Holes in Big Bang

[Singularitarian]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

It reminded me of this exciting news:

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2566/massive-hole-in-the-universe-billion-light-years-away.html

I remember speaking to a scientist who was just readying to go to the observatory which had this information of the massive hole in spacetime. He said to me that it was unlikely, because he knew hard it was to correctly detect those tiny little photons. Interestingly enough, i do believe most scientists have come to agree that it is actually a large hole in space which is devoid of matter. Could this mean big bang is wrong?

If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe.

[Michael Mozina]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

It reminded me of this exciting news:

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2566/massive-hole-in-the-universe-billion-light-years-away.html

I remember speaking to a scientist who was just readying to go to the observatory which had this information of the massive hole in spacetime. He said to me that it was unlikely, because he knew hard it was to correctly detect those tiny little photons. Interestingly enough, i do believe most scientists have come to agree that it is actually a large hole in space which is devoid of matter. Could this mean big bang is wrong?

If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe.

It doesn't matter how many holes or "dark flows" you find in their theory, it's dogma and dogma is based on *FAITH*, not on "science". In other words, it won't change their views one iota.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/dark_flow.html

[Singularitarian]

Do you not however find it remotely inetersting that one major corner of the standard model is that it requires spacetime to be homogeneous? This includes the distrubution of matter and energy due to the inflationary period.

[Michael Mozina]

Big-bang models that include a feature called inflation offer a possible explanation for the flow. Inflation is a brief hyper-expansion early in the universe's history. If inflation did occur, then the universe we can see is only a small portion of the whole cosmos.

This statement from the article is actually "false" by the way. Inflation theory "predicts" a homogeneous layout of matter at the largest scales. According to inflation theory, there should be no massive gravity wells located just outside of our visible universe or anywhere else for that matter. All matter should be evenly distributed at the largest scales according to standard inflation theory. Now of course someone will undoubtedly come up with "holy dark flow inflation" to explain these "findings". That's the beauty of dogma and never having to demonstrate anything in controlled experimentation. You can assign all the 'properties' you ever need to magic inflation models to make them do anything and everything. If something doesn't fit right (like those holes), just throw in another "variable" and viola, it all fits again. Mark my words, these holes and flows in inflation theory won't falsify inflation like any ordinary theory. Oh no. Inflation is "super dogma" at this stage of the game and they'll just tweak the variables till they get a "fit" and then they'll talk about how their new and improved dark flow inflation theory "predicted" these observations. :) Dogma is wonderful that way. You never have to demonstrate a thing in a lab so anything goes.

[Michael Mozina]

Do you not however find it remotely inetersting that one major corner of the standard model is that it requires spacetime to be homogeneous? This includes the distrubution of matter and energy due to the inflationary period.

Yes I do. In fact that homogeneous layout of matter claim has one been one of the cornerstone claims of astronomers in support of inflation theory. Now that we know it's not homogeneously distributed as claimed, nobody wants to talk about it anymore. Watch how fast inflation proponents run from your thread.

[Twiler]

Well, this looks it's going to be an interesting discussion.

Michael, do you have an alternative theory that could be used to build a predictive model?

[Singularitarian]

This statement from the article is actually "false" by the way. Inflation theory "predicts" a homogeneous layout of matter at the largest scales. According to inflation theory, there should be no massive gravity wells located just outside of our visible universe or anywhere else for that matter. All matter should be evenly distributed at the largest scales according to standard inflation theory. Now of course someone will undoubtedly come up with "dark flow inflation" to explain these "findings". That's the beauty of dogma and never having to demonstrate anything in controlled experimentation. You can assign all the 'properties' you ever need to magic inflation models to make them do anything and everything. If something doesn't fit right (like those holes), just throw in another "variable" and viola, it all fits again. Mark my words, these holes and flows in inflation theory won't falsify inflation like any ordinary theory. Oh no. Inflation is "super dogma" at this stage of the game and they'll just tweak the variables till they get a "fit" and then they'll talk about how their new and improved dark flow inflation theory "predicted" these observations. :) Dogma is wonderful that way. You never have to demonstrate a thing in a lab so anything goes.

Seems like i beat you too it ;)

[Wowbagger]

Inflation is "super dogma" at this stage of the game and they'll just tweak the variables till they get a "fit" and then they'll talk about how their new and improved dark flow inflation theory "predicted" these observations. :) Dogma is wonderful that way. You never have to demonstrate a thing in a lab so anything goes.But, the revised model might make other predictions for things not discovered, yet. These are other things the old model would not predict. If they find those other things are also true, that is evidence that the new model is better.

Science does not merely tweak variables until it "fits". It takes the tweaked variables, and... makes other, new discoveries with them.

That is what science does. That is what it is good at doing. To call it "dogma" is not productive.

[DeiRenDopa]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

It reminded me of this exciting news:

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2566/massive-hole-in-the-universe-billion-light-years-away.html

I remember speaking to a scientist who was just readying to go to the observatory which had this information of the massive hole in spacetime. He said to me that it was unlikely, because he knew hard it was to correctly detect those tiny little photons. Interestingly enough, i do believe most scientists have come to agree that it is actually a large hole in space which is devoid of matter. Could this mean big bang is wrong?

If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe.(bold added)

Why?

Specifically, where does "certainly" come from?

[themusicteacher]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

It reminded me of this exciting news:

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2566/massive-hole-in-the-universe-billion-light-years-away.html

I remember speaking to a scientist who was just readying to go to the observatory which had this information of the massive hole in spacetime. He said to me that it was unlikely, because he knew hard it was to correctly detect those tiny little photons. Interestingly enough, i do believe most scientists have come to agree that it is actually a large hole in space which is devoid of matter. Could this mean big bang is wrong?

If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe.

Once again, a total mischaracterization of what science does and don't even try to deny that you're doing it intentionally. Science makes testable hypotheses based on observations and/of current data. All findings are subject to revision upon new data being acquired. Religion would never put itself to that sort of test and does not require that sort of test since it is a matter of faith. Get the difference through your head.

You can also drop the pretense that you're some sort of fair-minded objective observer here. You think that by showing science doing what it actually does you've made some sort of profound point. You haven't. You've only succeeded in exposing your utter lack of understanding about what science does and how it does it. If your religiosity feels threatened by the scientific search for truth, that's your problem. Be insecure on your own time but stop drawing false conclusions based on your own biases.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, this looks it's going to be an interesting discussion.

Michael, do you have an alternative theory that could be used to build a predictive model?

That depends on what you're asking me to try to 'predict' I suppose.

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Why?

Specifically, where does "certainly" come from?

Because holes cannot exist where there is an inflationary period.

[Singularitarian]

I thought this would be interesting to recite. I was just reading this article by Doctor Cramer

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

It reminded me of this exciting news:

http://www.internationalreporter.com/News-2566/massive-hole-in-the-universe-billion-light-years-away.html

I remember speaking to a scientist who was just readying to go to the observatory which had this information of the massive hole in spacetime. He said to me that it was unlikely, because he knew hard it was to correctly detect those tiny little photons. Interestingly enough, i do believe most scientists have come to agree that it is actually a large hole in space which is devoid of matter. Could this mean big bang is wrong?

If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe.

Once again, a total mischaracterization of what science does and don't even try to deny that you're doing it intentionally. Science makes testable hypotheses based on observations and/of current data. All findings are subject to revision upon new data being acquired. Religion would never put itself to that sort of test and does not require that sort of test since it is a matter of faith. Get the difference through your head.

You can also drop the pretense that you're some sort of fair-minded objective observer here. You think that by showing science doing what it actually does you've made some sort of profound point. You haven't. You've only succeeded in exposing your utter lack of understanding about what science does and how it does it. If your religiosity feels threatened by the scientific search for truth, that's your problem. Be insecure on your own time but stop drawing false conclusions based on your own biases.

Yes exactly. If holes are found, then that is by definition incontrivertible evidence against the big bang theory because it requires inflation, and that would have left matter homogeneous.

[DeiRenDopa]

But, the revised model might make other predictions for things not discovered, yet. These are other things the old model would not predict. If they find those other things are also true, that is evidence that the new model is better.

Science does not merely tweak variables until it "fits". It takes the tweaked variables, and... makes other, new discoveries with them.

That is what science does. That is what it is good at doing. To call it "dogma" is not productive.(bold added)

Worse, it is objectively false (whatever contemporary cosmology is, "dogma" it is not).

Worse squared, to confuse any part of contemporary science with dogma is a failure of epic proportions ....

[Twiler]

That depends on what you're asking me to try to 'predict' I suppose.

Do you have a theory that would explain the existing situation and make testable predictions about the future?

[Michael Mozina]

But, the revised model might make other predictions for things not discovered, yet.

That would be a 'first' for any inflation theory provided it actually ever occurs. So far everything "predicted" by inflation has actually been 'postdicted' from observations, starting with Guth's original 'postdictions'. All it's previous "predictions" were falsified by later observations, including that claim of homogeneous distribution of matter on the largest scales (actually postdicted from previous observations). When do we simply let a falsified theory die a natural death? What value does inflation theory really have at this point in terms of actual "predictive value"?

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Yes exactly. If holes are found, then that is by definition incontrivertible evidence against the big bang theory because it requires inflation, and that would have left matter homogeneous.
You really messed up the [ QUOTE ] tags Sing, and I'm not going to try to sort them out for you.

Would you be so kind as to provide a source - as in a standard text-book and/or paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - which demands that all big bang models require inflation?

More fundamentally, what is it that - in your mind - is "the big bang theory"? I have formed a tentative conclusion that you are very confused about this topic ...

[Dancing David]

Because holes cannot exist where there is an inflationary period.

Inflation is one theory that falls under the BBE, until you explain the Hubble relationship the BBe stands. Inflation rises or falls on it's own.

Now there are huge voids already in the universe, what is homogenous in the microwave background.

[Michael Mozina]

Do you have a theory that would explain the existing situation and make testable predictions about the future?

Well, EU theory "predicts" threaded mass flows on virtually all scales due to current flows through space. "Dark flows" are hardly a "surprise". A threaded layout of matter is certainly no surprise either and all "dark matter" studies demonstrate that the universe is threaded. EU theory also "predicts" the existence of "Birkeland currents" in space, and indeed we find them as well. Of course the mainstream refers to such structures as a "slinky" in space.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-53878.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png

Edited for rule 4. Do not hotlink images.

[Twiler]

Well, EU theory "predicts" threaded mass flows on virtually all scales due to current flows through space. "Dark flows" are hardly a "surprise". A threaded layout of matter is certainly no surprise either and all "dark matter" studies demonstrate that the universe is threaded. EU theory also "predicts" the existence of "Birkeland currents" in space, and indeed we find them as well. Of course the mainstream refers to such structures as a "slinky" in space.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/report-53878.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png

What predictions have been derived from this theory and then subsequently proved via evidence?

[Singularitarian]

You really messed up the [ QUOTE ] tags Sing, and I'm not going to try to sort them out for you.

Would you be so kind as to provide a source - as in a standard text-book and/or paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal - which demands that all big bang models require inflation?

More fundamentally, what is it that - in your mind - is "the big bang theory"? I have formed a tentative conclusion that you are very confused about this topic ...


I haven't confused anything. I understand the big bang very well i think, i understand many of its implications and needs.

All this is is you not doing your homework - for the CBM to be isotropic, we have always required inflation. Hence;

''Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe?''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

[Michael Mozina]

What predictions have been derived from this theory and then subsequently proved via evidence?

Well, let's see. Birkeland was technically the first "EU" proponent. He actually built working lab models to attempt to figure out aurora. He "predicted" coronal loops. He "predicted" high speed solar wind. He "predicted" jets that fly from the sun. All of these things have now been "observed". Note to that these were all true "predictions" that came from real empirical experiments that Birkeland did not anticipate before he began to experiment in his lab.

[Wowbagger]

That would be a 'first' for any inflation theory provided it actually ever occurs. So far everything "predicted" by inflation has actually been 'postdicted' from observations, starting with Guth's original 'postdictions'. All it's previous "predictions" were falsified by later observations, including that claim of homogeneous distribution of matter on the largest scales (actually postdicted from previous observations). Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.


When do we simply let a falsified theory die a natural death? Has it really been falsified? It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

What alternative model would you put in its place?

What value does inflation theory really have at this point in terms of actual "predictive value"? More value than having no theory at all.

Worse, it is objectively false (whatever contemporary cosmology is, "dogma" it is not).

Worse squared, to confuse any part of contemporary science with dogma is a failure of epic proportions .... Well, I was trying to put it mildly.

All this talk of trying to break down modern cosmological models is counter-productive, unless you have an even better model available to replace it.

Critics of the inflationary model would be much more productive, if they could put their enery into building up a case for something else.

[Singularitarian]

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.


Has it really been falsified? It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

What alternative model would you put in its place?

More value than having no theory at all.

Well, I was trying to put it mildly.

All this talk of trying to break down modern cosmological models is counter-productive, unless you have an even better model available to replace it.

Critics of the inflationary model would be much more productive, if they could put their enery into building up a case for something else.

But we do have other models which could outdate it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic

[lionking]

From Cramer's article:

since this is a science-fiction magazine

Says it all really.

[Zeuzzz]

What predictions have been derived from this theory and then subsequently proved via evidence?

Yes, the predictions of plasma cosmology as outlined by Alfven, Lerner, Birkeland, et al. Made many years ago.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15526487 [full text (http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm)]

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li, and D are more than 7σ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10^-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2σ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a radio fog of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.


From the "plasma cosmology - woo or not" thread here:

The Big Bang with inflation clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian. Plasma cosmology predicts that anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the cosmic fog, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. This is clearly not Gaussian. Observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian. There are too many papers to cite on this. You can find plenty on arXiv.

May I suggest the following publications, wherein the predictions were made, and the subsequent modern evidence supports:

4. H.Alfven, "Cosmology and Recent Developments in Plasma physics", The Australian Physicist, vol. 17, pp.161-165, Nov., 1980

5. E.J. Lerner, "Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26, 1993.

6. E.J. Lerner, "Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, pp. 935-938, Dec. 1992,.

7. E.J. Lerner, "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, pp. 63-68, Sept. 20, 1990.

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.

11. E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.

12. A.L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992

13. A.L. Peratt, , "Evolution of the Plasma Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702


Also check out the articles listed on the right of this page under the heading "Past Issues" and "Current issue" for more recent up to date supporting evidence in various journals and publications: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/index.html

Also Lerners website: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

And the uncensored version of the wikipedia article on plasma cosmology also contains many more references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88918621

[Wowbagger]

But we do have other models which could outdate it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic If that's the case, then put it to use!

I would like to see how this new Ekpyrotic model could cover the "holes" better than the inflationary one, and grant us new predictions to look for, in the future. (While also taking into all the other data gathered, so far, about the nature of the Universe.)

THAT could be an interesting, worthwhile discussion!

[Singularitarian]

From Cramer's article:



Says it all really.

The state of his work usually includes an in-depth scientific coverage of events - (which are usually 100% accurate) - then speculates what possibilities may arise from it. A usual sci-fiction outlook does it no justice. Cramer remains, as he has always been, a modest scientist, a good one, one obiding by facts.

[Singularitarian]

If that's the case, then put it to use!

I would like to see how this new Ekpyrotic model could cover the "holes" better than the inflationary one, and grant us new predictions to look for, in the future. (While also taking into all the other data gathered, so far, about the nature of the Universe.)

THAT could be an interesting, worthwhile discussion!

Well, it means that spacetime has always peristed, so the formation of the universe is the result of many epochs everytime a brane comes and smashes into us. We may have been frozen for many eons.

'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England.
The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions.

Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light).

The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion.

Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.''

''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion.

As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. They are closed strings.

[Singularitarian]

These qoutes are from new scientist magazine by the way, if anyone wonders.

[Piggy]

It's funny, but I can't find any scientific articles on this discovery which suggest that it implies that there was no Big Bang.

Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823164846.htm)

Also, note this:

Astronomers have known for years that, on large scales, the Universe has voids largely empty of matter. However, most of these voids are much smaller than the one found by Rudnick and his colleagues.

In fact, inflationary theory predicts a bubbly kind of universe, with rings of matter surrounding great voids, as slight variations in the extremely early universe are blown up onto enormous scales.

Why this very large void should exist, who knows?

But I'm not finding any evidence that it throws Big Bang theory itself into question.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?

[Raze]

Singuaritarian, please show me a good reason why I should believe anything you say.

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148206&page=11

A mechanics problem you would be able to solve had you had the required mathematics and physics education to speak as an authority on the big bang.



Consider a system consisting of two different masses, m1 and m2, connected by three springs of different spring constants k1, k0 and k2.


|----k1-----m1----k0----m2----k2----|


The masses can slide on a horizontal, frictionless surface. The springs are at their unstretched/compressed lengths when the masses are in their equilibrium positions. At t = 0, the masses are displaced form their equilibrium positions by distances x10 and x20 and released from rest.



(a) Find the equations of motion for each mass using the Euler–Lagrange equation.

(b) Using Similarity Transformation find the Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors.

(c) Find the time dependent position and speed of the masses

(d) Determine the Propagator Matrix.

(e) Describe the Normal Modes of Vibration.





I see no reason why someone well versed in the intricacies of general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot solve a sophomore physics problem. And you can expect this to be posted on your threads until you either answer it or prove in some other way that you actually have the required knowledge to comment with any authority on the things you comment on.


If you can't do this, why should I take your word over those who can do this?

[Singularitarian]

It's funny, but I can't find any scientific articles on this discovery which suggest that it implies that there was no Big Bang.

Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823164846.htm)

Also, note this:



In fact, inflationary theory predicts a bubbly kind of universe, with rings of matter surrounding great voids, as slight variations in the extremely early universe are blown up onto enormous scales.

Why this very large void should exist, who knows?

But I'm not finding any evidence that it throws Big Bang theory itself into question.

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

[Singularitarian]

Singuaritarian, please show me a good reason why I should believe anything you say.

Also, I am still waiting for an answer to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148206&page=11

A mechanics problem you would be able to solve had you had the required mathematics and physics education to speak as an authority on the big bang.



I see no reason why someone well versed in the intricacies of general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot solve a sophomore physics problem. And you can expect this to be posted on your threads until you either answer it or prove in some other way that you actually have the required knowledge to comment with any authority on the things you comment on.


If you can't do this, why should I take your word over those who can do this?

No, i refused to answer the question. I will not be tested for my intelligence like some lab rat. I truely did not know the variables one used one time concerning background shifts, big deal, get over it.

I have.

And i have authority to talk about quantum mechanics. I am afterall, a physics sudent.

[Zeuzzz]

How do you explain the Cosmic Background Radiation otherwise, or universal redshifting?


Did you read any of the articles I quoted above?

[Raze]

No, i refused to answer the question.

Translation: I can't.

I will not be tested for my intelligence like some lab rat. I truely did not know the variables one used one time concerning background shifts, big deal, get over it.

I have.

And i have authority to talk about quantum mechanics. I am afterall, a physics sudent.

My problem is not that you are merely talking about quantum mechanics, etc. I'm a physics student too, and I love to talk about these things- with the humility appropriate for my position as an undergraduate student.



My problem is that you are essentially claiming to have overthrown theories that have been tested and hashed out by people far greater than most of us.

In fact, your posts really show the mark of a crank who has done everything possible to avoid the hard work required to gain worthwhile knowledge of physics.



Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I have not seen any evidence from you that has convinced me, either from your actual posts or evidence that you actually have the qualifications to make such powerful claims. I have, on a couple of occasions, however, seen evidence that you lack fundamental understanding of some of the concepts you claim are wrong. So I don't see how my demand that you prove you actually have truly studied physics long enough to be an authority on the subjects you discuss is all that unreasonable.

[Piggy]

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.

Well, there's this (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cosmic+triumph:+satellite+confirms+birth+theory+of +universe.-a0144764142).

I think the title makes rather fast use of the word "Confirms", but anyway, there's one success.

Previous results from the satellite focused on the variations in the temperature of the microwave-background radiation, which has cooled over billions of years to a frigid 2.72 kelvins. Tiny variations in that temperature, less than a millionth of a kelvin hotter or colder, revealed details of the primordial density fluctuations that gave rise to stars and galaxies (SN: 2/15/03, p. 99). The new results focus on the polarization of the microwave-background radiation, the tendency of the radiation's waves to vibrate in a specific direction.

The polarization signal reveals that the first stars formed 300 to 400 million years after the Big Bang. That's slightly later than estimates that were based on earlier data from the same satellite, notes cosmologist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago.

Accounting for the polarization was like "removing a fog" says Spergel. It enabled the team to scrutinize more closely than ever before the primordial fluctuations Primordial fluctuations are density variations in the early universe which are considered the seeds of all structure in the universe. These variations originated as quantum fluctuations, and grew from the rapid expansion which occurred during cosmic inflation.

According to the simplest model of inflation, the universe didn't balloon at a constant rate during the early growth spurt. As a consequence, variations in density of matter in the universe ought to be slightly larger on the largest scales--10 billion light-years-than on smaller scales--roughly 100 million light-years. The satellite has now found exactly that pattern, the team reports.

"This is not simply another test of inflation but something that examines the universe during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a second," says Turner. "The entire cosmology community has been waiting for this, excited and worried." The findings "are beginning to shed light on the mechanism [that drove] inflation," he adds.

