Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina.
You have replied to the question about whether the evidence for dark matter is valid with basically the assertion that astronomers have underestimated the mass of visible matter in galaxies (this would have to be by an order of magnitude).

Let's correct that mistake now shall we? I'm stating rather emphatically that you have yet to demonstrate that you can accurately estimate the amount of *BARYONIC* matter in galaxies. It has nothing to do with 'visible' matter, but your notion of "SUSY" (make believe matter) that I'm not happy with. Do you understand that distinction, yes or no?

It occurs to me that given your lack of knowledge of physics as shown in this thread you may not know how astronomers measure this.

I don't care how they think they "measure" this number. It clearly doesn't work right. If it did work right you wouldn't need non-baryonic SUSY particle to fill the gaps of your mass estimation techniques.

Do you comprehend the distinction here between the notion of *BARYONIC* vs. SUSY gap filler that I'm actually complaining about? It has nothing to do with "visible" matter. I'm sure there are all sorts of clumps of matter in the universe that are not "visible" to us. I lack belief that any of it is contained in SUSY particles. Do you understand my actual objection, yes or no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I posted this before, but it might bear repeating:

"Astronomers Karl Gebhardt of The University of Texas at Austin and Jens Thomas of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics have used new computer modeling techniques to discover that the black hole at the heart of M87, one the largest nearby giant galaxies, is two to three times more massive than previously thought.

Weighing in at 6.4 billion times the Sun's mass, it is the most massive black hole yet measured with a robust technique, and suggests that the accepted black hole masses in nearby large galaxies may be off by similar amounts."

Now, it's only a factor of 2-3 increase, so not quite an order of magnitude.

You would think that a 2-3 fold increase would get their attention, but evidently they are still convinced they have everything all figured out already, so that 2-3 fold increase simply does not compute or register in their collective brain. They are still attempting to suggest they have already accounted for all the matter contained in a galaxy, so that revelation isn't going to register no matter how many times you remind them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

DRD, thanks for this excellent reminder.

I find estimates for the total mass of M87 at 2.4 x 10^12 out to some distance (no info on isophote), which is about 300 times the newly derived mass of the black hole.

But of course if they underestimate the mass of the gravity well in the core of the galaxy, what confidence should I put in their estimation of the mass of the material that surrounds that core?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't "believe in inflation and dark thingies".

Good, we share a few things in common.

I know, partially from first-hand experience, that there is very very strong evidence for non-baryonic dark matter.

Well, evidently there are a few things we do not agree on too. IMO you could only get such "evidence" from controlled experimentation, and that has simply hasn't been confirmed in any way shape or form.

I'll freely admit I don't understand the ins and outs of inflation (though I clearly know a lot more about it than you). But I at least know qualitatively what the evidence for it is.

What is it? IMO that part of standard theory is by far the weakest part of the whole theory. There is nothing known to humanity that acts like 'inflation'.

So why do you act like an 8 year old?

I don't. I simply don't share your faith in these mythical entities.

I've just become rather bored of your hypocrisy, ignorance, arrogance and childishness. If you want to ask sensible science questions free from faeries, pixies and deities (alive, dead or otherwise) I will try to answer them. But if you want to write like a child trying to emulate JRR Tolkein then I think I'll find something better to do with my spare time.

Well, I am actually sorry that I got under your skin and ruffled your feathers in this discussion. I guess you took some of my criticisms personally or something along those lines. I regret that, but have to be honest about my position and sometimes that isn't always 'popular'. I've actually come to respect your position on the neutrino discussion. You actually have made me put some effort into that issue. That's actually rather unusual to be honest. Most folks around here simply bore me to tears. It's a rare scenario where someone actually makes a valid point from the perspective of physics, and I appreciate your input in that part of our discussion.

I simply do not share your position on the non-baryonic part of the DM papers. While I certainly do accept that neutrinos exist in nature, to the best of my knowledge that is the rare exception to an otherwise 'baryonic" universe. You are welcome to 'explain' DM theories with MACHO and neutrino forms of "dark matter", but IMO the whole SUSY thing is pure hype.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Why do you think that all astronomers for many decades have been deluded into thinking that they cannot see into the photosphere just by applying a filter to their telescope?

