Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

So, not only do you clearly not understand gravitational potential energy, you even confuse momentum with kinetic energy!

Both assertions are false. You utterly ignored my whole conversation with PS about the pendulum. That is in no way a justification for claiming that this physical universe has a net zero energy state. I'm sure you just love to nitpick individual statements and ignore the key argument, but I won't let you do that. Your side claimed that we lived in a net zero energy universe. That is not so, and it is not even congruent with Guth's original definition of a "hot" (as in it possessed heat already) "undefined thingy" that somehow "inflates" due to "supercooling' (by losing photons?) in some undefined way. Care to elaborate on any of these actual points?

You just love to derail the conversations and pick on individual wording of sentences rather than to deal with the actual problem. You personally don't even believe in inflation. As it relates to that topic, somehow I managed to reach exactly the same conclusion that you did (state of lack of belief in said entity). Whereas you seem to be a more "passive" non-believer, I'm more of the "hard atheist" type, so who cares what you think of my physics skills?

Gravity is not a way to claim our universe has a "net zero" energy state. It has a "net positive" energy state and it has evidently always possessed "heat"

Of course, this isn't the only post of yours that shows such gross ignorance of classical physics (and, perhaps, high school math too) .... shall I copy some more?

All you are demonstrating to me is that you're a whiz at nitpicking individual sentences while ignoring the key points entirely. We don't live on a singular mass body. Therefore "reference points" are relevant. When talking about the net energy state of this universe it is illogical to claim we live in a net zero energy state. They taught me in high school physics that energy is preserved in all transactions and our universe is full of energy. This *law of physics* necessitates that no energy was created or destroyed in the event in question, and there has always been a positive energy state. Where did you get left behind exactly?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ok DRD, how far does your "disbelief" go exactly?

Since you are not a fan of inflation, and you seem to admit that "dark energy" is nothing more than a placeholder term for human ignorance, what exactly is 'explained' by mainstream theory? Even the SUSY thing is *way* out on a lib, since we would need to "assume" they actually exist without any corroborating evidence. What exactly then is "explained" by contemporary theory in terms of actual physics?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I think it's actually rather important ...

... sure MM will dodge and obfuscate, but they are objective evidence, they can be read by anyone who has an understanding of the relevant parts of classical physics (and the associated math).

Not such a big deal by itself perhaps, but in the context of trying to figure out just why MM apparently makes so many mistakes, it goes a long way.

Except of course that I came to the same conclusion that you did as it relates to inflation. Evidently we both lack belief in inflation.

*I* was right about the "negative pressure" issue as it relates to pressure in a vacuum and the Casimir aspect of "pressure" too since *both sides of the plate experienced quantum pressure*, one side just more than the other.

I was right about the "net positive" energy state debate too. Even Guth's pre-inflation thingy had *heat* from the start. What is that heat if not "positive energy"?

So far their side seems to be 0 for 3 and even you seem hesitant to agree with them about inflation. What's up with that?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're pulling in two different conversations and expecting me to understand *which* idea DRD's strawman relates to, sheesh...

It's not a strawman if you actually said it.

With respect to "negative energy", what I said was

You said multiple things, not all of which were even consistent. And you said that there was no such thing as negative energy. Try and wiggle out of it all you want to, but that's what you said. I gave the link, everyone can see that post. And everyone with a clue knows that's wrong.

 

[temporalillusion]

"inflates" due to "supercooling' (by losing photons?) in some undefined way.

Actually that's one aspect of it I'd like to know more about, this phase transition which drove (?) the inflationary period.

*I* was right about the "negative pressure" issue as it relates to pressure in a vacuum and the Casimir aspect of "pressure" too since *both sides of the plate experienced quantum pressure*, one side just more than the other.

The pressure on the outside of the plates never changes da? It's part of the universe.

The pressure between the plates is equal to the pressure outside the plates if the plates are far apart. Bring them closer together, the pressure decreases, keep going, the pressure will always decrease. No matter how close you get, you can always get closer, decreasing the pressure.

Eventually you could bring the plates close enough that no force in the universe could keep them apart, the difference between the pressure on the outside and the pressure on the inside approaches infinity.

The problem is if you assign the pressure on the outside of the plates a value of 1, and you bring the plates closer and closer, the maximum difference in pressure you could EVER have is 1. But that's not what happens.

So for your way of thinking about it to work, the ambient pressure on the outside of the plates has to be infinity, so that as you bring the plates together and the pressure between them goes to zero the difference in pressure goes to infinity. (Which of course makes no sense).