[Piggy]

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

No, no one expected it. But you still haven't shown why this particular discovery somehow throws the Big Bang into a cocked hat.

No one expected the rate of expansion to be accelerating either, but that didn't overturn it. Why does this?

[Piggy]

Did you read any of the articles I quoted above?

I hate to say it Zeuzzz, but I consider you a crank, so no, I didn't read them.

[Singularitarian]

No, no one expected it. But you still haven't shown why this particular discovery somehow throws the Big Bang into a cocked hat.

No one expected the rate of expansion to be accelerating either, but that didn't overturn it. Why does this?

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?

[Piggy]

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?

Earlier Big Bang theories predicted a slowing expansion.

Yet discovery of an accelerating expansion didn't overturn the theory.

This is not as an important discovery as that was.

Why does this overturn the theory?

I mean, the theory didn't predict Obama winning the election, either, but he did. Doesn't overturn the theory.

[Monketey Ghost]

Is that with different hands, or just the one?

*counts*

*recounts*

*...stares at one hand, then the other, then both*

*counts again*

[Piggy]

Okay, fair enough.

Any supporting evidence to back up your claim that I am a crank? Or you just going to post un-substantiantiated pejoratives?

I dont think your a crank. But If I did I would outline clearly why.

I could be wrong, but it's your religious/philosophical postings that caused me to lump you.

Maybe I was too hasty, tho.

[Singularitarian]

Earlier Big Bang theories predicted a slowing expansion.

Yet discovery of an accelerating expansion didn't overturn the theory.

This is not as an important discovery as that was.

Why does this overturn the theory?

I mean, the theory didn't predict Obama winning the election, either, but he did. Doesn't overturn the theory.

A slowing expansion happens around a trillion trillion trillion years after big bang, though, the big crunch calculations have varied, so it has very little impact on the past light cone history of the universe, more specifically the early stages of big bang.

This will overturn the theory eventually, because it would imply inflation never happened at all. The problem with the CBM will be in question as to why it i very smooth and the rest is not.

[Audible Click]

OK Sing and Magnifico lets be nice now, between the Big Bang, Dimension of Particles, and the VfF Kidney thread my right eye is beginning to twitch. This is never a good sign.
BTW Sing, VfF claims to be a physics student too.

[Wowbagger]

Can we please keep the personal comments aside? Don't make name names! And, don't make me call a moderator, here!

Well, it means that spacetime has always peristed, so the formation of the universe is the result of many epochs everytime a brane comes and smashes into us. We may have been frozen for many eons. Any way we can tell? (This sounds like it would give us some direction in discovering what the Initial Condition "before" the Big Bang was like. If it is works out, that is.)

What does the Ekpyrotic say about the red-shift effect, and the CMB? And other aspects of cosmology already worked out by accepted models?

[Piggy]

A slowing expansion happens around a trillion trillion trillion years after big bang, though, the big crunch calculations have varied, so it has very little impact on the past light cone history of the universe, more specifically the early stages of big bang.

This will overturn the theory eventually, because it would imply inflation never happened at all. The problem with the CBM will be in question as to why it i very smooth and the rest is not.

Ok, suppose the current inflationary models don't pan out.

Does that kill all possible scenarios involving a Big Bang?

[Twiler]

Happens all the time. It's an experiment in progress.

Can I see the data you've gathered and the criteria used for identifying posters who have their opinions dictated to them by others?

[Singularitarian]

OK Sing and Magnifico lets be nice now, between the Big Bang, Dimension of Particles, and the VfF Kidney thread my right eye is beginning to twitch. This is never a good sign.
BTW Sing, VfF claims to be a physics student too.

Be nice? What have i said?

And i know he or she claims to be a physics student. What do you want me to do? Do the hoola or something like that?

It's not a big deal. Today i showed how a resident PhD can be wrong. People get things all the time wrong.

[Zeuzzz]

I could be wrong, but it's your religious


Whoa! Hold your horses mate.

Please, if you can find anything I have ever posted that adds any credence to any sort of religion in any way shape or form, post it. And if you can find one post, I will eat my leg.

I'm an atheist/agnostic. I dont like being accused of supporting any sort of religion. Could you retract that? Or either address some of the scientific journal publications (not in the slightest bit religous) and material that I cited previously ?

[Singularitarian]

Can I see the data you've gathered and the criteria used for identifying posters who have their opinions dictated to them by others?

It's a mesh of variables. We are still going over the data.

[Zeuzzz]

wow this threads going on at a fair rate compared to most.

[Twiler]

It's a mesh of variables. We are still going over the data.

Then why did you state an unconfirmed conclusion?

[Raze]

If it doesn't predict it, it shouldn't have it. Hence, the hot debate to the big bangs validity. What is the point of the big bang, if it cannot confirm observation?

It does confirm observation on many things. But because it may fail in one or two things, should we then throw it out? Or merely modify it?

The point is that every theory is a work in progress. A light beam observed by someone at rest looking at another person in an accelerating frame will appear to have a parabolic path across the accelerated frame. But this means that light doesn't have a constant velocity according to all frames (because it is changing direction)! But special relativity says that light must have a constant velocity! Therefore special relativity is wrong. Except no. No it isn't. It is a limiting condition within general relativity. Theories should be being modified as new evidence presents itself. This has happened with the big bang theory, and continues to happen as new data is found.



As far as people ridiculing you, well sir, you haven't really given them good reasons not to. You are making huge claims and consistently showing that you have no business making them. There are people who have graduate degrees in physics on this forum. All of them (to my knowledge) are generally in disagreement with you and many of them have pointed out elementary errors in some of your posts.

What do you expect?


As far as me, all I want is proof that you really know what you're talking about. Proof that you're not just an armchair physicist who really isn't qualified to talk about technical physics.


Don't be silly. Half the people here make their minds up based on other peoples opinions. Not their own.

And some form their opinions out of ignorance because they refuse to take the time and effort to trace all of logical and mathematical steps that have led to the currently accepted theories, and instead want an ego boost so they seek out articles that contradict mainstream science and then post what they have found on internet forums.

Instead of getting published in a peer reviewed publication and truly realizing their dream of being relevant in the world of science, they are content to gain erroneous half-understandings of science so they can trick people who simply do not know any better.

How do I know you do not fit the above description? You could get published, right? Why can't you formulate a theory and then get it published in a peer reviewed periodical and then prove everyone wrong? You will predictably say that there is a bias against you.

So then I try a different approach: solve an obscure physics problem that you'd only see if you actually have taken more than a course or two in physics.

But you refuse.


What choice do I have but to believe that you are a crank?

[Audible Click]

Be nice? What have i said?

And i know he or she claims to be a physics student. What do you want me to do? Do the hoola or something like that?

It's not a big deal. Today i showed how a resident PhD can be wrong. People get things all the time wrong.

It was just a joke to lighten the mood. I'll go back to reading the thread, quietly.

ETA It's spelled "hula".

[Singularitarian]

Ok, suppose the current inflationary models don't pan out.

Does that kill all possible scenarios involving a Big Bang?

Yes. Big bang requires the inflationary period so badly, that if it where found in error, it would be hard to substantiate a big bang model without having Einstein turn in his grave.

[Singularitarian]

It does confirm observation on many things. But because it may fail in one or two things, should we then throw it out? Or merely modify it?

The point is that every theory is a work in progress. A light beam observed by someone at rest looking at another person in an accelerating frame will appear to have a parabolic path across the accelerated frame. But this means that light doesn't have a constant velocity according to all frames (because it is changing direction)! But special relativity says that light must have a constant velocity! Therefore special relativity is wrong. Except no. No it isn't. It is a limiting condition within general relativity. Theories should be being modified as new evidence presents itself. This has happened with the big bang theory, and continues to happen as new data is found.



As far as people ridiculing you, well sir, you haven't really given them good reasons not to. You are making huge claims and consistently showing that you have no business making them. There are people who have graduate degrees in physics on this forum. All of them (to my knowledge) are generally in disagreement with you and many of them have pointed out elementary errors in some of your posts.

What do you expect?


As far as me, all I want is proof that you really know what you're talking about. Proof that you're not just an armchair physicist who really isn't qualified to talk about technical physics.




And some form their opinions out of ignorance because they refuse to take the time and effort to trace all of logical and mathematical steps that have led to the currently accepted theories, and instead want an ego boost so they seek out articles that contradict mainstream science and then post what they have found on internet forums.

Instead of getting published in a peer reviewed publication and truly realizing their dream of being relevant in the world of science, they are content to gain erroneous half-understandings of science so they can trick people who simply do not know any better.

How do I know you do not fit the above description? You could get published, right? Why can't you formulate a theory and then get it published in a peer reviewed periodical and then prove everyone wrong? You will predictably say that there is a bias against you.

So then I try a different approach: solve an obscure physics problem that you'd only see if you actually have taken more than a course or two in physics.

But you refuse.


What choice do I have but to believe that you are a crank?

And how would our meritable science student suggest modifying it? I mean, there are only few choices to have, and the big bang is practically holding onto one with its dear life.

[Piggy]

Yes. Big bang requires the inflationary period so badly, that if it where found in error, it would be hard to substantiate a big bang model without having Einstein turn in his grave.

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

If so, why hasn't this discovery caused the same sort of stir that accelerated expansion caused?

[Piggy]

Full disclosure, in all seriousness, I'm rooting for the soda pop model of the universe. In that model, events outside of our universe pulled it into existence, like the top coming off a pop bottle causing bubbles to appear and expand.

But that's just me.

Hey Zeuzzz, you can call me a crank now. :D

[Piggy]

Whoa! Hold your horses mate.

Please, if you can find anything I have ever posted that adds any credence to any sort of religion in any way shape or form, post it. And if you can find one post, I will eat my leg.

I'm an atheist/agnostic. I dont like being accused of supporting any sort of religion. Could you retract that? Or either address some of the scientific journal publications (not in the slightest bit religous) and material that I cited previously ?

Oh, sorry. I must have you confused with another forum member.

My mistake! :blush:

[Singularitarian]

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

If so, why hasn't this discovery caused the same sort of stir that accelerated expansion caused?

It did actually cause a stir, as i said in the OP, a PhD i was consulting with at the time was making his way to their laboratory. He wasn't convinced, suffice to say, its hard to ignore the evidence. Why the big bang persists today, is, dare i say it, pure dogma, a topic a few have already covered today.

[DeiRenDopa]

Okay, fair enough.

Any supporting evidence to back up your claim that I am a crank? Or you just going to post un-substantiantiated pejoratives?

I dont think your a crank. But If I did I would outline clearly why.(bold added)

I won't speak for anyone else, but here is some such evidence:

a) in the very thread you referenced, you posted a great deal of material, but when JREF Forum members tried to engage you in discussion, by asking questions about the material you presented, you didn't respond

b) in numerous threads, you have been caught telling porky pies (lies), some of them pretty darn bald-faced

c) in promoting a crackpot (a proponent of the Electric Universe nonsense), you called him an academic, declared he had lots ("numerous") publications in relevant, peer-reviewed journals which had been cited many times; when confronted with reality, you ran away ...

There's more, but I think that will do for now ...

... OK, maybe not ... the fundamental scientific flaw in Lerner's plasma cosmology - per your own presentations - the thing that makes it the very definition of scientific woo, was pointed out to you (several times, IIRC). That you openly choose to re-present it, knowing full well that it is crackpottery, makes you a crank, does it not?

[Michael Mozina]

Perhaps some experts in cosmology can fill in the details, but if I understand it correctly: Various details about the cosmic microwave background were predicted by the inflationary model, before WMAP discovered them.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

Actually some type of "background radiation" was observed and postdicted long before BB theory became vogue. Many models chalked it up to ordinary starlight.

Has it really been falsified?

Hasn't it? If not, what exactly will it take to kill it off once and for all?

It seems to me that the model is still useful for analyzing the Universe.

How so?

What alternative model would you put in its place?

Me? Well I'm a big fan of PC/EU theory personally.

More value than having no theory at all.

But I'm not proposing "no theory at all".

All this talk of trying to break down modern cosmological models is counter-productive, unless you have an even better model available to replace it.

It seems to me that the net scientific value of any theory is not dependent upon whether or not you can replace it with something else, but how well it stands on it's own merits and how well it's "predictions" pan out. I can falsify any belief without having something "better" to replace it.

[Raze]

And how would our meritable science student suggest modifying it? I mean, there are only few choices to have, and the big bang is practically holding onto one with its dear life.

That is for those with enough education to answer the question. I personally do not have enough understanding of physics at this point to answer it.

However, I have the integrity to admit it. I believe that you are also not qualified and that you do not have that integrity.


Basically, until I am fully qualified to answer the question, I will at the very worst remain agnostic on it. I will not tell people who are far more knowledgeable than I about the subject that they are dead wrong. When I become qualified to answer the question, then I will answer it.

[Piggy]

It did actually cause a stir, as i said in the OP, a PhD i was consulting with at the time was making his way to their laboratory. He wasn't convinced, suffice to say, its hard to ignore the evidence. Why the big bang persists today, is, dare i say it, pure dogma, a topic a few have already covered today.

It's my impression that it persists primarily because there's no other available framework to explain observations regarding expansion and the cosmic microwave background.

I don't think anyone believes, though, that we have a confirmed model.

You're right, there are problems with everything. There's never been a confirmation of any particular model.

But in the absence of having any specific model that accounts for all the observations -- which I don't think anyone claims to have -- it still sure looks like we go back to that gumball.

[Michael Mozina]

Are you saying there's no inflationary model that could explain this?

I think it is more scientifically accurate to suggest that no current inflationary model "predicts" this. I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful? All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions. When do we just let a theory die a natural death?

[Zeuzzz]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board. And the theories aforementioned in this thread by me all have credence added to them the more evidence supports their predictions, most of which clearly contradict the predictions of BBT. MJ Disney puts it rather well in this article:

MJ Disney - American Scientist, 2007 - astro.umd.ed
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3716,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
Big Bang cosmology is not a single theory; rather, it is five separate theories constructed on top of one another. The ground floor is a theory, historically but not fundamentally rooted in general relativity, to explain the redshifts—this is Expansion, which happily also accounts for the cosmic background radiation. The second floor is Inflation—needed to solve the horizon and "flatness" problems of the Big Bang. The third floor is the Dark Matter hypothesis required to explain the existence of contemporary visible structures, such as galaxies and clusters, which otherwise would never condense within the expanding fireball. The fourth floor is some kind of description for the "seeds" from which such structure is to grow. And the fifth and topmost floor is the mysterious Dark Energy, needed to allow for the recent acceleration of cosmic expansion indicated by the supernova observations. Thus Dark Energy could crumble, leaving the rest of the building intact. But if the Expansion floor collapsed, the entire edifice above it would come crashing down. Expansion is a moderately well-supported hypothesis, consistent with the cosmic background radiation, with the helium abundance and with the ages inferred for the oldest stars and star clusters in our neighborhood. However, finding more direct evidence for Expansion must be of paramount importance.

In the 1930s, Richard Tolman proposed such a test, really good data for which are only now becoming available. Tolman calculated that the surface brightness (the apparent brightness per unit area) of receding galaxies should fall off in a particularly dramatic way with redshift—indeed, so dramatically that those of us building the first cameras for the Hubble Space Telescope in the 1980s were told by cosmologists not to worry about distant galaxies, because we simply wouldn't see them. Imagine our surprise therefore when every deep Hubble image turned out to have hundreds of apparently distant galaxies scattered all over it (as seen in the first image in this piece). Contemporary cosmologists mutter about "galaxy evolution," but the omens do not necessarily look good for the Tolman test of Expansion at high redshift.[.....]

[DeiRenDopa]

I haven't confused anything. I understand the big bang very well i think, i understand many of its implications and needs.

All this is is you not doing your homework - for the CBM to be isotropic, we have always required inflation. Hence;

''Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the big bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the big bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe?''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...

[Singularitarian]

It's my impression that it persists primarily because there's no other available framework to explain observations regarding expansion and the cosmic microwave background.

I don't think anyone believes, though, that we have a confirmed model.

You're right, there are problems with everything. There's never been a confirmation of any particular model.

But in the absence of having any specific model that accounts for all the observations -- which I don't think anyone claims to have -- it still sure looks like we go back to that gumball.

Think of inflation as the ground upon which the empire state building stands. Remove it, and the entirity of the theory falls to its doom.

If we have devoid area's of matter which cannot be predicted by inflation, then there is not enough time in the early universe before inflation to counter such a large void. If there is not enough time, then inflation could not have started the time it had. But if inflation happened much later, we would not observe the universe we do today, this is fact.

So if there is not enough time, then the universe could not have had a unique structure or radius, beginning from a singular region in space. This ''not enough time stuff'', is essentially the stuff itself which makes big bang more and more increadible.

[Raze]

Don't give me that *******. You telling me, as a science student, you don't have any pet theories, or is it that your imagination lacks you somewhat in any originality?

lol. Yes! But I keep them on the back burner until I get enough mathematical knowledge to tackle them.


However, there are two things I would like to address your question with:

1) I have learned first hand the dangers of thinking you know when you really don't. After getting through the intro physics classes and starting the 3000 level courses (upperdivision), my respect for those with graduate degrees went way up. Because I began to taste firsthand how much work and knowledge it takes to have that piece of paper with your name on it.

2) I keep all of my pet theories SECRET until I can formulate them in a way good enough that they can be published.

That way no one with better knowledge and math skills can steal my idea and take credit for it.

Naturally that serves two purposes: it keeps my original ideas away from potential thieves, and it also keeps a physics student from annoying physics graduates with horrible theories that only appear good to me because I haven't the knowledge yet to see that they are horrible.




What I would advise you to do is be humble, especially when there is a chance you can learn something, but more importantly! This: Keep your ideas to yourself until you have hashed them out well enough to publish them, even if in a laymen publication.

The "e-cred" you get for having a neat theory is complete garbage to the clout and accolades you would get for a complete theory being published in a peer reviewed publication.

[Singularitarian]

OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...


This discovery was only a few years ago at best, maybe not even that long. Also, i don't have a paper, but i know its real because i have consulted with a physicist involved in its discovery. So i will not be worried about that view of things thanks.

If you're wanting fresh results, you are a bit too eager. That is not the way science works, and very rarely in such a short period of time.

ps. CBM, Cosmic Background Microwaves

[DeiRenDopa]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board. And the theories aforementioned in this thread by me all have credence added to them the more evidence supports their predictions, most of which clearly contradict the predictions of BBT. MJ Disney puts it rather well in this article:

MJ Disney - American Scientist, 2007 - astro.umd.ed
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3716,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
Please correct me if I'm wrong Z, but didn't you post this before, in another thread?

And in the subsequent discussion, wasn't Disney's core thesis basically ripped to shreds (as a) badly misrepresenting the relevant science, and b) internally inconsistent)?

If I'm right, what's with regurgitating material you presented before, material that has been intensively discussed and your conclusions and interpretations shown to have no legs?

[Wowbagger]

Actually some type of "background radiation" was observed and postdicted long before BB theory became vogue. Many models chalked it up to ordinary starlight. I'm taking about details. Precise measurements of phenomena found within the CMB.



Hasn't it? If not, what exactly will it take to kill it off once and for all?
When something better comes along. And, by better, I mean something that makes better, more precise predictions than BB ever could. Especially if they are completely novel ones.


How so?I think Wiki explains this well:

A number of theories of inflation have been proposed that make radically different predictions, but they generally have much more fine tuning than is necessary. As a physical model, however, inflation is most valuable in that it robustly predicts the initial conditions of the universe based on only two adjustable parameters: the spectral index (that can only change in a small range) and the amplitude of the perturbations. Except in contrived models, this is true regardless of how inflation is realized in particle physics.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status



Me? Well I'm a big fan of PC/EU theory personally. Perhaps you can explain how it does a better job?



It seems to me that the net scientific value of any theory is not dependent upon whether or not you can replace it with something else, but how well it stands on it's own merits and how well it's "predictions" pan out. I can falsify any belief without having something "better" to replace it.That is not going to satisfy professional cosmologists, who have a responsability to solve physics problems.

Tossing out a theory, without having a better replacement, is counter-productive.

[DeiRenDopa]

OK, let's start at the beginning, shall we?

First, please let's have a reference to the published *paper* which first presents the conclusion that there may be this giant void.

Next, let's see what other, subsequent, papers cited it (and any others which, more or less simultaneously, reported the discovery).

Then, how about we read those papers.

In parallel, how about we have the papers which present a case that a void of this size/whatever - if it turns out to be such - CANNOT be accommodated in ANY version of ANY big bang theory, even in principle, period.

You talk about doing homework; the brief summary above is about the minimum expected from someone making claims as radical and sweeping as the ones you have made.

Comments or questions?

Oh, and "CBM"? As in "Centers Business Management"? or "Curriculum-Based Measurement"? ...This discovery was only a few years ago at best, maybe not even that long. Also, i don't have a paper, but i know its real because i have consulted with a physicist involved in its discovery. So i will not be worried about that view of things thanks.

If you're wanting fresh results, you are a bit too eager. That is not the way science works, and very rarely in such a short period of time.

ps. CBM, Cosmic Background Microwaves(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?

