Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[sol invictus]

Were I personally to speculate on the origin of "non baryonic" matter that might be present in a galaxy inside of our electric universe, it would be non baryons in the form of electrons streams in vast quantities.

That kind of incredibly stupid idea just proves yet again that you don't understand the most basic aspects of physics. Free electrons are about the least invisible thing in existence. They interact extremely strongly with all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. In the quantities necessary to account for dark matter, they would also give the universe a *huge* net electric charge, which is impossible for all sorts of obvious reasons.

That would explain those "slinky" (Birkeland current) structures we observe in space by the way.

Those structures form in all simulations of cosmology, including those that do not take electromagnetic forces into account. Gravity alone, acting on otherwise non-interacting particles, makes filamentary* structures precisely like the ones we see.

What makes you believe that new and exotic forms of non baryonic material are required to explain these "non observations" of matter in distant galaxies?

Physics.


*One should note that much of the apparent filamentary structure observed in both simulations and the real universe is an artifact of the way the images are processed. If you make a slightly different choice of brightness map, you get something that looks much more clumpy and much less filamentary. But either way, pure gravity simulations match data very well.

 

[temporalillusion]

I'm just noting that from the very start, "observations" become subjective almost from the moment the brain becomes aware of them. There is no way to avoid that fact.

Maybe if things are judged by looking at grainy photos and drawing conclusions about astronomical phenomenon. Otherwise, no not really.

Theories should be precise, quantified to the point that an observation falling outside the theory is like a flashing red light.

Sure. Blind or not blind however, assumptions are not always correct. They can also have a significant impact on how one subjectively 'interprets' raw data, even data that is collected in an automated way. Subjectivity is pretty much a given in all branches of science. That is why controlled experiments are so valuable. They allow us to determine 'cause/effect' relationships and remove many of the subjective influences.

Of course assumptions aren't always correct, which is why things are usually "if this, then that", not "that always".

You can control a natural experiment as well, by choosing your sample set, making more observations, factoring out known variables, etc.. In cosmology, the assumptions are usually pretty basic, like "we aren't the center of the universe" or "the laws of physics don't change over there", or "the universe is homogeneous and isotropic".

That's not typically possible. For instance, we can collect the photons from the sun and have no assumption at the start of our collection process about how these photons patterns got into the spectrometer. Once we start "analyzing" the data however, subjectivity is pretty much a given.

Most science isn't done isolated from other science though. When I start gathering photos I can make assumptions based on the known laws of physics. Those assumptions may be wrong, and if they become invalidated then my conclusions may need to be changed or discarded.

 

[Wangler]

When looking at the papers that discuss the three "bullet cluster" type examples that RC has posted, I found that the typical mass-light ratio for one of these clusters is about 50 to 100 (the paper on the MACS J0025.4-1222 cluster says the ratio is ~1%, but I think they meant light/mass ratio instead).

they also state the gas-total mass ratio is ~10%. they provide the interaction cross section estimated for the dark matter, but what is the similar number for baryonic matter?

Wouldn't the dark matter keep "holding" onto the normal matter through the collision?

Is the normal-matter interaction enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the large clumps of dark matter?

 

[Reality Check]

You can't *SEE IT DIRECTLY*. All you can do is *SEE THE EFFECT* of that matter in distant lensing patterns. All you know is that it exists in the galaxy and you can't see it directly! You have no idea *WHY* you can't see it directly.

That is right. That is why it is called dark matter.
There is no difference between observing the gravity that matter gives off and observing the radiation that matter gives off. According to your terminology both are a "non observation". Scientists call it an observation of an effect of all matter (including dark matter).

What makes you believe that nonbaryonic material is not required to explain these observations of matter in distant galactic clusters?

 

[GeeMack]

What makes you believe that nonbaryonic material is not required to explain these observations of matter in distant galactic clusters?

Well, doh. Scientists only *ASSUME* that stars are made of gasses, but if they would stare at a running difference graph long enough they'd know, like I do, that stars have a solid iron crust under the photosphere. All that extra mass they measure, they're only *ASSUMING* it's dark matter pixies because they want to "oversimplify" everything, but it's really the iron in the stars! Birkeland knew it. He even said so. Wahhhhhh.

