Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Reality Check]

Sure, but evidently you don't read their work or understand it very well. The quantum *force* that they write about effects *both* sides of *both* plates!

You need to learn to read: I was consistent in stating NET force and NET pressure. Net = the result of the force and pressure from both sides.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...simir_plates.svg/300px-Casimir_plates.svg.png

Hoy. You folks are a really stubborn lot. Even with graphic evidence that blows away your beliefs, you ignore the little blue arrows entirely.

No one has ignored the little blue arrows or for that matter the wavy green lines (vacuum fluctuations).
The little blue arrows show exactly what every other poster has stated: vacuum fluctuations cause an unqual force on the plates and so a net force is exerted on the plates. When this net force is repulsive (pushes the plates apart), the convention is that it is positive. When this net force is attractive (pulls the plates together), the convention is that it is the opposite of positive. This is known as negative.

It does not blow our beliefs away. It is that image that illustrates the derivation that the pressure is actually negative. Since you are having trouble with reading and comprehension here is the derived formula for pressure (force per area) from the rest of the Wikipeda page that you are ignoring:

The Casimir force per unit area Fc / A for idealized, perfectly conducting plates with vacuum between them is

where

(hbar, ħ) is the reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, a is the distance between the two plates. ^WP

I don't know who you figure I think is stupid here except those claiming there is negative pressure in a vacuum and the BB was a "net zero" energy event. The guys/gals that wrote the WIKI article on the Casimir effect got it right, so I have no beef with *those* physicists. Are you even a physicist by trade?

I better make it explicit then: you are the one being stupid (or just unable to read). See above for the negative pressure that the physicists that you have no beef with quote from Casimir's work.

Which of the quantities on the right hand side is negative so that F/A is positive.


Your choices are:

• hbar (reduced Planck constant)
• c (speed of light)
• pi (the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter)
• 240 (a number)
• a (the distance between the 2 plates)
• a to the fourth power

What is your answer?

...snip...
Yes or no, does that "attractiveness" depend on "geometry" in any way? If so, why and how does that "attractiveness" turn into "repulsiveness"?

No. It depends on the geometry and the material involved. Repulsive Casimir forces are most commonly found when the vacuum is replaced by a fluid. This means that measuring it is much harder than the attractive Casimir effect and scientists are just starting to get results, e.g. Measurements of the Casimir-Lifshitz force in fluids: the effect of electrostatic forces and Debye screening (13 Aug 2008)).

 

[edd]

It is physically impossible for "dark energy" to do anything to anything because it does not exist. It is likewise physically impossible for invisible unicorns to have any effect on anything for exactly the same reason.

That just sends us round in circles. You're simply stating that dark energy doesn't exist with no evidence to back that up.

Nothing like that exists in nature or has any effect on nature. If you believe you observe "acceleration", just call it "acceleration".

The simple problem with this is that "acceleration" doesn't give you a physical mechanism for it. Dark energy does - gravity. It also gives you a range of models for that acceleration expressing how it changes over time and how it affects other fundamental properties of the universe such as its geometry, how it affects the growth of structure within the universe and so on. By suggesting that it is dark energy behind the acceleration we make it easier to prove that it isn't dark energy thus giving us a stronger scientific theory until such time, if ever, that it is proven incorrect. It provides predictions about the results of future observations. Merely stating the fact of current observations does not do this.

If you believe otherwise, it is your job to demonstrate that dark energy exists and can cause something to accelerate in a controlled experiment. If you cannot do that, they you are engaging in religion, not science.

It is a fundamental problem with astronomy and especially cosmology that controlled experiments cannot be conducted upon universes or indeed on scales even vaguely approaching the cosmological. Observational sciences where controlled experiments cannot be performed are still sciences, but naturally are more constrained in their approach. They're patently not religion - they're founded deeply upon evidence even if the evidence does not come from "controlled experiment".

All you haveis evidence of "acceleration". You have no evidence that "dark energy did it".