Primary source of intelligence remains in particle physics papers for me, i'm afraid. The cosmology i know about is purely fundamental, as i have explained before. It just so happens i can talk about the fall of big bang, if inflation is wrong, because i undertand the planck time, and its considerable applications to quantum cosmology.

[Wowbagger]

I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful? We would have a more accurate model to work with, when making future observations.

All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions. Like all good theories before it.

Do you think gravity has been falsified, because Einstein made corrections to it?

When do we just let a theory die a natural death? I suspect it will stick around, as long as it remains useful to cosmologists.

[Piggy]

I think it is more scientifically accurate to suggest that no current inflationary model "predicts" this. I'm sure some form of "holey dark flow inflation" could be dreamed up given enough time and enough effort and it might indeed fit the current observations, but how is that really scientifically helpful? All we are doing is "postdicting' a new fit based on even more hypothetical properties of metaphysical entities and current inflation theory will still have failed yet another of it's key predictions. When do we just let a theory die a natural death?

Yeah, but there's a difference between unpredicted discoveries that require new models within the broad theoretical framework, and unpredicted discoveries that overturn it. Evolution has been through a bunch of the former and it still stands.

And no, it's not postdicting.

Models are built on what is known.

Every new model is developed within a set of knowns. (Taking what's known into account isn't postdicting.)

Then we make testable predictions and go out and see if what we've got works.

If this discovery requires a different set of proposed models -- and we've never had any that have been confirmed -- well, ok.

But to say that the Big Bang framework itself needs to be tossed... that requires some heavier guns.

[DeiRenDopa]

(bold added)

Thank you for the clarification.

Really, really basic question Sing: what do you consider to be the primary source documents (or materials) in contemporary astronomy (or cosmology)?Primary source of intelligence remains in particle physics papers for me, i'm afraid. The cosmology i know about is purely fundamental, as i have explained before. It just so happens i can talk about the fall of big bang, if inflation is wrong, because i undertand the planck time, and its considerable applications to quantum cosmology.(bold added)

Thanks for the clarification.

What is "quantum cosmology"? How is it related to "the big bang theory"? What is the relationship between quantum cosmology and inflation (as you understand inflation)? What phenomenology is there concerning "the planck time"?

Which paper - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - may an interested reader refer to to compare your answers to the above questions to the common views found in the cosmology community?

[Piggy]

As singulatarian says, indeed, if expansion or inflation does not pan out then the Big Bang theory and many subsequent models predicated on these concepts will have to be completely taken back to the drawing board.

I don't think so. Tell me this: How do you look at what we've got, and not eventually get back to that gumball?

It's been a devil of a time running it back forward to figure out just how we got from the gumball to here, but I don't see how you look at the current situation and run it backward, by any means, to something other than a Big Bang.

[Piggy]

Think of inflation as the ground upon which the empire state building stands.

Ah, but there's the problem. It's not.

The ground is the red shifting and the cosmic background radiation.

Take those two together, along with the existence of galaxies and a few other big facts, and when you look backward, you eventually get to a Big Bang.

Inflationary models were proposed to explain how we got from there to here with the particular kinds of details we see. And so far, no one's come up with a model that we can put a fork in.

All our current models could be wrong, though, and when we look in our rearview we still see that damn gumball.

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Thanks for the clarification.

What is "quantum cosmology"? How is it related to "the big bang theory"? What is the relationship between quantum cosmology and inflation (as you understand inflation)? What phenomenology is there concerning "the planck time"?

Which paper - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - may an interested reader refer to to compare your answers to the above questions to the common views found in the cosmology community?
Quantum cosmology is when one deals with the universe when its very very small, when its not too far off planck scales are taken into consideration. The idea is to treat the universe like a particle, understanding ground and excited states, relativity applied to time, and how planck time is taken into consideration, which has a value of around 5.3(10^{-44}) which is the smallest known time some kind of action can be performed. It's very important in particle physics, and gives the specific amount of time in which a universe is allowed to prevail from the nothingness at t=1, the very first instant of the big bang, which was the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second.

I'll need to look for papers another time.

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps we can make this discussion more productive by offering thoughts on some of the alternatives presented, so far. For example:

Does anyone know why or why wouldn't either the Ekpyrotic model or the PC/EU theory make a good replacement for inflation and/or Big Bang?!

Let's try to discuss the "competing arguments", not the people making the arguments, please!

[Singularitarian]

Ah, but there's the problem. It's not.

The ground is the red shifting and the cosmic background radiation.

Take those two together, along with the existence of galaxies and a few other big facts, and when you look backward, you eventually get to a Big Bang.

Inflationary models were proposed to explain how we got from there to here with the particular kinds of details we see. And so far, no one's come up with a model that we can put a fork in.

All our current models could be wrong, though, and when we look in our rearview we still see that damn gumball.
The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.

[Singularitarian]

Perhaps we can make this discussion more productive by offering thoughts on some of the alternatives presented, so far. For example:

Does anyone know why or why wouldn't either the Ekpyrotic model or the PC/EU theory make a good replacement for inflation and/or Big Bang?!

Let's try to discuss the "competing arguments", not the people making the arguments, please!

I believe the Ekpyrotic theory of the universe is good because it resolves the issue of any initial beginning to time, which means it also takes away the need of a ''cause'' for the initial expansion of the standard model.

The Ekpyrotic Theory also develops nicely a reason to encoporate string theory for any string theory entusiasts, so it is in effect, opening doors for new investigation. I don't know much about EU (which i think stands for Electric Universe theory?) so i cannot comment much on it.

[DeiRenDopa]

The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.(bold added)

I'll bite ... please provide a clear, rigorous case that demonstrates that "the big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing".

As usual, please back up your case with references to relevant primary documents (and if you can't, please say so openly and directly).

Oh, and BTW, the second part of your sentence contains an elementary flaw in its logic; can you spot it?

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

I'll bite ... please provide a clear, rigorous case that demonstrates that "the big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing".

As usual, please back up your case with references to relevant primary documents (and if you can't, please say so openly and directly).

Oh, and BTW, the second part of your sentence contains an elementary flaw in its logic; can you spot it?

The reason i said this, is because the inflation requires a physical field. Relativity unites spacetime and matter and energy as components of one big mix. Essentially, you cannot have spacetime without energy (note E=Mc^2). So if the inflation was but part and parcel of the vacuum itself, then expansion which engulfs everything, is the same vacuum which gives rise to the physical fluctuations of the inflaton, the subatomic particle required to make the spacetime expand faster than light.

[DeiRenDopa]

I believe the Ekpyrotic theory of the universe is good because it resolves the issue of any initial beginning to time, which means it also takes away the need of a ''cause'' for the initial expansion of the standard model.

The Ekpyrotic Theory also develops nicely a reason to encoporate string theory for any string theory entusiasts, so it is in effect, opening doors for new investigation. I don't know much about EU (which i think stands for Electric Universe theory?) so i cannot comment much on it.
Does "The Ekpyrotic Theory" predict voids of the kind mentioned in the OP (assuming they are confirmed)? If so, please provide a reference to a paper which demonstrates this.

And yes, "EU" stands for "Electric Universe". Note, however, that it is not a theory in any scientific sense (http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=18).

[Singularitarian]

And no. Show me were i am wrong in th logic?

[Singularitarian]

Does "The Ekpyrotic Theory" predict voids of the kind mentioned in the OP (assuming they are confirmed)? If so, please provide a reference to a paper which demonstrates this.

And yes, "EU" stands for "Electric Universe". Note, however, that it is not a theory in any scientific sense (http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=18).

What we understand from the Ekpyrotic theory, is that matter is not created at the big bang. In fact, it wasn't a big bang at all. The universe had lay dorment for many eons, until it came into contact with another branch, (or brane as it is known in string theory). This ''excited'' the dorment energy, and time began to have associations to the entropic arrow of time. How structures are formed in-between the many eons and collisions i wouldn't specifically know, but i would have believed it to be somewhat different to big bang, since it does not require an inflationary model.

[Michael Mozina]

I'm taking about details. Precise measurements of phenomena found within the CMB.

The primary "problem" with other "explanations" revolves around the near perfect BB spectrum. To my knowledge no other 'explanation' can 'yet' explain that feature. That doesn't mean it will never happen.

When something better comes along. And, by better, I mean something that makes better, more precise predictions than BB ever could. Especially if they are completely novel ones......

Perhaps you can explain how it does a better job?


The term "better" seems rather subjective from where I sit. Birkeland "better" predicted the behaviors of the sun. Standard solar theory *STILL* can't explain full sphere solar wind acceleration, solar flares, million degree coronal loops, etc. If we're talking "bigger picture" issues rather than solar system phenomenon, that's a completely different story. What is "better", knowing why solar wind accelerates from the sun, or why there is a background spectrum?

That is not going to satisfy professional cosmologists, who have a responsability to solve physics problems.

Tossing out a theory, without having a better replacement, is counter-productive.

I don't really see how anything has actually been 'solved' by introducing an imaginary force. It's a speculative "solution" at best and it's does nothing to explain solar wind, coronal loops, etc. I guess it all depends on what you personally believe is important to understand and "explain" and whether or not one believes that an imaginary force is actually an "explanation".

[DeiRenDopa]

The reason i said this, is because the inflation requires a physical field. Relativity unites spacetime and matter and energy as components of one big mix. Essentially, you cannot have spacetime without energy (note E=Mc^2). So if the inflation was but part and parcel of the vacuum itself, then expansion which engulfs everything, is the same vacuum which gives rise to the physical fluctuations of the inflaton, the subatomic particle required to make the spacetime expand faster than light.
In an earlier post, I commented that you seem to be confused about the physics incorporated in big bang models; I think it's accurate to say that this post of yours - that I am quoting - goes a long way to providing independent confirmation of my earlier, tentative, conclusion.

Perhaps you could provide a reference, to the material you read that lead you to write the above? With that in hand it may be easier to unpack the misunderstandings, the errors of logic, etc that may have gone into how you arrived at the above.

Sound like a plan?

BTW, I am looking forward to your answers to my other questions ...

[Tricky]

(actually, it's Tricky, but he said it well, and no, he didn't report anything.)]Can we please keep the personal comments aside?
Several bickerish posts moved to AAH. See above.

[Singularitarian]

In an earlier post, I commented that you seem to be confused about the physics incorporated in big bang models; I think it's accurate to say that this post of yours - that I am quoting - goes a long way to providing independent confirmation of my earlier, tentative, conclusion.

Perhaps you could provide a reference, to the material you read that lead you to write the above? With that in hand it may be easier to unpack the misunderstandings, the errors of logic, etc that may have gone into how you arrived at the above.

Sound like a plan?

BTW, I am looking forward to your answers to my other questions ...

Sure F. Wolf, ''Parallel Universes''

''Einsteins general relativity makes curvature the same as matter, the same as acceleration, the same as energy, the same as gravity. They are all one part one thing.''

Note also that curvature is geometry, which is space, which must imply time. This is proof that Einsteins general theory unites spacetime as one physical entity.

[Singularitarian]

By the way dei, i've answered everyone of your questions. Keep up!

[lionking]

By the way dei, i've answered everyone of your questions. Keep up!

Did you? I must have missed those papers and references. :rolleyes:

[Mr.D]

Primary source of intelligence remains in particle physics papers for me, i'm afraid.

I just have a conceptual problem with zero-dimensional particles, that is all :(

*Cough*

[Singularitarian]

*Cough*


Totally unrelated Mr D.

I can assure you, anything pointlike for me is hard to imagine to exist in the real world. Nothing however generally to do with my knowledge on particle physics. You even didn't know about the double 360 spin required, so i don't see what you're standing so high and mighty for.

[ben m]

The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.

I don't think you have this quite clear. Comparing the models:

Ekpyrotic theory:

The collision of two branes gives us a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids



Standard inflation theory:

Inflaton-driven expansion gets us from an unknown initial state to a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids


They're exactly the same except for the very first step. Even the fluctuations have to be the same, since they're observed at least twice, in the CMB and later in the large-scale structure. If something about the large-scale structure were to invalidate the Big Bang, it invalidates both inflation and the ekpyrotic alternative.

(Note: there may be gravity-wave observables which distinguish these different pre-Hubble-expansion theories.)

[Singularitarian]

Did you? I must have missed those papers and references. :rolleyes:

You must have also missed it when i told him or her i would post references on another date.

[Singularitarian]

I don't think you have this quite clear. Comparing the models:

Ekpyrotic theory:

The collision of two branes gives us a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids



Standard inflation theory:

Inflaton-driven expansion gets us from an unknown initial state to a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids


They're exactly the same except for the very first step. Even the fluctuations have to be the same, since they're observed at least twice, in the CMB and later in the large-scale structure. If something about the large-scale structure were to invalidate the Big Bang, it invalidates both inflation and the ekpyrotic alternative.

(Note: there may be gravity-wave observables which distinguish these different pre-Hubble-expansion theories.)

No ben, i wasn't talking about Ekyportic here. Stop mixing this up.

[Wowbagger]

The term "better" seems rather subjective from where I sit. By "better", I mean: Better able to make more precise predictions, while taking into account everything else observed, so far.

I don't really see how anything has actually been 'solved' by introducing an imaginary force. It's not "imaginary" if it has empirical implications, that can be independently observed.

It's a speculative "solution" at best and it's does nothing to explain solar wind, coronal loops, etc. All scientific models are considered provisional. Why does Inflation deserve to be called out, for this, especially?

Solar winds and coronal loops hardly contradict its findings.

[Singularitarian]

I have a theory.

The hole could have been created from a very early explosion between matter and antimatter.

[Reality Check]

Singularitarian does not seem to know how to find actual scientific papers on this topic so I will cite the preprint about the CMB cold spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot) being related to a reduction in the density of galaxies:
Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0908)

We detect a dip of 20-45% in the surface brightness and number counts of NVSS sources smoothed to a few degrees at the location of the WMAP cold spot. The dip has structure on scales of approximately 1-10 degrees. Together with independent all-sky wavelet analyses, our results suggest that the dip in extragalactic brightness and number counts and the WMAP cold spot are physically related, i.e., that the coincidence is neither a statistical anomaly nor a WMAP foreground correction problem. If the cold spot does originate from structures at modest redshifts, as we suggest, then there is no remaining need for non-Gaussian processes at the last scattering surface of the CMB to explain the cold spot. The late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, already seen statistically for NVSS source counts, can now be seen to operate on a single region. To create the magnitude and angular size of the WMAP cold spot requires a ~140 Mpc radius completely empty void at z<=1 along this line of sight. This is far outside the current expectations of the concordance cosmology, and adds to the anomalies seen in the CMB.

(This is also referenced at the end of Cramer's article)

The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).

[Mr.D]

You even didn't know about the double 360 spin required.

Of course I did.

I'm the one trying to explain it to you. Care to finish the lesson? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309)

ETA: Are you intending to pursue graduate work in physics?
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309)

[Dancing David]

It's the size in question, for its obsurd from the standard model. It surely is not predicted for this magnitude, given the accurate time-scale in which inflation is required. That is why.

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

[Michael Mozina]

By "better", I mean: Better able to make more precise predictions, while taking into account everything else observed, so far.

But those "dark flows" demonstrate that inflation is not particularly 'precise' at making any specific predictions.

It's not "imaginary" if it has empirical implications, that can be independently observed.

The notion of "independent" is rather up for interpretation. For instance, *OUTSIDE* of astronomy, inflation has not specific purpose or verification. Compare and contrast that with say 'current flow' that has been independently verified across many branches of science.

All scientific models are considered provisional. Why does Inflation deserve to be called out, for this, especially?

Because those dark flows blow it out of the water for one. For another, it has no useful application in any other branch of science. What good is it if it can't produce useful actual "predictions' in the one theory that requires it?

Solar winds and coronal loops hardly contradict its findings.

These things however are "predictions" (real empirical predictions) of EU theory. Furthermore the metaphysical bad boys of contemporary theory do nothing in terms of predicting these events. Why then is standard BB theory 'better' in any tangible or useful way?

[Michael Mozina]

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM?

Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot.

[Reality Check]

You missed out the next sentence:

One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.


IMO: The paper is interesting and certainly raises a question about the density fluctuation in the early universe (i.e. the result of the inflationary part of the concordance cosmology).

[Michael Mozina]

Did you? I must have missed those papers and references. :rolleyes:

FYI, these references were actually posted at the bottom of the first link in this thread. I missed them at first too however.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw141.html

References

The WMAP Cold Spot:

“Detection of non-Gaussian Spot in WMAP”, M. Cruz, E. Martinez-Gonzalez, P. Vielva, and L. Cayon, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 356 29-40 (2005), available online at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf

“ExtragalacticRadio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot”, L. Rudnick, S. Brown, and L. R. Williams; Astrophysics Journal (2007, to be published); available online at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0908

“Probing dark energy with steerable wavelets through correlation of WMAP and NVSS local morphological measures”, J. D. McEwen, Y. Wiaux, M. P. Hobson, P. Vandergheynst, and A. N. Lasenby, 2007, submitted to Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc., available online at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0626v1.pdf .

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Coming late to this...

From Singu's first link;

" As photons of light fall into the gravity well of a massive object like a galactic cluster, they gain energy and are blue-shifted.* On emerging from the gravity well, such photons would lose the energy gained, except that, due to the accelerated expansion effect of the large quantity of dark energy in the universe, there is a net repulsion acting and it is a bit easier to get out of the gravity well, so that not all of the gained energy is removed.* The net result is that CMP photons that pass through regions containing significant mass arrive at our detectors with a bit more energy on the average than those passing through regions of the universe that are relatively empty.* Therefore, the CMB radiation should appear cooler along a line of sight passing through a large “empty” region."

Can someone explain why this generates a cold spot not a hot spot given that the described mechanism suggests that the photons arrive with more not less energy.

[Singularitarian]

Of course I did.

I'm the one trying to explain it to you. Care to finish the lesson? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309)

ETA: Are you intending to pursue graduate work in physics?
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309)

Oh no you did not. Nothing in your attutitude seemed to imply anything of the sort. All i had was you stating you had a PhD, as though i was just going receed. Sir, your attitude on that sub-forum included you going to nominate a specific passage in which you said the 720 degree spin was an error i made. Then when i challenged you on it, you said the article was out of date.

Get real. And if you have a PhD good for you - start using it.

[Singularitarian]

Singularitarian does not seem to know how to find actual scientific papers on this topic so I will cite the preprint about the CMB cold spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot) being related to a reduction in the density of galaxies:
Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0908)

(This is also referenced at the end of Cramer's article)

The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).
It's not that i can't in practice. It's just that i don't hold any. I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics, and not one of them wholey on cosmology. But is this any surprise? I am not a cosmologist.

[Singularitarian]

That is your assertion, why is it too large? Are you sure, where is your math and numbers?

My assertion based on scientific fact. Besides, someone else showed i was correct, Micheal, so your question has been answered.

[AWPrime]

I have a theory.

The hole could have been created from a very early explosion between matter and antimatter.How?

[Singularitarian]

How?

Until the 1950's, the view was that the laws of quantum physics remained absolutely unchanged when one changes the sign of spatial coordinates, such as x, y, z into -x, -y and -z; this particular mirror structure is called the parity, symbolized with P. However, C.S. Wu realized that the left-handed neutrino had no mirror reflection, (the left-handed neutrino), thus the symmetry of 'weak interaction' was violated through the parity; the symmetry could only be revived, if one considered that P could not be alone, and one must introduce the invariant of CP into the equation, hence, the CP Violation. 'C' stands for 'charge conjugate', which is the transformation of a particle into its antipartner, such as an electron into a positron. In Wu's case, a left-handed neutrino can be transformed into a right-handed antineutrino.

In 1964, physicists James Cronin and Val Vitch found a symmetry violation in the CP transformation, in observations on the K-meson, or ''Kaon'' particle. In short, they showed that the Antikaon is not the absolute mirror symmetry of the neutral Kaon. The Antikaon was shown to have a smaller life expectancy than its neutral partner. They received a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Though given as an appropriate mechanism to account for why half the particles in the universe are not antinatured, there should still be large amounts of antiparticles due to the standard model.

[Reality Check]

My assertion based on scientific fact. Besides, someone else showed i was correct, Micheal, so your question has been answered.
Not quite scientific fact since the existence of the superviod is not even confirmed yet. The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).
A single analysis not make a scientific fact. A body of analysis that consistantly supports the hypothesis will make the supervoid into a scientific fact.

Note the last sentence that Micheal forgot to include from the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...704.0908v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf)

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM?

Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.

In other words the authors are stating that if the observational and numerical void probability studies that have been done up to ~30 Mpc can be extrapolated to > 100 Mpc then the probability of such a large void is small.

[Singularitarian]

Not quite scientific fact since the existence of the superviod is not even confirmed yet. The Wikipedia article has two more recent papers about this (one supporting the hypothesis, the other not supporting it).
A single analysis not make a scientific fact. A body of analysis that consistantly supports the hypothesis will make the supervoid into a scientific fact.

Note the last sentence that Micheal forgot to include from the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...704.0908v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf)

In other words the authors are stating that if the observational and numerical void probability studies that have been done up to ~30 Mpc can be extrapolated to > 100 Mpc then the probability of such a large void is small.


