Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Tubbythin]

What the hell are you on about?

You said:

Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions,

I was pointing out how absurd the above was.

Do you understand what the logical fallacy of reification (that is very prominent in some of todays scienctific models) is?

Do you have any evidence for this?

Your post is a logical fallacy in itself, look up false dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Its nothing of the sort.

I'm not trying to start an argument, just pointing out how silly this post is.

Which is kinda ironic since I was pointing out how silly your post was.

 

[Tubbythin]

Here we go again. Ziggy, your usually far better than this, I expect these sort of comments from Sol and DeiRenDopa, not from you. If your gonna reply, at least put something in your post I can reply to without the gratuitous comments.

A fallacy is an argument that is not logically sound. You too should look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

I know this and I'd imagine Zig knows this too. What relevance does it have to anything?

 

[Reality Check]

Which blue arrows point away from the plates?

None.

 

[Reality Check]

Keep at em mike, dont let their hypostatisated mathematical constructs and abstractions confuse you. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions, then it's just as bad as the metaphysical exploding vectors representing field lines used in "magnetic reconnection"

Negative pressure

Zeuzzz: Do you know about the several "empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions" experiments that have measured the negative pressure due to the Casimir effect?

Or do you share MM's delusion that all pressure has to be positive?

On the other hand, the suggests that you are not serious so maybe the post is a joke.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You said:

I was pointing out how absurd the above was.

What, its absurd that we have to use the scientific experimetal method to back up our deductions?

Do you have any evidence for this?

Hundreds of my, and others, posts. Take a look at my thread on magnetic reconnection I started, a prime example. Or treating singularities or points as physical real world physical things. Or modelling infinites in models where no data has ever measured an infinity. String theories. Quantum Loop Gravity. Supersymetric theories. Loads of examples.

Look, in nature we have yet to find anything that has an infinite value. In both Quantum theory and in GR we find physically sensible things becoming infinite. In GR, either you view this as time stopping, or the theory is just inadequate and breaks down (as Einstein said [he never believed in black holes]).

And thus why alternative explanations are being offered in case it does break down.

Your post is a logical fallacy in itself, look up false dichotomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Its nothing of the sort.

Bah. Your just being stubborn now. I make a meagre comment about reification of mathematical constructs and you imply that the only alternative is geocentricism. Which IS a false dichotomy. It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics so all of known physics must be wrong and we must go back to the dark ages.

Your blunt comment was a prime example.

Which is kinda ironic since I was pointing out how silly your post was.

This type of converstaion is exactly why I gave this forum a break, and why I'm gonna not be posting in this thread again. Or any other for that matter, I'm just gonna get back to lurking and dropping the odd annying comment while I have more pressing matters. So breif hijack over.... carry on peeps

And I haven't read the extensive posts in this thread, so I'm kinda guilty of getting involved in a discussion I remain largely ignorant of the topic.

 

[temporalillusion]

You've *alleged* endlessly that this constitutes a "negative pressure" but the whole process takes place inside of a pressurized, room temperature chamber in most cases.

I think this is important, you're objecting to the (incorrect but it doesn't matter if it is correct or not for this point) idea of negative pressure between the plates because the experiment takes place in a pressurized chamber.

You're talking about two different things (vacuum pressure and atmospheric pressure) as if they were the same thing. Maybe this is why you are confused?

Question: What effect would increasing or decreasing the atmospheric pressure inside the test chamber have on the results of the experiment?

Actually, my pieces function perfectly and jive with the references I have cited for you and that you have ignored. You're the one trying to claim there is "negative pressure" in a positively pressurized chamber.

Another piece of evidence, are you hearing "negative atmospheric pressure" when people are saying negative pressure?

That is a physical impossibility. A vacuum can contain pressure if it has atoms or other things flowing through it. Even a "pure" vacuum, one without atoms or energy flow would simply be a "zero" pressure environment.

So another question, if you could create perfect vacuum with not a single atom or molecule, not a single photon or neutrino, what would be the result of the experiment?

And I'll ask again (another question to add to the long list), in your model there's a maximum possible pressure as the plates get closer together, what is that maximum? You've said 1 atmosphere but then backed down from that, so what's the (theoretical or experimentally demonstrated) maximum?

 

[sol invictus]

What, its absurd that we have to use the scientific experimetal method to back up our deductions?
<snip>
Take a look at my thread on magnetic reconnection I started, a prime example.

A prime example indeed - of total hypocrisy. There is overwhelming experimental evidence for magnetic reconnection. But because you worship the words (which you can't even understand) of some long-dead physicist, you deny and ignore it all.