I remember this because sol said this about gravity (though much better) to say why gravity is negative energy and you rejected it completely. If you accept now negative energy for gravity and why, then you should accept negative pressure for the same reason.

I was right about the "net positive" energy state debate too. Even Guth's pre-inflation thingy had *heat* from the start. What is that heat if not "positive energy"?

What do you mean by heat, if there was no matter pre-inflation?

And energy has mass, so it still would be offset.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Empirical astronomy?

What makes it "woo" is the fact you cannot empirically demonstrate any of the following things exist or are simply not "fudge factors" of literally "epic' proportions. Inflation, DE, DM, expanding space, etc.

So this leads to the obvious question. Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not?

You never explicitly answered my question, but this will do. I presume therefore that you deny that astronomy is a science, and you deny that astronomical data are empirical.

My question remains unanswered. I maintain that your claim, that inflation cannot be empirically tested, is unquestionably false. Not only can inflation be tested, it has already been tested, and it passed.

Inflation is a testable hypothesis. Your assertion to the contrary, as an excuse for declaring it unscientific is a factually false statement. See, i.e., Mikheeva, 20008; Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007; Alabidi & Lyth, 2006; Lidsey & Seery, 2006 ... Liddle, 1999.

The only way you can support you claim is to deny that astronomy is empirical, or that astronomical data are empirical. If you accept that astronomical data are empirical, then you have no shred of an argument left.

So, is astronomy an empirical science or not? Are astronomical data empirical or not?

 

[Reality Check]

Has anyone noticed if MM has answered the simple question of what he thinks pressure is yet?

I keep expecting a mathematical definition of pressure like p = F/A or p = dF/dA where p is the pressure, F is the force normal to the surface and A is the area. But we cannot expect anything like that from MM judging by his display of ignorance of basic physics in these posts.

MM: You have been ignoring this question since the 13th of March 2009 so here it is for the third time.

What happens when the plates are such that the Casimir effect pushes the plates apart? Is this repulsive force also created by a positive pressure?


So is this what you are saying:

• If the plates are such that the net force is repulsive then the net pressure (force divided by area) is positive.
• If the plates are such that the net force is attractive then the net pressure is still positive despite the fact that the net force has changed sign.

If so your conclusion must be that the area of the plates must have also changed sign to keep the pressure positive. Can you tell us how to measure a negative area? Do we construct square plates with imaginary sides and square their imaginary lengths?

Note this is not sarcasm - it is a serious question about whether you really believe in imaginary length or negative areas.

 

[sol invictus]

Actually that's one aspect of it I'd like to know more about, this phase transition which drove (?) the inflationary period.

In Guth's original model inflation was a meta-stable phase, and ended by a first order transition. Such transitions proceed through bubble nucleation. The problem in a nutshell is that if the nucleation rate is large, inflation ends very rapidly (and doesn't serve its purpose). It it's small, it lasts a long time, but each bubble is nearly empty - so no reheating.

In most models that work, there's no such sharp transition. The inflaton gradually rolls down a potential. When it gets down far enough, the potential energy ceases dominating, inflation ends, and much of the potential energy gets rapidly turned into kinetic energy and particles of various sorts.

So for your way of thinking about it to work, the ambient pressure on the outside of the plates has to be infinity, so that as you bring the plates together and the pressure between them goes to zero the difference in pressure goes to infinity. (Which of course makes no sense).

I pointed this out quite a while ago. MM's response was that the maximum possible Casimir pressure is 1 atmosphere .

 

[temporalillusion]

I pointed this out quite a while ago. MM's response was that the maximum possible Casimir pressure is 1 atmosphere .

But now I actually understand why he said that. It should have dawned on me back then.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Has anyone noticed if MM has answered the simple question of what he thinks pressure is yet?

[...]

I have completed a re-reading of the relevant parts of this thread.

I can find no post by MM that addresses this.

Also, I can find no post by MM that addresses Zig's question*.

Further, I can find no post by MM that answers TimT's question**.

In addition, I can find no post by MM that answers your question about postdictions^.

Finally, for now, I can find no post by MM that answers my question about "known forces of nature".^^

* one form of this: "Tell me: suppose I have a potential between two bodies of the form U(r)=1/r. What's the force F(r) between them? What about if I have a potential of the form U(r)=-1/r, what then is F(r)? Can you figure it out? The math is quite simple, and if you manage to do it correctly, you'll see that the sign has rather obvious physical consequences. But I don't think you can do even simple differentiation. Can you prove me wrong?"