Because that is physically impossible to the best of my knowledge. The primary wavelengths that actually penetrate the photosphere are the iron ion wavelengths and those wavelengths are absorbed by our atmosphere. Only SOHO and STEREO satellite images can actually see under the photosphere IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you read your own links?

Yes, did you? You did notice that these were "controlled" experiments, right?

"While all of the pieces of the puzzle seem to fit with a quark-gluon plasma explanation, it is essential to study this newly produced matter at higher and lower temperature in order to fully characterize its properties and definitively confirm the quark gluon plasma interpretation."

Ok. I'm all for "verification". Your point?

They have no direct measurements in this experiment of any free quarks.

Why would they? They only "detect" them as they decay. The detection method however is not unusual since that is the way that MANY subatomic particles and decay processes are identified.

They only pick up after-the-event signatures that get interpreted that way according to their model, but if the model is wrong, then those signatures could come from something other than quarks. So nope, by your standards quarks are fake.

Nope, not fake. They *match prediction* and the experiments are *CONTROLLED*! Do you grasp the notion of "controlled experimentation", yes or no? Do you understand what a control mechanism is? Now you might complain that they can't directly *SEE* a specific subatomic particle but that was true of even the electron until recently.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Can you tell us this so that we can tell whether you are lying or not:

That is another example of the "low road" tactics that you folks *ALWAYS* take. Instead of keeping the discussion focused on ideas and scientific issues, you instead resort to attacking the character of the individual. This is like a cult calling the 'non believer" a "heretic" or "evil". In a scientific debate, it's about as credible as a three dollar bill.

Your debate tactics are pathetic.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No MM, it's not wrong. Don't you ever get tired of arguing from ignorance?

Compared to you, I'm the most enlightened person on the planet.

If anyone ever observes a single free quark, it will falsify the standard model of particle physics - because a fundamental part of that model is quark confinement, and quark confinement means quarks cannot exist as isolated particles for more than a tiny, tiny fraction of a second.

Duh.

To detect a quark directly would require a detector smaller than the nucleus of an atom. Since that's totally impossible, their existence must be inferred - using mathematics, computer simulations, and interpolations - from data that's many, many steps removed from any such direct detection.

So what? These are *CONTROLLED* empirical experiments and these emissions are direct *PREDICTIONS* of the standard particle theory. Nothing is left to chance. Everything fits perfectly into the standard particle physics theory, and there is no 'need' for SUSY theory in standard particle physics theory. No confirmed reports exist for any SUSY particle and no "properties" of such particles have ever been identified. Compare and contrast that to standard particle physics theory where *EVERY* particle has already been identified in controlled experimentation with the single exception of the Higgs. And to answer your next question, yes, as a matter of fact, I do consider that specific idea (Higgs particle) to be "lacking in empirical support" at this moment in time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, not wrong.

They didn't see that quark. They didn't even detect it directly.

And? Do you think they detect the neutrino "directly"?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Baryonic Mass

I'm stating rather emphatically that you have yet to demonstrate that you can accurately estimate the amount of *BARYONIC* matter in galaxies.

How do you know that? Describe the methods used to derive the baryonic mass of a galaxy and explain why they are wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope, not fake. They *match prediction* and the experiments are *CONTROLLED*! Do you grasp the notion of "controlled experimentation", yes or no?

Oh, I most certainly do. But we've been over this before, Michael. Neither Newton nor Einstein were able to do any controlled experiments to test their theories. Science doesn't consist only of controlled experiments. For cosmology in particular, it should be rather obvious why you won't get very far with such a limited approach.

Now you might complain that they can't directly *SEE* a specific subatomic particle but that was true of even the electron until recently.

Oh, but it's not simply not seeing a quark, we can't even detect quarks. The same has not been true, for quite some time, in regards to electrons. And if the particle physicists are to be believed, we never will detect a quark. Terribly convenient of them to invent a theory that excuses their failure to see a quark. Yes, gnomes cause lightning. But they're invisible gnomes. Nope, I don't believe any of it. They're liars, all of them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How do you know that?

