The emperor has no clothes.

Ahh, thanks for picking that up. I think that's what confused me, there seemed to be times when he did and didn't agree with what the same article was describing - probably agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. It's been my stand for a while now that while a great resource, Wikipedia doesn't always give you the best representation. But you already knew that.

I've discussed his ideas with him a few years ago on BABB. Unfortunately, after reading through this thread, I believe that there will be no headway gained. Members are already getting frustrated with each other, which is too bad.

I'll state for the record that I am not a qualified scientist in this field (I'm still an undergrad!), but I love the subject enough to take courses in it. However, I am glad that my posts have been well-received.

 

[Reality Check]

There is absolutely no reason for RC, or for you, or for anyone else to intentionally misrepresent my level of education on this forum. You can't personally justify RC's outright lies by claiming I "deserved" it. When did I intentionally lie about your level of education or anyone's level of education?

Can you provide a link to the post where I "misrepresent my [MM] level of education"?

I have pointed out that (as far as we know), you

• Do not know the definition of pressure.
• Do not own any physics textbooks containing the definition of pressure.
• Do not have access to a library wjth those textbooks.
• Cannot answer simple questions.

In addition you seem to be strangely isolated from the scientific community since there is no one that you can ask for the definition of pressure (or even borrow a textbook).

IMHO: It may be that you have dozens of PhD's. However you are consciously choosing to ignore whatever you have learned during your education and devolving a state of knowledge that is less than that of a high school student.

The defintion of pressure allows negative pressure to exist.
The theory of the Casimir effect between 2 parallel plates calculates that it has a negative pressure.
The actual measurement of the Casimir effect between 2 parallel plates gives a negative pressure.

A high school student would understand that this is evidence of negative pressure.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Absolutely! I'm still processing ideas as they come along, but even as an undergrad I have a solid idea of the basics and fundamentals. My primary focus for a while was pulsar astronomy, actually.

Then you should have no problem comprehending the difference between "negative pressure" and a "pressure difference" at the level of QM. It's not a complicated issue once you grasp the idea. It's no different than my wing analogy. There is a "pressure difference" between the outside of the plates and the inside of the plates. No area inside the chamber experiences "negative pressure".

Ah, but you see, you need the thousands of words to quantify and qualify what you are seeing. I could draw a similar design and it could be entirely wrong. I could draw a diagram of quark interactions on a quantum level and sure, it'd look pretty, but it'd be wrong.

Ok. Then again, I'm sure it would be possible to dream up a math formula related to wing lift that ignored the pressure under the wing and only presented the top side "pressure" in terms of a "negative" number. That minus sign in the math formula would not be "proof" that "negative pressure" exists above the wing. Surely you can see the difference between a "physical reality" vs. a "mathematical construct"?

I've seen math do some pretty funny things. I've seen it create beautiful graphs and lines, and also try and prove that 1 = 2. It can be right, kinda right, and wrong. I learned that going through calculus I and II. I fully admit I'm not sure how negative pressure works.

It "does not exist", and therefore it "does not work" at all. This is where you have to look "beyond the math" and look at the level of "physical reality". It is certainly possible to create a "pressure difference" between those two plates at the level of QM, but there is no surface inside the chamber that does not feel that "pressure". Some areas experience "more pressure". Some areas experience "less pressure", but the whole thing is a "positive pressure" environment, starting with the atoms that are still left in the chamber. No area inside that chamber actually experiences 'negative pressure'. That is physically impossible in the universe that we live in. It is filled with flowing kinetic energy that blows through all human experiments.

I haven't sat down with the proof and formula and worked it out to see for myself. After this semester gets out I'll take a look at it and see.

All you will "see" is that *if* we ignore the outside "pressure" on the plates, yes indeed, we can stick a minus sign in between the two plates and get the math to work out pretty well. It would be analogous to the wing analogy if we set the "pressure" under the wing at "zero" for purposes of a mathematical presentation.

But dismissing it out of hand because you disagree with what Wikipedia says is, however, foolish.

Actually if you read my posts you'll find I actually "like" the Wiki presentation in this particular instance, right down to the images that were used to represent "vp's" at the level of QM. It's actually pretty well done and that is not always the case.

Get a book on the subject, read articles showing their arguements. Don't rely on Wiki for anything more than a brief, possibly unreliable, overview.

The only thing I'm relying on WIKI for at this point is it's diagrams. I have provided a "better" explanation in the form of that physics link and the fact that this process can be "repulsive", not just attractive. You can't ignore the important details.

I disagree. When I took intro physics, looking at the picture alone did nothing!

