Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Tubbythin]

Very well, lithium abundance it is. There is indeed a tension in BBC with Li abundances, although to find out how serious it is I will need to do some reading. Probably some other forum members can help with that.

For the PC side, you've provided two papers by Eric Lerner. Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

Well the latter paper is hugely out of date and thus as far as I can tell pretty much irrelevant given that with the WMAP data the agreement for D,^3,4He is excellent. The lithium problem remains. Thanks to Zeuzzz I previously read how from calculations Lerner "showed" that the results on Lithium isotopes ruled out the Big Bang to some astonishing degree of certainty... something like 7sigma or 1 in 10⁷. Unfortunately for Lerner and the integrity or at least competence of the journal which decided to publish his paper, it was implicitly assumed that the deficiency came exclusively from the cosmological model. I don't recall any sign of acknowledgement that the results could signify problems with our understanding of environments for the production/destruction of lithium or the nuclear physics involved. Especially in light of the WMAP data which gave very good agreement for the other isotopes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well the latter paper is hugely out of date

Logical fallacy. Popularity or age of published work does not bear on its veracity. Especially with no reason.

and thus as far as I can tell pretty much irrelevant given that with the WMAP data the agreement for D,^3,4He is excellent.

Non sequitur.

We are talking about the Big Bang theory. Not subsequent theories that have been invented to explain data that was clashing with original predictions.

The lithium problem remains.

Indeedy.

Thanks to Zeuzzz I previously read how from calculations Lerner "showed" that the results on Lithium isotopes ruled out the Big Bang to some astonishing degree of certainty... something like 7sigma or 1 in 10⁷. Unfortunately for Lerner and the integrity or at least competence of the journal which decided to publish his paper, it was implicitly assumed that the deficiency came exclusively from the cosmological model.

Yes it was implicitly assumed, as the point of the paper was a direct comparison of two separate cosmological models. Not a comparison of the various offshoot theories and ad hoc models that have been introduced to make up for the problems and poor predictions made by the Big Bang. When comparing theories to decide the more powerful you should consider its predictions and how they have borne out, the number of free variables used (less the better) and how much in situ experimental evidence can support it.

Especially in light of the WMAP data which gave very good agreement for the other isotopes.

No such predictions were made for the wmap data for plasma cosmology. But using typical BBT fashion I'm sure we could look at the data now and create a nice ad hoc theory to explain the lot, if we felt it was data that disagreed with current models.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well, Zeuzzz, the CREIL effect (I assume you mean http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0203/0203099v1.pdf) is not standard physics. It's complete baloney, guesswork, and cherry-picked extrapolations, from the atomic physics on down. The author appears to pull the CREIL effect out of thin air, by guessing that (laboratory, solid, laser-stimulated) ISRS works similarly-ish without the solid or the laser. He's wrong. His atomic physics is ... well, it appears to be just complete nonsense, having nothing to do with ISRS.

If there were a mechanism under which individual gas molecules could Raman-scatter incoming photons, and ONLY downward---never upward, like real Raman---and do so perfectly in the forward direction, it would still not agree with data.

a) First, it's stochastic. Photon A scatters 100+/- sqrt(100) times, Photon B from the same source, on the same path, scatters 100+/- sqrt(100) times. They have different energies at the end.

b) It's not the same on all lines of sight. Redshifts look the same when you look through a filament or through a void. This is simply not possible if the redshift is related to line-of-sight gases. It's nonsense.

c) It doesn't explain time-dilation, which is observed.

d) There is no way it works the same at all wavelengths, from 21cm to (say) 7 keV (the iron line). (Does GLAST have any extragalactic sources at 511 keV yet?) That's not what atoms do.

e) Olber's Paradox. In this model the CMB is not a blackbody, and it's not a relic---it's the sum of all of the "missing" energies of all of the optical photons since the birth of the Universe.

f) There is no evidence that the purported scattering-molecules are actually there. The only thing we see in intergalactic space is atomic hydrogen (H, not H2).

I dont believe the CREIL effect explains everything, just at at the moment its one of the best contenders in my eyes (or rather a modification of it based on similar guiding principles).

We will have to see how Tollman brightness and other data holds out for expansion, regardless of the numerous so far ad hoc explanations. As it stands there is plenty of evidence that can be seen as evidence against expansion. Granted more supports it at the moment, but new data is always coming in.