If you accurately estimated the amount of baryonic matter in a galaxy, you would not require liberal amounts of SUSY gap filler.

Describe the methods used to derive the baryonic mass of a galaxy and explain why they are wrong.

I don't have to either explain the methods that don't work properly or explain *why* they don't work properly, I simply note they the don't work properly, hence your reliance upon hypothetical particles with make-believe, ad hoc properties.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, I most certainly do.

Good. That's my biggest beef with all of your hypothetical entities. They all lack empirical support from controlled experimentation.

But we've been over this before, Michael. Neither Newton nor Einstein were able to do any controlled experiments to test their theories.

Boloney. Each of them could drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground an they could repeat the process a million times with the same results. Gravity certainly has a tangible and observable effect in real experiments. Compare and contrast that with dark energy and inflation and SUSY brands of 'dark matter'.

Science doesn't consist only of controlled experiments.

Most branches of science have no trouble demonstrating their statements and opinions in the lab. It's only you folks that seem to make it up as you go without regard to any need to demonstrate any of your statements in an empirical setting.

For cosmology in particular, it should be rather obvious why you won't get very far with such a limited approach.

Birkeland was able to demonstrate all of his core beliefs and opinions about astronomy in a lab in the conventional manner. What's your problem?

Oh, but it's not simply not seeing a quark, we can't even detect quarks.

We can only detect a Beta decay from the particles it emits. I fail to see how this is any different.

The same has not been true, for quite some time, in regards to electrons.

It was true of the electron however for a very long time. Only with the advent of modern technologies like lasers have we been able to actually "see" them.

And if the particle physicists are to be believed, we never will detect a quark.

We certainly detect it's decay properties however.

Terribly convenient of them to invent a theory that excuses their failure to see a quark. Yes, gnomes cause lightning. But they're invisible gnomes. Nope, I don't believe any of it. They're liars, all of them.

Nobody called your industry a "liar", simply 'misguided'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Boloney. Each of them could drop an apple and watch it fall to the ground

Which would not test their theories in any way, shape, or form, but would merely confirm Galileo's ideas of gravity.

Gravity certainly has a tangible and observable effect in real experiments.

But the idea that anything besides the earth had gravity did not. And Newton had no way of testing the idea that it did in any controlled fashion. Same with the distance dependence: it had no effect in any experiment he could perform. Similarly with Einstein: he could perform no controlled experiments to demonstrate the curving of space-time.

Most branches of science have no trouble demonstrating their statements and opinions in the lab.

Most branches of science don't deal with things far larger than our solar system.

We can only detect a Beta decay from the particles it emits.

Oh. You mean the beta particles. Yes, we can only detect beta decay by detecting beta particles. AKA electrons.

Or did you think that beta decay meant that the electrons were decaying? That would be rather amusing. Please, do tell exactly what you meant by this, I'm dying to know.

And you are aware that it is possible to produce free electrons by means other than beta decay, aren't you?

I fail to see how this is any different.

I'm sure you do.

It was true of the electron however for a very long time. Only with the advent of modern technologies like lasers have we been able to actually "see" them.

It's rather easy to detect electrons. Ever seen a cathode ray tube?

We certainly detect it's decay properties however.

Quarks don't decay.

 

[Reality Check]

Let's correct that mistake now shall we? I'm stating rather emphatically that you have yet to demonstrate that you can accurately estimate the amount of *BARYONIC* matter in galaxies. It has nothing to do with 'visible' matter, but your notion of "SUSY" (make believe matter) that I'm not happy with. Do you understand that distinction, yes or no?

I do understand that distinction.
Do you understand that *BARYONIC* matter (except in black holes) interacts electromagnetically?
Do you understand that *BARYONIC* matter (except in black holes) at any temperature gives off radiation?
Do you understand that matter that gives off radiation is visible matter?

As for SUSY matter - I have no opinion as to the nature of dark matter. It could be SUSY particles, axions, sterile neutrinos or even something more exotic.
What scientists work with is the evidence. The evidence is clear that dark matter acts differently from *BARYONIC* matter. They thus call this stuff nonbaryonic matter.