** "Are astronomical data "empirical", or are they not?"

^ MM: "[Guth] "postdicted" his inflation idea to 'fit' with his preconceived outcome. It was a "curve fitting exercise" from the start."; RC: "For the 4th or 5th time: Where is your list of postdictions?"

^^ in post#1706: "Is electromagnetism one known force of nature? or two? or more?? [...] how can you [MM] answer, other than by an elaborate exercise in curve fitting?"

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As part of the mission of this forum is education, readers of this post may be interested to know that MM's active participation in other internet discussion fora have produced some quite educational responses.

For example, in the space.com forum there is a thread entitled "Mozina's EU Theory Debunked" (link).

Apparently a member of that forum, who goes by the name DrRocket, not only downloaded the 994-page Birkeland tome, but also obtained a copy of both of the Alfvén books MM apparently cited repeatedly - Cosmical Electrodynamics, and Cosmic Plasma - read them, compiled a detailed rebuttal of many of MM's key assertions, and consolidated the rebuttal into a single (if rather long) post.

Of course, MM responded to what DrRocket wrote ... and those responses are also quite educational (IMHO).

Here is the intro to the OP of that space.com forum thread:

The time has come to recap the various statements and allegations made by Mr. Mozina with regard to “EU Theory”, his misrepresentations and attacks on mainstream physics and physicists, and to debunk his assertions. He has recently adopted the stance of steadfastly refusing to even define what he means by EU Theory.

Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfven were respected scientists of the early and mid-twentieth century. Their work, in the proper context, is valuable and is respected still. No criticism of their work, or the proper interpretation of it, has been made by the majority of mainstream scientists. Despite Mr. Mozina’s brazen lies to the contrary, I have not criticized either Alfven or Birkeland, in the proper context. But their work has been widely misinterpreted and misrepresented by those advocating the pseudoscience of the Electric Universe perspective. Mr. Mozina is an advocate of a most outrageous brand of pseudoscience.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's not a strawman if you actually said it.

It is a strawman if you take *one sentence* "out of context" and ignore the conversation that led to that sentence. The debate was whether or not we live in a "net zero" energy state universe. In the pendulum example it was clear we could indeed set an *arbitrary* reference point and use negative signs in our mathematical models of the movement of the pendulum. That has nothing to do with "zeroing" out the whole energy of this physical moving, expanding, accelerating, universe.

You might have a leg to stand on as it relates to a "net zero' energy state, *if* Guth did not begin with a "thingy" that possesses "heat'. Since that is certainly the case, his theory is not a "free lunch" theory, it is a "net positive" energy pre-mass "thingy" that is evidently *full* of "heat". How is "heat" not 'net positive energy"?

 

[temporalillusion]

If there was no matter in the early universe, how could there be heat?

Energy has mass, so would create gravity no?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually that's one aspect of it I'd like to know more about, this phase transition which drove (?) the inflationary period.

Whatever the "phase transition" might have included, it presumably included "heat" in some undefined "form". That is a 'net positive' energy state. The supercooling process was simply a transition form one form of energy to another. This has *always* been a "net positive energy state" universe. There has never been a time when energy did not exist in some for or another. E=MC^2 and E has *always* existed. The laws of thermodynamics *insist this is true*.

The problem is if you assign the pressure on the outside of the plates a value of 1, and you bring the plates closer and closer, the maximum difference in pressure you could EVER have is 1. But that's not what happens.

There is no "mystery". There is 'quantum pressure', or more accurately, there is 'quantum force' on *both* sides of the plates. There is no negative pressure in a vacuum, and the Casimir effect is not an example of negative pressure in a vacuum. You folks are zero for 2 here for certain. Not only did Guth begin with a "net positive" energy state, you guys got slam dunked on the "negative pressure in a vacuum" issue.

So for your way of thinking about it to work, the ambient pressure on the outside of the plates has to be infinity,

No, the error is that you *assumed* that the limit is "infinity" rather than something less than infinity and let's say greater than one atmosphere.

so that as you bring the plates together and the pressure between them goes to zero the difference in pressure goes to infinity. (Which of course makes no sense).

That is because you are *assuming* that the QM pressure will go to infinity whereas it is evidently less than that number.

What do you mean by heat, if there was no matter pre-inflation?