Then it requires more followers. Some say it is confirmed, others not. One of the latter guys was a friend of mine who even went to the observatory upon hearing the news.

[AWPrime]

Until the 1950's, the view was that the laws of quantum physics remained absolutely unchanged when one changes the sign of spatial coordinates, such as x, y, z into -x, -y and -z; this particular mirror structure is called the parity, symbolized with P. However, C.S. Wu realized that the left-handed neutrino had no mirror reflection, (the left-handed neutrino), thus the symmetry of 'weak interaction' was violated through the parity; the symmetry could only be revived, if one considered that P could not be alone, and one must introduce the invariant of CP into the equation, hence, the CP Violation. 'C' stands for 'charge conjugate', which is the transformation of a particle into its antipartner, such as an electron into a positron. In Wu's case, a left-handed neutrino can be transformed into a right-handed antineutrino.

In 1964, physicists James Cronin and Val Vitch found a symmetry violation in the CP transformation, in observations on the K-meson, or ''Kaon'' particle. In short, they showed that the Antikaon is not the absolute mirror symmetry of the neutral Kaon. The Antikaon was shown to have a smaller life expectancy than its neutral partner. They received a Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Though given as an appropriate mechanism to account for why half the particles in the universe are not antinatured, there should still be large amounts of antiparticles due to the standard model.Not really the answer that I was looking, because in a still homogeneous universe, where would there be concentrations of antimatter?

Isn't more likely that after Planck time that random interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) butterflied the current differences?

[Piggy]

The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well.

But Big Bang doesn't fail if any inflationary model fails.

The BB model wasn't founded on inflation.

The reasons for the BB model haven't changed. They're still out there.

If we discover that an explanatory model within that framework fails, it doesn't bring down the framework unless it also exposes fatal problems with the framework itself.

Take evolution, for example. We now have the modern synthesis rather than original Darwinian theory, but nothing that was dropped from the original theory was fatal to the overall Natural Selection framework.

[~enigma~]

I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics
And how many dedicated to singularitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism)?

[Michael Mozina]

But Big Bang doesn't fail if any inflationary model fails.

The BB model wasn't founded on inflation.

The reasons for the BB model haven't changed. They're still out there.

If we discover that an explanatory model within that framework fails, it doesn't bring down the framework unless it also exposes fatal problems with the framework itself.

Take evolution, for example. We now have the modern synthesis rather than original Darwinian theory, but nothing that was dropped from the original theory was fatal to the overall Natural Selection framework.

I think that's an important point by the way. Inflation is a relatively 'Johnny come lately' to BB theory (early 80's), as is "dark energy"(late 90's). BB theory could easily outlive both of these ideas.

[Michael Mozina]

Not really the answer that I was looking, because in a still homogeneous universe, where would there be concentrations of antimatter?

It could be located outside the visible universe, or even inside our own galaxy.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Large-Antimatter-Cloud-Discovered-in-Galactic-Core-75831.shtml

[Monketey Ghost]

It's not that i can't in practice. It's just that i don't hold any. I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics, and not one of them wholey on cosmology. But is this any surprise? I am not a cosmologist.

Papers, please, published where? Curious.

[Dancing David]

My assertion based on scientific fact. Besides, someone else showed i was correct, Micheal, so your question has been answered.

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there
is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding
void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving
volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM?
Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical
structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in
Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a
– 8 –
140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our
estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep
in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to
rc  30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.


Hmmm?

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks for the clarification.

What is "quantum cosmology"? How is it related to "the big bang theory"? What is the relationship between quantum cosmology and inflation (as you understand inflation)? What phenomenology is there concerning "the planck time"?

Which paper - published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals - may an interested reader refer to to compare your answers to the above questions to the common views found in the cosmology community?Quantum cosmology is when one deals with the universe when its very very small, when its not too far off planck scales are taken into consideration. The idea is to treat the universe like a particle, understanding ground and excited states, relativity applied to time, and how planck time is taken into consideration, which has a value of around 5.3(10^{-44}) which is the smallest known time some kind of action can be performed. It's very important in particle physics, and gives the specific amount of time in which a universe is allowed to prevail from the nothingness at t=1, the very first instant of the big bang, which was the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of the billionth part of one second.

I read this yesterday, several times.

It made essentially no sense to me, so I decided to sleep on it.

I've read it today, also several times.

I'm sorry to say that it still makes essentially no sense.

In fact, it reads like someone who's skimmed a few popsci articles, maybe a chapter or three of a book or four, and strung snippets together.

Let's take a few parts, shall we? "when one deals with the universe when its very very small" ... perhaps you meant to write "the observable universe"; otherwise why do you consider only a finite universe?

"relativity applied to time" - huh?

Also, you said nothing about any connection between inflation and quantum cosmology.

Too, you left out General Relativity (it seems); why?

New question: does quantum cosmology produce any observables, that differ from any other approach to cosmology?


I'll need to look for papers another time.
It might be a good idea to raise the priority on this; I for one find your posts only poorly connected to the world of real science.

[Dancing David]

Abstract that the alleged fig 9 is taken from
http://simbad3.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/cdsbib?2004ApJ...607..751H

There is good agreement between the VPFs of the Center for Astrophysics survey and the 2dFGRS. Comparison of VPFs measured for the 2dFGRS with the distribution of simulated dark matter halos of similar number density indicates that voids in the matter distribution in ΛCDM simulations are not empty enough. However, semianalytic models of galaxy formation that include feedback effects yield VPFs that show excellent agreement with the data.

[Michael Mozina]

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.

What, you don't like the first reference? :)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf

From the conclusion:

The probability of having such spot for a Gaussian model is of only (approximately) 0.2%, which implies that, if intrinsic, The Spot has not been originated by primary anisotropies in the standard scenario of structure formation since standard inflation predicts Gaussian fluctuations in the matter energy density and therefore in the CMB temperature fluctuations. When this spot is not considered in the analysis the rest of the data seem to be consistent with Gaussianity.

[DeiRenDopa]

Perhaps we can make this discussion more productive by offering thoughts on some of the alternatives presented, so far. For example:

Does anyone know why or why wouldn't either the Ekpyrotic model or the PC/EU theory make a good replacement for inflation and/or Big Bang?!

Let's try to discuss the "competing arguments", not the people making the arguments, please!Much has already been written on this, but maybe a few new points ...

First, there is no such thing as "EU theory", in any scientific sense (so it cannot, by definition, make any sort of scientific replacement, for anything).

Second, "PC theory", as defined by Lerner (and thanks to Z for bringing this definition to our attention) is also non-science. Why? Because it declares General Relativity (GR) to be not applicable to the study of the universe. And why does it do that? Perhaps it references voluminous research showing GR to be inconsistent with observations on Mpc (and above) scales? No, it makes a simple declaration. Given that there is a very great deal of observational evidence to suggest that GR's domain of applicability extends to the largest observable scales (and essentially none to the contrary), I don't see how this arbitrary assumption could be considered scientifically valid.

Third, "PC theory", as defined by Alfvén, has been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of high quality observations, so it is no longer a serious cosmological model (and hasn't been for several decades).

[Monketey Ghost]

Isn't it amazing how someone can hold themselves up as an authority on a given subject, mystify experts with confusing statements that are not even self-consistent, and yet insist they are correct?

I don't think this post can be edited out of the thread, though, since there's no way to determine which expert or authority I might be referencing.

[DeiRenDopa]

And no. Show me were i am wrong in th logic?OK ...

Here's what you wrote: "The big bang and inflation are arguably components of the same thing, and since the big bang encompasses everything, then inflation is truely everything as well".

In terms of the logic, we can replace "inflation" with anything at all (I'll get onto the first part of the sentence later), "my pet lizard" say: "since the big bang encompasses everything, then my pet lizard is truely everything as well". I.e. nonsense.

Now for the first part. Let's assume it is OK, in terms of the physics, and look at the logic. "Electrons and cold dark matter are arguably components of the same thing" (i.e. the observable universe) is a logically equivalent statement, which illustrates a logical flaw: the union of two subsets is not necessarily equivalent to (or equal to) the original set.

Now add the "since the big bang encompasses everything": we have the big bang being a component of itself, which is a little cumbersome but not illogical, and inflation being a subset of the big bang.

Questions?

[DeiRenDopa]

I don't think you have this quite clear. Comparing the models:

Ekpyrotic theory:
The collision of two branes gives us a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids


Standard inflation theory:
Inflaton-driven expansion gets us from an unknown initial state to a dense, hot, super-horizon-equilibrated universe with scale-invariant density fluctuations.
This hot Universe begins a Hubble expansion
The universe cools through the GUT (?) SUSY (?) and electroweak symmetry breakings
Big Bang nucleosynthesis leaves us with a H/D/He/Li plasma
The density fluctuations seed acoustic reverberations
The universe cools below 6000K and photons (later to be the CMB) escape, carrying information about the density fluctuations
The remaining overdensities grow nonlinearly into galaxy clusters and voids

They're exactly the same except for the very first step. Even the fluctuations have to be the same, since they're observed at least twice, in the CMB and later in the large-scale structure. If something about the large-scale structure were to invalidate the Big Bang, it invalidates both inflation and the ekpyrotic alternative.

(Note: there may be gravity-wave observables which distinguish these different pre-Hubble-expansion theories.)No ben, i wasn't talking about Ekyportic here. Stop mixing this up.(bold added)

Huh?

It was you, Sing, who introduced the Ekpyrotic theory into this thread (in post#24)!

What's going on here? And why did you write "Ekyportic"?

[DeiRenDopa]

Then it requires more followers. Some say it is confirmed, others not. One of the latter guys was a friend of mine who even went to the observatory upon hearing the news.(bold added)

So, science by "because my friend, who is an astronomer, said so"?

You know Sing you'd get a better reception if you had actually done your homework.

As RC showed, the paper which announced the (tentative, provisional) discovery of the giant void was very easy to find ... and it's equally easy to discover that it has been cited 53 times already! True, not all the citations are papers, and not all the papers have to do with whether the observations support a conclusion of the existence of a giant void.

Oh, and some of the papers directly address the question of whether such a large void (if there is, indeed, such a thing) can be accommodated within standard LCDM+inflation cosmological models! Would you care to guess what they conclude?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Papers, please, published where? Curious.

When he said this;

"Originally Posted by Singularitarian
It's not that i can't in practice. It's just that i don't hold any. I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics, and not one of them wholey on cosmology. But is this any surprise? I am not a cosmologist."

I think he meant that he possesses over 100 papers not that he has published them.

But, that was going to lead me to ask;

Sing, what do you mean when you say you "have" over 100 papers? It's been over 15years since I was an academic and had hundreds of photocopied papers. I thought everyone used online subscriptions now.

[sol invictus]

There are so many basic misconceptions here it's hard to know where to even start....

1) The big bang is really not a theory at all. It's a large set of empirical observations (redshift/distance, CMB, etc.) taken over the last century that tell us that the universe is expanding. Combined with some very minimal theory - essentially just general relativity and standard particle physics - that implies that the universe 13.7 billion years ago was very hot and very dense. What happened before that isn't known.

2) Do very large voids challenge this picture? Quite the contrary - one of the biggest mysteries of the big bang (which is resolved by inflation) is the relative lack of such features. Matter clumps under the influence of gravity, creating structures like galaxies and galaxies clusters, and leaving voids between them.

3) The void referred to in the OP probably does not exist. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751

4) The cold spot in the CMB is mysterious only if inflation lasted a "long" time - more than long enough to solve the isotropy and homogeneity problems of the big bang. If inflation was relatively short, such features are to be expected. On top of that, it's not really not all that unlikely even if inflation was long: .5% sounds small, but you have to realize that if you make 200 observations, you should expect one to be unlikely at that level, and there are many, many, many observations.

[sol invictus]

I read this yesterday, several times.

It made essentially no sense to me, so I decided to sleep on it.

I've read it today, also several times.

I'm sorry to say that it still makes essentially no sense.

Nothing Sing says makes any sense. He gets just about 100% of everything wrong, from big picture down to the silliest details:


ps. CBM, Cosmic Background Microwaves

It's actually useful for anyone reading these threads - you can be very confident that if he says anything you manage to make sense of, it's wrong.

[Wowbagger]

But those "dark flows" demonstrate that inflation is not particularly 'precise' at making any specific predictions.But, it has been precise in other areas, such as CMB analysis.

The "dark flows" might be large enough to not have been predicted by the model, but it is legitimate to adjust the model.

If someone comes in with a better model, to replace it, we will use that one, instead.

We don't toss out Newton's gravity, just because Einstein made corrections to it.

As for your EU/PC pet theory, perhaps you can respond to DeiRenDopa's points:

(I bolded that last key phrase, which I think you should especially address.)

First, there is no such thing as "EU theory", in any scientific sense (so it cannot, by definition, make any sort of scientific replacement, for anything).

Second, "PC theory", as defined by Lerner (and thanks to Z for bringing this definition to our attention) is also non-science. Why? Because it declares General Relativity (GR) to be not applicable to the study of the universe. And why does it do that? Perhaps it references voluminous research showing GR to be inconsistent with observations on Mpc (and above) scales? No, it makes a simple declaration. Given that there is a very great deal of observational evidence to suggest that GR's domain of applicability extends to the largest observable scales (and essentially none to the contrary), I don't see how this arbitrary assumption could be considered scientifically valid.

Third, "PC theory", as defined by Alfvén, has been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of high quality observations, so it is no longer a serious cosmological model (and hasn't been for several decades).
DeiRenDopa, perhaps you could contribute a few examples of these inconsistencies, if it is not too much trouble?

[sol invictus]

Coming late to this...

From Singu's first link;

" As photons of light fall into the gravity well of a massive object like a galactic cluster, they gain energy and are blue-shifted.* On emerging from the gravity well, such photons would lose the energy gained, except that, due to the accelerated expansion effect of the large quantity of dark energy in the universe, there is a net repulsion acting and it is a bit easier to get out of the gravity well, so that not all of the gained energy is removed.* The net result is that CMP photons that pass through regions containing significant mass arrive at our detectors with a bit more energy on the average than those passing through regions of the universe that are relatively empty.* Therefore, the CMB radiation should appear cooler along a line of sight passing through a large “empty” region."

Can someone explain why this generates a cold spot not a hot spot given that the described mechanism suggests that the photons arrive with more not less energy.

What that says is that overdensities make hot spots. Ergo, voids make cold spots. It's called the late time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, if you want to read more about it.

[Monketey Ghost]

I think he meant that he possess over 100 papers not that he has published them.



I thought so too, just want to know whom he cites and where I can read them, so I can try to figure out what he thinks supports his statements aside from his own ideas.

[sol invictus]

I thought so too, just want to know whom he cites and where I can read them, so I can try to figure out what he thinks supports his statements aside from his own ideas.

Except that whenever he does provide a "reference" for a claim he's making, it's just something he found on the web containing a few of the same key words. Then he claims it proves him right, because (to take a recent example) he said something that include the phrase "720 degrees" and so does his source.

[Michael Mozina]

But, it has been precise in other areas, such as CMB analysis.

Technically, unless I'm missing something inflation is not required to explain that feature. I've read a number of articles now as to why starlight cannot explain these features, but I can't tell if any of these methods were applied to 'expanding" stars, or whether it's applied to just a static universe model. I would think any type of 'bang' with surface of last scattering would suffice and that inflation is optional, but feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on that point.

The "dark flows" might be large enough to not have been predicted by the model, but it is legitimate to adjust the model.

Not IMO. IMO you're simply "fudging the numbers" with more ad hoc property assignments. You seem to be refusing to even consider the idea that inflation is falsified. If there are no ways to falsify the theory, then how is it any different from religion?

If someone comes in with a better model, to replace it, we will use that one, instead.

Well, if we apply this logic, then anything and everything that would ordinarily falsify inflation can eventually be accommodated in some "new and improved" brand of inflation. Since none of these new "properties" can be "tested" or falsified, how is this not a religion?

We don't toss out Newton's gravity, just because Einstein made corrections to it.

Yes, but gravity shows up in the lab and has definite properties that can in fact be 'tested' in an ordinary manner.

As for your EU/PC pet theory, perhaps you can respond to DeiRenDopa's points:

If I did, it would be for your benefit, not hers. I believe she (he) has me on ignore at this point. DRD is wrong on almost every count. Birkeland made actual "predictions" that came from real "empirical experiments". These were things that he "learned" from his physical experimentation process, not things he simply "postdicted" based on observation. That is real "prediction". What's done with inflation is 'postdiction". Guth 'postdicted" the homogeneous "property' of inflation not from a real physical experiment, but based upon his 'belief' (at the time) that the universe was homogeneously distributed. All the "properties" he assigned to inflation were "ad hoc fabrications", not something he learned about during active empirical experimentation in controlled conditions like Birkeland. Inflation has always been "postdicted" to "make it fit' and there has never been a single inflation "prediction" that was accurate the first time.

EU theory is a "solar system applicable" theory. Unlike inflation, dark energy and dark matter, 'electrical current' does in fact show up here on Earth and inside our solar system, like we see in solar flare activity. These are in fact true 'predictions' of EU theory. Birkeland actually created and filmed coronal loops in his experiments. He created 'jets' in his experiments. He created aurora in his experiments. He literally 'predicted' these things from empirical experiments and he was surprised by these features. That is what real 'prediction' is all about. EU Theory isn't really a "big picture' theory in the same sense of creationist theories. It doesn't "assume' a creation event took place. One may have occurred of course, but that isn't a direct "prediction" of EU theory. Alfven's 'big bang' theory for instance was more of a cyclical event that required the existence of preexisting matter/antimatter galaxies and stars in order to occur. There is no particular 'need' for a creation event in EU theory. Comparing these two theories is therefore difficult at best, and it's a lot like comparing apples to oranges. Whereas inflation theory was intended to 'explain' a creation event, EU theory was created to explain features and phenomenon inside our own solar system and it works *OUTWARD* from there. These theories are therefore difficult to compare in one to one terms. That does not mean that EU theory isn't a valid cosmology theory. It simply attempts to 'explain' different cosmology features, specifically features that can be 'empirically tested'. In fact Birkeland's whole purpose in creating his lab experiments was to 'explain' aurora, not some "distant event".

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

What that says is that overdensities make hot spots. Ergo, voids make cold spots. It's called the late time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, if you want to read more about it.

Thanks, though I must admit that whereas I understand your answer the connection to the words I quoted is still unclear to me. However, it may not be worth your time in this congested thread to make me understand it.

[sol invictus]

Technically, unless I'm missing something inflation is not required to explain that feature.

Inflation - or something similar - is required to explain the homogeneity, isotropy, and scale-invariant power spectrum of the CMB.

I've read a number of articles now as to why starlight cannot explain these features, but I can't tell if any of these methods were applied to 'expanding" stars, or whether it's applied to just a static universe model.

The CMB cannot be starlight, no matter what the model is. Starlight doesn't have the right spectrum or the right spatial distribution. Static models are even worse - they have those problems and suffer from Olbers' paradox.

I would think any type of 'bang' with surface of last scattering would suffice and that inflation is optional, but feel free to correct me if I am mistaken on that point.

That will give you some kind of CMB, yes. But without inflation it shouldn't be so homogeneous (remember, even the cold spot is a variation in temperature of one part in 20,000 or so - it's a tiny effect).


Not IMO. IMO you're simply "fudging the numbers" with more ad hoc property assignments.

One of the parameters of inflation is how long it lasted. That's very badly constrained by current data, although there's a rough lower limit. If it lasted close to that lower limit, features like dark flows and the cold spot are to be expected.


You seem to be refusing to even consider the idea that inflation is falsified. If there are no ways to falsify the theory, then how is it any different from religion?

There are ways to falsify it. But one thing to bear in mind is that inflation is more like a collection of theories than it is a single theory. Within that collection, there's room for significant variation, but not for everything.

Inflation is phenomenological - it was built to explain empirical data. There's no good top-down theory that chooses a particular inflation model. So when new data emerges, one checks to see whether it's possible to accommodate within the set of inflation models. If so, good - you've just helped constrain the set of possible models. If not, inflation is falsified.

[Wowbagger]

Technically, unless I'm missing something inflation is not required to explain that feature. sol invictus was nice enough to respond to this. Since he knows a lot more about cosmology than I do, I shall tend to accept his rebuttal, for the time being.

Your job is now to address his rebuttal.

One thing I am curious about is your response to his argument that inflation is "more like a collection of theories than it is a single theory". If you have some really spiffy way of building the "top down" theory necessary to choose one model over the other, or to replace them all entirely, I would like to know what it is.

Secondarily, I'd like to hear your response to Olbers' paradox, which seems like a particularly bad blow to your argumnets, at least to me.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox )

However, you can ignore my priorities and go off on your own. Just make sure you can develop something that will make sol invictus cry for mercy, if you can. ;)


Not IMO. IMO you're simply "fudging the numbers" with more ad hoc property assignments. And, scientists call it "refining the model". At least they are being productive. You have done little to demonstrate that your proposals are.


Since none of these new "properties" can be "tested" or falsified, how is this not a religion? Who says they can't be tested?! What do you think these scientists do all day? Sit around going "Oooo! Ahhhh!" at all the pretty lights in the sky?