 

[Reality Check]

When looking at the papers that discuss the three "bullet cluster" type examples that RC has posted, I found that the typical mass-light ratio for one of these clusters is about 50 to 100 (the paper on the MACS J0025.4-1222 cluster says the ratio is ~1%, but I think they meant light/mass ratio instead).

they also state the gas-total mass ratio is ~10%. they provide the interaction cross section estimated for the dark matter, but what is the similar number for baryonic matter?

Wouldn't the dark matter keep "holding" onto the normal matter through the collision?

Is the normal-matter interaction enough to overcome the gravitational pull of the large clumps of dark matter?

I would guess that the similar number for baryonic matter would be ~100% cross section. If a particle interacted electromagnetically then traveling through millions of light years of a gas with about 1 similar particle per cubic meter would guarantee interaction.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Sorry. I did not see your reply to this post previously.

...TOPS stuff...

Large is a 75% increase in "optical depth" as compared to the frequency 200 nm away...
I did not actually compute the optical depth with the new numbers.
this also depends on the brightness of the source. The source is loop foot prints at 1 million degrees lighting up the surrounding area.

Thanks for your reply brantc.

To my mind "large" would be an order of magnitude to turn the measured optical depth of the photosphere in the visible range (100's of km) to what would be needed to see MM's iron surface (~4800 km).
However I do not know whether a 75% change in opacity could result in a 1000% change in optical depth.

I'm not necessarily hooked on 4800km as the correct depth for the surface.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Do you think the when we look at the loop footprints we are looking under the photosphere?

No I do not.
When we are looking at the loop footprints in an image we are seeing the limit of light emitted by the loops that can be seen in that image. There is no information about where the footprints are located depth wise. They could be at the core of the Sun!

The loops definitely penetrate the photosphere.
Even NASA says so.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
It doesnt matter what the optical depth is if you can see the surface.
If think the sun is a plasma ball then you will not see the surface.
You will say there is solar moss in the chromosphere, and it still doesnt matter because you are not able to look out from the inside to verify...

I am not sure what you mean by this.
If the optical depth is 1000 km (at least twice what it is in the visibils range) and there is a non-plasma "surface" 2000 km below the photosphere then you will never see that surface.

But then you have the problem that the temperature of the photosphere is measured to be ~6000 K and that this temperature is measured to increase with depth. Thus any "surface" is plasma.

Show me measured to increase with depth.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Because of the way they think the sun is constructed. Nobody thinks they are looking at a solid surface.

Here is the blackbody emission surface of the sun at viewed at 171A through the photosphere.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

That is a 171A image of the Sun, i.e, of plasma at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K (no black body emission).
No one would think that they are looking at a solid surface in that image because the boiling points of materials are ~2000 K.

Yes. That is an image of that area of the sun taken at 171A. The light from the plasma (loop footprints, loop etc) is short UV from 100eV(1 million degrees) plasma and it is lighting up the surrounding area which I am saying is the solid blackbody emitting surface of the sun.
It is a regular picture taken at 171A of the ground on the sun.
The loops are thermionic emission from a solid metal surface.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
From the JET website.

"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".

"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level. The spectrum from a deuterium-tritium plasma is shown in Figure 13.4 (below). The observed frequencies depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field at the location of the emission and, surprisingly, it was found that in JET this meant that the emission comes from the edge of the plasma in the outer midplane."

People learn new things all the time.

That is right - that is science.
I am not sure that the plasma in the Joint European Torus can be directly compared to the Sun's plasma. I would expect that the very large magnetic fields involved will influence what is happening (as the quote suggests).

Yes, but that will not change a blackbody to lines.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
As I have said I have never seen a single experimental example of a thin or medium thin plasma produce a blackbody.

Only in astronomy does this idea exist.

Can you define "thin or medium thin plasma"?
Is the photosphere one?

The photosphere is a thin plasma.

The real question is how do you account for the fact that a nearly black body spectrum is actually measured for the Sun?
Where do you think that this comes from?
Is there a ~6000 K solid surface emitting it and if so what is that solid surface made of?

Blackbody emission is the property of dense (condensed) matter.

If you design a lamp to emit the solar spectrum, how come it doesnt melt?

