Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[ben m]

Hold all of your horses, everyone! Does MM still think that the Casimir force asymptotes out at one atmosphere (10^5 N/m^2)? If so, who cares whether he thinks this arises from a negative pressure or a positive pressure? Who cares whether he thinks it does or does not represent a vacuum energy density? If you're arguing with a Kennedy assassination theorist who thinks that Kennedy died in Ford's Theater while watching "Our American Cousin", you don't start by explaining the detailed bolt mechanics of the Carcano rifle.

Let's start over, MM.

• You want to model the Casimir force as an external "gas". OK, that's a hypothesis we can work with. Pick an equation of state and we'll go with it.
• Calculate the energy density of your gas: pick a small box of it and calculate the integral of P*dV like you would for any gas. You get some number in energy/volume units. Good so far.
• Now that you have an *energy density*, you have an alternative way of calculating the pressure: use that energy density to define a Hamiltonian, and now the pressure has to be the generalized force which corresponds to "volume" as the generalized coordinate. Try this out on your box of ideal gas and you'll see that it works. This is a very good definition of pressure.
• There's one thing about your hypothetical gas which makes it inappropriate for the real-world Casimir force: its pressure decreases as the gas expands. If you filled the Universe with your hypothetical gas, then let this gas "drive" your hypothetical Casimir-like force, you'll find that the Casimir force was twice as strong 1 Gy ago (since the Hubble flow indicates that that gas was packed into a smaller volume)---and this hypothetical Casimir force will get weaker in the future as the Hubble flow makes your gas expand further. So the "naive" gas hypothesis is wrong, but maybe we've learned something that will let us generate a new hypothesis.
• Your new hypothesis is an ideal gas with P = constant or perhaps n/V = constant---it basically tries to keep the Casimir force equation independent of the Hubble Constant. Do whatever you need to to make this new equation-of-state work. But you will write down an equation-of-state for this new hypothesis.
• Take this new, Casimir-like equation of state and plug it through the Hamiltonian definition of pressure. What do you get? Negative pressure. Uh oh.
• The easiest way out is to argue that this must be the *wrong* definition of pressure and it's just a mathematical trick. But you will look into a GR textbook and find that, no, the Hamiltonian generalized-pressure is the *only* way that pressures ever find their way into GR.
• The next way out is to argue that maybe the Casimir force isn't constant in time. But then you're talking about something with no relation to the QED *vacuum* calculations which yield that force. You can certainly hypothesize about some new particle-force which isn't constant in expanding space, but not here.

Anyway. That's negative pressure for you. Discuss.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not even an asymptote mate.

Er, ok. It's a "lower limit" at it's minimum.

The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've defined "pressure in a vacuum", twice for you now.

Oh, but that wasn't even my question. I asked how to define pressure, not how to define it in a vacuum. I want a universal definition that I can apply anywhere, any time. That's why we use the same word under different conditions: it means the same thing.

And what, exactly, were those "definitions" you gave? Well, one was just a parroting of my definition with a substitution you didn't even understand, because you can't tell the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. And the other one was just the ideal gas law. But this is simply ridiculous: the ideal gas law describes pressure (and only approximately), it does not and cannot define pressure. I thought I was just being flippantly cynical when I told Sol that you didn't know the definition of "definition", but apparently not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's start over, MM.

Won't work. You're doing math, and MM is allergic to that stuff. Might even be a violating of the Americans with Disabilities Act to make him look at it. Besides, math is meaningless. You could use math to prove anything that's even remotely true!

 

[temporalillusion]

temporalillusion - broadly speaking the source of gravity in GR is not purely mass. <snip>

Thank you! I had a sense of what you mean (in that gravity includes all forms of energy), but interesting about stresses and momentum etc.. makes sense though.

EDIT: Well in abstract it makes sense, the math, well I'm 16 years removed from my electronics degree, and while I did get into some pretty good math I'm not in an industry where I exercise my math, so it's depressingly weak now. I would really like to take some courses in University or online at some point on this stuff.

 

[GeeMack]

The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.

You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand? Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else? Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out? How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out?

I blame the Rosicrutians.

 

[Tubbythin]

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

He seems to be under the utterly deluded impression that external literature actually agrees with him. Eg Wikipedia and his reference to Boyer. Both of which entirely contradict what he has been trying to claim. Oh yeah, he thought Einstein agreed with him too.

 

[Dancing David]

I blame the Rosicrutians.

Hmph, leave us Illuminati out of this, he is sort of the circus to distract the masses... quiet they are listening...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong? Guth himself? Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand? Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else? Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out? How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?