Or treating singularities or points as physical real world physical things.
Or modelling infinites in models where no data has ever measured an infinity.

Incomprehensible gibberish based on childish and stupid misunderstandings. Next.

Look, in nature we have yet to find anything that has an infinite value.
In both Quantum theory and in GR we find physically sensible things becoming infinite. In GR, either you view this as time stopping, or the theory is just inadequate and breaks down (as Einstein said [he never believed in black holes]).

If those theories predicted that something was infinite which we know experimentally is not, they would be ruled out and abandoned. But that hasn't happen, because they don't. Time does not stop on the horizon of a black hole - that's a childish misunderstanding. There are no infinities in physical quantities in quantum mechanics (or field theory). The only infinity I know of is your ability to produce ignorant and misinformed posts.

This type of converstaion is exactly why I gave this forum a break, and why I'm gonna not be posting in this thread again. Or any other for that matter

How many times have you lied about that? Learn some self-control. You just make yourself look even more like a fool, if that's possible.

 

[Michael Mozina]

None.

Then there is not one point on any surface of any plate that experiences "negative pressure" from the "vacuum". Every single point on every plate experiences "positive pressure" both from the point of view of QM, and from the point of view from atomic pressure since no vacuum in existence can achieve even "zero" pressure.

Case closed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090422151828.htm

"The farther out we look into space, the farther we go back in time, " explained lead author Masami Ouchi, a fellow at the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution who led an international team of astronomers from the U.S., Japan, and the United Kingdom. "I am very surprised by this discovery. I have never imagined that such a large object could exist at this early stage of the universe's history. According to the concordance model of Big Bang cosmology, small objects form first and then merge to produce larger systems. This blob had a size of typical present-day galaxies when the age of the universe was about 800 million years old, only 6% of the age of today's universe!"

Astronomers seem to be constantly "surprised" by the size of distant objects. I guess folks like edd aren't old enough to recall the early "predictions" of BB theory, but galaxies of these sizes were originally not predicted to exist for "billions" (plural) of years after the BB. They have constantly been moving that number backwards based on the discoveries of ever more "mature" galaxies that they are finding over time. One can only wonder what that "blob" looks will look like in an image from the James Webb Telescope when it goes into service, but I suspect that while this will become a clearly defined "mature galaxy", there will also be more distant "smudges" that are also mature galaxies going further and further back in time, as far as our technological eyes can see.

 

[edd]

I guess folks like edd aren't old enough to recall the early "predictions" of BB theory, but galaxies of these sizes were originally not predicted to exist for "billions" (plural) of years after the BB.

While I might not remember some rather early research, it would be unwise to think I'm not aware of current and past debates in galaxy formation. It is a major research topic of my colleagues and has been to a lesser extent for myself too. The historical (and current) competing ideas are much needed for context there, of course.

 

[Tubbythin]

What, its absurd that we have to use the scientific experimetal method to back up our deductions?

Of course not. I never said that as its plain to see. I said the following absurd.

. Unless they can be empirically tested and proved in situ in controlled conditions

The scientific method has no requirement that the science be tested in situ. It did we'd never have gotten past geocentricism. This is completely obvious.

Hundreds of my, and others, posts. Take a look at my thread on magnetic reconnection I started, a prime example.

Was that the one where you told us "we" knew nothing about plasmas and then went on to claim that plasma cosmology is scalable because of Maxwell's equations... in vacuum?

Or treating singularities or points as physical real world physical things. Or modelling infinites in models where no data has ever measured an infinity. String theories. Quantum Loop Gravity. Supersymetric theories. Loads of examples.

Do you have the slightest understanding of any of these theories?

Look, in nature we have yet to find anything that has an infinite value.

Ok, so at what distance does the force between two electrons become 0?

In both Quantum theory and in GR we find physically sensible things becoming infinite. In GR, either you view this as time stopping, or the theory is just inadequate and breaks down (as Einstein said [he never believed in black holes]).

Define "physically sensible". Sensible according to whom or what?
So our theories are inadequate? So what? You seem to be implying that because we don't know anything we don't know everything. Do you need another reminder of which collective consistently use that argument to attempt to undermine legitimate science?

And thus why alternative explanations are being offered in case it does break down.

You mean the numerous alternatives you've offered which are completely inconsistent with experiment/observation. Why would anyone reject a theory that breaksdown in extreme conditions for one which doesn't work in any conditions?

Bah. Your just being stubborn now. I make a meagre comment about reification of mathematical constructs and you imply that the only alternative is geocentricism. Which IS a false dichotomy.