Because the emission is electrical in nature.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh no Mr. Bill......

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3648

Looks like your "dark energy" is probably nothing more than EM fields in space. I guess this means you'll become EU advocates after all?

 

[Reality Check]

I'm not necessarily hooked on 4800km as the correct depth for the surface.

That will disappoint Micheal Mozina. What is the correct depth and how did you calculate it?

The loops definitely penetrate the photosphere.
Even NASA says so.
http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/124357main_flare_320.mpg

I hope you are not a "picture looks like something and so must be that" guy like MM.
That is what astromoners agree happens - coronal loops penetrate the photosphere. They also agree that they cannot be seen penetrating the photosphere in images that are filtered to emphasis features in the corona (e.g. the TRACE 171A images).

Show me measured to increase with depth.

Limb darkening measuring is the technique used to measure the temperature of the photosphere with depth. I suggest that you look it up in a textbook.

Yes. That is an image of that area of the sun taken at 171A. The light from the plasma (loop footprints, loop etc) is short UV from 100eV(1 million degrees) plasma and it is lighting up the surrounding area which I am saying is the solid blackbody emitting surface of the sun.
It is a regular picture taken at 171A of the ground on the sun.
The loops are thermionic emission from a solid metal surface.

The 171A pass band being used means that the temperature of the emitting material is between 160,000 K aand 2,000,000 K.

Yes, but that will not change a blackbody to lines.

Yes it could change a nearly black body spectrum to lines. The strong magnetic field adds a constraint to the freedom of the electrons in the plasma. So rather being free to emit photons in a range of energies, the electrons are constrained to specific energy levels (like electrons in atoms).

The photosphere is a thin plasma.

You want the photosphere to be a "thin" plasma (and you assert that a "thin" plasma cannot emit a nearly black body spectrum) so you are defining the photosphere as a "thin plasma.

What I want is the scientifically defined density of a plasma that makes it "thin" enough so that it cannot emit a nearly black body spectrum.

Blackbody emission is the property of dense (condensed) matter.

If you design a lamp to emit the solar spectrum, how come it doesnt melt?

Because the emission is electrical in nature.

How come the solar wind at a temperature of millions of degree has not melted the Earth over billions of years?
(a clue: temperature is not energy).

 

[Reality Check]

A bump since Michael Mozina is stating that dark matter has to be baryonic in another thread.

Here is the question again in a non-simplified form:

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.
     It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
   • 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.
     The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
4. We see 3 blobs.
   The outlyng blobs contain most of the matter.
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)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be tiny high (an atom travels millions of lightyears throough a meduim containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas.

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

It seems silly IMO to duplicate this discussion in two different threads, but for anyone following the conversation, here was the recent article in question that suggests that our mass (normal mass) estimation techniques are critically flawed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819145846.htm

Evidently the term "dark" has many meanings. Something can be dark in the visible spectrum but not be "invisible" to other wavelengths.

 

[Reality Check]

It seems silly IMO to duplicate this discussion in two different threads, but for anyone following the conversation, here was the recent article in question that suggests that our mass (normal mass) estimation techniques are critically flawed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090819145846.htm

Evidently the term "dark" has many meanings. Something can be dark in the visible spectrum but not be "invisible" to other wavelengths.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question.
Obvioulsy the term "dark" in dark matter has a specific meaning, i.e. not visible in any wavelength.

 

[edd]

There's a 'semi-popular' review of MOND put out on astro-ph today - http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3842
I thought it might be of interest to this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

A bump since Michael Mozina is stating that dark matter is missing matter in yet another thread.


Here is the question again in a non-simplified form:

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.
     It is probable that some of the gas will not not collide. In that case there will be blobs of gas to each side. The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide.
   • 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.
     The size of these outlying blobs will reflect the amount of gas that did not collide plus the amount of weakly interacting gas.
4. We see 3 blobs.
   The outlying blobs contain most of the matter.
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)?

Remember that astronomers can calculate the probability of atoms in the ICM colliding as they travel millions of light years through each cluster. I do not know the exact number but expect it to be high (an atom travels millions of light years through a medium containing about 1 atom per cubic meter - you do the math!).
Thus the amount of gas that did not collide is tiny. The outlying blobs are thus mostly weakly interacting gas.