To create a math formula, one typically needs to have a conceptual understanding of the physical thing that is occurring or the physical thing one is attempting to describe. An image can give us insight into size, shape and other details that we will need to correctly create a mathematical model.

It gave me an idea for what it could do, but it wouldn't give me the answer I wanted.

But it provide a "means to find that answer". With no physical details to work with, there isn't much to mathematically model.

And unfortunately describing what you -think- should happen in a physics final won't cut it (true story).

Well, that is where a "test" is typically worth a thousand expert opinions and that is why "experimental verification" is so helpful and valuable.

Sometimes reality isn't what it first appears to be.

Sure, but then again the only way to find out is to 'experiment' with real control mechanisms so we can verify or falsify our model.

As stated before, you cannot make decisions purely on what you immediately see. You have to investigate it further. In astronomy it is impossible to do, as you call, controlled experiments.

Birkeland seemed to have no problem creating "controlled experiments" to "test" many aspects of his astronomy theories. Why would you begin by *assuming* controlled experiments are "impossible"? I'll grant you that some ideas (like heavy gravity wells) will not be able to be "tested' at full scale, or at a scale necessary to produce a "full demonstration". Some basic ideas however can certainly be demonstrated.

Astronomers observe using several instruments and do some calculations, and then make predictions based upon what they think is the correct answer.

That is fine by me unless and until you start making "prediction' with invisible evil forces and stuff that does not exist, and you start assigning "properties" to these things that have never been physically verified.

If the data shows that the theory is wrong, change or modify the theory to fit the data, and then make more observations.

Um, here's were we have "problems". Inflation was never "verified' to exist in nature to begin with. To now just "tinker" with the attributes to "make it fit" turns this theory into an "ad hoc Gumby" theory. There are valid ways to now falsify this theory because it is being "modified to fit". When it doesn't accurately "predict" acceleration, toss in "dark energy", and viola, a new "astronomy" theory is born. Now that we know there are gaping holes and "flows" to deal with, did you just intent to "tweak" the properties of inflation to make it fit, or will you acknowledge that inflation has been "falsified" by observation? Do you see the dilemma here?

It does not mean that you throw the theory out because of a currently unexplained phenomenom.

If we can't 'falsify' this theory, has is it actually "science" as opposed to "religion"? How do we actually "falsify" inflation if not based on how well it actually "predicts" what we observe?

There's no shame in saying, "We currently don't know, but we're trying." In some cases (such as general relativity) it can be decades before a theory can be tested in a meaningful way. Until then, it's all about the math.

But in the case of inflation it can never be about anything *other than* math. In other words, there is no existing "inflation' to demonstrate that it has some effect on nature. I simply have to take your word for it that it *once existed*, and *once had an effect on nature*. If I can't falsify this theory, how can it be called "science". If those giant holes and dark flows don't falsify inflation theory, what will falsify inflation theory?

As stated before, Wikipedia is not the end-all, be-all of science. It's useful for presenting general ideas, and can frequently be incorrect or inconcise. I believe that when the other posters are arguing against your interpretation of the illustration, it is because you're missing part of the story. Is this an incorrect guess? If so, could others show me what they are trying to convey?

Keep in mind that I provided another link that explained the process from the perspective of QM and did so exactly as I have described here and as illustrated on WIKI. Pure coincidence?

Learning is a good thing. I have no issue with you learning about Birkeland's ideas, I think he had some very good ideas for his time. However, he was performing experiments and making observations at a time when even the brightest of scientists were still grappling with the idea of atomic structures, much less the composition and structure of the sun. His theory is akin to applying vacuum tube mechanics to the chip structure design of a new Intel processor. It is outdated and incorrect.

It's probably "outdated' by some standards, but it's still "correct" in terms of basic ideas. The sun does spit out charged particles like he 'simulated' and they do form an aurora around the Earth just as he also simulated. You can probably find ideas that are incorrect, but you will also find many ideas that are entirely correct too.

Ah ah ah, you're falling into your own trap again. My personal brand of religion? My theory? Come on man. This is why others don't respect you. If you spent more time focusing on legitimate concerns and less time mocking inflation you might accomplish something. Do not assume for a moment, however, that I believe one thing or the other. For all you know I could be an EU proponent as well. I'm trying to help you by demonstrating to you what you are doing wrong, what you could do better to present a coherent and accurate arguement. If you choose to ignore that and take the shotgun approach and label me, then that's too bad.

Understood. My bad.

PC/EU theory is rediculed because it is based upon incorrect information

Which information? Be specific.

and poor science.

Which "poor science"? Again, be specific. Imagine how I might feel if a creationist told me this about the theory of evolution? That's how your statements sound to me.