What did Guth mean by heat? He's depending upon a "supercooling" process to take place. What holds that heat? How and why would it "supercool"?

And energy has mass, so it still would be offset.

What is "offset"? Mass *is* energy in a concentrated form. Nothing is "offset", simply "condensed". That "condensed" energy can be released in our two bomb analogy.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is a strawman if you take *one sentence* "out of context"

Oh, but it wasn't out of context. Go back and read it: you made a claim that energy could never be negative, and many people (myself included) pointed out that potential energies could in fact be negative. You disagreed, and tried to defend yourself for many pages on that point, despite not being able to answer the many simple challenges presented to you regarding your claim.

The debate was whether or not we live in a "net zero" energy state universe.

That was part of it. But you tried to justify your position on that question by making the claim that no form of energy was negative. If that latter claim were true, then obviously the claim that net energy is positive would also be true. But of course, potential energy can be negative. You made that claim, and it is false. And that has consequences for this other claim that you want to support, but in fact cannot.

In the pendulum example it was clear we could indeed set an *arbitrary* reference point

And here you demonstrate that you have no logical coherence. If we can set arbitrary zeros on our potentials, then why can't we set those zeros such that the total energy of the universe is negative, or even zero? Well, logically we can. So the only way to support your claim that the total energy of the universe cannot be zero is to claim that there is a way to define potentials such that the zero is not arbitrary. General relativity in fact provides just such a method, and the result is zero total energy.

But you don't believe that. So why don't you tell us how you would define potentials in a non-arbitrary manner? And while you're at it, see if you can get gravitational potential energy to be positive. But that would require math, and you're allergic to math. So you won't be able to do so. Too bad, so sad.

How is "heat" not 'net positive energy"?

Because that's not the only form of energy involved. There's also gravity, which is negative (which is where your false claim about energies never being negative comes in). Obviously, you can only figure out whether the net energy is positive, negative, or zero if you know how to compare the magnitudes of both positive and negative contributions. But you don't know how to do that, do you?

 

[temporalillusion]

No, the error is that you *assumed* that the limit is "infinity" rather than something less than infinity and let's say greater than one atmosphere.

"Let's say"? Do you have an actual value for this? Or any experimental evidence to show what this limit is?

Look back at the math on the Casimir effect wiki page (which you agreed with), the distance between the plates is in the denominator.. what do you think happens to the pressure as the distance between the plates goes to zero, if the distance is in the denominator?

What did Guth mean by heat? He's depending upon a "supercooling" process to take place. What holds that heat? How and why would it "supercool"?

I asked first. Somehow I don't think heat and supercool are intended literally given the lack of matter. EDIT: Maybe they're analogous to describe what was happening to the vacuum energy, I don't know I lack knowledge in this area.

What is "offset"? Mass *is* energy in a concentrated form. Nothing is "offset", simply "condensed". That "condensed" energy can be released in our two bomb analogy.

Mass and/or energy both create a gravitational field. You agree now that gravity is negative energy. The positive energy in the mass/energy is offset by the negative energy in the gravitational field so the net energy of the whole system is zero.

 

[Michael Mozina]

My question remains unanswered. I maintain that your claim, that inflation cannot be empirically tested, is unquestionably false. Not only can inflation be tested, it has already been tested, and it passed.

How are you claiming it was has been "tested" in any physical sense? You can "test" the math models perhaps, but you failed to "test" inflation in any physical sense. I can "test" the math related to EM fields in a lab under *controlled* conditions. That is a true *empirical test* and it requires some sort of controlled process. The control mechanism can be as simple as an on/off switch in the case of the neutrino experiments, but there must be some kind of physical *qualification* side of any "test". You skipped that part *entirely*. There was no physical "test" of inflation involving any sort of "control mechanism".

The only way you can support you claim is to deny that astronomy is empirical, or that astronomical data are empirical. If you accept that astronomical data are empirical, then you have no shred of an argument left.

So, is astronomy an empirical science or not? Are astronomical data empirical or not?

Observations are not "empirical experiments". Astronomical data as you call it is also open to "subjective human interpretation". You 'interpret" redshift to be related to acceleration and somehow to the concept of "dark energy". All you actually "observe" however is "redshifted photons". The rest of your theory is a completely "subjective interpretation" of that data. Uncontrolled observations alone often cannot "settle" anything related to "cause/effect" relationships. That is why active testing is so very important. Birkeland didn't just point at the aurora and claim "dark energy did it". He identified a real "physical cause" and *then* he did experiments to verify the idea, and *then* he wrote mathematical models to explain his experiments. You guys skipped the experimental phase entirely and started pointing at the sky with math formulas related to 'dark energy'. Hoy!