If not then you agree that these three observations are evidence that there is matter that does not interact like baryonic matter. This we call nonbaryonic matter.

 

[edd]

Now those "dark flows" will get "explained away" with some "new and improved" brand of "dark flow inflation". Further and further into the metaphysical abyss we go.......

It turns out not - http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.4233 explains it much more conventionally and argues that there is no good evidence for a dark flow at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So much for predicting things correctly:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822

And oh look, more holes in your theory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

 

[Ziggurat]

So much for predicting things correctly:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822

Funny how you assume that the error is in our cosmology theories, not our galactic evolution theories. Confirmation bias, Michael.

And oh look, more holes in your theory:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. That article doesn't say there are any holes in the dark matter theory. What it says is that an earlier experiment may not have detected dark matter as originally claimed. That doesn't mean it isn't out there. And as any student of logic could tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can you understand the distinction? Because it's important.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Funny how you assume that the error is in our cosmology theories, not our galactic evolution theories. Confirmation bias, Michael.

Funny how your theory keeps predicting the opposite of what we actually observe.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. That article doesn't say there are any holes in the dark matter theory. What it says is that an earlier experiment may not have detected dark matter as originally claimed. That doesn't mean it isn't out there. And as any student of logic could tell you, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Can you understand the distinction? Because it's important.

The problem is that there is no evidence that non baryonic dark matter exists in the first place! The few "experiments" that have been done tend to falsify the whole notion of "non baryonic" dark matter. Instead of acknowledging this problem, your whole industry keeps pointing at the sky and claiming it exists anyway. What exactly will it take to falsify your theories anyway?

 

[Ziggurat]

Funny how your theory keeps predicting the opposite of what we actually observe.

Hey, we can add another word to the list of words Michael invents his own definition for!

The problem is that there is no evidence that non baryonic dark matter exists in the first place!

Goalpost, moved. And you're wrong anyways.

The few "experiments" that have been done tend to falsify the whole notion of "non baryonic" dark matter.

Wow, two in one post!

What exactly will it take to falsify your theories anyway?

Closing the gigantic mass gap between baryonic mass measurements and total mass measurements, obviously.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hey, we can add another word to the list of words Michael invents his own definition for!

Oh come on. Your theory "predicts" an "aging" universe, not one that was "ancient" 10 Billion years ago! You can't ignore the fact that every "prediction" about the how the galaxies would be younger as we looked further back in time has been blown away. It's been going on for years now.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/M..._Eight_Times_More_Massive_Than_Milky_Way.html

Goalpost, moved. And you're wrong anyways.

No, you're the one moving the goalposts. There is *ZIP* in the way of "observational evidence' for "non baryonic' forms of 'dark matter' or 'CDM'. In other words your "CDM" has been 'debunked" (your terms) in the lab on every occasion.

Closing the gigantic mass gap between baryonic mass measurements and total mass measurements, obviously.

Well, If I could wake you up to the mass flows involved in "current flows" it wouldn't be so darn "dark" anymore. The fact you 'refuse to see' simply makes it more difficult to have a real discussion. You're so busy chasing dark invisible aether bunnies that you forgot all about empirical physics.

What exactly is it going to take to kill your dead metaphysical creation myth? You do realize that only creationism and Lambda-CMD theory *require* faster than light expansion, right?

There is no physics behind your theories, just metaphysical pigs galore that are dressed up with bright pretty red mathematical lipstick. The moment we try to test any of it in a lab, the whole thing goes to hell in a hand basket.

So, let's recap:

Your BB theory *failed* to correctly predict the existence of those "mature" galaxies we see way back in time that are "clustered" and "red" and all things associated with 'modern" galaxies. Your dark matter buddy is evidently a "no show' in the lab, and has evidently the 'cracks' where you can actually stuff him back in there have been increased to a mass in excess of 80 protons.

So essentially you need something more massive than iron making up 5 times more mass than all the suns in the heavens.

Here's a history quiz for you. Who in history every used a particle that massive to calculate a number for the mass in space that was many times greater than the mass of all the stars? What actual particle did they/he/she actually use to predict that mass?

Bonus question:

How did that particle get from the sun and into space according to this theory?