I did no such thing. As its obvious for everybody to see. You made a claim that science had to be tested in controlled, in situ experiments, I pointed out that this was clearly absurd since it would have led to the rejection of heliocentricism. Now instead of constructing a strawman fallacy regarding my earlier comments, perhaps you might like to respond to what I was actually saying?

It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics so all of known physics must be wrong and we must go back to the dark ages.

Where did I say anything violated the known laws of physics in the previous few posts? Oh wait, that's another strawman. And to think you're the one trying to lecture us on logical fallacies.

Your blunt comment was a prime example.

No it wasn't. Since clearly never stated anything violated the laws of physics. That is the strawman you just made up in this post. Now... are you going to respond to what I was actually saying?

This type of converstaion is exactly why I gave this forum a break, and why I'm gonna not be posting in this thread again. Or any other for that matter, I'm just gonna get back to lurking and dropping the odd annying comment while I have more pressing matters. So breif hijack over.... carry on peeps

I guess not.

 

[Zeuzzz]

How many times have you lied about that? Learn some self-control. You just make yourself look even more like a fool, if that's possible.

I just get tired of repeating myself. So I'll probably say it again at the end of this post, and then post again tomorrow. And the cycle will continue for ever.

A prime example indeed - of total hypocrisy. There is overwhelming experimental evidence for magnetic reconnection. But because you worship the words (which you can't even understand) of some long-dead physicist, you deny and ignore it all.

When you've answered all the questions I posted in the OP of my "magnetic reconnection and physical processes", and all the issues have been worked out maybe you can say this. Meanwhile, the debate is very much open and alive and kicking, as aknowledged by many prominent scientists I referenced in that thread.

If those theories predicted that something was infinite which we know experimentally is not, they would be ruled out and abandoned. But that hasn't happen, because they don't.

A black hole has zero volume and infinite density, creating what is known as a singularity. Neither anything with infinte density, or a sigularity, or point, has been observed in nature. Nothing infinite has ever been observed in nature. Merely implied by current theories. Again, either you view this as acceptable, or the theory is just inadequate in describing reality and breaks down, and alternatives have to be considered.

There are no infinities in physical quantities in quantum mechanics (or field theory). The only infinity I know of is your ability to produce ignorant and misinformed posts.

Wrong. Quantum theory has a problem with infinities whenever you try to use QT to describe fields, like the electromagnetic field, the issue is that they have values at every point in space. So there are an infinite number of variables (even in a finite volume there's an infinite number of points, and thus an infinite number of variables). There are uncontrollable fluctuations in the values of every quantum variable. An infinite number of variables, fluctuating uncontrollably often leads to equations that get out of hand and predict infinite numbers when the strength of some force or the probability of an event is calculated.

Quantum mechanics is an extremely sucessful theory, dont get me wrong, its predictions have been borne out again and again. But many scientist have doubts about it, because the reality it describes is so bizarre, and the fact that its not compatible with GR. The problem of Quantum Gravity. Also the still odd conceptual issues at the foundation of quatum theory remain largely unsolved (or unsolvable). The general unification of all particles, forces and laws of physics too. Have you solved these long standing issues that physics has been stuck on for the last thirty years, Sol?

And no, the exotic mathematical abstractions to try explain the descrepencies have not worked out, we've got preon models, technicolor models, supersymetry, twister theories, supergravity, quatum loop gravity, dynamical triangulations and even string theory, which have not made any testable verifiable predictions. None are directly falsifiable, none are confirmable, and they all too suffer from problems with infinities; which are ultimately related to the issues with infinities in GR and QT. When something like this happens its called hitting the wall, and some of the original theories and assumptions they are predicated on have to be re-examined.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Or treating singularities or points as physical real world physical things. Or modelling infinites in models where no data has ever measured an infinity. String theories. Quantum Loop Gravity. Supersymetric theories. Loads of examples.

Do you have the slightest understanding of any of these theories?

I have a basic understanding in how void of reality and how untestable and unfalsifiable they are. And how little predictions they make.

Do you have an understanding of them? I very much doubt it, I dont think anyone does.

Lets take a quick look at Nobel Laureate David Gross's views on some of these exotic theories.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825293.700

"WE DON'T know what we are talking about." That was Nobel laureate David Gross at the 23rd Solvay Conference in Physics in Brussels, Belgium, during his concluding remarks on Saturday. He was referring to string theory - the attempt to unify the otherwise incompatible theories of relativity and quantum mechanics to provide a theory of everything.
The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity

Gross - who received a Nobel for his work on the strong nuclear force, bringing physics closer to a theory of everything - has been a strong advocate of string theory, which also aims to explain dark energy. "Many of us believed that string theory was a very dramatic break with our previous notions of quantum theory," he said. "But now we learn that string theory, well, is not that much of a break."