Not all science can be done within the confines of a laboratory with test tubes and Geiger counters.

So can. Shall we not at least *attempt* to do some testing?

Most astronomical science is at such a scale that laboratory experiements are impossible.

The "scale" part is entirely correct, but I've never had a problem with allowing anyone to "scale" a demonstrated force of nature. It's only when they attempt to "scale" elf magic that I get squeemish.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate an experiement where we have created a planet or a star.

I would argue that *other than scaling factors*, Birkeland did both of these things.

Even radio astronomy is done through radio observations, and strenuous computational work to try and get a clearer picture of what is going on. I can personally attest to this, having worked with a radio astronomer a few years ago.

But I have no beef with radio astronomy because I know for a fact that radio waves exist in nature. I can create them here on Earth too. There are branches of astronomy I have great respect for, and very few branches of astronomy that I have no respect for. It's only when someone starts trying to apply math to non existent entities that I balk.

You know, you're right. If inflation exists, we will likely be dust in space by the time we figure out if it can affect us or not. That does not make it invalid.

So "God" is also a valid scientific theory? If not, why not?

Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean, by your standards, that anything outside of Earth-bound experiments are invalid and therefore pointless?

No. It means that I will allow you to scale any known force of nature, and let you speculate all you like with known forces of nature. If however you intend to claim that nature has a new force, or a new property, I expect to see it physically demonstrated in some verifiable and falsifiable way.

Why should we care about EU/PC if it has no effect on nature?

Those aurora around Earth demonstrate it *does have an effect on nature*. Those million degree coronal loops, and solar wind particles demonstrate it has an effect on nature.

Scientists have provided mountains of empirical evidence stemming from years of observations coupled with number crunching and predictions.

And yet those dark flows and holes defy these number crunching "predictions". Now what? Shall we throw it out or "make it fit" by tweaking it some more?

I'm running out of time so I'll stop here for moment, but I would really like to know how you intend to ever falsify inflation if those dark flows and holes in your theory won't do it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's true! Not everyone agrees with each other. It's a boring situation. That is why we discuss things. I am still considering what the best possible answer is, and I fully admit I don't know if I agree with what is being presented.

But somehow you've already decided that PC/EU theory offers *nothing* in the way of possible value?

Unfortunately, my own skills as a scientist aren't up to par to properly challenge and defend my own idea. In the meantime, I will observe, compare, and retest. If a theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, it will be discarded if it cannot adapt. There is fame to be had in overturning an established theory. If I knew I had a good chance of disproving the current view of cosmology, I would pour my efforts into making sure that I could get it right and disprove what is wrong. I'd write my paper and push to get it published in respected journals,

You seem to *assume* they would publish them. Why?

and do the work to make it as correct as possible. If it gets torn apart, I didn't do a good enough job. If I can defend it and others can't disprove it, then maybe, just maybe, I'd make a name for myself.

You seem to assume my intent is to make a name for "myself", whereas my only interest is in promoting the work of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven and many others who have done fine work on EU/PC theory. I'm a relatively insignificant player in all this, and my "name" is irrelevant, as is my "reputation". Alfven was given a Nobel prize, but you blithely discard his EU/PC theories. Why? What difference would it make if I had a Nobel prize too? Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven were all my personal "scientific superiors". I have no illusions about my own scientific capabilities. They all wrote many papers and books. You seem to reject each and every one of them. What makes you think my "credentials" would make any difference at all in how you percieve PC/EU theory?

 

[GeeMack]

I have no illusions about my own scientific capabilities.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

You seem to assume my intent is to make a name for "myself", whereas my only interest is in promoting the work of Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven and many others who have done fine work on EU/PC theory. I'm a relatively insignificant player in all this, and my "name" is irrelevant, as is my "reputation". Alfven was given a Nobel prize, but you blithely discard his EU/PC theories. Why? What difference would it make if I had a Nobel prize too? Birkeland, Bruce and Alfven were all my personal "scientific superiors". I have no illusions about my own scientific capabilities. They all wrote many papers and books. You seem to reject each and every one of them. What makes you think my "credentials" would make any difference at all in how you percieve PC/EU theory?

(bold added)

Once again we come back to this "EU/PC theory" (or is it "PC/EU theory"?).

IIRC, you, MM, are on record as saying that Birkeland himself did not use the term, and that it was not actually invented until (well?) after his death.

You may have associated Alfvén with "EU/PC theory" before, in this thread, but AFAIK this is the first time that you have claimed such a strong link ("his EU/PC theories").