If I did, it would be for your benefit, not hers. It would be for the benefit of the general discussion in this thread. There are other folks in here, besides you and me and DRD.

Whereas inflation theory was intended to 'explain' a creation event, EU theory was created to explain features and phenomenon inside our own solar system and it works *OUTWARD* from there. These theories are therefore difficult to compare in one to one terms.Where they do overlap, can you clarify how they differ? What would one predict that the other wouldn't , and vice-versa?

[Reality Check]

It's not that i can't in practice. It's just that i don't hold any. I have well over 100 scientific papers. All of them are dedicated to quantum physics, and not one of them wholey on cosmology. But is this any surprise? I am not a cosmologist.
I did not mean that you have the papers youself.
I meant that you cannot find citations for the papers. There are a couple of common resources used for this:

arXiv.org e-Print archive (http://arxiv.org/) for preprints of papers.
The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (http://adswww.harvard.edu/).

[Reality Check]

What, you don't like the first reference? :)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf

From the conclusion:
This paper uses the 1-year WMAP data. They have a later paper using the 3-year WMAP data:
The non-Gaussian Cold Spot in the 3-year WMAP data (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603859)
The non-Gaussian cold spot detected in wavelet space in the WMAP 1-year data, is detected again in the coadded WMAP 3-year data at the same position (b = -57, l = 209) and size in the sky (around 10 degrees). The present analysis is based on several statistical methods: kurtosis, maximum absolute temperature, number of pixels below a given threshold, volume and Higher Criticism. All these methods detect deviations from Gaussianity in the 3--year data set at a slightly higher confidence level than in the WMAP 1-year data. These small differences are mainly due to the new foreground reduction technique and not to the reduction of the noise level, which is negligible at the scale of the spot. In order to avoid "a posteriori" analyses, we recalculate for the WMAP 3-year data the significance of the deviation in the kurtosis. The skewness and kurtosis tests were the first tests performed with wavelets for the WMAP data. We obtain that the probability of finding an at least as high deviation in Gaussian simulations is 1.85%. The frequency dependence of the spot is shown to be extremely flat. Galactic foreground emissions are not likely to be responsible for the detected deviation from Gaussianity

And another paper analysing the 5-year WMAP data: Non-Gaussian Signatures in the five-year WMAP data as identified with isotropic scaling indices (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2854)

[Monketey Ghost]

Starting to snap into focus. These threads go so much more smoothly without some participation...

[Michael Mozina]

Inflation - or something similar - is required to explain the homogeneity, isotropy, and scale-invariant power spectrum of the CMB.

It's that "something similar" option I'm curious about.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

Mind you that's just one example, and maybe not the best one out there.

The CMB cannot be starlight, no matter what the model is. Starlight doesn't have the right spectrum or the right spatial distribution.

I'm going to have to concede that point for the time being because I can't find anything that's been published that would suggest otherwise. I don't fully understand how these starlight models are put together and what types of ISM density they are based upon however, so I remain somewhat 'unconvinced' that starlight can't ever replace that idea. That may change over time as I get better familiar with these models.

Static models are even worse - they have those problems and suffer from Olbers' paradox.

I would tend to agree.

That will give you some kind of CMB, yes. But without inflation it shouldn't be so homogeneous (remember, even the cold spot is a variation in temperature of one part in 20,000 or so - it's a tiny effect).

Sure, but then homogeneous layouts of matter do not seem to be strictly limited to inflation theories, and the universe may not be all that homogeneous in the final analysis.

One of the parameters of inflation is how long it lasted. That's very badly constrained by current data, although there's a rough lower limit. If it lasted close to that lower limit, features like dark flows and the cold spot are to be expected.

That sounds a wee suspicious in the sense that you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If homogeneous distribution of matter is "evidence" for inflation, then a non homogeneous distribution cannot also be evidence of inflation. It seems like we're just fudging the numbers now to make things fit, we aren't basing the ideas on known laws of physics and "tested" features of inflation. We're just making it up as we go.

There are ways to falsify it.

How? I'm not being flippant, I'd really like to know how you intend to falsify a theory that has been continuously posdicted to fit observation. It seems like if we throw in enough ad hoc parameters anything and everything is possible.

But one thing to bear in mind is that inflation is more like a collection of theories than it is a single theory. Within that collection, there's room for significant variation, but not for everything.

I'm not so sure there isn't room for everything if we can continually change the parameters till we get a proper fit. What prevents us for coming up with a new "holey dark flow inflation"?

Inflation is phenomenological - it was built to explain empirical data. There's no good top-down theory that chooses a particular inflation model. So when new data emerges, one checks to see whether it's possible to accommodate within the set of inflation models. If so, good - you've just helped constrain the set of possible models. If not, inflation is falsified.

I'm not convinced that it can be falsified if it can be forever modified as we go. Unlike say 'current flow' where we can physically test our concepts in a lab, inflation is purely "tweaked to fit" and there is no way to verify or falsify any of these variables in the standard scientific manner. If we are not required to demonstrate that inflation actually exists or has the properties we assign to it, then there is nothing to prevent us from adding more variables to the mix till we get a 'fit'.

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]
First, there is no such thing as "EU theory", in any scientific sense (so it cannot, by definition, make any sort of scientific replacement, for anything).

Second, "PC theory", as defined by Lerner (and thanks to Z for bringing this definition to our attention) is also non-science. Why? Because it declares General Relativity (GR) to be not applicable to the study of the universe. And why does it do that? Perhaps it references voluminous research showing GR to be inconsistent with observations on Mpc (and above) scales? No, it makes a simple declaration. Given that there is a very great deal of observational evidence to suggest that GR's domain of applicability extends to the largest observable scales (and essentially none to the contrary), I don't see how this arbitrary assumption could be considered scientifically valid.

Third, "PC theory", as defined by Alfvén, has been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of high quality observations, so it is no longer a serious cosmological model (and hasn't been for several decades).

DeiRenDopa, perhaps you could contribute a few examples of these inconsistencies, if it is not too much trouble?
Sure.

First, though, some scene setting. AFAIK, the core concepts in Alfvén's many writings on cosmology were laid out in his 1965 book, "Worlds, Anti-Worlds"; however, they were never really developed into a fully-fledged scientific theory (at least, not by Alfvén, during his working life). A consequence of this is that very few potentially good (i.e. testable) hypotheses were ever developed. Also, Lerner's PC is an intellectual descendant of Alfvén's, though AFAIK Alfvén was far too good a scientist to declare GR irrelevant simply by fiat. In what follows I'll address several aspects of what seem to me to be common parts of all Alfvén's writings on cosmology, with the explicit acknowledgement that I have almost certainly missed some important parts.

To the extent that Alfvén's PC describes a static universe, a generalised Olbers' paradox and the Hubble relationship (redshift-distance, the particular form of the relationship is not important) are perhaps the most fatal. I know of at least one Alfvén paper which attempts to address the former, with a hierarchical density model (i.e. the larger the scale, the lower the average density); however, this fails because the universe looks increasingly homogeneous as the scale is increased (i.e. density variations get smaller and smaller, and fluctuate around a common mean). To Alfvén's credit, he recognised that such a finding would be fatal to his model, and the solid observational conclusions concerning large-scale structure were published only well after the end of his scientific career.

The CMB, as an isotropic, near-perfect blackbody, cannot be accounted for in any form of Alfvén's PC (AFAIK); similarly, the observed cosmic backgrounds in other wavebands (from x-ray to IR) would seem to be quite a challenge.

As far as we can tell, the observable universe is overwhelmingly matter; anti-matter is a trivial component. By itself this is not fatal to Alfvén's PC, but it does make it more a philosophical curiosity than a scientific theory (e.g. an ambiplasma universe in which the entire observable universe is a matter region is likely not testable, even in principle).

[Michael Mozina]

sol invictus was nice enough to respond to this. Since he knows a lot more about cosmology than I do, I shall tend to accept his rebuttal, for the time being.

Your job is now to address his rebuttal.

Done.

One thing I am curious about is your response to his argument that inflation is "more like a collection of theories than it is a single theory". If you have some really spiffy way of building the "top down" theory necessary to choose one model over the other, or to replace them all entirely, I would like to know what it is.

I don't profess to have such a model per se, although some of the replacements suggested seem to do the job with fewer parameters. I'm unclear however that they fully satisfy all the data.

Secondarily, I'd like to hear your response to Olbers' paradox, which seems like a particularly bad blow to your argumnets, at least to me.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox )

I personally tend to lean toward an expanding cosmology model, although I do not believe that it is "space" that is expanding or that all matter and energy was ever collected to a "single" point in spacetime.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

However, you can ignore my priorities and go off on your own. Just make sure you can develop something that will make sol invictus cry for mercy, if you can. ;)

With his math skills, I personally doubt that will ever happen. :) Keep in mind that I'm not even personally all that interested in the "big picture" items that seem to so fascinate the mainstream. Whether our universe was 'created" or not is irrelevant from my perspective. I want to understand why things work *INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM* before I get carried away with bigger picture issues.

And, scientists call it "refining the model". At least they are being productive. You have done little to demonstrate that your proposals are.

Here's a "Bang" proposal by Alfven that I find more personally interesting.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Cosmology%20In%20The%20Plasma%20Universe%20-%20An%20Intoductory%20Exposition%20-%20Hannes%20Alfven.pdf


Who says they can't be tested?! What do you think these scientists do all day? Sit around going "Oooo! Ahhhh!" at all the pretty lights in the sky?

They tweak various variables until they get a better fit and yet none of these alleged "properties" of inflation have ever been demonstrated. It's all a postdicted fit with no regard to what can be empirically demonstrated in a lab.

Where they do overlap, can you clarify how they differ? What would one predict that the other wouldn't , and vice-versa?

Well, for one thing Alfven's "bang" theory predicts 'current flows" in space. It predicts solar discharges like those two papers suggest and has a real influence on objects *INSIDE* of our solar system. It predicts things like equal parts of matter and antimatter. There are differences that can be "tested', and even differences that can be tested inside of our own solar system, not 'far far away' were humans can never reach.

[Michael Mozina]

Sure.

First, though, some scene setting. AFAIK, the core concepts in Alfvén's many writings on cosmology were laid out in his 1965 book, "Worlds, Anti-Worlds"; however, they were never really developed into a fully-fledged scientific theory (at least, not by Alfvén, during his working life). A consequence of this is that very few potentially good (i.e. testable) hypotheses were ever developed.


That is simply "untrue". Alfven "predicted" the presence of electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. He "predicted" high speed solar wind. He "predicted" aurora. He "predicted" many things in the 250+ papers he wrote.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&author=Alfven,%20Hannes%20O.%20G.&db_key=AST

It is plain silly to suggest he made few "testable" predictions. That's not the case.

[Michael Mozina]

As far as we can tell, the observable universe is overwhelmingly matter; anti-matter is a trivial component.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1667

For all we know the core of our own galaxy is composed of antimatter and a 'double layer' (Alfven called it ambiplasma) simply separates the matter from the antimatter.

By itself this is not fatal to Alfvén's PC,

This is correct. The bulk of the antimatter may simply be located outside of the small visible sliver of the universe that we can see.

but it does make it more a philosophical curiosity than a scientific theory (e.g. an ambiplasma universe in which the entire observable universe is a matter region is likely not testable, even in principle).

That actually depends on where the antimatter is located. One might point to that antimatter cloud at the core of the Milky Way and claim it's a "successful prediction" of his theory. Again, it all depends on where the antimatter is located.

[sol invictus]

It's that "something similar" option I'm curious about.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

I'm actually quite sympathetic to the views expressed in the abstract of that paper, although I don't think that particular model is very satisfactory. Here's the first part of their abstract:
Inflationary models are generally credited with explaining the large scale homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness of our universe as well as accounting for the origin of structure (i.e., the deviations from exact homogeneity) in our universe. We argue that the explanations provided by inflation for the homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness of our universe are not satisfactory, and that a proper explanation of these features will require a much deeper understanding of the initial state of our universe. On the other hand, inflationary models are spectacularly successful in providing an explanation of the deviations from homogeneity.
I think, were you actually to talk calmly to some scientists working in the area, you'd find that many (perhaps most) of them agree with that. That's why many people are searching for alternatives, or to improve our understanding of the initial state of the universe.


Sure, but then homogeneous layouts of matter do not seem to be strictly limited to inflation theories, and the universe may not be all that homogeneous in the final analysis.

Again, remember that the cold spot is a deviation of less than 1/10,000 from perfect homogeneity. The universe is extremely homogeneous on large scales - that's an observational fact, and it can't be ignored.


That sounds a wee suspicious in the sense that you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. In homogeneous distribution of matter is "evidence" for inflation, then a non homogeneous distribution cannot also be evidence of inflation.

Inflation doesn't predict a perfectly homogeneous universe. The strongest evidence for it comes from the spectrum of inhomogeneities. But it's true that the cold spot (and dark flows) observations don't fit very well. If they're real, they indicate either short inflation (not so big a surprise) or something more radical.


It seems like we're just fudging the numbers now to make things fit, we aren't basing the ideas on known laws of physics and "tested" features of inflation. We're just making up as we go.

Fudging the numbers isn't a reasonable characterization. The parameters of the model are adjusted to fit observation. That's nothing more or less than the bog-standard scientific method. It means that some hypotheses have been falsified, while some remain possible. Your criticism can only be justified if you can demonstrate that we have some observations which simply cannot be accommodated no matter what, or if you have a theory that explains things just as well but with fewer adjustable parameters.

As an example: early evolutionary theorists believed (I think) that evolution was a continuous, smooth process that took place at a more or less constant rate. Then things like the Cambrian explosion were discovered in the fossil record. So the theory was adjusted, and now it's a more precise description of the real world. That's exactly how science is supposed to work.


How? I'm not being flippant, I'd really like to know how you intend to falsify a theory that has been continuously posdicted to fit observation. It seems like if we throw in enough ad hoc parameters anything and everything is possible.

Nope. For example, if the spatial curvature was large compared to the density perturbations, inflation would be ruled out. If the power spectrum of perturbations differed significantly from 1, inflation would be ruled out. If these dark flows are really there AND persist down to smaller scales (where we know inflation should have generated the perturbations), it's ruled out. Etc.


I'm not so sure there isn't room for everything if we can continually change the parameters till we get a proper fit. What prevents us for coming up with a new "holey dark flow inflation"?

What would be wrong with that? If you have some evidence the current model can't explain, you come up with a new one. If the new model happens to contain a word in its name the old one also contained, so what?

[dudalb]

But, the revised model might make other predictions for things not discovered, yet. These are other things the old model would not predict. If they find those other things are also true, that is evidence that the new model is better.

Science does not merely tweak variables until it "fits". It takes the tweaked variables, and... makes other, new discoveries with them.

That is what science does. That is what it is good at doing. To call it "dogma" is not productive.

Agreed, although I have to point out that individual scientists can become VERY dogmatic about their theories.

[ben m]

Fudging the numbers isn't a reasonable characterization. The parameters of the model are adjusted to fit observation. That's nothing more or less than the bog-standard scientific method

As another example: after you've conducted Millikan's oil drop experiment, and you say "This data is only consistent with the theory that the electron mass is 511 keV/c^2". Nobody comes along and says, 'you fudged your electron model to fit the data'.

[Ziggurat]

Here's a "Bang" proposal by Alfven that I find more personally interesting.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Cosmology%20In%20The%20Plasma%20Universe%20-%20An%20Intoductory%20Exposition%20-%20Hannes%20Alfven.pdf


What is striking about this paper is how completely incompatible it is with general relativity, and yet there is no attempt to reconcile or justify this incompatibility. In fact, there is no mention of general relativity at all. Also missing is any mention of the CMB, which this alternative cannot explain. So why is it interesting, Michael, when it fails to account for observations and is incompatible with our best-tested theory of gravity?

[Michael Mozina]

As another example: after you've conducted Millikan's oil drop experiment, and you say "This data is only consistent with the theory that the electron mass is 511 keV/c^2". Nobody comes along and says, 'you fudged your electron model to fit the data'.

The difference is that every and every parameter in such an experiment is derived from real experiments with real control mechanism that we can repeat as often as we like. We know electrons exist in nature. Compare and contrast that with an endless number of 'fudged variables', none of which came from empirical experimentation with actual control mechanism. We can't even be sure inflation ever existed in nature, let alone verify any of the presumed "properties" being assigned to it.

[Ziggurat]

The difference is that every and every parameter in such an experiment is derived from real experiments with real control mechanism that we can repeat as often as we like. We know electrons exist in nature. Compare and contrast that with an endless number of 'fudged variables', none of which came from empirical experimentation with actual control mechanism. We can't even be sure inflation ever existed in nature, let alone verify any of the presumed "properties" being assigned to it.

And Newton had a parameter in his theory of gravity that he never measured, by experiment or by observation. Obviously a total fraud.

[DeiRenDopa]

Sure.

First, though, some scene setting. AFAIK, the core concepts in Alfvén's many writings on cosmology were laid out in his 1965 book, "Worlds, Anti-Worlds"; however, they were never really developed into a fully-fledged scientific theory (at least, not by Alfvén, during his working life). A consequence of this is that very few potentially good (i.e. testable) hypotheses were ever developed. Also, Lerner's PC is an intellectual descendant of Alfvén's, though AFAIK Alfvén was far too good a scientist to declare GR irrelevant simply by fiat. In what follows I'll address several aspects of what seem to me to be common parts of all Alfvén's writings on cosmology, with the explicit acknowledgement that I have almost certainly missed some important parts.

To the extent that Alfvén's PC describes a static universe, a generalised Olbers' paradox and the Hubble relationship (redshift-distance, the particular form of the relationship is not important) are perhaps the most fatal. I know of at least one Alfvén paper which attempts to address the former, with a hierarchical density model (i.e. the larger the scale, the lower the average density); however, this fails because the universe looks increasingly homogeneous as the scale is increased (i.e. density variations get smaller and smaller, and fluctuate around a common mean). To Alfvén's credit, he recognised that such a finding would be fatal to his model, and the solid observational conclusions concerning large-scale structure were published only well after the end of his scientific career.

The CMB, as an isotropic, near-perfect blackbody, cannot be accounted for in any form of Alfvén's PC (AFAIK); similarly, the observed cosmic backgrounds in other wavebands (from x-ray to IR) would seem to be quite a challenge.

As far as we can tell, the observable universe is overwhelmingly matter; anti-matter is a trivial component. By itself this is not fatal to Alfvén's PC, but it does make it more a philosophical curiosity than a scientific theory (e.g. an ambiplasma universe in which the entire observable universe is a matter region is likely not testable, even in principle).
There's also something called the Alfvén-Klein cosmological model which may be relevant ...

I have been unable to track down any paper on this (as in, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal), so I'm going by memory and a Wikipedia article; specifically, I do not know to what extent Alfvén developed this.

IIRC, this is some kind of cyclic model, with a collapse to a high temperature, high density state, followed by an expansion. To the extent that such a model produces a universe observationally indistinguishable from standard LCDM+inflation universes, even in principle, then it is viable (obviously!). However, IIRC, this is actually very different from standard models, in that it does not include GR (and so, for example, the 'expansion' is an explosion), and as such the Hubble relationship is fatal, especially the consistency of distance estimates based on different distances (luminosity, angular size, ...).

If this is, indeed, a PC cosmological model, and if Alfvén developed it to account for observations such as the primordial abundances of light nuclides, the CMB (such as was known in his scientific lifetime), and the Hubble relationship (not including the "Dark Energy" observations, obviously), it might be interesting to take a closer look at it; does anyone know if there is a paper (or three) on it?

[DeiRenDopa]

The difference is that every and every parameter in such an experiment is derived from real experiments with real control mechanism that we can repeat as often as we like. We know electrons exist in nature. Compare and contrast that with an endless number of 'fudged variables', none of which came from empirical experimentation with actual control mechanism. We can't even be sure inflation ever existed in nature, let alone verify any of the presumed "properties" being assigned to it.And Newton had a parameter in his theory of gravity that he never measured, by experiment or by observation. Obviously a total fraud.
Even worse, it was not tested - by Cavendish - until well after Newton's death!

Further, serious lab-based tests of deviations from inverse square, over distances from microns to metres, were not done until the second half of the 20th century. If MM's view of how physics should be done prevailed - from Newton onward - Newton's universal law of gravitation would not have been studied, much less accepted, as part of physics.

And when it comes to GR, well, observing the deflection of starlight, near the limb of the Sun (during a total eclipse) surely does not count as a "real experiment", does it? I mean, where's the "real control mechanism" (a.k.a. "actual control mechanism")?

I guess we should all go back to the lab and study things like the Casimir effect, and investigate negative pressure ...

[Michael Mozina]

I'm actually quite sympathetic to the views expressed in the abstract of that paper, although I don't think that particular model is very satisfactory. Here's the first part of their abstract:

I think, were you actually to talk calmly to some scientists working in the area, you'd find that many (perhaps most) of them agree with that. That's why many people are searching for alternatives, or to improve our understanding of the initial state of the universe.

FYI, that also applies to all proponents of EU/PC theory.

Again, remember that the cold spot is a deviation of less than 1/10,000 from perfect homogeneity. The universe is extremely homogeneous on large scales - that's an observational fact, and it can't be ignored.