I don't care how they think they "measure" this number. It clearly doesn't work right. If it did work right you wouldn't need non-baryonic SUSY particle to fill the gaps of your mass estimation techniques.

Do you comprehend the distinction here between the notion of *BARYONIC* vs. SUSY gap filler that I'm actually complaining about? It has nothing to do with "visible" matter. I'm sure there are all sorts of clumps of matter in the universe that are not "visible" to us. I lack belief that any of it is contained in SUSY particles. Do you understand my actual objection, yes or no?

Yes - I understand your actual objection.
It is the same one of any ignorant, delusional crackpot - "I lack the belief in something and so I will ignore/not understand/not learn about the evidence for it. I will make up unsupported assertions just because I want this thing to be false. I will ignore the fact that there are competent people in the world who have made measurments that disagree with ny unsupported assertion. I will not learn about the techniques that these people used to make these measurements".

There is lots of matter that is not visible to us. That is what gravitational lensing data tells us - it shows any one who can think that there is the non-visible matter in the universe.
Specific observations tell any one who can think that there is nonbaryonic matter in the universe.
Here is the simple question that I asked you before yet again. An crackpot will ignore this. Are you willing to label yourself as a crackpot?

1. A is a big blob of gas.
2. B is a bib blob of gas.
3. Blob A hits blob A.
   • If the gas is all the same stuff then the result will be another blob of gas .
   • If the gas is a mixture of two kinds of gas , one of which interacts weakly with the other, then the result will be 3 blobs since the weakly interacting gas passes through the other gas .
4. We see 3 blobs.
5. Thus the gas is made of two kinds of gas, one of which interacts weakly with the other.

First asked 18 July 2009
Any problems with this analysis with what is going on with the majority of the matter in the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 (and even Abell 520)?

 

[Reality Check]

Because that is physically impossible to the best of my knowledge. The primary wavelengths that actually penetrate the photosphere are the iron ion wavelengths and those wavelengths are absorbed by our atmosphere. Only SOHO and STEREO satellite images can actually see under the photosphere IMO.

I am talking about SOHO, STEREO and TRACE satellite images.
They have telescopes (many telescopes even on Earth are CCD detectors) and the appropriate filters.

But I am glad that you know that this is only your humble opinion.

It is a pity that the actual physics says that you are incorrect, e.g the optical depth of the photosphere means that you can only see a few hundred kilometers into it (this varies with wavelength).

I asked this in another thread but it is now appropriate here:
First asked 22 July 2009
Michael Mozina:
Your assertion is that images taken in the the 171A pass band of the TRACE instrument can see 4800 kilometers into the Sun down to your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust.
Images taken in the the visible light pass band of the TRACE instrument will show only the photosphere.
The physics tells us that this is wrong since the optical depth of the photosphere is too low to allow this (around 500 kilometers from memory).

An effect of your assertion would be that if images are taken of the same event at the same time in the 171A pass band and in visible light then the surface seen in the images will move by 4800 kilometers.

For an image of the entire Sun, the diameter will change by about 0.7%. The TRACE instrument uses a 1024 by 1024 CCD detector. Thus the 2 images will differ by about 7 pixels, i.e. the Sun will shrink by ~3 pixels on all sides between a visible light image and a 171A pass band image.

The effect will be larger for events on the limb of the Sun.

These effects would be quite easy to see so there are two questions here:

• Can you give some examples of images showing this effect?
• Why have no astronomers noticed this?

To start you off: Have a look at these 171A pass band and white light pass band images.
Quote:
This solar X-class flare was observed by TRACE at 16:43UT on 22 November 1998, in the 171Å passband (characteristic of 1-million degree gas; in gold, on the left), 1600Å UV passband (characteristic of thousands to hundred thousand degrees; in red on the right), and in the white-light passband (mostly visible light; in pale yellow in the right).

The 171A pass band image does not have a clear "surface" crossing the lower edge but it does have one crossing the left edge.

To my eye the 171 A pass band image "surface" is about the same (or even a few pixels above)the white band pass band image "surface" on the left hand side. I would have expected it to be tens of pixels blow the white light pass band image according to your assertion.