And so on. Seriously, Zeuzzz, this is a stack of standard crackpot papers on yet another crappy grey-dust theory. That's the best you've got? Really?

The best I've got is a completely new theory, actually. Based on quantum loop gravity, brane theory, multiverse theory, Big Bang theory, string theory, and many other imaginary things, it explain the whole universe. I call it "The mistake of treating mathematical abstractions as real world entities". To be honest most of cosmology can now stop, every cosmologist can go on holiday and be content they have worked out nearly everything the universe can offer (oddly despite other science disciplines still discovering new things and mysteries even here on earth).

Oh and don't worry about proof or experimental evidence. Its based on the physical properties of singularities, infinity, dark matter, inflation, magnetic field lines, dark energy, strange matter, and much more. Since none have any testable real world properties I just made some up. And the rest is all nicely balanced and solved maths equations, based on super-strings and quantum loop gravity, which we will never be able to test.

So voila. Thread closed.

 

[ben m]

I dont believe the CREIL effect explains everything, just at at the moment its one of the best contenders in my eyes (or rather a modification of it based on similar guiding principles).

This is stupid, Zeuzzz. On one hand you say "CREIL is based on known physics" and on the other you say "CREIL doesn't actually explain redshift but maybe a modification of it could".

The best I've got is a completely new theory, actually. Based on quantum loop gravity, brane theory, multiverse theory, Big Bang theory, string theory, and many other imaginary things, it explain the whole universe.

Whoa there.

The Big Bang hypothesis is what you get when you ask General Relativity to explain Edwin Hubble's observations. That's it. Period. Once you've made this hypothesis, you find that it correctly predicts the existence of, and most of the details of, the CMB/CMBpol/LSS/Ly-A/BBN/LSS/BAO/strong-lensing/weak-lensing and lots of other experimental data.

LQG, branes, multiverses, and strings are completely untested hypotheses that are discussed by theorists, and are hoped to be stepping stones towards a future grand unified theory.

Don't get them confused.

 

[ben m]

I dont believe the CREIL effect explains everything, just at at the moment its one of the best contenders in my eyes (or rather a modification of it based on similar guiding principles).

a) Do you think CREIL is based on a correct statement of atomic physics? (I don't.)

b) Assuming the atomic physics were correct: do you think CREIL explains anything? (I don't; certainly it would not cause something that looks like redshift.)

c) Do you think CREIL has a guiding principle? (I don't. I think it stupidly assumed that redshift cannot be motion/gravity/GR related, misread some solid-state physics papers and assumed they were generalizable, and nonsensically mashed the two assumptions together. )

 

[Reality Check]

Logical fallacy. Popularity or age of published work does not bear on its veracity. Especially with no reason.

Right but not completely: The older a paper is the more likely that it is that it has been invalidated by more current results.
However the fact that a paper is old does not mean that it is invalid.

Non sequitur.

We are talking about the Big Bang theory. Not subsequent theories that have been invented to explain data that was clashing with original predictions.

Wrong:
We are talking about the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang theory is the theory that explains primordial nucleosythesis: Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
No "subsequent theories" are involved, just the usual sceintific prectice of fine tuning theories to fit observations.

No such predictions were made for the wmap data for plasma cosmology. But using typical BBT fashion I'm sure we could look at the data now and create a nice ad hoc theory to explain the lot, if we felt it was data that disagreed with current models.

One problem - plasma cosmology does not exist !
So there is no prediction from pc about the CMB (or to be more exact there are mutually exclusive theories about the CMB that cannot match the details of the CMB).

 

[ben m]

No such predictions were made for the wmap data for plasma cosmology. But using typical BBT fashion I'm sure we could look at the data now and create a nice ad hoc theory to explain the lot, if we felt it was data that disagreed with current models.

a) Too bad that plasma cosmologists are incompetent to actually do this. Too bad there's no actual theory of PC.

b) If you want to do it: please do. Decide on (1) what datasets you are trying to explain. Decide (2) what laws of physics you're trying to include in your model. Decide (3) a discrete list of numbers that are otherwise unknown but that are important for doing calculations.

Then you do a global "fit", to see if there's any combination of unknowns that actually agrees with all of the data at the same time. This works, and has most of the same statistical properties as normal prediction-testing, as long as the list in (3) is shorter than the list of data points in (1).