Actually that is evidence for dark energy. Not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. Evidence for a hypothesis can be remarkably weak while still constituting evidence - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox . The evidence for dark energy is vastly stronger than the evidence for black ravens that a green apple constitutes, but the fundamental point presented by that is that evidence for an idea need not be entirely conclusive.
To give a more relevant example, the fact that I am held firmly in my chair and that the moon is orbiting above constitutes evidence for Newton's theory of gravity. It's clearly not conclusive evidence that that theory is correct, since the theory is actually wrong.
Likewise current cosmological observations provide evidence to support the idea of dark energy, but it may turn out to be incorrect despite this.

You are again simply "assuming" something "new" exists in nature when nothing "new" is required to explain a simple observation of acceleration of plasma.

Please go ahead and provide a mathematical model of how the plasma accelerates the universe in a way that can be competitively tested against other cosmological models. Unless you do you have not explained observations by use of plasma.

If you wish to state that things do not exist unless they are amenable to controlled experiment then fine. I would however expect most people would see that it's crazy to limit physical reality to what is accessible in experiment by human technology.

 

[sol invictus]

Plus I'm not sure that the amount of matter and positive energy running around pre-inflation was the same as is now, but that's just a gut feeling, someone want to comment on that from a current cosmology point of view? Has all the matter/energy currently existing in the universe always existed up to the point of singularity anyway (or is the question even meaningful)?

Take the example of a closed universe for simplicity. Then total energy is exactly conserved and always equal to zero. As you go back in time, matter and radiation get hotter and denser - so the energy in them increases. At the same time the gravitational potential energy gets more and more negative. This happens in much the same way as would occur for a cloud of gas collapsing under its own gravitational pull (or just two particles falling together, to make it even simpler). The collapse accelerates as it continues, leading to a singularity a finite time in the past.

Why didn't the early universe collapse into a black hole? The premise of the question is nonsensical. A black hole is by definition a localized object, something surrounded by space. So the universe as a whole cannot become a black hole. The closest analog is that it universe becomes singular everywhere, which is precisely what happened at the big bang. So very roughly speaking the evolution of the universe is analogous to the time-reverse of the collapse of matter into a black hole.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

The closest analog is that it universe becomes singular everywhere, which is precisely what happened at the big bang. So very roughly speaking the evolution of the universe is analogous to the time-reverse of the collapse of matter into a black hole.

(my bold)

Something of a derail here, but shouldn't that be anti-matter if I remember my physics correctly?

Not that it matters in this informal treatment, just wanted to check if I had it right.

 

[sol invictus]

Something of a derail here, but shouldn't that be anti-matter if I remember my physics correctly?

The symmetry of the laws of physics is not really T (time reversal), it's CPT (time reversal and charge conjugation and parity flip). That does turn matter into anti-matter - so you're right, you remember correctly.

But matter and anti-matter interact in precisely the same way gravitationally. Moreover, T is an almost exact symmetry - CP is violated at such a tiny level that it wasn't detected until quite recently. And anyway our universe contains both matter and anti-matter - just a lot more matter.

 

[edd]

But matter and anti-matter interact in precisely the same way gravitationally.

I was about to post much the same thing I will just add that this hasn't actually been measured experimentally yet (at least not that I'm aware of or to comfortably high standards). In a Dirac-Milne universe antimatter acts like it has the opposite gravitational 'sign'. http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2446 for a recent paper on it. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

However, if the universe did work that way I think most physicists would be really rather surprised.

 

[sol invictus]

I was about to post much the same thing I will just add that this hasn't actually been measured experimentally yet (at least not that I'm aware of or to comfortably high standards). In a Dirac-Milne universe antimatter acts like it has the opposite gravitational 'sign'. http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2446 for a recent paper on it. Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

However, if the universe did work that way I think most physicists would be really rather surprised.

Indeed.

Let me make two comments: first, in order for anti-matter to have the opposite gravitational sign, much of what we know about physics would have to be wrong. Gravity couples universally to all forms of energy - that's the equivalence principle. Granted that hasn't been tested for anti-matter (since it's very hard to make enough anti-matter to measure its gravitational interactions), but it has been tested for just about all the other forms of energy we have around, and it works perfectly. And anti-matter certainly has positive energy - that at least we know beyond any doubt from particle accelerator data.