FWIW ...

... as I said in an earlier post, MM seems to have been very active in internet discussion fora this last year or so; a user with the name "Michael Mozina" can be found in many such fora.

While the quick skim I did of some of these is far from a valid sample, it would seem that in at least several other fora MM ends up in much the same sort of situation as you outline, GeeMack (maybe Derek can weigh in on this too?).

 

[derekmcd]

Er, ok. It's a "lower limit" at it's minimum.

The key point is that a vacuum can *only* contain positive kinetic energy and "positive" pressure. Guth's theory is DOA because it requires something that is physically impossible, specifically "negative pressure" in a "vacuum". The *lowest possible pressure state* of a vacuum is "zero" pressure, and it can never, ever, ever, ever, contain or ever reach "negative pressure". There is a constant flow of kinetic energy through the vacuum.

I think we all agree that empty space has energy. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle demands it. I, personally, wouldn't refer to it as having kinetic energy. But that's just me.

I asked previously, but you must have missed it. I'll ask again.

Could you describe for me how recent experiments measure the equivalent of one atmospheric pressure in an evacuated chamber?

You claim it to be kinetic energy.

What physical particles are pushing the plates together? What particles, in this evacuated chamber, are transferring momentum to the plates?

Please be as descriptive as you are capable of. Simply stating "the all pervasive EM field" is not good enough.

Keep in mind... I am fully aware that man-made vacuums created in a laboratory can not be 100% evacuated of all real, physical particles (at least not yet).

What I want to know is what physical manifestation you believe is occurring.

 

[derekmcd]

FWIW ...

... as I said in an earlier post, MM seems to have been very active in internet discussion fora this last year or so; a user with the name "Michael Mozina" can be found in many such fora.

While the quick skim I did of some of these is far from a valid sample, it would seem that in at least several other fora MM ends up in much the same sort of situation as you outline, GeeMack (maybe Derek can weigh in on this too?).

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Just replace "creationists" and "evolution" with "EU proponent" and "cosmology".

Sadly, the space dot com forum has been going through some rough times over the last year. I might be able to dig up the threads, but it would really be a waste of my time. It's just a repeat of every other forum he has participated in. There's definitely a common theme amongst most threads he participates in. One of which is that he doesn't understand math.

Although, there is one exception. A member there actually bought Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" and wrote a brief synopsis on it in. The conclusion was that MM doesn't even understand that which he promotes.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Just replace "creationists" and "evolution" with "EU proponent" and "cosmology".

Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago and you *still* can't figure them out. You guys wouldn't know "empirical physics" if shocked you for breakfast and hit you in the head for lunch.

Sadly, the space dot com forum has been going through some rough times over the last year.

Of course I've been posting on that forum for over three years.

I might be able to dig up the threads, but it would really be a waste of my time. It's just a repeat of every other forum he has participated in. There's definitely a common theme amongst most threads he participates in. One of which is that he doesn't understand math.

No, it only demonstrates that I don't "bark math on command" for anyone on any .com forum anymore. I believe I did that one time I for Nereid, and it was a complete waste of my afternoon. I created a cool spreadsheet and everything and all I got was a handwave and it changed absolutely nothing. What's the point of doing "math" when the problem you're having is at the conceptual level of kinetic energy and physics? There's no possibility of "negative pressure in a vacuum", just "kinetic energy flowing through the vacuum".

Although, there is one exception. A member there actually bought Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" and wrote a brief synopsis on it in. The conclusion was that MM doesn't even understand that which he promotes.

Er, all that conversation actually demonstrated is that the individual who I finally *shamed* into buying that book could not distinguish between: A) A cosmology theory B) A solar theory C) The opinions of an individual on both topics. FYI the individual in question was the one who'd only been at that forum for less than a year. What does that tell you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You keep saying this, or something very much like it, again and again, Michael. And you're saying it to a handful of people who quite clearly know way more about physics than you do, and who are obviously more capable of explaining themselves. Yet you persist in trying to preach your "truth" no matter how thoroughly they continue to mop the floor with you.

They apparently "mop the floor" with "inflation" and "dark evil energy" and "dark voodoo matter" and "negative pressure" in a pressurized chamber. That's not physics, that's pure religion and irrational belief. What faith they have in things they *cannot empirically demonstrate*.

So it does make me curious. Just who would have to tell you that you're wrong about physics in general and your EU cosmology notion in particular for you to understand that you are indeed, simply and completely wrong?