If PC could explain the data as well as the Big Bang can, then maybe you'd have grounds to say that PC's assumptions were "more physical" than BBT's. Is that where we are? No, PC can't explain the data at all.

You may think that BBT is epistemologically fuzzy---that its assumptions are unjustified. (I disagree, I think you say that because you don't know anything about stats.) But I'd rather have a nagging epistemology question than an already-falsified pile of nonsense like PC.

Same with everything in physics. The fact that "photons" are philosophically sort of hard to think about? Maybe, but that doesn't make the aether true. Spooky action-at-a-distance makes QM sound weird and unpleasant? True enough, but that doesn't make hidden variable theories true. Planet-formation theories keep going back and forth on the origin of the scattered disk? A bit worrying, but Ptolemy was still wrong one way or the other. There is no possible cosmology data---even data that finds huge problems with the Big Bang---that will undo the unit-errors and general idiocy of PC.

 

[ben m]

But using typical BBT fashion I'm sure we could look at the data now and create a nice ad hoc theory to explain the lot, if we felt it was data that disagreed with current models.

I want to dwell on this because I suspect you don't understand.

What would an "ad hoc" PC theory contain? Let's suppose that PC can get a CMB-like effect by saying, "Oh, yeah, you need a certain number of CO, OH, or CN molecules to emit CMB photons. To get a 2.73K CMB, you need---(insert actual calculation by actual PC scientist)---4.2 molecules per m^3, and it has to be CN, and there can't be any H2 around at the level of 0.02/m^3". See, in this case that 4.2 is an fit to the data, as is the choice of CN over CO or OH.

Let's suppose that PC can explain the Lyman-Alpha forest: "Oh yeah, to get that absorption data you need (insert calc) H2 at the level of (insert calc) 100 m^3"

Let's suppose that PC can explain the first acoustic peak in the CMB: "Oh yeah, to get hot spots at L=120 you need a (insert calc) OH/CO plasma with 10^6 atoms/m3 magnetized to 1.2 +/- 0.5 Tesla"

Let's suppose that PC can explain the size of large-scale structures: "Oh yeah, you get the observed LSS power law if space has a field of 10^5 Tesla".

See the problem, Zeuzzz? You are guessing that PC could explain the CMB---maybe you're right. But that CMB explanation has to have some sort of matter/fields/etc. in it----ad-hoc matter and fields? sure, fine. But that set matter/fields/etc ALSO has to work with all of the other explanations. What makes you think PC could build an "ad hoc" model that actually works like this? They have 20 years of experience building deeply ad-hoc models that completely suck, and that's not even getting into the hard stuff.

(Note that the "ad hoc" DM+DE that the BBT puts in "ad-hoc" (to generates a perfect CMB prediction) is exactly the same stuff as the DM+DE that generates a perfect weak-lensing prediction, and a perfect LSS prediction, and BAO, and so on. Will PC be able to find one current-carrying magnetized plasma that has all of these effects simultaneously?)

 

[Zeuzzz]

a) Too bad that plasma cosmologists are incompetent to actually do this. Too bad there's no actual theory of PC.

b) If you want to do it: please do. Decide on (1) what datasets you are trying to explain. Decide (2) what laws of physics you're trying to include in your model. Decide (3) a discrete list of numbers that are otherwise unknown but that are important for doing calculations.

For a start off you can disband a lot of cmb data, specially that collected for the Big Bang in very recent years, as its irrelevant to PC; unless you can either show me very clearly:

i) How it proves the Big Bang and in what way (thus PC will need to explain it also)
ii) How it may be a problem for current PC models even if it does not help the Big Bang

or

iii) How to explain any paradoxical data with inexplicable patterns that neither can explain (this is not essential, of course)

Before you answer one of those I don't know where to start.


Plasma cosmology advocates argue that the CMB is (mainly the remnants) of stellar nucleosynthesis of helium releasing the required CMB energy from the stars in the early stages of the formation of galaxies (Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456 469). It has long been noted (Physical Review D 70, Issue 2, id. 023505 (2004)) that the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of H-4 is the same as the amount of energy in the CMB. The blackbody spectrum, Lerner and Peratt (and Peter independently too), hypothesized that the energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. ("Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 61-81 (1995)" - "A. L. Peratt, "Plasma and the universe: Large-scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 97-107 (1995)).