Now it is easy enough to check that Alfvén used the phrase "plasma cosmology", and it is equally straight-forward to describe the core components of his ideas and why they have been falsified; an example of normal science.

Where it starts to get beyond science is applying a term to Alfvén's work that he neither used nor can be used without distortions or worse.

But perhaps I am simply ignorant. If so, my ignorance is easily dispelled - can you point to the publication(s), and the place in those publications, by Alfvén, where the term "EU/PC theories" or "Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theories" is used?

If you do not know of any such use, would you be honest enough to say so?

And if so, would you be kind enough to explain why you wrote as you did, knowing it was an anachronism, revisionism (or worse)?

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's really kinda sad you are basing your entire knowledge of the Casimir effect from an illustration.

That's rather a low blow coming from you actually. I also offered you folks a perfectly good verbal explanation of this idea which evidently you also simply dismiss with a handwave. Nothing like ignoring the last 30 years of research into QM with a handwave.

It's embarrassing that you are ridiculing folks that actually understand the physics behind the Casimir effect based on a illustration.

I'm ridiculing them for believing in invisible friends, not because of a single illustration. I'm *amazed* any of you believe in "negative pressure in a vacuum", or that you would ignore the fact that there is "positive pressure" on all sides of all plates both at the atomic level and at the level of QM.

Now, if you were arguing against a negative 'force', I would agree with you.

Then ultimately you do agree with me and I'll explain why....

Force is an act of applying 'work'. Pressure is an, entirely, different beast. Both postive and negative pressures apply 'positive' forces.

The "pressure" inside the chamber (inside the vacuum) will never achieve zero because there will always be a positive number of atoms vibrating inside the chamber. Likewise, the "pressure" at the level of QM will never become "zero", even between the plates at the smallest distances possible.

Now, you might argue that the pressure inside the plates tend towards zero and thus "any" pressure outside the plates will tend toward infinity.

Indeed.

The flaw in this argument is that the pressure outside the plates do not change.... the boundary conditions outside the plate remain constant.

Well, not exactly, but that is beside the point. The "pressure" at the level of QM is in fact "decreasing" (moving toward zero) at an exponential rate as we approach very small distances. Each small change in distance takes us much close to zero pressure between the plates.

It's the boundary conditions inside the plates that are changing.

Sure. As the distance between them gets smaller, the 'pressure' (QM) tends closer toward zero. The outside "pressure" is also "slightly" increasing as the distance between the walls and the plates increases, but it is certainly the distance between the plates which plays a greater role in decreasing the pressure and making it move toward zero.

If the force outside is increasing, then the pressure inside is negative in order to conserve the energy of the system.

It's simply moving more toward zero, just as the outside "pressure" increases slightly to conserve energy.

I think the problem with this whole conversation is defining the difference between force and pressure.

I don't think so. It seems to be a problem recognizing the difference between "absolute zero" and some arbitrary reference point. The pressure inside the plates will never quite achieve a "zero" state. There will always be some small amount of QM pressure created as a result of whatever VP's might form between them. Even if it is a very small number, it will be "greater than zero". There is no way to achieve even a "zero pressure' in a "vacuum". It's entirely impossible because there will always be some amount of kinetic (VP if you prefer) energy traversing everything we might create.

I think the basic problem here is one of not recognizing the difference between "absolute pressure", vs "relative pressure". At the level of QM, there is some amount of 'pressure' due to the carrier particles of the EM field that affect the plates. There is less of it on the inside of the plates, and more of it on the outside of the plates, so you can of course treat the 'pressure' inside and the plates as being "negative" *RELATIVE TO* (in other words "less than) the outside pressure. It is however simply a *relative* pressure and there is more of it outside the plates and "near zero" between the plates.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, not exactly, but that is beside the point. The "pressure" at the level of QM is in fact "decreasing" (moving toward zero) at an exponential rate as we approach very small distances.

First off, it's not exponential, it's power-law. The difference matters, though with zero math skills I don't expect you to appreciate the difference. Secondly, since there's no lower bound to the pressure, then that means there's no lower bound to the decrease in pressure. So either the absolute pressure must go negative at some point, or else it was infinite to begin with. There is no other way to have your quantity unbounded on the lower side. You had the same problem with the issue of gravitational potential: either it's infinite everywhere, or it's negative somewhere. No other options exist.

I think the basic problem here is one of not recognizing the difference between "absolute pressure", vs "relative pressure".

No, it isn't. The problem is you can't understand the requirements and consequences of your own ideas. One can treat the pressures as being positive everywhere at for all separations, but that requires that the pressures are infinite everywhere as well. Otherwise one can find a separation distance for which the pressures become negative.