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Let's say"? Do you have an actual value for this? Or any experimental evidence to show what this limit is?

Since I can pick up any two plates you stick together, and the atomic world is angular and "imperfect", what *experimental* evidence do you have it is going to reach infinity?

Look back at the math on the Casimir effect wiki page (which you agreed with), the distance between the plates is in the denominator.. what do you think happens to the pressure as the distance between the plates goes to zero, if the distance is in the denominator?

At the level of physics, I believe that the quantum force between the two plates will approach zero, and the QM force on the outside of the plates will approach it's maximum.

I asked first.

Well, Ok, but your asking the wrong guy. I lack believe in Guth's theory, so I have no idea what he figures "holds heat" or what "thing" is experiencing "supercooling". This is in fact a question that *your side* needs to 'explain', not me.

Somehow I don't think heat and supercool are intended literally given the lack of matter. EDIT: Maybe they're analogous to describe what was happening to the vacuum energy, I don't know I lack knowledge in this area.

We *all* lack knowledge in this area. Sooner or later everyone here will have to admit they can't answer some of these questions. There are no answers to such questions.

Mass and/or energy both create a gravitational field.

Hmmm. We'd have to have some "particle" related to particle physics to work with to describe a "gravitational field", but "pure energy" could exist in the absence of matter. In fact Guth's theory is predicated upon this premise. He needs "something" to "inflate", and he needs "something' to hold heat and then undergo a "supercooling" process.

You agree now that gravity is negative energy.

Not if you're trying to suggest we live in a "net zero" energy state universe somehow. Gravity is gravity. It exists in the presence of "condensed energy". That stored energy in mass can be released again through something like annihilation. Gravity *can be* modeled in many ways, and from many various orientations. The existence of multiple objects in space and their continued acceleration would require a "net positive" energy state.

The positive energy in the mass/energy is offset by the negative energy in the gravitational field so the net energy of the whole system is zero.

That is simply not so. Let's start with a "two lump" scenario with one lump of matter separated by some distance from another lump of antimatter. That "distance" between the "lumps" represents "potential energy" between the objects that can be converted to "kinetic energy" at the point of impact. At the point of impact however, the energy that is contained in the two lumps is "released" via annihilation, and the remaining pieces will forever stay in motion. There is no "net zero" energy state in a universe filled with mass because the mass itself *is* energy. It's a "net positive" energy state universe that we live in.

 

[Ziggurat]

How are you claiming it was has been "tested" in any physical sense? You can "test" the math models perhaps, but you failed to "test" inflation in any physical sense. I can "test" the math related to EM fields in a lab under *controlled* conditions. That is a true *empirical test* and it requires some sort of controlled process.

Then Einstein was engaging in woo, because he could not empirically test general relativity. Nor could Newton empirically test his theory of universal gravity. This has been pointed out to you before. Your previous answers were illogical and insufficient. You have established a standard that would exclude many of the greatest advances in physics, but don't even seem to realize it.

You 'interpret" redshift to be related to acceleration and somehow to the concept of "dark energy". All you actually "observe" however is "redshifted photons".

We don't observe neutrinos either: we observe photons. Are neutrinos likewise simply "subjective interpretation"? Again, you have no consistency in your standards.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh, but it wasn't out of context. Go back and read it: you made a claim that energy could never be negative, and many people (myself included) pointed out that potential energies could in fact be negative. You disagreed, and tried to defend yourself for many pages on that point, despite not being able to answer the many simple challenges presented to you regarding your claim.

You're ignoring that whole conversation about a pendulum. I never claimed it could not be *modeled* in a math formula as being "negative". What I said was that you are setting an *arbitrary* zero point for an energy state when doing this. That does not "offset" the total energy of a whole physical universe that is not only presumably expanding, but accelerating no less.

That was part of it. But you tried to justify your position on that question by making the claim that no form of energy was negative.

In the pendulum experiment, what form of energy is "negative"? Where is the potential or kinetic energy in the pendulum less than zero?

If that latter claim were true, then obviously the claim that net energy is positive would also be true. But of course, potential energy can be negative.

Negative relative to *WHAT*? In the pendulum example, where is the potential energy "negative"? Before I go any further, I want to hear your answer to this question.