Second, the justifications they give in the introduction for considering this are very weak. In particular, this claim that Kerr-Newman has negative mass on the opposite side of the Kruskal extension is, in a word, wrong. It's true that the sign of all charges flips when one passes through; but the local physics is totally unaffected by that (because everything changes sign there, and the two regions are completely disconnected - they're on opposite "sides" on an event horizon). It's actually closely related to the net zero energy thing we've been discussing - precisely the same thing happens in many geometries, and it's just a reflection the symmetries of GR.

 

[edd]

Quite. I nearly used the phrase "utterly gobsmacked" rather than "really rather surprised".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If I may, these need some editing, in order for them to be reasonably free of ambiguity and also phased more appropriately for this section of the JREF Forum.

A) Are there experimental results consistent with "negative pressure in a vacuum"?

The answer is no! The Casimir effect has *nothing* whatsoever to do with "negative pressure in a vacuum". There is a Casimir QM "force" that is related to the EM field, that pushes on *both* sides of the plates!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...plates.svg.png

B) Are there observations and experimental results consistent with "the observable universe has a net energy of zero"?

No.

The answer to both questions would be yes, IMHO.

Start with the first one then. What experimental results suggest that a vacuum can contain negative pressure? Be specific.

Not so fast!

You omitted the rest of my post; here it is again (in bold):

If I may, these need some editing, in order for them to be reasonably free of ambiguity and also phased more appropriately for this section of the JREF Forum.

A) Are there experimental results consistent with "negative pressure in a vacuum"?

B) Are there observations and experimental results consistent with "the observable universe has a net energy of zero"?

The answer to both questions would be yes, IMHO.

It is important to note several features of my edited version:

1) the statements are objectively, and independently, verifiable (it matters not one jot what MM, DRD, si, ... believes, supports, thinks, feels, ...)

2) the parts in quotation marks are only unambiguous wrt standard, contemporary, textbook definitions of the key terms "pressure", "vacuum", and "energy" (change the definition of any term and the statements will be different, and - very likely - ambiguous)

3) both statements assume full acceptance of the aspects of theories in modern physics consistent with every facet of every relevant observation and experiment (so, for example, take QED off the table and every modern experiment and astronomical observation needs to be re-analysed).

The last one (3) is a biggie, and probably has wide ramifications for much of what you have posted in this thread MM.

(there's also an error in your transcription; "Are there experimental results consistent with" is what I said; do you understand the difference, cf what you wrote?)

Here's what I'll do: this thread already contains many posts on this topic, including direct answers provided by others. More importantly, this thread also contains definitions of the key terms ("negative pressure" and "vacuum" in this case), definitions that are just what my point 2) is about. I'll go dig up the relevant posts, and copy them That way you'll see exactly how you missed the key things at least once before.

Well, it turned to be not necessary at all to do that ... many of the posts since I posted this dealt with the topic at least as well as older posts in this thread did.

The wiki article (unless it's been edited in the meantime) quite nicely illustrates the point I was making in 2) ("the parts in quotation marks are only unambiguous wrt standard, contemporary, textbook definitions of the key terms "pressure", "vacuum", and "energy" (change the definition of any term and the statements will be different, and - very likely - ambiguous)") - the experimental results are consistent with "negative pressure in a vacuum", provided you use the standard, contemporary, textbook definitions of the key terms "pressure", and "vacuum".

As seems quite clear, you (MM) choose to use a non-standard definition.

So that one is now closed, right?

On to B) then?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, it turned to be not necessary at all to do that ... many of the posts since I posted this dealt with the topic at least as well as older posts in this thread did.

The wiki article (unless it's been edited in the meantime) quite nicely illustrates the point I was making in 2) ("the parts in quotation marks are only unambiguous wrt standard, contemporary, textbook definitions of the key terms "pressure", "vacuum", and "energy" (change the definition of any term and the statements will be different, and - very likely - ambiguous)") - the experimental results are consistent with "negative pressure in a vacuum", provided you use the standard, contemporary, textbook definitions of the key terms "pressure", and "vacuum".