Perhaps, but then there are those dark flow flies in the ointment to consider as well.

Inflation doesn't predict a perfectly homogeneous universe. The strongest evidence for it comes from the spectrum of inhomogeneities. But it's true that the cold spot (and dark flows) observations don't fit very well. If they're real, they indicate either short inflation (not so big a surprise) or something more radical.

Call me a "radical".

Fudging the numbers isn't a reasonable characterization.

Unfortunately we are not likely to agree on this point.

The parameters of the model are adjusted to fit observation.

These are "uncontrolled" observations however and there is no direct evidence that inflation is actual "real", or ever existed in nature. We simply "assume" it's existence.

That's nothing more or less than the bog-standard scientific method.

I disagree rather strongly on that point. In most fields of science, "control mechanisms" are used to demonstrate "cause/effect" relationships. For instance, Birkeland had an on/off switch and could demonstrate with that control mechanism that "current flow" caused the effects he was observing. If he had any doubt that it was 'caused' by electricity, he could turn of the current flow and see the results in his controlled experiments. Inflation theory was never based on controlled experimentation. From day one it was an "imagined" force that had "imagined' properties, none of which were actually seen in the lab. Whereas many consumer products function on Birkeland's "current flow", nothing runs on inflation or dark energy or SUSY particles.

It means that some hypotheses have been falsified, while some remain possible.

But we still have not ever demonstrated a cause/effect relationship based on actual controlled experimentation.

Your criticism can only be justified if you can demonstrate that we have some observations which simply cannot be accommodated no matter what, or if you have a theory that explains things just as well but with fewer adjustable parameters.

The implication here is that I can't reject your theory without replacing it with something else. That's simply not so. I can reject your theory based on any number of logical reasons. In my case I reject it because we can't even be sure it even exists in nature or that it *ever* existed in nature and there is no 'cause/effect' relationship established between any of the presumed properties of inflation and inflation. I simply have to have "faith" in these claims.

As an example: early evolutionary theorists believed (I think) that evolution was a continuous, smooth process that took place at a more or less constant rate. Then things like the Cambrian explosion were discovered in the fossil record. So the theory was adjusted, and now it's a more precise description of the real world. That's exactly how science is supposed to work.

Well, the difference here is rather clear. We can observe micro-evolutionary processes in the lab. While I may not know of the evolutionary process is "smooth" or not, I can be sure evolutionary processes occur in my own lifetime. Inflation doesn't even exist in my lifetime according to current theory, so I can't 'test" any of these ideas in the lab, or even be sure inflation isn't a figment of human imagination.

Nope. For example, if the spatial curvature was large compared to the density perturbations, inflation would be ruled out.

Nah. That "property" of large spacial curvature would have simply been included in inflation theory from the start. If not, just fudge the numbers some more and toss in a few more variables and viola, a new and improved version can take it's place. (Of course this is a gross oversimplification, but it illustrates my point).

If the power spectrum of perturbations differed significantly from 1, inflation would be ruled out. If these dark flows are really there AND persist down to smaller scales (where we know inflation should have generated the perturbations), it's ruled out. Etc.

But if those dark flows were not predicted in the first place, why wouldn't that rule out inflation by itself? How come we get to keep tweaking everything without ever demonstrating any actually cause/effect 'property' of inflation?

What would be wrong with that? If you have some evidence the current model can't explain, you come up with a new one. If the new model happens to contain a word in its name the old one also contained, so what?

So we're shifting the goalpost all the time and there is no way to falsify the model anymore. As long as we can change all the variables all the time, nothing is verifiable or falsifiable.

What's in name? Consider for a moment if I simply pilfered your various math formulas and called it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". Suppose I kept changing all the parameters to suit myself and make these formulas fit. Would the fact I got it to fit the observations be evidence that God did it? Obviously not. How then do we decide where "science" ends and 'religion' begins if I get to change all the rules and formulas as I go?

[Mr.D]

First off: That's not what I wrote.
All i had was you stating you had a PhD, as though i was just going receed.

I finished all the coursework for a Ph.D in physics some 15 years ago (I changed career paths before finishing my dissertation),



Secondly:

Sir, your attitude on that sub-forum included you going to nominate a specific passage in which you said the 720 degree spin was an error i made. Then when i challenged you on it, you said the article was out of date.

The two links you provided are to articles that are almost 15 and 25 years old. But I took a very quick glance - nothing that looks too egregiously wrong for "Analog - Science Fiction and Fact Magazine" articles of that vintage.
Meaning - They're basically right but hardly rigorous science (but probably easy to google up!)


And the Stundie nom with some context:

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.



You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?720%5Eo, so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.
I can't even count the number of fails Singularitarian has in that thread, but "currently not allowed" is certainly the funniest.
The "spin 1/2 -> 720o rotation" concept is Intro to QM 101 and is one of the traditional ways to demonstrate to students how the classical models fail; I've even set up the "back of the envelope" homework (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309) for you.

And in any case you've even managed to mangle the entire argument so badly that I can't even deconstruct and correct it without devoting an entire post to it.

So the failure so far is entirely yours.



Get real. And if you have a PhD good for you - start using it.


And if you have any humility, good for you - start using it.

[Ziggurat]

What's in name? Consider for a moment if I simply pilfered your various math formulas and called it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". Suppose I kept changing all the parameters to suit myself and make these formulas fit. Would the fact I got it to fit the observations be evidence that God did it?

What a silly question. You have a model of "godflation", "god energy", and "god matter". But God is nowhere within this model, so obviously the model says nothing about God. But if the model works, then once again, what's in a name? It doesn't matter if you use such names. And in fact, the Higgs boson has been nicknamed the God particle.

How then do we decide where "science" ends and 'religion' begins if I get to change all the rules and formulas as I go?

When you figure out how to apply a formula to religion at all, let me know. Until then, it seems to me the dividing line is pretty damned clear.

[sol invictus]

But we still have not ever demonstrated a cause/effect relationship based on actual controlled experimentation.

And we may never. Too bad for us, but the universe couldn't care less.


The implication here is that I can't reject your theory without replacing it with something else.

No, I didn't say that. I said you could reject it if you make an observation which is not compatible with it. You might also reject it even if you don't have that, but instead have a superior alternative.


Well, the difference here is rather clear. We can observe micro-evolutionary processes in the lab.

We can do that now, yes - but that's a fairly recent development. When the theory was proposed more than 150 years ago, that was impossible. The only evidence came from fossils. The evidence for inflation is much like the fossil record, or like DNA evidence. Most biologists will tell you those two alone form an extremely compelling set of evidence for evolution. Do you disagree with that?

But if those dark flows were not predicted in the first place, why wouldn't that rule out inflation by itself? How come we get to keep tweaking everything without ever demonstrating any actually cause/effect 'property' of inflation?

Because, as I already told you, inflation isn't really a theory. It can only predict certain things, and those only roughly. It didn't predict dark flows would be there, but it didn't predict they wouldn't be there either.

What's in name? Consider for a moment if I simply pilfered your various math formulas and called it "Godflation", "God energy" and "God matter". Suppose I kept changing all the parameters to suit myself and make these formulas fit. Would the fact I got it to fit the observations be evidence that God did it? Obviously not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

How then do we decide where "science" ends and 'religion' begins if I get to change all the rules and formulas as I go?

There is a way to compare competing theories, even when both are consistent with all available data. Roughly speaking, the simpler theory - the one with fewer parameters - is preferred. "God did it" can be thought of as a theory with an infinite number of parameters. A typical inflation model has two or three.

[Michael Mozina]

What is striking about this paper is how completely incompatible it is with general relativity, and yet there is no attempt to reconcile or justify this incompatibility.

In what way is it 'incompatible' with GR?

In fact, there is no mention of general relativity at all.

That's because gravity is essentially a bit player in Alfven's bang model and it's not the force/curvature that causes the 'bang'.

Also missing is any mention of the CMB, which this alternative cannot explain.

Ok.

So why is it interesting, Michael, when it fails to account for observations and is incompatible with our best-tested theory of gravity?

First of all, "dark energy" is not "gravity". Inflation isn't "gravity" either. Stuffing one or more of these things into a GR theory does not mean these things are related to "gravity". You simply stuffed one or more variables into a "blunder" theory that is not directly related to a zero constant gravity theory.

Secondly, let's try this changing of terms thing from the other direction:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

The first paper attempts to do away with "dark energy" and replace it with an ordinary EM field, but it requires some sort of "inflation", or an appropriate substitute. The second paper is the one that attempts to eliminate "inflation". Put the two together and you end up with an "electric universe' scenario that requires no inflation and is much closer to Alfven's original ideas and has all the benefits I'm looking for as it relates to the effects of the EM field on solar system activity. Do you have any problem with *THAT* model?

[Michael Mozina]

What a silly question. You have a model of "godflation", "god energy", and "god matter". But God is nowhere within this model, so obviously the model says nothing about God.

We can change that pretty instantly just by suggesting the 'cause' of the event was 'intentional' and we've only added one additional parameter, namely conscious will. Conscious will shows up on Earth so that happens to be the *LEAST* of your worries as it relates to ad hoc assertions.

But if the model works, then once again, what's in a name? It doesn't matter if you use such names. And in fact, the Higgs boson has been nicknamed the God particle.

But if we add in ad hoc properties galore, what prevents me from adding consciousness to the mix? How do we now differentiate between science, and religion?

When you figure out how to apply a formula to religion at all, let me know. Until then, it seems to me the dividing line is pretty damned clear.

I don't need to add any more math, just conscious intent. That happens to be something that *DOES* show up in a lab by the way, so you've got nothing to complain about, right?

[Ziggurat]

But if we add in ad hoc properties galore, what prevents me from adding consciousness to the mix? How do we now differentiate between science, and religion?

when you develop a mathematical model for what consciousness is and what it does, get back to me. At that point you will have something very different from religion. Otherwise, it's nothing like adding features or parameters to an actual physical model.

But then, the whole concept of quantifying things has always presented problems for you.

[Ziggurat]

In what way is it 'incompatible' with GR?

The contraction followed by expansion is not a valid solution to Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

That's because gravity is essentially a bit player in Alfven's bang model and it's not the force/curvature that causes the 'bang'.

It doesn't work that way, Michael. Matter/antimatter annihilation cannot cause an expansion of space itself, it can only expand objects within space. So it can't rescue this model from being inconsistent with general relativity. Either Alfven's model is wrong or general relativity is wrong. You can't have both.

First of all, "dark energy" is not "gravity".

No, it isn't. But it has gravitational effects, just like every other form of energy.

Inflation isn't "gravity" either. Stuffing one or more of these things into a GR theory does not mean these things are related to "gravity".

If it has an effect the geometry of space-time (and both do), then it very much is related to gravity. And you've dodged the question: why is that Alfven paper interesting when it can't account for observations and is inconsistent with general relativity?

Secondly, let's try this changing of terms thing from the other direction:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1970
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205058

The first paper attempts to do away with "dark energy" and replace it with an ordinary EM field

No it doesn't. Rather, it proposes a model in which dark energy is ordinary electromagnetic fields.

The second paper is the one that attempts to eliminate "inflation". Put the two together and you end up with an "electric universe' scenario that requires no inflation and is much closer to Alfven's original ideas

Uh, no. Put them together and you get a more traditional big bang without inflation, not Alfven's scenario. Those two papers still operate within the context of general relativity, whereas Alfven's scenario is rather obviously (to anyone familiar with it) outside of GR. How you concluded that this would produce something like Alfven's theory is quite beyond me, but you're simply and completely wrong about that.

[Michael Mozina]

And we may never. Too bad for us, but the universe couldn't care less.

Perhaps not, but *I* care. If I can't ever hope to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between inflation and any property you assign to inflation, I will forever be required to have "pure faith" in inflation and the properties assigned to it. Pure faith is religion not science.

No, I didn't say that. I said you could reject it if you make an observation which is not compatible with it.

But you never demonstrated that inflation has the properties assigned to it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that inflation is compatible with the properties that are assigned to it! I'm forced to accept all these assigned properties on pure faith and that's the part I find objectionable.

You might also reject it even if you don't have that, but instead have a superior alternative.

The notion of "superior" becomes highly subjective. IMO Alfven's/Birkeland's theories are "superior" at predicting and explaining events inside of our solar system and that is what I'd prefer to understand. Whether or not I will *EVER* understand the "bigger picture" is irrelevant from my perspective if I can't explain events *inside* the solar system like solar wind, CME's, etc. How do we define "superior"?

We can do that now, yes - but that's a fairly recent development. When the theory was proposed more than 150 years ago, that was impossible. The only evidence came from fossils.

Well, that and actually living life forms we can touch and feel and experiment with, sure.

The evidence for inflation is much like the fossil record, or like DNA evidence.

Not really. I can't modify a HOX gene in a set of inflation and watch the outcome. I can't physically 'experiment' at all. It is in "some ways" a bit like a fossil record, but there is no living form of inflation to play with, so that analogy is very limited.

Most biologists will tell you those two alone form an extremely compelling set of evidence for evolution. Do you disagree with that?

Sure, but I can play with living DNA and see the results of that experiment in real living things. I can't do that with inflation.

Because, as I already told you, inflation isn't really a theory. It can only predict certain things, and those only roughly. It didn't predict dark flows would be there, but it didn't predict they wouldn't be there either.

But that's my whole point. Inflation has no actual "predictive" value. Everything being called a "prediction' of inflation today is actually a "postdicted" property based on pure observation. No cause/effect relationships exist to ever be able to actually "predict" anything useful. We're constantly surprised by every new observation and we're constantly playing catch up and modifying things to fit.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that if there is no restriction on what ad hoc properties we toss into the mix, then conscious intent is simply one more ad hoc assertion that cannot ever be falsified or scientifically demonstrated and there is no empirical distinction anymore between religion and science. Conscious intent *IS* something that actually does show up in a lab so it would be the least "unscientific" assertion of the whole theory.

There is a way to compare competing theories, even when both are consistent with all available data. Roughly speaking, the simpler theory - the one with fewer parameters - is preferred. "God did it" can be thought of as a theory with an infinite number of parameters. A typical inflation model has two or three.

Ok, but "God did it" has the added benefit of explain *WHY* it happened, whereas inflation theory really doesn't. It only has one more parameter (consciousness) and answers more questions as to why it happened when it happened. If we can simply throw in assertions as we go, without respect to what we can empirically demonstrate, then any theistic brand of a creation theory is necessarily superior to any non theistic form of creation theory. There is no longer any distinction between science and religion.

[Michael Mozina]

The contraction followed by expansion is not a valid solution to Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

It doesn't work that way, Michael. Matter/antimatter annihilation cannot cause an expansion of space itself, it can only expand objects within space.

Which is exactly why I do not believe that "space" actually expands.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

So it can't rescue this model from being inconsistent with general relativity. Either Alfven's model is wrong or general relativity is wrong. You can't have both.

Yes I can. Read that paper on expansion.

No, it isn't. But it has gravitational effects, just like every other form of energy.

Yes, but so does annihilation. Annihilation happens in nature. Dark energy never shows up in the lab. Why put faith in superstition when there are real physical alternatives like EM fields to explain such things?

If it has an effect the geometry of space-time (and both do), then it very much is related to gravity.

Then anything and everything can be related back to gravity, including Alfven's proposed annihilation.

And you've dodged the question: why is that Alfven paper interesting when it can't account for observations and is inconsistent with general relativity?

I didn't dodge anything, I provided you with actual papers to support everything including expansion without "space" expansion.

No it doesn't. Rather, it proposes a model in which dark energy is ordinary electromagnetic fields.

That issue alone removes one unnecessary metaphysical entity and moves us one step closer to explaining that electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere so that is certainly a step in the right direction in my book. What's wrong with that proposal by the way, and why would you cling to an unproven metaphysical assertion when a real force of nature works "better"?

Uh, no. Put them together and you get a more traditional big bang without inflation, not Alfven's scenario.

You get *AN* electric universe theory that has two fewer metaphysical friends. Isn't that an improvement or are you emotionally attached to metaphysical placeholder terms?

Those two papers still operate within the context of general relativity, whereas Alfven's scenario is rather obviously (to anyone familiar with it) outside of GR.

No, it's not. It simply removes the need to collect all matter and energy to a single point. It removes the need for a "creation myth" of any sort. I removes the need for metaphysical entities, and it removes the need to have "faith" in things we can *NEVER* hope to empirically demonstrate in a lab. In my book that puts it light years ahead of creation mythology.

How you concluded that this would produce something like Alfven's theory is quite beyond me, but you're simply and completely wrong about that.

It would not be "exactly" like Aflven's theories but I'm not emotionally attached to all of Alfven's theories. I'm personally more inclined to go with Birkeland's solar model over the one Alfven proposed, and I'm not attached to any sort of "creation event" one way or the other. If there actually was a creation event, great. If not, that's fine too. I'm open to various ideas, whereas the mainstream seems intent on ignoring any and all alternatives that open the door for any sort of "electric universe' type theory. In fact that is probably why you're resisting these ideas right now.

[Michael Mozina]

when you develop a mathematical model for what consciousness is and what it does, get back to me.

You don't figure that is exactly what biologists are attempting to do right now? You aren't under the illusion that it will never happen are you?

At that point you will have something very different from religion.

Not really. Throwing math into the mix won't make it any more or any less falsifiable.

Otherwise, it's nothing like adding features or parameters to an actual physical model.

Sure it is. In fact it actually "explains" *WHY* it all happened. We've added only one more parameter and we've 'explained' why it happened when it happened.

But then, the whole concept of quantifying things has always presented problems for you.

As it relates to quantifying consciousness, it's not just a problem for me personally, but for everyone interested in doing so. You're barking up the wrong tree by blaming me personally for that problem.

[Wowbagger]

They tweak various variables until they get a better fit and yet none of these alleged "properties" of inflation have ever been demonstrated. It's all a postdicted fit with no regard to what can be empirically demonstrated in a lab. But, that's not the end of it. They also go out and continue to make more observations, sometimes in new directions. I'm sure someone can fill in the details.

Agreed, although I have to point out that individual scientists can become VERY dogmatic about their theories. Individual scientists, yes. It is extremely rare for "dogma" to persist in the whole industry, though. Science, in general, has a history of adopting new paradigms of ideas very rapidly- if they are demonstrated to be correct.

Someone is going to need to do more than cry about "tweaking formulas" to show evidence of "dogma".

[sol invictus]

But you never demonstrated that inflation has the properties assigned to it in the first place. I don't see any evidence that inflation is compatible with the properties that are assigned to it! I'm forced to accept all these assigned properties on pure faith and that's the part I find objectionable.

So learn something about it then! Those properties can be derived from any given version of the theory, and then compared to the data.


Well, that and actually living life forms we can touch and feel and experiment with, sure.

If you accept the fossil record as good evidence for evolution, it's incomprehensible to me that you don't accept observational cosmology as evidence for inflation.*

In fact the analogy is quite precise. The experiments you can do with genetics and evolution now have no direct bearing on the origin of species. It is obviously impossible to ever do controlled experiments on that, because it happened in the past. So all we can do is experiments that help confirm our theories, and then apply those theories to the past.

The same goes for inflation. It happened in the past, if it happened at all, so we can't do experiments on it per se. But we can still do experiments today that help confirm it - for example, we can look at the spectrum of cosmic background neutrinos and see if it's compatible with the predictions of inflation, or we can try to create inflaton particles at accelerators, or we can run computer simulations.


*On second thought your position is less coherent than that. You maintain that things like dark flows disprove inflation, while simultaneously claiming inflation isn't testable. According to you, inflation is only science if it's ruled out by dark flows. It's just too incoherent to try to sort out.

[Ziggurat]

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

No, Michael. It does not work. You're stuck with a Newtonian concept of space and gravity, but it is incompatible with general relativity.

Which is exactly why I do not believe that "space" actually expands.

Then you think general relativity is wrong. Fine, but at least be honest about it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601171

Yeah, um... no. That paper is crap. The objection they start off with (if space is expanding, why aren't all objects expanding?) has a rather obvious and trivial answer: they experience forces. "Dust" (homogenous fluid matter which only interacts via gravity) will not feel any net force, and will in fact expand with space. Furthermore, whatever semantic debates you want to get into about whether or not this is the right terminology to use, nothing in this paper changes the fact that Alfven's model is incompatible with general relativity.

Yes I can. Read that paper on expansion.

I've read enough to know it's irrelevant. They're examining the case of a flat empty universe, an example which is rather obviously NOT applicable to the real universe. And their conclusions are not in fact generalizable.

Yes, but so does annihilation.

Not really. Matter does, and radiation does, but the only consequence of annihilation itself is to change the mass from matter to radiation. It cannot do what Alfven is claiming happens if general relativity is correct.

Dark energy never shows up in the lab.

We've already been through this, Michael. Dark energy does show up in labs (Casimir effect - and yes, that applies regardless of whether the pressure is positive or negative). Furthermore, dark energy is not a requirement of big bang models. And lastly, of course, none of this can rescue Alfven's theory: it remains inconsistent both with observations and with general relativity.

Then anything and everything can be related back to gravity, including Alfven's proposed annihilation.

But not in the way that Alfven would require. So that doesn't help.

I didn't dodge anything, I provided you with actual papers to support everything including expansion without "space" expansion.