There is an unclear crossing of the 171A "surface" at the bottom and it does appear below the white light surface (photosphere). But that still means that your iron surface pokes up onto the photosphere at least one point.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do understand that distinction.
Do you understand that *BARYONIC* matter (except in black holes) interacts electromagnetically?

Sure.

Do you understand that *BARYONIC* matter (except in black holes) at any temperature gives off radiation?

Sure, but tell me how many planets you might spot with current technology in a galaxy that is 10 million light years away or more.

[Do you understand that matter that gives off radiation is visible matter?

Ok, but it's not like we have the technology to see every clump of material in a distant galaxy.

As for SUSY matter - I have no opinion as to the nature of dark matter. It could be SUSY particles, axions, sterile neutrinos or even something more exotic.

If you intend to use ordinary materials that show up in a lab, like MACHO forms of matter or neutrinos, I'm not going to complain. If however you intend to claim that this material is contained in SUSY particles with various attributes, you have an additional burden of proof to demonstrate that SUSY particles exist and have the properties that you claim. It's not like I'm asking for the moon, just a simple demonstration of concept in a controlled experiment.

What scientists work with is the evidence.

The only 'evidence' you have is that galaxies are evidently more massive than you thought.

The evidence is clear that dark matter acts differently from *BARYONIC* matter. They thus call this stuff nonbaryonic matter.

You don't have any evidence that this matter "acts differently". You're *ASSUMING* it acts differently for whatever reason, but you have no evidence of that.

Yes - I understand your actual objection.

Good. I'm getting tired of being misrepresented in every post.

It is the same one of any ignorant, delusional crackpot -

Yawn. You folks are so predictable. I think the term "delusional crackpot" is your cult's religious equivalent of calling me an "evil bast*ard" for not buying your dogma on blind faith. Since you can't accuse me of being "deluded by the devil", I guess that's the best you can do.

"I lack the belief in something and so I will ignore/not understand/not learn about the evidence for it.

I lack belief in lots of things. I lack belief in astrology for instance and I've been accused of not 'learning' about it before judging it. So what? If you have some way of demonstrating that your SUSY particles or dark evil energies have some effect on things in controlled experiments, go for it. If not, that isn't my fault. Blame me all you like, but your lack of empirical physical evidence is not unlike numerology or astrology. I don't profess to be an 'expert' on any of these things because I lack belief they exist or have any effect on humans.

I will make up unsupported assertions just because I want this thing to be false.

You're the one making assertions you cannot support. If you assert that distant matter is composed of invisible potatoes the burden of proof falls on you to make your case. It's not my fault you can't do that in an empirical test anymore than it's my fault astrologers can't make their case in a controlled test of concept.

I will ignore the fact that there are competent people in the world who have made measurments that disagree with ny unsupported assertion.

Lot's of astrologers make that claim too. So what? I made no assertions other than you can't demonstrate your case in a controlled experiment. That's it. I have no doubt that competent people in the world found your mass estimates to be off. So what?

I will not learn about the techniques that these people used to make these measurements".

I understand the techniques well enough to accept that you underestimated the mass of a galaxy rather than to be an advocate of MOND theory or some other "explanation' for these observations. I'm not ignorant of the lensing techniques that have revealed the fact there is additional mass in these galaxies.

There is lots of matter that is not visible to us. That is what gravitational lensing data tells us - it shows any one who can think that there is the non-visible matter in the universe.

I accept that you actually underestimated the mass of the galaxies. I have no evidence that any exotic forms of matter are involved.

Specific observations tell any one who can think that there is nonbaryonic matter in the universe.

Non baryonic forms of matter like a neutrino? Sure. Some other form of non baryonic matter? Which one, and how do you know that?

Here is the simple question that I asked you before yet again. An crackpot will ignore this. Are you willing to label yourself as a crackpot?

Well, I'm going to ignore you on principle since you can't even have an honest conversation without tossing in the personal insults.

 

[derekmcd]

You would think that a 2-3 fold increase would get their attention, but evidently they are still convinced they have everything all figured out already, so that 2-3 fold increase simply does not compute or register in their collective brain. They are still attempting to suggest they have already accounted for all the matter contained in a galaxy, so that revelation isn't going to register no matter how many times you remind them.