Lerner then further developed this model by matching the isotropic and homogeneous blackbody spectrum of the CMB using the high-galactic latitude fraction of the data set from COBE (Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81.) Unfortunately there was not enough time for calculations based on the theory to predict the angular power spectrum, likewise the peak structure of the CMB anisotropy. Such figures are easily achieved, all you really need to add to the theory is a more in depth particle analysis, could be pair production or annihilation, that (as long as an adequate angular frequency, and explanation for this, is used) can create the correct angular power spectrum and peak structure of CMB anisotropy. Microwave spectroscopy is now being used to study chemical reactions significant in atmospheric and solar chemistry (solar chemistry is what is used in Lerners model), and to help understand various things in cosmology.


Probably even more feasible than that idea would be plasma oscillation or molecular rotation models added to the existing theory, to create the attributes the data shows. This would be in hindsight however. Guess if a theory for this gets written in the future then the emperors of the Big Bang may get annoyed at the retrospective nature of this (made to fit the data, not to predict it) but then promptly realize they have no clothes on. And have not for decades.


Another major issue for the CMB in BBT is that the quadrupole moment is unexpectedly low and the octupole moment appears aligned. Furthermore, the odd alignments of the planes of the quadrupole and octupole moments with each other and with the ecliptic in the direction of the cosmological dipole, also with the equinoxes and with the supergalactic plane. Lerner's suggested that this corresponds to a model where the Local Supercluster filament would shield us from more distant filament CMB radiation (Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81)


There is also further evidence, mounting with time and research, of various other phenomenon that under specific conditions would be more than capable of creating many of the attributes of the CMB. We know that neutral (well, nearly neutral) hydrogen in the ISM produces the 21 centimeter line microwave electromagnetic spectrum (Phys. Rev. 70, 984–984 (1946) ). And various other mechanisms produce microwave hyperfine structures, which can be uncannily similar in multiple aspects to the CMB.

 

[Zeuzzz]

We are talking about the Big Bang theory and the Big Bang theory is the theory that explains primordial nucleosythesis: Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
No "subsequent theories" are involved, just the usual sceintific prectice of fine tuning theories to fit observations.

Looks like somebody needs to get reading. So A quick Ditto.


We are talking about the theory of plasma cosmology here and PC theory is the theory that explains the Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis.
Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis.
No "subsequent theories" are involved, just the usual scientific practice of fine tuning theories to fit observations.


To quote:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...265349.pdf?arnumber=1265349&authDecision=-203

In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, lead to a broader range of predicted abundances than does BBN, because the plasma theory hypothesizes a process occurring in individual galaxies, so some variation is to be expected. The range of values predicted for 4He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %.

[8] E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.

[9] E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

[10] E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.


Blah Blah Blahdy Blah.

 

[Tubbythin]

Logical fallacy. Popularity or age of published work does not bear on its veracity. Especially with no reason.

Most definitely not a logical fallacy because you missed the point in its entirety. The paper is out of date because the data used to draw the conclusions drawn in the paper has been superseeded by better data that shows that probelm outlined in the paper doesn't actually exist.

Non sequitur.

We are talking about the Big Bang theory. Not subsequent theories that have been invented to explain data that was clashing with original predictions.

No, not non-sequitur. In the paper it is claimed that there is no single-value of the photon to baryon ratio that will give the right abundances for all of D, ^3,4He. Subsequent data has shown that, in fact, this is not the case. Note that is subsequent data[\b] not subsequent changes to the model.

Indeedy.

Good job there is so many other bits of data that back up the BBT then isn't it?

Yes it was implicitly assumed, as the point of the paper was a direct comparison of two separate cosmological models. Not a comparison of the various offshoot theories and ad hoc models that have been introduced to make up for the problems and poor predictions made by the Big Bang. When comparing theories to decide the more powerful you should consider its predictions and how they have borne out, the number of free variables used (less the better) and how much in situ experimental evidence can support it.

You fail to understand again. The predicted abundances from the BBT theory rely on things from elsewhere being correct. That is:
1) The nuclear theories must be correct
2) The nuclear physics data must be correct and precise
3) The astronomical theories must be correct
4) The astronomical data must be correct and precise.
If any[]/b] of 1)-4) is wrong then it does not matter how good the Big Bang theory is, the end numbers will be wrong. And yet the paper made no remark about any of these possibilitties. It didn't even acknowledgement. I can only conclude one of of two thing:
a)The author hasn't a clue about the topic of the paper;
b)The author is deliberately suppressing these things so that his claims appear to carry far far far far far more weight than they actually do.
Either conclusion is extremely damning on both the author and the journal that allowed the paper to be published.