You provided me with search results which you clearly didn't really understand, and none of which actually show that Alfven's model can be reconciled with general relativity.

What's wrong with that proposal by the way, and why would you cling to an unproven metaphysical assertion when a real force of nature works "better"?

I didn't say anything was wrong with that proposal. That's not something I'm in a position to comment on right now. But I can comment on its applicability to Alfven's model, and that's basically zero.

You get *AN* electric universe theory

You can call it an electric universe theory if you wish, but it's still a cosmology which obeys general relativity and which has a fairly traditional big bang. If that's the cosmology you would like to believe in, go ahead, I've got no objections. But it doesn't resemble Alfven's cosmology.

No, it's not.

Yes, Michael, it really is. You can keep denying it, but you cannot reconcile Alfven's cosmology with Einstein's field equations. It doesn't work.

It would not be "exactly" like Aflven's theories

Those two papers don't suggest anything at all like Alfven's theory.

I'm personally more inclined to go with Birkeland's solar model

Um... we're discussing cosmology at the moment, Michael, not solar models.

I'm open to various ideas, whereas the mainstream seems intent on ignoring any and all alternatives that open the door for any sort of "electric universe' type theory.

Funny you should make this claim after quoting papers that you claimed supported those sort of ideas.

In fact that is probably why you're resisting these ideas right now.

I'm resisting Alfven's cosmological model because it's crap, Michael. It cannot explain fundamental observations, and it is inconsistent with general relativity (which is very well tested). None of your objections about dark energy have any bearing on that, your claims of consistency are based on your own misunderstanding of general relativity, and the sources you have found to try to support your position do not say what you seem to think they say. It is your own emotional attachment to all things electric, and your distaste for general relativity (which you don't really understand) which draws you to it.

[Ziggurat]

You don't figure that is exactly what biologists are attempting to do right now? You aren't under the illusion that it will never happen are you?

Of course not. But it hasn't happened yet, and if and when it does happen, it won't be religion, so your comparison is ridiculous regardless. I thought this would be obvious, but apparently not.

Not really. Throwing math into the mix won't make it any more or any less falsifiable.

Not so. Throwing math into the mix means we can make quantifiable predictions, which is rather a key component of making most theories falsifiable.

[ben m]

I dare say MM's position would prevent him from "believing" in the top quark. You can't hold one in your hand. The only "control" we've ever exerted over a top quark is ... well, the Tevatron has been turned on and also turned off. There is not, for example, a control sample of 2 TeV proton collisions with the top-quark process removed. There is not an alternate-universe tau polarization experiment where you can take out the top loops. We did not scan some e+ e- supercollider's energy slowly past the top production threshhold. (RIP, SSC.)

All we have is the one giant collection of proton-antiproton collision data. We compare collection that to one theory (as manifested in a giant numerical simulation), then to another theory (as manifested in another giant numerical simulation) and the so-called "top quark" is just the statement that "the theory in which we include a 174 GeV top quark fits better than any without".

But I don't think Mozina cares one way or another about top quarks. His willingness to believe anything seems to be proportional to the amount by which it reinforces"outsider cosmology is right" narrative.

[sol invictus]

The contraction phases *IS* related to gravity, whereas the expansion is related to matter/antimatter annihilation. It does work.

No, Zig is correct. A model with a bounce like that is simply incompatible with general relativity. I can prove it mathematically, or point you to the proofs in the literature.

[Michael Mozina]

So learn something about it then! Those properties can be derived from any given version of the theory, and then compared to the data.

This is like a religious person telling me to learn something about God from the bible. I can't verify any of these claims about the properties of inflation. I'm forced to accept them all on faith. Compare and contrast that with telling me go learn something about electrons in controlled experiments.

If you accept the fossil record as good evidence for evolution, it's incomprehensible to me that you don't accept observational cosmology as evidence for inflation.*

There are no living forms of inflation for me to "play with" in a lab! The similarity here is very limited because I have no way to actually 'experiment' with an existing form of inflation.

In fact the analogy is quite precise.

No. If inflation still existed in *SOME* form, then it might be a decent analogy. Since there are no living forms of inflation to experiment with, the similarity is *extremely* limited.

The experiments you can do with genetics and evolution now have no direct bearing on the origin of species.

Maybe not a 'direct' bearing, but the "process" could be easily verified. In fact even macro forms of evolution have been demonstrated in a lab. You're comparing apples to oranges because there are no existing forms of inflation to experiment with unlike living DNA. I can see DNA. I can change DNA. I can see the effects of those changes in the lab. I can't do that with inflation.

It is obviously impossible to ever do controlled experiments on that, because it happened in the past.

But evolution occurs here and now too, not only in the past.

So all we can do is experiments that help confirm our theories, and then apply those theories to the past.

Yes, but the fact we can *confirm out theories* is what makes the difference. I can't change inflation in any way because it doesn't exist anymore!

The same goes for inflation. It happened in the past, if it happened at all, so we can't do experiments on it per se. But we can still do experiments today that help confirm it - for example, we can look at the spectrum of cosmic background neutrinos and see if it's compatible with the predictions of inflation, or we can try to create inflaton particles at accelerators, or we can run computer simulations.

I can't verify the "properties' you assigned to inflation, so I can't actually "test' anything. It's all based on faith. I'm required to accept your assigned properties on faith alone and you intend to change those properties anytime you like.

*On second thought your position is less coherent than that. You maintain that things like dark flows disprove inflation, while simultaneously claiming inflation isn't testable. According to you, inflation is only science if it's ruled out by dark flows. It's just too incoherent to try to sort out.

It's pretty easy to figure out actually. Those "holes" and "flows' in the universe *should have* falsified inflation theory. Period.

Since they don't falsify the theory, and you intend to modify it as necessary, there is no way to falsify the theory. The homogeneous layout of matter was a key prediction of inflation and for years this industry has claimed that feature to be a "successful prediction" of inflation theory. It turn out that inflation theory failed this prediction and yet the theory still won't die a natural death. Inflation theory is therefore unfalsifiable.

[Michael Mozina]

No, Zig is correct. A model with a bounce like that is simply incompatible with general relativity. I can prove it mathematically, or point you to the proofs in the literature.

It sure works in collier experiments. I'll read any literature you'd like me to read, or listen to a logical mathematical disproof if you want to invest your time in it, but I can't promise you it's going to change my opinion.

I can tell you for sure that my preference for SOME type of 'EU theory" will not change one iota based on the outcome of that particular conversation even if I ultimately agree with you on that specific point. Given the choice between current theory and some other option, I'd take current theory, inflation theory and all, with "dark energy" replaced by EM fields (like in that paper I cited earlier) any day of the week.

[sol invictus]

This is like a religious person telling me to learn something about God from the bible.

Any model of inflation is a mathematical theory based on the principles and laws of physics that have been worked out and understood over the last three or four hundred years. It is governed by a set of equations containing a few parameters. Those equations can be used to make (parameter dependent, of course) predictions about large-scale cosmology, and those predictions can then be compared with data.

If you think that's analogous to religion, I have nothing further to say to you.

[sol invictus]

It sure works in collier experiments.

You have a collider that creates bouncing universes? Wow.

I'll read any literature you'd like me to read, or listen to a logical mathematical disproof if you want to invest your time in it, but I can't promise you it's going to change my opinion.

Your opinion about what general relativity predicts won't be changed by a mathematical demonstration and proof of what it predicts.

OK, Michael.

[Michael Mozina]

No, Michael. It does not work. You're stuck with a Newtonian concept of space and gravity, but it is incompatible with general relativity.

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.

Then you think general relativity is wrong. Fine, but at least be honest about it.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Yeah, um... no. That paper is crap.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

[Michael Mozina]

You have a collider that creates bouncing universes? Wow.

It's all relative.

Your opinion about what general relativity predicts won't be changed by a mathematical demonstration and proof of what it predicts.

OK, Michael.

That depends on what you try to stuff into GR theory sol. If you can demonstrate your point without evoking a variation of blunder theory, I'll listen to reason.

[sol invictus]

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

That paper was discussed here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4453645

Regardless, that discussion is not relevant. It doesn't matter what words you use to describe cosmological solutions to GR. The relevant point here is that no "bouncing" solutions of the type Alfven wanted are possible.


That depends on what you try to stuff into GR theory sol. If you can demonstrate your point without evoking a variation of blunder theory, I'll listen to reason.

I have no idea what that is. The proofs in question were done long ago, mainly by Hawking and Ellis:

http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Space-Time-Cambridge-Monographs-Mathematical/dp/0521099064

Chapter 9 (or maybe 10, I forget).

[Ziggurat]

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.

Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

I've already pointed out the error they made.

[ben m]

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

If you click on "cited by" in the arxiv, you will find that your paper has been cited by other authors specifically to explain the mistakes made by people who use "expanding space" as a vague mental model without doing the math.

[Singularitarian]

First off: That's not what I wrote.




Secondly:


Meaning - They're basically right but hardly rigorous science (but probably easy to google up!)


And the Stundie nom with some context:


The "spin 1/2 -> 720o rotation" concept is Intro to QM 101 and is one of the traditional ways to demonstrate to students how the classical models fail; I've even set up the "back of the envelope" homework (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5016309#post5016309) for you.

And in any case you've even managed to mangle the entire argument so badly that I can't even deconstruct and correct it without devoting an entire post to it.

So the failure so far is entirely yours.




And if you have any humility, good for you - start using it.

Oh, so you are a hypocrite as well then.

Where was your humility linking my page to nominate me for something not very respectful? Mmm?

[Singularitarian]

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.


Hmmm?

I know its too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. He assured me big bang did not predict a void of that magnitude.

[DeiRenDopa]

Here's a "Bang" proposal by Alfven that I find more personally interesting.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...s%20Alfven.pdfWhat is striking about this paper is how completely incompatible it is with general relativity, and yet there is no attempt to reconcile or justify this incompatibility. In fact, there is no mention of general relativity at all. Also missing is any mention of the CMB, which this alternative cannot explain. So why is it interesting, Michael, when it fails to account for observations and is incompatible with our best-tested theory of gravity?

There are some very interesting aspects of this Alfvén paper; for example:

* of the few citations it has, most are by Peratt, and none address the apparent omission of GR

* other than Peratt, no one seems to have developed these ideas to the point of producing testable hypotheses (for astronomers)

* Peratt's hypotheses - as presented in the subsequent papers - are all inconsistent with multiple sets of independent observations; in particular, Peratt's quantification of Alfvén's vague ideas on plasma filaments and electric currents in space all fail subsequent observational tests

* in 1976, Steigman wrote a paper (http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1976ARA%26A..14..339S) on the observational evidence against the kind of symmetric universe Alfvén (and Klein) proposed; this paper has been cited >100 times, ~half of which were before Alfvén's 1990 paper ... I find it curious indeed that Alfvén chose not to mention any of these papers (here (http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/1989ApJ...347..688H) is a particularly interesting one, just the year prior)

* while I have been unable to get copies of the two Klein papers Alfvén cites, it seems Klein was fully aware of GR and its application to the observable universe ... however, he seems to have a somewhat contrarian (shall we say) understanding of it.

[DeiRenDopa]

Excuse me, why don't you cite a source. Michael does not demonstrate your point, show where the BBE theory says that hole is too large.


Hmmm?I know its too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. He assured me big bang did not predict a void of that magnitude.
And this is a convincing argument because ...?

Let's see now ... I know its NOT too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. She assured me a void of that magnitude is easily accommodated within standard LCDM+inflation models.

I'm sure you'll be among the first to agree that this is somewhat less than convincing, and quite antithetical to critical thinking.

[DeiRenDopa]

Baloney. Demonstrate it. I get the feeling that sol might be able to do that, but I seriously doubt you ever could, particularly since you can't even see the distinction between GR theory as Einstein taught it, and current metaphysical brands of "blunder" theory.Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

There's nothing wrong with GR, but dark energy isn't GR. Get over it.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Hoy. On that note, I think I'll take a break. I've presented that paper to so many folks I've lost count now, and I've never heard anyone call it "crap" before today. You're amazing. Care to pick out the mathematical error, or is that all just huff and puff on your part?

I've already pointed out the error they made.(this post is as good as any to quote)

Quite a few pages of exchanges of comments between MM and other JREF Forum members, across several threads, are equally obviously not discussions. I have opined before, several times, that discussions with MM on topics like these are impossible, unless and until the deep, fundamental difference in concepts of science are addressed (and mutual agreement reached on a foundation on which to build to start having a meaningful discussion)*. I have tried to encourage MM to acknowledge this need, but so far to no avail.

* in a nutshell: the role of the 'quantitative revolution' in physics, at least from the time of Newton; a particularly clear example of MM having not accepted this is in the various comments on the Casimir effect and negative pressure ...

[Singularitarian]

And this is a convincing argument because ...?

Let's see now ... I know its NOT too big. I have consulted with a physicist who was working on it. She assured me a void of that magnitude is easily accommodated within standard LCDM+inflation models.

I'm sure you'll be among the first to agree that this is somewhat less than convincing, and quite antithetical to critical thinking.

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

[Michael Mozina]

I dare say MM's position would prevent him from "believing" in the top quark.

Not at all. They actually show up in a controlled experiment.

You can't hold one in your hand.

I can't hold an electron in my hand either. That has no bearing on any of my beliefs.

The only "control" we've ever exerted over a top quark is ... well, the Tevatron has been turned on and also turned off.

Birkeland's control mechanisms were simple too. A simple on/off switch is fine.

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments and we know where they come from. I don't see how that analogy is particularly helpful or useful to your case or applicable to inflation. Where can I see inflation in action here on Earth in a controlled experiment? Where does inflation come from?

[Monketey Ghost]

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Classic win!

[Michael Mozina]

Let me get this straight. YOU are demanding a mathematical proof from me... after all the whining you've done about not "barking math on command" when I've asked you to do even trivial calculations? The irony, and the hypocrisy, are not lost on me.

Your personal "math assignments" had nothing to do with any published papers, and I wasn't claiming anything was "crap". You weren't even actually interested in the answer as evidenced by your reaction when sol answered it for you.

You however called the paper 'crap'. The least you could do is show us the error in his work.

Dark energy has nothing to do with this.

Dark energy doesn't exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and I've already shown you evidence that it can be replaced with an ordinary EM field.

I've already pointed out the error they made.

No you didn't. You did a handwavy thing.

[Ziggurat]

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments

No they don't. We've never observed a quark. You have been informed of this before.

[Singularitarian]

Not really the answer that I was looking, because in a still homogeneous universe, where would there be concentrations of antimatter?

Isn't more likely that after Planck time that random interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) butterflied the current differences?


True that we could allow enough time. But if we did, there would be no space for the correct time for which inflationary phase became active. In fact, most universes that begin from a hot dense period should by theory undergo an inflation phase. Question now, is whether there was any hot dense past. I am starting to beleive that there could not have been, if these observations truely are going against everything we are to accept and believe about the initial conditions of the universe. Who knows? Space could be literally eternal in distance, and our splog of mass we can observe to a 14 billion mile distance is but a small smear of fluctuations in a much larger void of space, one where other supergalaxies have formed in the mass thousands of thousands, but far too long for their light to have reached us. Interestingly, with this speculative thought, recently cosmological evidence suggested there was a ''mysterious force'' pulling the observable universe towards it. I remember people jokingly saying, ''its the big bounce.''

Could it be another supergalaxy cluster falling towards us?

[sol invictus]

The key difference is that unlike inflation, quarks actually do show up in lab experiments and we know where they come from.

You missed ben's point. Top quarks "show up" in an incredibly indirect way. If the theory is correct they exist only for a miniscule fraction of a second, and have an effect so subtle it can only be uncovered by a very sophisticated statistical analysis of massive quantities of data. It's all strongly theory based - that data would be utterly useless and totally incomprehensible without a well-developed mathematical theory with only a few free parameters.

The effects of inflation are MUCH easier to see (just look up at night). The biggest difference is that the data is both less plentiful and less precise, and the theory is much more uncertain.


Dark energy doesn't exist. It's a figment of your collective imagination and I've already shown you evidence that it can be replaced with an ordinary EM field.

You know, Michael, you and I discussed that paper (on EM fields as DE) a few months back. I told you it was wrong, you asked for specifics, I gave them (I pointed out a specific equation which is wrong and explained how and why), and you stopped talking about it. Now, you bring it up again as if that never happened.

That's a perfect example of why it's not worth discussing things with you. You're either deliberately hiding that, or (more likely in my opinion) you've actually forgotten about it because you're incapable of ever changing your mind or learning anything that disagrees with your entrenched views.

[Ziggurat]

Your personal "math assignments" had nothing to do with any published papers,

And everything to do with the ideas you are advocating. Which means that I cannot look up any references which contain the math that I asked for from you, but you can for the math you asked for from me. This isn't a point in your favor, Michael.

You however called the paper 'crap'. The least you could do is show us the error in his work.

I already did. The basic "problem" that the paper tries to address isn't a problem at all, and the system that they use to try to address it is irrelevant to the real universe.

Dark energy doesn't exist.

Sure it does. Casimir effect. Just like neutrinos prove that dark matter exists. Whether or not there is as much as is usually believed by cosmologists is a separate question, but the existence of both is an experimentally verified fact.

And again, this is still irrelevant to the problems with Alfven's model, problems that you have yet to come to terms with.

[Monketey Ghost]

If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest what you are full of, Sing, and it sure ain't knowledge or wisdom. "Trust me, I assure you" is no kind of answer, especially on this forum. What are you thinking? Even to people who are casually following this, with casual understanding of the subjects, you seem flailing, lost in the desert.

[DeiRenDopa]

I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.
And I, in turn, was kinda hoping my word would be taken for truth; I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Next?

[Singularitarian]

If it weren't against the rules, I'd suggest what you are full of, Sing, and it sure ain't knowledge or wisdom. "Trust me, I assure you" is no kind of answer, especially on this forum. What are you thinking? Even to people who are casually following this, with casual understanding of the subjects, you seem flailing, lost in the desert.


I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

But, this post was to pose questions. It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me. As i once said, the very reason i love physics is the same magneminity of why i am here. This thread is obviously not to be contrusted as an intentional way to confuse things.

I am questioning the structure of particles. I could very well be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me, because i did say this was a conceptual thing from my behalf. But i have real problems with the language of physics sometimes, when it speaks for a mass of a particle, but one which has no structure... to me, it sounds ridiculous.

[Ziggurat]

I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

The phrase is "under the weather".

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm certainly down in the weather mind you. Suffering from a bad fever.

But, this post was to pose questions. It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me. As i once said, the very reason i love physics is the same magneminity of why i am here. This thread is obviously not to be contrusted as an intentional way to confuse things.

I am questioning the structure of particles. I could very well be wrong. It wouldn't surprise me, because i did say this was a conceptual thing from my behalf. But i have real problems with the language of physics sometimes, when it speaks for a mass of a particle, but one which has no structure... to me, it sounds ridiculous.(bold added)

Then you sure have a strange way of doing that!

Here is the conclusion of the OP (written by you; I added some bold): "If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe."

As is pretty much standard in a forum like this, bald assertions attract curiosity (and set off various kinds of alarms) ... and that's fine, 'cause you may have had a very strong case to present, to back up your bald assertions. Oddly, so it turns out, you could not back those bald assertions up, which raises the question of why you chose to write them in the first place (would you care to answer)?

[elbe]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims, dogma, faith, etc.; but they don't have science on their side so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science, but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

[Michael Mozina]

You missed ben's point. Top quarks "show up" in an incredibly indirect way.

That's true of many things from many types of experiments. The key difference is that they *DO* show up in a repeatable fashion, and we know where they come from. Where does inflation come from and which experiment, complete with "control mechanism" (on/off switch is fine) demonstrates that inflation is real?

The effects of inflation are MUCH easier to see (just look up at night).

You never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between inflation and any event in the sky. All I see in the sky are stars and galaxies and things that are composed of normal baryonic matter and standard leptons. I don't see "dark matter". I don't see "dark energy" and I don't see "inflation".

The biggest difference is that the data is both less plentiful and less precise, and the theory is much more uncertain.

It's a lot worse than that sol. Whereas you can tell me where quarks come from and demonstrate your point in a lab, you can't tell me where DE or inflation even come from, let alone demonstrate any sort of cause/effect relationships in controlled experiments.

You know, Michael, you and I discussed that paper (on EM fields as DE) a few months back. I told you it was wrong, you asked for specifics, I gave them (I pointed out a specific equation which is wrong and explained how and why), and you stopped talking about it.

If I stopped talking about it, it's probably because it's not all that important to me in the first place sol. It requires inflation and therefore it's not all the interesting to me. It was simply a device I used to make a point with Zig. I wasn't trying to claim it to be "the truth" (TM).

Now, you bring it up again as if that never happened.

Did I say it never happened or are you just assuming this in some way?

That's a perfect example of why it's not worth discussing things with you. You're either deliberately hiding that,

I'm not hiding anything sol.

or (more likely in my opinion) you've actually forgotten about it because you're incapable of ever changing your mind or learning anything that disagrees with your entrenched views.