He compared the state of physics today to that during the first Solvay conference in 1911. Then, physicists were mystified by the discovery of radioactivity. The puzzling phenomenon threatened even the laws of conservation of mass and energy, and physicists had to wait for the theory of quantum mechanics to explain it. "They were missing something absolutely fundamental," he said. "We are missing perhaps something as profound as they were back then."

Quite.

Ok, so at what distance does the force between two electrons become 0?

It doesn't.

....but it gets flipping close.

Now... are you going to respond to what I was actually saying?

I dont know what I have to respond to. Point it out.

 

[Dancing David]

Lets us try this:

Pardon me if this is incorrectly stated.

Instead of 'negative pressure' we use 'attractive force'.

Then we can talk about how gravity is an 'attractive force'.
Then we can talk about how gravity under GR and Guth's model (note model) leads to inflation.

Then we avoid another 20 pages of the same argument about 'negative pressure'.

Would that work?

 

[sol invictus]

I just get tired of repeating myself. So I'll probably say it again at the end of this post, and then post again tomorrow. And the cycle will continue for ever.

OK. So we should ignore what you say.

When you've answered all the questions I posted in the OP of my "magnetic reconnection and physical processes", and all the issues have been worked out maybe you can say this.

Already done over, and over, and over...

Meanwhile, the debate is very much open and alive and kicking, as aknowledged by many prominent scientists I referenced in that thread.

Wrong.

A black hole has zero volume and infinite density

Completely wrong.

, creating what is known as a singularity. Neither anything with infinte density, or a sigularity, or point, has been observed in nature.

Precisely as predicted by black holes.

Nothing infinite has ever been observed in nature.

Wrong.

An infinite number of variables, fluctuating uncontrollably often leads to equations that get out of hand and predict infinite numbers when the strength of some force or the probability of an event is calculated.

Wrong. That happens in precisely none of the quantum field theories used to describe particle physics. All physical quantities are finite. More importantly, they agree with experiment to an accuracy beyond any other scientific theory in the history of the human race. So your denial of this, if not just plain old ignorance, is another example of your total hypocrisy (you claim you want empirical justification, and then arbitrarily reject theories that don't conform to your personal prejudices).

 

[Dancing David]

Hi Zeuzzz,

Oh that is just dandy, come back to the PC thread and pretend to show how you have made connections between any cosmological observations, lab experiements and certain theories.

You are politically spinning, just like when you whine about how Arp is shot down statitistically, when he makes a statistical argument, and then you try to compare it to the bullet cluster observations, which are not based upon statistics.

 

[Zeuzzz]

OK. So we should ignore what you say.

How many time have you said this?

Wrong.

Wrong.

Completely wrong.

Utterly wrong.

Precisely as predicted by black holes.

Exactly.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.


Wow! what a productive conversation!

Ah, here we go...

That happens in precisely none of the quantum field theories used to describe particle physics.

Evidence.

All physical quantities are finite.

You've just made my point. So where are all these infinites in our theories coming from? They are either showing us an amazingly deep level of understanding, or showing where our models break down and we cant match our theories with physical reality.

More importantly, they agree with experiment to an accuracy beyond any other scientific theory in the history of the human race.

Agreed. But they are not without their issues, and they are not set in stone.

 

[Perpetual Student]

There is a striking similarity to the debating methods of Zeuzzz, Mozina, Sol88, etc. with that of creationists. They focus on some difficulty (imagined or actual) with prevailing theories. They then assume that focusing on that difficulty somehow boosts their own position -- by default. This debating technique is both illogical and dishonest.

 

[sol invictus]

Evidence.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim: you claim that in the quantum field theories used today to describe particle physics, one gets infinity as the answer when one calculates a physical quantity that should be finite. That's the claim, and if true it means QFT is wrong.

So you provide the evidence - just name one single physical quantity which comes out infinite when calculated (correctly, obviously) using (say) the standard model of particle physics. Go ahead - we're all waiting.

You've just made my point. So where are all these infinites in our theories coming from? They are either showing us an amazingly deep level of understanding, or showing where our models break down and we cant match our theories with physical reality.

They illustrate your total ignorance of the subject. See above.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here we go again. Ziggy, your usually far better than this, I expect these sort of comments from Sol and DeiRenDopa, not from you. If your gonna reply, at least put something in your post I can reply to without the gratuitous comments.

When you post something which contributes nothing to the debate, don't expect much in terms of a response. And your previous post contributed nothing. You are not in a position to lecture me about the quality of my posts.