No such predictions were made for the wmap data for plasma cosmology. But using typical BBT fashion I'm sure we could look at the data now and create a nice ad hoc theory to explain the lot, if we felt it was data that disagreed with current models.

This wasn't an add-hoc prediction, this is another success of the Big Bang model. The only problem at the minute is the lithium isotopes. Even that is (IIRC) a factor of only about ~2. Which is hardly ridiculous when you consider the difference between the ⁴He and Li abundances is something like a factor of a billion!

 

[Tubbythin]

We are talking about the theory of plasma cosmology here and PC theory is the theory that explains the Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis.
Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis.
No "subsequent theories" are involved, just the usual scientific practice of fine tuning theories to fit observations.


To quote:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...265349.pdf?arnumber=1265349&authDecision=-203

Ah yes. That paper! The one that completely erroneously claims the lithium data rules out the Big Bang model to 7sigma.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Most definitely not a logical fallacy because you missed the point in its entirety. The paper is out of date because the data used to draw the conclusions drawn in the paper has been superseeded by better data that shows that probelm outlined in the paper doesn't actually exist.

Just one point from above. Fattyslim, you seem to be good at quick snippet replies stating your point but not backing it up.

Einsteins General relativity is superseded since there have been numerous extensions of it, quantum theory superseded due to modern changes in the latest principles, and the original data that lead us to find the CMB is now superseded by modern CMB data with higher error bounds, and imperial is now superseded by metric, etc. But they are not wrong. And are still able to be used.

Within their own limits they will remain correct, the new superseccive version does not automatically render any work predicated on the former version by default fallacious. It could do, but this is totally dependent on each individual theory, the magnitude of difference between the original and the replacement and the properties of the theory you are trying to declare void by default.

This threads like a recurring relentless unremitting de-ja vu for me now.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You fail to understand again. The predicted abundances from the BBT theory rely on things from elsewhere being correct. That is:
1) The nuclear theories must be correct

Which came first? BBT predictions or electromagnetically received non terrestrial data which is interpreted so relate to the properties of universal nuclear physics?

2) The nuclear physics data must be correct and precise

Or else what?

Precise to what error bounds dictated by what theory?

3) The astronomical theories must be correct

Well they are not

4) The astronomical data must be correct and precise.
If any[]/b] of 1)-4) is wrong then it does not matter how good the Big Bang theory is, the end numbers will be wrong.

Agreed. As it stands these four are nearly completely internally self consistent and are often used interchangeably to prove each other.

However, internal self consistency bears absolutely no regard to overall veracity if they are checked against other theories. For example change 3) to a plasma cosmology based theory and 1) 2) and 4) will not work. So you could go about changing 1) 2) and 4) till they agree with 3). Or you could leave 3) as wrong. Subjectivity like this and the prevalence of interpretation over fact is what makes cosmology such a non definitive science

I can only conclude one of of two thing:
a)The author hasn't a clue about the topic of the paper;
b)The author is deliberately suppressing these things so that his claims appear to carry far far far far far more weight than they actually do.

a) He seems better versed in critical thinking, as opposed to the usual institutionalized synchophany to a single dominant paradigm you tend to get these days in cosmology.
b) I think you may be better suited to the conspiracy theory section here to make accusations like that.

Either conclusion is extremely damning on both the author and the journal that allowed the paper to be published.

Well damned he be by who-ever decides to damn him. Others might rather try to understand the situation before making accusations.

Journals publish nonsense all the time, even the most reputable ones. Its called science. theories rise, theories fall. Some are wrong, some are right, some are proven wrong with time, some remain correct.

This wasn't an add-hoc prediction, this is another success of the Big Bang model.

By what criteria is this a "success of the Big Bang model" ?

 

[Tubbythin]

Just one point from above. Fattyslim, you seem to be good at quick snippet replies stating your point but not backing it up.

Very well.

Einsteins General relativity is superseded since there have been numerous extensions of it, quantum theory superseded due to modern changes in the latest principles, and the original data that lead us to find the CMB is now superseded by modern CMB data with higher error bounds, and imperial is now superseded by metric, etc. But they are not wrong. And are still able to be used.