I've talked to a lot of people about a lot of topics in past few years sol. I'm sure I've forgotten the specifics of a lot of conversations. If I was incapable of changing my mind, I would still agree with you on BB theory and solar theory. My views on both of these topics have changed a great deal in the last 10 years or so in the case of BB theory (once DE was stuffed in there I lost all interest in mainstream theory) and my views on solar theory have changed quite radically in the past 5 years or so. I'm certainly capable of changing my opinions on various topics but you will have to give me a legitimate reason to do so.

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

Because they want to crush the brave, lone genius that dares challenge their evil dominance.

Because they want to protect those inflated performance bonuses they get each year.

Because it's really really easy to become a scientist, so it attracts lots of intellectually lazy and unmotivated losers.

Hmmm....

Speaking seriously for a moment, not only would disproving an accepted theory allow them to further the noble cause of "expand[ing] human knowledge", it would also advance their status and career considerably. The deck is really strongly stacked against wrong theories...

[sol invictus]

If I stopped talking about it, it's probably because it's not all that important to me in the first place sol. It requires inflation and therefore it's not all the interesting to me. It was simply a device I used to make a point with Zig. I wasn't trying to claim it to be "the truth" (TM).

Michael, it's WRONG. It's wrong from beginning to end. It doesn't work. It's not true. You can't use it to make a point with Zig, because it shows the opposite of what you claimed.

Now, will you answer one question? Did you or did you not remember that we discussed this before, and I showed you how and why it's wrong?

[Ziggurat]

That's true of many things from many types of experiments. The key difference is that they *DO* show up in a repeatable fashion, and we know where they come from.

Quarks don't show up in any experiments, Michael. Results which are interpreted as evidence for quarks by our models appear, but not quarks. Never quarks.

Where does inflation come from and which experiment, complete with "control mechanism" (on/off switch is fine) demonstrates that inflation is real?

And we return, once again, to your conception of science, which is at odds not only with practitioners of science, but with its history as well. Where's the control mechanism for tests of general relativity? Einstein never had one.

I don't see "dark matter". I don't see "dark energy"

Well, duh. There's a reason it's call "dark". And while you can't see either, both have been observed directly in experiments. I already told you how.

[Singularitarian]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory? If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions, then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims, dogma, faith, etc.; but they don't have science on their side so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science, but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

Because sometimes, to make a step forward, we sometimes need to take a step backwards.

[Singularitarian]

(bold added)

Then you sure have a strange way of doing that!

Here is the conclusion of the OP (written by you; I added some bold): "If the hole is real, then big bang certainly is wrong. No big bang model predicts massive holes to that magnitude, so their existence posits a new birth to the universe."

As is pretty much standard in a forum like this, bald assertions attract curiosity (and set off various kinds of alarms) ... and that's fine, 'cause you may have had a very strong case to present, to back up your bald assertions. Oddly, so it turns out, you could not back those bald assertions up, which raises the question of why you chose to write them in the first place (would you care to answer)?

Sorry. Wrong post in wrong topic lol

[Singularitarian]

(I meant to post that in the dimensions of particles thread.)

[DeiRenDopa]

Sorry. Wrong post in wrong topic lol

May I ask, then, just what post (and topic) your post (the one I quoted) refers to?

[Singularitarian]

Look above :)

[elbe]

Because sometimes, to make a step forward, we sometimes need to take a step backwards.

That's a nice non-answer.

So you are, somehow, more open to the idea that the current models are significantly flawed than the vast majority of scientists? Is that just ego speaking?

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not sure I understand, what is there to gain by scientists being dogmatically loyal to a "failed" theory?

I don't understand it either elbe, but those dark flows and holes simply don't jive with inflation theory.

If a different theory were more accurate and allowed for better predictions,

As far as I know, there have been no successful predictions of inflation that were correct from the very start. All the 'predictions' of inflation theory have actually been 'postdictions' based on manipulating the math to make it fit a specific observation.

then why wouldn't they be anxious to put themselves in a position to expand human knowledge?

Some people are anxious to do exactly that. There are other EU advocates here on this website in fact. Some of the EU antagonists here are in fact asking honest and fair questions with every desire to do exactly that. Unfortunately that isn't true of everyone, but it's probably true of most folks. Major changes in astronomy typically take time. Even GR theory wasn't accepted in a day or a week or a month.

A lot of this sounds like standard creationist claims,

EU theory isn't even a creationist theory, nor is it related to religion in any way.

dogma, faith, etc.;

Well, put it this way. If I doubt the existence of gravity, I can verify it's effect on me in any number of ways. I need not have 'faith' in the existence of gravity, I experience it on a daily basis. Electricity is also something I do not need to have "faith' in. I can see it has a tangible effect on nature. Inflation doesn't even exist in nature anymore according to mainstream theory, so there is no way to verify it has any 'cause/effect' relationships to anything in nature. I must in fact 'take it on faith" that there *WAS* such a cause/effect relationship between inflation and physical things in the universe in the very distant past. It's not like gravity theory or electrical theory in that respect.

but they don't have science on their side

That may be true, but in this specific case, science (and IMO time) is on my side. Electricity shows up in a lab and it has a real effect on things inside this solar system.

so all they can do is claim anti-religious bias on the side of science,

I'm not making any such claim. I don't know any EU theorist that does make that claim. In fact I'd venture to guess that few if any EU theorists are overtly religious or believe that religion has anything to do with it.

but if these alt hypotheses have the science than why wouldn't they be accepted?

Well, suppose I spent my entire career working on inflation theory. How easily could I just "give it up" and let it go? Could I do it in a day or a week or a month? What would the ramifications be to my career?

Human beings don't easily give up their old beliefs even when there is good reason to do so. Not everything is "black or white" for that matter. Sure, electrical currents could play a role in solar system activity, but does that actually "disprove' inflation? Dark energy?

It was relatively easy for me to let go of my beliefs related to astronomy. I'm not employed in the industry and my livelihood doesn't have anything to do with astronomy. I haven't based my career on dark energy or inflation theory or dark matter theories. I don't have a boss looking over my shoulder who may or may not agree with me. My career and financial well being is not dependent upon me 'being right' in the past, or even being right in the future for that matter. I'm in a very unique position to simply "let go" of my old opinions about astronomy and move toward anything that happens to appeal to me. I doubt that most people's lives are quite that simple or that everyone has that luxury.

I've discovered that with most people, change takes time. I didn't even change my own opinions on these topics overnight, so why would I expect others to do that?

[Singularitarian]

That's a nice non-answer.

So you are, somehow, more open to the idea that the current models are significantly flawed than the vast majority of scientists? Is that just ego speaking?

I think we need to keep an open mind, especially with something as controversial as the BB theory.

[Ziggurat]

Well, suppose I spent my entire career working on inflation theory. How easily could I just "give it up" and let it go? Could I do it in a day or a week or a month? What would the ramifications be to my career?

It's emotionally hard to do, but career-wise, it's actually easy. In fact, if you DON'T give up on a dead-end theory, you're going to lose out to the folks who do. And there are always newcomers to the field who have not spent their entire careers on that dead-end theory, but are in fact just starting out and trying to make a name for themselves. And there's no better way to make a name for yourself than to put your name on a new and better theory.

[sol invictus]

I don't understand it either elbe, but those dark flows and holes simply don't jive with inflation theory.

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.


As far as I know, there have been no successful predictions of inflation that were correct from the very start. All the 'predictions' of inflation theory have actually been 'postdictions' based on manipulating the math to make it fit a specific observation.

That's because you know nothing about it, as you've just admitted several times. Somehow that doesn't stop you from making confident pronouncements on it.

Here's a decent popular article that refutes your assertion:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3311206.html

Most cosmologists have embraced inflation since it was proposed in 1980, because the model beautifully explains profound mysteries about our universe, such as why it has so few magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only a north or south pole) and why different regions of the universe look pretty much the same despite the fact they have been out of physical contact. But most of the evidence for inflation could be described as successful "postdictions" rather than "predictions." In other words, inflation has been a convenient theory because it explained things that were already known. The essence of a really good scientific theory, however, is one that makes predictions that later turn out to be true.

WMAP has changed the game by confirming some of inflation's boldest predictions about the afterglow of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

[Monketey Ghost]

It's turned into one where people like to highlight their dislike for me.

If you say so, O persecuted one.

I think your statement would be more true if you mentioned that you're frequently wrong about what you insist is correct, and that's the reason for the dislike.

I assure you.

Trust me.

[Singularitarian]

I trust very few people. One of them is someone, the other is not you.

[Monketey Ghost]

If Wikipedia is "someone". :rolleyes:

[Singularitarian]

I don't even trust that.

[Molinaro]

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.

Dogma, faith, religious belief..

Funny how aptly they describe themself when using those words to insult accepted science.

[elbe]

I think we need to keep an open mind, especially with something as controversial as the BB theory.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean ignoring the math, and it appears that the existing model has the math on its side.

[Singularitarian]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.

[elbe]

EU theory isn't even a creationist theory, nor is it related to religion in any way.

I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.

[elbe]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.

Does the existing big bang model just not predict it, or does it specifically predict it wouldn't occur? That seems, to me, to be an important distinction.

[Singularitarian]

It predicts the voids occur, but nothing on the scale of what was observed was ever expected to even exist! That means the big bang does not predict the correct time-scale it allowed for the early matter pre-inflationary phase to clump together and mingle accordingly.

[sol invictus]

Does the existing big bang model just not predict it, or does it specifically predict it wouldn't occur? That seems, to me, to be an important distinction.

1) The void in question probably does not exist. (http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751)

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.

[Singularitarian]

1) The void in question probably does not exist. (http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751)

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.


Though to my current knowledge, their are fine-tining arguements for the point in which inflation could occur to present the current observable universe. However, these voids can only be created pre-inflationary phase, so you cannot really account for any more time scales than what is currently allowed, and thus voids of that magnitude where not ever to be expected to exist.

[Michael Mozina]

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean ignoring the math, and it appears that the existing model has the math on its side.

It may have "math" on it's side, but certainly not "physics", and the math is demonstrably wrong. In physical reality, inflation has no effect on anything so forget ever having physics on it's side. There is no way to verify or falsify the math either, other than to look at what it "predicts" and doesn't predict. What it doesn't "predict" are holes of that size, or "dark flows" of any sort and therefore it fails the physics test and the math test.

Now of course nothing prevents these folks from redoing their math to make it match observation again, but then how in the world can we ever falsify something like that? There is no way to falsify inflation as these holes and flows demonstrate. They'll just keep tweaking the math in an ad hoc manner since they don't have to physically demonstrate any cause/effect relationships. There is nothing useful about the math that can actually "tested" in any empirical way, and what math there is right now doesn't jive with the physics. At the moment the math is actually *NOT* on there side as those papers from the opening post demonstrate.

[Michael Mozina]

I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.

I respectfully disagree. EU/PC theory is in fact a "useful" and "sound" replacement cosmology theory. It makes a whole host of useful predictions that are born out by observation like that high speed solar wind, and those discharge events in the solar atmosphere. It doesn't make predictions about the beginning of time, or any sort of creation event if that is what you require, but why should it?

[Michael Mozina]

1) The void in question probably does not exist. (http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2751)

2) Within the concordance cosmological model, the probability of finding a void that size within our Hubble volume has not (to my knowledge) been carefully evaluated. The statistics involved are probably significantly non-Gaussian, which means the analysis is not simple. One cannot simply extrapolate from the statistics of smaller voids.

3) If the void exists and is very improbable in concordance cosmology, that poses a challenge to the specific values of the parameters in the model (which were fixed with other observations). It does not challenge the big bang more generally. All big bang models make large voids at late times, with a size and distribution that depends on various parameters and the time.

How about those "dark flows" sol? Where was that ever "predicted" by inflation?

[Ziggurat]

It may have "math" on it's side, but certainly not "physics", and the math is demonstrably wrong.

And yet, you can't demonstrate how it's wrong.

There is no way to verify or falsify the math either, other than to look at what it "predicts" and doesn't predict.

Well, no. The math can be verified or falsified by examining the math. The theory is what must be examined via the predictions it makes. But does it even register that you've just contradicted your earlier claim that the math is demonstrably wrong?

[Michael Mozina]

You keep repeating that, no matter how many times it's explained to you that it's not true.

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.

Here's a decent popular article that refutes your assertion:...

"Most cosmologists have embraced inflation since it was proposed in 1980, because the model beautifully explains profound mysteries about our universe, such as why it has so few magnetic monopoles (hypothetical particles with only a north or south pole)..."

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

[Monketey Ghost]

Dogma, faith, religious belief..

Funny how aptly they describe themself when using those words to insult accepted science.

...so dumb it's not even wrong.

[DeiRenDopa]

That's arguable. Many parts of the math is simply needed anyway. But you will find most of it is not consequential on nucleosynthesis according to big bang, for you can have a steady-state model where many of the idea's of big bang are ot needed. It just so happens that we currently believe the universe is expanding, if not acelerating. So whether or not the math works for big bang, if an error such as large voids which are not predicted by the model, then the model has a major problem. If it cannot explain what is currently observable, then the theory has been very decieving.(bold added)

Have you been reading the posts, by others, in this thread?

If so, why do you statements like this, which are so blatantly false?

If not, what is your purpose in posting here?

Of course, it's entirely possible that you *have* been reading what others have posted, but misunderstood something (badly); if so, why not ask for clarification (rather than make bald assertions)?

Let's also remind ourselves of this little exchange, shall we?

--------------------------------------------------------

S: I was kind of hoping my word will be taken for truth. I wouldn't lie about something like this.

DRD: And I, in turn, was kinda hoping my word would be taken for truth; I wouldn't lie about something like this.

Next?

--------------------------------------------------------

Straight question for you Sing: how many of the >50 documents which cite the 2007 ApJ paper by Rudnick et al. ("Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot") have you read?

[Ziggurat]

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did!

They would violate one of Maxwell's equations if they did. But that equation can be trivially reformulated to include monopoles. It is only written the way it is now because we have not yet observed any monopoles, but that cannot and does not constitute a proof that they do not exist. If they do exist, then that equation as it is written now is simply wrong, and would get modified accordingly. Why is that something you consider impossible? There are really very few laws of physics that are so fundamental that most physicists think they cannot be broken, and (aside from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which YOU seem to have problems with) they are all conservation laws. There's no conservation law prohibiting magnetic monopoles.

But it's quite ironic for someone so obsessed with the distinction between physics and math to rely so blindly on math without even understanding it.

[sol invictus]

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.


Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.


Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!
si: Here's an article describing some CMB predictions inflation made long before they were spectacularly confirmed.
MM: Monopoles!

This is really boring.

[Michael Mozina]

And yet, you can't demonstrate how it's wrong.

Baloney.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0405/0405341v2.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/276176main_ApJLetters_20Oct2008.pdf

Show me one inflation theory that ever actually "predicted" dark flows.

Well, no. The math can be verified or falsified by examining the math. The theory is what must be examined via the predictions it makes.

Fine. Either way your theory fails.

But does it even register that you've just contradicted your earlier claim that the math is demonstrably wrong?

Let's put it this way. Your math doesn't reflect what we actually observe in nature. Those dark flows don't jive with your math.

[DeiRenDopa]

EU theory isn't even a creationist theory, nor is it related to religion in any way.I think you missed my point. Several of the arguments I've seen in this (and at least one other) thread against the existing model sound like claims made by the ID proponents, and that's not a good sign. Their "scientific" claims aren't religious, but just anti-evolution (because of religion, but they don't always like to say that). It almost seems like being anti-big bang is more important than providing a useful, and sound, replacement.
This is a point Tom Bridgman has made (http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/08/electric-universe-creationism.html); MM's responses to this can be found in this JREF Forum thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138610) (starting on page 4, post#151).

And earlier in this very thread the only alternatives (i.e. potential replacements) introduced were "EU theory" (no references to any papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, given), and "PC theory" (ditto, except for a reference to Alfvén-Klein cosmology)^. A strong undercurrent - which has not, AFAIK, actually been stated explicitly is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy ("EU theory MUST be right, because BBT is WRONG!", to state it baldly); IOW, there is no need to present a useful, sound replacement (much less discuss and defend it), all that is necessary is to show that the BBT MUST BE WRONG!!!!!!!

^ a very important caveat: many exchanges of comments in this thread are almost entirely the JREF Forum members talking past each other; for example, there is a rather dramatic difference between MM's concept of 'cosmology' and that of everyone else actively participating (e.g. to MM, the physics of the Sun is 'cosmology', to everyone else it is not). The Alfvén-Klein theory was discussed, and shown to be scientifically illegitimate (it does not include GR) and inconsistent with observations.

[DeiRenDopa]

Show me one inflation theory that actually "predicted" (no postdictions please) "dark flows" of that magnitude sol.Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.

Oh please! Monopoles do not exist in nature and never have. They would violate the laws of physics if they did! I don't need an explanation as to what something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. This is like claiming that the reason there are no unicorns on Earth today is because the invisible elves killed them off. What a stupid peace of irrational logic.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!
si: Here's an article describing some CMB predictions inflation made long before they were spectacularly confirmed.
MM: Monopoles!

This is really boring.(bold added)

And straight from the creationists' playbook (source as in my last post):

When confronted with problems in their own models or other implications that they have no rote answer memorized, they like to change topics, claiming the NEW topic is the really important issue. Alternatively, they will try to produce a huge 'laundry list' of topics or problems to which no one could respond without an extensive amount of time & effort. For an example of this, take a look at the comments in posts of March 2009. In creationists circles, this type of overloading is commonly known as the Gish Gallop.

EU advocates & creationists like to complain about being ignored by the scientific community. Then they complain when we pay attention and poke holes in their claims, crying they are being attacked! (Reference: just read some of the comments in the March 2009 posts.) I wish they could make up their minds! But I suspect their real concern is the possible negative impact widely distributed refutations of their claims might have on their book sales or speaking honoraria.

[Michael Mozina]

Goalpost shift. From "dark flows falsify inflation" to "inflation didn't predict that particular observation". It didn't predict what I had for breakfast, either.

That's so weak a response it's actually beneath you sol. Those dark flows are *NOT* supposed to be there sol. It's supposed to be a homogeneous layout at the largest scales, but there is direct evidence it's not.

MM: Inflation makes no predictions!!!

It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous. You're intending to "postdict' a new fit now that we know it's *NOT* homogeneous.

MM: Monopoles!

What monopoles? You made them up! They don't exist in nature and I don't need an "explanation' for why something *DOES NOT* exist in nature. Gee, my invisible elf theory accurately predicts why invisible unicorns *DO NOT* exist in nature, therefore my invisible elf theory must be true. Sheesh, what a bizarre way to "support" your faith.

[Raze]

It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous. You're intending to "postdict' a new fit now that we know it's *NOT* homogeneous.


[...]
This is great news for inflation," says University of Chicago cosmologist Sean Carroll, who is not a member of the WMAP team. "You're looking for a number that is close to one, but it still not equal to one in a statistically significant way."[...]


"This is big news, indeed. Most alternatives to inflation do not predict a scalar spectral index less than one,"

This is not a prediction confirmed by observation?

[Michael Mozina]

This is not a prediction confirmed by observation?

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

[sol invictus]

That's so weak a response it's actually beneath you sol. Those dark flows are *NOT* supposed to be there sol.

Wrong. Although as we discussed some time ago (do you remember?), they probably aren't there at any level beyond what one expects from standard cosmology with inflation. The analysis in those papers was badly flawed.


It's supposed to be a homogeneous layout at the largest scales, but there is direct evidence it's not.

100% wrong. Inflation made the universe approximately homogeneous up to some scale, but not beyond. It did not (and could not) have made it homogeneous on the largest scales. It's true that IF inflation lasted a long time - longer than necessary to solve the problems it solves - dark flows shouldn't be there. But if it lasted around enough time to solve the problems it solves, and not longer, one expects such features.

I already explained this, Michael. How many times will we go around in circles?


It doesn't. Someone "postdicted' a fit based on their "belief' it was homogeneous.

So that article was a lie, and all the scientists quoted in it were lying. Quite a conspiracy!

[sol invictus]

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

It most certainly was not.

Doesn't it bother you, just a little, to discuss subjects you're completely ignorant about with such incredible arrogance?

[Raze]

Are you claiming this bit of information was *NOT ALREADY KNOWN* at the time inflation was being "postdicted" to make it fit observation?

According to the article it was not. You did read the article, didn't you?

[sol invictus]

As for these dark flows:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3111
We predict the acceleration of the Local Group generated by the 2MASS Redshift Survey within the framework of LambdaCDM and the halo model of galaxies. We show that as the galaxy fluctuations derived from the halo model have more power on small scales compared with the mass fluctuations, the misalignment angle between the CMB velocity vector and the 2MRS dipole is in reasonable agreement with the observed 21 degrees. This statistical analysis suggests that it is not necessary to invoke a hypothetical nearby galaxy or a distant cluster to explain this misalignment.

and
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14946.x

See the first paragraph of the intro.

[Michael Mozina]

According to the article it was not. You did read the article, didn't you?

The article also notes that inflation was invented in the early 80's and "dark energy' was added in there in 1998. You don't see a problem there with "prediction"? Suddenly in 1998 the whole known physical universe was relegated to mere "bit player" that makes up less than 5% of the physical universe and 75% of the universe is suddenly made of something nobody had ever heard of before? Come now.