As seems quite clear, you (MM) choose to use a non-standard definition.

That is absolutely false. The WIKI article clearly describes a *FORCE* (the carrier particles of the EM field) that pushes against *both* sides of *both* plates. Now of course you could attempt to *oversimplify* the physics of what is actually occurring in the chamber and *only* consider the volume *between* the plates and come up with some rationale for putting a minus sign in there. That does not however justify the idea of "negative pressure in a vacuum". There is no such physical thing going on between those two plates. I did *not* use a "non-standard" definition, you did. The blue arrows in the WIKI image tell the entire story, whereas an *oversimplified* mathematical representation of this process does not. Like I've said all along, you folks understand math, but almost *nothing whatsoever* about the physical processes that your math attempts to describe, particularly at the subatomic level.

All that is occurring in the chamber is 'positive pressure' on *all* sides of *all* plates. An oversimplified math formula related to only the volume between the plates will *not* accurately describe the *pressure* in the chamber, or on the outside of the plates.

So that one is now closed, right?

Not unless you're ready to admit you're wrong and admit that the authors of the WIKI article got it right when they described this as a "force" that pushes on all sides of the plates.

On to B) then?

Sure. What is 'heat' if not "positive net energy"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

"Known forces of nature"

Here's an idea, wrt MM's "known forces of nature".

Start with gravity, which is, per his own statements, one such.

IIRC, MM proposed a very simple test which demonstrates that gravity, as a force of nature, exists*; something like this: hold your Tesco plasma ball in one hand, hand facing down; with your other hand underneath it, palm up, let go of the ball ... the ball will drop into your (lower) hand; ergo, gravity exists.

As was pointed out, and as is clear anyway, all this test shows is that the plasma ball falls when released from one's hand; to call that 'gravity' is rather underwhelming.

However, we can proceed empirically - being very careful to define just what we mean by this word - and do lots of tests with lots of different objects, in lots of different places, at lots of different times.

We will find - empirically - that there are plenty of cases where objects do not drop, or fall, when released; for example, a leaf on a windy day, a piece of wood released under water. And we need to confront the problem of induction too.

By being careful, and using induction, we can gradually build more and more powerful summaries of the results of hundreds, thousands, millions, ... of tests, and in the best of these summaries the word 'gravity' will be used, as will the word 'nature'.

In that sense the word 'gravity' may be said to have great explanatory (and predictive) power.

In parallel, and to some extent overlapping, we may develop other summaries of empirical tests (of 'nature') which include another word with great explanatory (and predictive) power, 'force'.

Historically, with some anachronisms and a bit of revisionism, this gets us up to somewhere in the 1500s, maybe a bit earlier, maybe a bit later.

Now we add a true revolution, which I shall term the quantitative revolution ... we can move on from nice word summaries to adding first numbers and then equations, and 'gravity as a force of nature' becomes something whose explanatory and predictive powers expand enormously ... but only if the equations and numbers are understood! We are now in the time of Galileo (more or less).

At that time the heavens and Earth were separate - nature consisted of two almost totally independent parts, each with its own 'forces'; how the planets moved across the sky, for example, had nothing to do with how cannon balls (and feathers) fell when let go.

Then, in the myth, an apple fell on Newton's head while he was gazing at the Moon (it was daytime) ... and nature became unified, and the universal law of gravitation was published.

It was quickly tested, by 'curve fitting' - applying math to points in the sky** - and found to work.

And a century or so later - well after Newton had died - a key part of Newton's law was tested in the lab.

So what does all this have to do with MM's ideas? A great deal actually.

First, 'known forces of nature' are so known via equations and numbers only; if you work at the 'qualitative' level, you cannot have 'known forces of nature'.

Second, a century (or more) may well pass between the first publication of the equations and numbers describing a 'known force of nature' and its testing in the lab.

Third, the application of math to points on the sky can lead to acceptance of a new 'force of nature'.

And so on.

Now we know, from a great many of MM's posts, that he rejects all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes his approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).