Within their own limits they will remain correct, the new superseccive version does not automatically render any work predicated on the former version by default fallacious. It could do, but this is totally dependent on each individual theory, the magnitude of difference between the original and the replacement and the properties of the theory you are trying to declare void by default.

Ok. Imagine you have some theory. It's a simple theory that predicts the value of some quantity 'y' given some measured quantity 'x' using a function 'f'. To test this theory you measure x and y and then chuck the value of x into f. You calculate the value of y you expect from the measured value of x using f. You find it does not agree with the measured value of y. You conclude your theory is wrong. Now, if it was to turn out that the original measured value of x you measured wrongly, do you still think it is fair to say that that measurement ruled out the theory or that that result is of any particular use?

This threads like a recurring relentless unremitting de-ja vu for me now.

Stop posting the same stuff then.

 

[Tubbythin]

Which came first? BBT predictions or electromagnetically received non terrestrial data which is interpreted so relate to the properties of universal nuclear physics?

Pardon.

Or else what?

Or else you'll get the wrong answer by virtue of the data from nuclear physics being wrong, regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the cosmology model.

Precise to what error bounds dictated by what theory?

Depends on what statement you want to make. If you want to say that theory x is ruled out in to one part in 10⁷ from some dataset then the other uncertainties probably need to be known to a similar or better precision than that.

Well they are not

If that's the case then there is simply no way you can make any meaningful statement or not on the data's relevance to cosmology. So, if you genuinely think the astronomy data is wrong you must reject Lerner's conclusions about cosmology.

Agreed. As it stands these four are nearly completely internally self consistent and are often used interchangeably to prove each other.

However, internal self consistency bears absolutely no regard to overall veracity if they are checked against other theories. For example change 3) to a plasma cosmology based theory and 1) 2) and 4) will not work. So you could go about changing 1) 2) and 4) till they agree with 3). Or you could leave 3) as wrong. Subjectivity like this and the prevalence of interpretation over fact is what makes cosmology such a non definitive science

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps I should be more explicit. By astronomy data/theory I mean how the abundances of the isotopes change due to later processing in stellar or interstellar environments.

a) He seems better versed in critical thinking, as opposed to the usual institutionalized synchophany to a single dominant paradigm you tend to get these days in cosmology.
b) I think you may be better suited to the conspiracy theory section here to make accusations like that.

My claim is really quite trivial and you have completely failed to refute it. If some result depends on multiple theories all of which have significant uncertainties (probably of unknown size) then the result cannot be used to draw firm conclusions exclusively about one of those theories. This should be really obvious to anybody, not least Lerner.

Well damned he be by who-ever decides to damn him. Others might rather try to understand the situation before making accusations.

I do understand the situation reasonably well. It isn't difficult to see that the data cannot possibly support his conclusions given the uncertainties in the nuclear physics and astronomy input.

Journals publish nonsense all the time, even the most reputable ones. Its called science. theories rise, theories fall. Some are wrong, some are right, some are proven wrong with time, some remain correct.

But the paper, or at least that bit of the paper, doesn't have a leg to stand on. Imagine if I presented you with the problem:
a²+b²+c²=100,
what is the value of a? The correct answer is I don't know. The correct is not a must be 10 because I'm going to randomly choose to assume b and c are 0. This is pretty much what Lerner has done!

By what criteria is this a "success of the Big Bang model" ?

Within error, the predicted Big Bang abundances of D, and the helium isotopes using the observed photon/baryon density is in excellent agreement with the observed D and helium isotope abundances. In what way is that not a a success of the Big Bang model?

 

[ben m]

For a start off you can disband a lot of cmb data, specially that collected for the Big Bang in very recent years, as its irrelevant to PC; unless you can either show me very clearly:

Recent data is "irrelevant to PC": Nonsense. Those photons are actually out there; they came from something. What's PC say they came from? "We don't care?" "Nothing?" "Don't worry, PC we'll hack something together that will explain whatever you see, that's the upside of being unfalsifiable crackpottery"

i) How it proves the Big Bang and in what way (thus PC will need to explain it also)

Geez, Zeuzzz, the CMB is one of the best-documented aspects of cosmology. There's a great Wiki article on it, heaps of journalism, your-tax-dollars-at-work NASA outreach, even bigger heaps of research. Haven't you read it? ANY of it?