It did get their attention... hence the press releases and paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1492

Where do you get the idea that "they are still convinced they have everything all figured out already"?

I don't think I have ever read a paper concerning galactic masses, black holes and dark matter where such arrogance was displayed. At least, not a paper I took seriously.

The reason that this didn't "register" as having any relationship to the overall mass of M87 and the need for reducing dark matter contributions is that the addition of 3 billion solar masses to M87 accounts for approximately .1 percent (1/10th of 1 percent) of the overall mass.

Of course, the coup de grace on using press releases versus actually reading the paper before making silly statements is that they included the contributions of the dark matter halo to come up with their results. Without that parameter, the black hole remains its original, smaller size.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Which would not test their theories in any way, shape, or form, but would merely confirm Galileo's ideas of gravity.

It demonstrates that gravity is attractive and has an effect on real things in real experiments. Compare and contrast that to non existent inflation or dark energy which have *ZERO* effect on anything in a lab.

But the idea that anything besides the earth had gravity did not.

That would be a lame concept since you would have to assume Earth was unique in that way and ignore basic evidences like atmospheres around planets which I'm sure Einstein understood.

And Newton had no way of testing the idea that it did in any controlled fashion.

Maybe not every component perhaps, but gravity as an attractive force can certainly be demonstrated quite easily with the simplest of experiments. Dark energy forces seem to hide from every experiment on Earth, yet it supposedly makes up 75% of the whole universe.

Same with the distance dependence: it had no effect in any experiment he could perform. Similarly with Einstein: he could perform no controlled experiments to demonstrate the curving of space-time.

So what? Gravity certainly exists and has an effect on humans. No rational person can doubt the existence of gravity or claim it doesn't exist.

Most branches of science don't deal with things far larger than our solar system.

Why should I believe that mother natures changes it's stripes at the edge of our solar system?

Quarks don't decay.

Quarks are simply "unstable'' and revert to other (known and identifiable) forms of matter. So what? The fact they have an real effect on real experiments, and have been verified by multiple organizations and multiple controlled experiments is unlike your mythical SUSY particles. If you had similar confirmations of various SUSY particles, I would let you use them too. In fact even by my way of looking at things, it is entirely possible that you *may* one day find evidence of new types of particles in future collider experiments. Now of course none of them may have the longevity necessary to explain "missing mass", but at least there is some hope of finding empirical support for such theories in the conventional scientific manner. That is very different than say "inflation' where there is absolutely no hope of ever verifying it actually exists in nature, since according to your theory it no longer exists in nature. Like I've said many times, DM theories are the least of your worries as it relates to the ability to empirically verifying your claims.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It did get their attention... hence the press releases and paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1492

Where do you get the idea that "they are still convinced they have everything all figured out already"?

I don't think I have ever read a paper concerning galactic masses, black holes and dark matter where such arrogance was displayed. At least, not a paper I took seriously.

The reason that this didn't "register" as having any relationship to the overall mass of M87 and the need for reducing dark matter contributions is that the addition of 3 billion solar masses to M87 accounts for approximately .1 percent (1/10th of 1 percent) of the overall mass.

Of course, the coup de grace on using press releases versus actually reading the paper before making silly statements is that they included the contributions of the dark matter halo to come up with their results. Without that parameter, the black hole remains its original, smaller size.

FYI Derek, your one question awhile back about the differences between Birkeland's theories and Chapman's theories did not go unnoticed. In fact the more I looked at the differences between their theories, the more I realized that the differences between their beliefs were far more subtle than I first realized. I will attempt to keep that in mind in any future discussions or characterizations of Chapman's work.

As it relates to the mass of the core, the fact the core is a minor contributor to the mass of the whole galaxy is rather irrelevant from my perspective. It simply demonstrates that our ability to accurately estimate the mass of a galaxy is still in a fairly primitive state. If we can underestimate the mass of core by a factor of 2 or 3 then it's also entirely possible we underestimate the mass around that core by a similar amount.