If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of MM's approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.

* I think I've got it right; if not, would someone please point me to his post(s) which say otherwise?
** That's not exactly what MM said, in another context, but it's close, I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is absolutely false. The WIKI article clearly describes a *FORCE*

Which is proportional to the area. And if you divide out the area to find that constant of proportionality, what do you get? Why, you get a pressure! Who'da thunk?

Well, anyone who knows the definition of pressure. But you've had problems with that step.

I did *not* use a "non-standard" definition

True: you've never used any definition.

Sure. What is 'heat' if not "positive net energy"?

Well, heat isn't "net energy". Net energy is the sum of all forms of energy, and heat energy isn't the only form. There's gravity too. So even if you want to (wrongly) insist that gravitational energy is positive, heat energy is still not "positive net energy" because it's not net energy at all.

Epic fail.

 

[sol invictus]

Now we know, from a great many of MM's posts, that he rejects all three of the above points, especially the third one. This alone makes his approach to science very different than that of scientists - or at least physicists - over the past four+ centuries ... and it means that the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics).

Indeed. But such a discussion wouldn't be necessary with anyone other than MM, and with him it would be excruciatingly tedious.

If we were to have such a discussion, I think we'd find that a key aspect of MM's approach is an unstated, and possibly unrecognised, misunderstanding of equations and numbers; in short, a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen.

One relatively interesting question related to that is why math works so well (whether being long since settled in everyone's mind but MM's). I think the answer is that math is science in the sense that it is discovered rather than invented. That is, it might appear that we invented math - we made up some arbitrary rules and played with them. But if that were the case one wouldn't expect it to work as a description of physics any better than English words do. Instead, we are capable of making incredibly precise predictions and checking them.

How can that be? Only if math is simply a symbolic expression of a deep set of truth about the world - that it operates according to the rules of logic.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That is absolutely false. The WIKI article clearly describes a *FORCE* (the carrier particles of the EM field) that pushes against *both* sides of *both* plates. Now of course you could attempt to *oversimplify* the physics of what is actually occurring in the chamber and *only* consider the volume *between* the plates and come up with some rationale for putting a minus sign in there. That does not however justify the idea of "negative pressure in a vacuum". There is no such physical thing going on between those two plates. I did *not* use a "non-standard" definition, you did. The blue arrows in the WIKI image tell the entire story, whereas an *oversimplified* mathematical representation of this process does not. Like I've said all along, you folks understand math, but almost *nothing whatsoever* about the physical processes that your math attempts to describe, particularly at the subatomic level.

All that is occurring in the chamber is 'positive pressure' on *all* sides of *all* plates. An oversimplified math formula related to only the volume between the plates will *not* accurately describe the *pressure* in the chamber, or on the outside of the plates.



Not unless you're ready to admit you're wrong and admit that the authors of the WIKI article got it right when they described this as a "force" that pushes on all sides of the plates.

[...]

Huh?

Are we reading the same wiki article?

Did you miss RC's post (#1861)?

In a way it's kinda ironic that I was writing my last post as you were posting this one of yours; rather good empirical, objective, independently verifiable evidence of "a world where the quantitative revolution didn't happen", don't you think?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Indeed. But such a discussion wouldn't be necessary with anyone other than MM, and with him it would be excruciatingly tedious.

I think you're right about the particular, but a general discussion might not be so ... I suspect that a great deal of the discussion on 'alternatives' would be much shorter if we could get, much more quickly, to unrecognised mismatches wrt approaches to science (or at least physics and closely related branches of science).

One relatively interesting question related to that is why math works so well (whether being long since settled in everyone's mind but MM's). I think the answer is that math is science in the sense that it is discovered rather than invented. That is, it might appear that we invented math - we made up some arbitrary rules and played with them. But if that were the case one wouldn't expect it to work as a description of physics any better than English words do. Instead, we are capable of making incredibly precise predictions and checking them.

How can that be? Only if math is simply a symbolic expression of a deep set of truth about the world - that it operates according to the rules of logic.