You could point me to a product that used "inflation" to do something useful, or "dark energy" or even throw me a bone and show me some evidence of SUSY particles, anything! I'd settle for any *PHYSICAL* thing you've got. Like a creationist, you can't demonstrate *anything* "physically". It's all pure faith in mathematical mythos. "In the beginning inflation created the heavens and the earth......and died. Look, here's the math!" What a *stupid* religion.

Guth himself?'

I don't think he'd survive the "inflation killed the monopoles" claim frankly.

Hawking? Would some particular professor at MIT, Columbia, Stanford, or Princeton hold any sway? Got any names of someone who would?

And if I handed you a list of theologians who might sway your belief about religion, who would you pick? All I'm looking for is a wee bit of "physics".

And if you're so convinced that the modern consensus view of cosmology is so wrong, and you're so right, why is it that you've proven totally inept at explaining your position in such a way that other people in the field might understand?

Er, why was Birkeland so damn inept at convincing the mainstream about cosmology in his day? Galileo? Alfven? Bruce? Since when was science judged by what, a month's worth of open debate?

Are you maybe just inept at physics, inept at communicating your position, or is it maybe something else?

Why don't creationists give up their gig when you point out they can't empirically demonstrate their claims in controlled experiments? I don't know why people put *faith* in things they cannot demonstrate, or why they cling to those beliefs even when they can't demonstrate them and I show them that they can't demonstrate them. People do weird things like cling to Chapman's theories for 50+ years rather than listen to Birkeland. I don't worry about why people cling to their irrational beliefs and I'm not attached to the fruits of my empirical efforts.

Maybe you sincerely believe there's some kind of conspiracy among virtually all the world's physicists to prevent people like you from getting your message out?

Er, no. Someone understood the Casmir effect and even made the blue arrows point the right directions and everything. Evidently not *all* the physics of the world are as inept at physics as this group.

How do you explain your utter failure to make any progress in either debunking modern physics or getting your conjecture accepted into the mainstream?

Why didn't Alfven have a greater effect? Why didn't Einstein convince everyone in a month? Come on. Get over it.

 

[edd]

You could point me to a product that used "inflation" to do something useful, or "dark energy" or even throw me a bone and show me some evidence of SUSY particles, anything!

http://www.planetnatural.com/site/dark-energy.html

(apologies, I couldn't quite muster the energy for a serious answer. The idea people have some kind of absolute religious faith in LCDM is just too off the wall for me)

 

[derekmcd]

Michael... any chance you could answer my question in regards to the physical manifestation of the Casimir effect?

As for the pigeon playing chess remark, I'll let the readers of the thread decide who's characterization is more appropriate.

My comment on space dot com going through some rough times has to due with the two transitions to new forum software they have attempted in the last year. You're getting defensive where you need not be.

And, you did not "shame" anyone into buying a book... that is a twisted perspective on your part. Which should come as no surprise to anyone.

 

[Tubbythin]

Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago and you *still* can't figure them out. You guys wouldn't know "empirical physics" if shocked you for breakfast and hit you in the head for lunch.

And you don't seem to understand that cosmological observations (the kind of empirical physics that's really really really important for cosmology) supports LCDM and utterly dismantles EU.

 

[Tubbythin]

Er, no. Someone understood the Casmir effect and even made the blue arrows point the right directions and everything. Evidently not *all* the physics of the world are as inept at physics as this group.

Ah. So you're still arguing on the "the diagram in Wikipedia is a bit vague and so I think it might support my assertions (even though my original assertion was that it was due to neutrinos and stuff) so the actual article which thoroughly contradicts what I've been trying to say and all the peer reviewed literature and everyone else in this thread must be wrong and I must be right" line I see. You do realise Michael, the only one you're fooling is yourself?

 

[GeeMack]

Er, no. From the standpoint of empirical physics you have that completely backwards. Just replace "creationist" with "Lambda-CMD proponent" and "the empirical physics of EU theory" in the place evolution. Whereas Lambda-worshippers *cannot* empirically demonstrate *any* of their claims in a lab, Birkeland simulated the aurora, coronal loops, high speed solar wind, jets, etc in lab over 100 years ago [...]

No, he didn't. Pretty much his only concern was the aurora effect. He made some pretty little pictures that looked to you like some other stuff on the Sun. By your methodology Birkeland proved that Saturn is a hollow brass ball and the rings are glowing electrons...

I'm sure everyone here would agree, Michael, that anyone who would claim to be doing real science that way, you know, by making things up because it looks like something in a picture, is a complete idiot.

 

[sol invictus]

My god - the surface of Saturn is made of brass!!! Let's start a website!