Listen carefully: if I tell you that the Universe today has X g/cc baryons, Y g/cc dark matter, and Z g/cc dark energy, and a Hubble constant H (all measurable), then BBT tells you that the CMB should be a blackbody at 2.73K, nearly-but-not-exactly isotropic, with perfectly Gaussian fluctuations with a peak-y angular power spectrum, and from the four numbers X,Y,Z,H you can predict exactly where all of the peaks are. Then it tells you that the CMB should be polarized, with the polarization all in the E-mode, and it tells you how to predict the TE and EE cross-power angular spectra.

All of those predictions are confirmed.

Understand? That's how hypothesis testing works. If BBT is right, then we know exactly what plasma emitted the CMB photons and we know all of the properties of that plasma.

ii) How it may be a problem for current PC models even if it does not help the Big Bang

When you get a PC model that can do anything at all, get back to me.

 

[ben m]

Plasma cosmology advocates argue that the CMB is (mainly the remnants) of stellar nucleosynthesis of helium releasing the required CMB energy from the stars in the early stages of the formation of galaxies (Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456 469).

So how many free parameters are there in that statement, and how many CMB data points can be reproduced/predicted by this model after we've fixed the parameters?

I see one free parameter (you DON'T know early galaxy formation light output to 3 sig figs, do you?) being tweaked to match one observable (the mean temperature). That's the same as no prediction at all.

The blackbody spectrum, Lerner and Peratt (and Peter independently too), hypothesized that the energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium.

(a) There is no such mechanism known. No known plasma physics "thermalizes and isotropizes" incoming radiation and turns it into a cold blackbody spectrum. It's complete nonsense.

(b) So let's hypothesize a new-physics mechanism (I thought PC didn't do that, but never mind!) We don't know a priori whether we're looking for a mechanism that makes a blackbody shape, or a power law, or has no effect at all. (So that's a FREE PARAMETER). We look up in the sky and the data says "no, narrow it down to the made-up-mechanism that gives a blackbody". So that's one datapoint fitting one free parameter. That's the same as no prediction at all.

Unfortunately there was not enough time for calculations based on the theory to predict the angular power spectrum, likewise the peak structure of the CMB anisotropy. Such figures are easily achieved, all you really need to add to the theory is a more in depth particle analysis, could be pair production or annihilation, that (as long as an adequate angular frequency, and explanation for this, is used) can create the correct angular power spectrum and peak structure of CMB anisotropy.

... um. That paper was published in 1995. It is now 2010. What do you mean "there was no time"? This is what I mean:

But you're telling me that the theory CAN be tweaked to match the (now) known power spectrum? You think you can adjust an "angular frequency" (FREE PARAMETER) to match the position of the first acoustic peak? Do you have something else to adjust to match the second acoustic peak position? How about the height? Never mind. First of all, I DOUBT IT---both on the "competence" side and on the "physics doesn't work" side. Second, I thought you didn't like fitting unknown physics details to match the data---I thought you wanted everything to be constrained by lab experiments. Third: Sorry, one free parameter and one data point = NO PREDICTION AT ALL.

Do you understand the parameter-counting I'm doing here, Zeuzzz? If not, please go learn some basic statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(statistics) , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodness_of_fit , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

 

[ben m]

Which came first? BBT predictions or electromagnetically received non terrestrial data which is interpreted so relate to the properties of universal nuclear physics?

Zeuzz, first let me remind you that from the point of view of hypothesis testing it doesn't matter what came first. Understanding why is the reason that all scientists have to know statistics.

In this case: there are zero free parameters in BBN models. The CMB people tell you what the baryon densities and temperatures. The nuclear physics people tell you what the reaction cross sections are. You plug the two together and you either agree with the data (H/D/He3/He4/Li ratios in unprocessed gas) or you don't. There is nothing you could adjust after you see the data, so what does it matter when the data arrived?

In this case, the predictions came first. Peebles http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966ApJ...146..542P was doing exactly the right calculation in 1966, long before any of the (very difficult) relevant observations.

 

[Zeuzzz]

[deleted and saved for day when not sleep deprived for 3 days, will hopefully make more sense than the weird college grade epistemologal science based excuse for a reply that just appeared]