Have you heard of "The Math Instinct", by Keith Devlin? It's a popular level book that makes a related point.

Another way to look at this: by their evolutionary success, animals with largish brains develop 'math' capabilities, because such capabilities enable them to survive and reproduce more efficiently; in this sense, 'math' is a general characteristic of the world in which such animals live (and reproduce, or die).

 

[temporalillusion]

So MM, you didn't respond to anything but the first part of my post, so I'll post it again so you don't have to scroll back.

If I have an electron and a proton (or whatever you want), and the closer I bring them together, the attractive force between them increases right?

Do you agree with Coulomb's law?

[latex]$$ F=k_e\frac{q_1q_2}{r^2} $$[/latex]

As r approaches zero, what's going to happen to the force? What's the upper limit of that attraction? You can't produce one for the Casimir effect, but you should be able to do so for this since this is your home turf so to speak.

Hypothetically it approaches infinity, do you agree?

How is this any different than the formula for pressure? What do you think happens to the pressure as the distance between the plates goes to zero, if the distance is in the denominator? In an ideal situation with impossibly flat and impossibly parallel and impossibly close plates?

Why do you base your comprehension on a single illustration?

Nah. The folks that wrote the WIKI article and created the images on the Casimir effect got it right. This negative pressure in a vacuum is almost exclusive limited to your group. Most scientists I meet seem to have a better grasp of QM than this crew.

Here again you agree with the wiki article for the Casimir effect.

Let me ask again, for the dozenth time or something, what is the sign for pressure in this forumula?

[latex]$$ \frac{F_c}{A}=-\frac{\hbar c \pi^2}{240a^4} $$[/latex]

If you disagree with the derived formula, at which point does the derivation go wrong in your opinion?

What textbook *besides on related to Lambda-CDM theory* claims that a vacuum contains "negative pressure".

Well the wiki article you say is written by people that got it right claims it. What's the sign on the formula above?

Actually, in the case of the Casimir article, the WIKI presentation was correct. Only your crew seems to be incapable of distinguishing between a QM "force" and pressure and not being able to recognize that there is *force* on both sides of the plates.

And according to the crew that wrote the wiki article, what's the sign on the formula above?

 

[Michael Mozina]

You need to learn to read: I was consistent in stating NET force and NET pressure. Net = the result of the force and pressure from both sides.

Gah! I don't know what to do with you. You make a statement like this, and then further down in your post you used a formula that intentionally *oversimplifies* the process and pays *no attention whatsoever* to the chamber *geometry*, or the pressure on the outside of the plates. What the heck am I supposed to do with you?

No one has ignored the little blue arrows or for that matter the wavy green lines (vacuum fluctuations).

Yes, you are still ignoring them in your math formula. Your math formula of personal choice explicitly does *not* (not, not, not!) pay attention to the "pressure" on the outside of the plates! It explicitly *oversimplifies* the physical process!

 

[temporalillusion]

Take the example of a closed universe for simplicity. Then total energy is exactly conserved and always equal to zero. As you go back in time, matter and radiation get hotter and denser - so the energy in them increases. At the same time the gravitational potential energy gets more and more negative. This happens in much the same way as would occur for a cloud of gas collapsing under its own gravitational pull (or just two particles falling together, to make it even simpler). The collapse accelerates as it continues, leading to a singularity a finite time in the past.

Makes sense thanks.

When MM says something like "There is no way that "gravity' is going to take away or remove the energy in the explosion if we slam them together.", or waaay back when MM said that gravity isn't going to take away the heat of the sun, I don't think he understands what is meant by "net".

 

[temporalillusion]

Gah! I don't know what to do with you. You make a statement like this, and then further down in your post you used a formula that intentionally *oversimplifies* the process and pays *no attention whatsoever* to the chamber *geometry*, or the pressure on the outside of the plates. What the heck am I supposed to do with you?

The geometry of the chamber does not matter, the effect is between the two plates. The pressure on the outside of the plates is the same everywhere in the universe. (ETA Well maybe not everywhere, not sure if a gravity well would have an impact, everywhere that's flat then)

Yes, you are still ignoring them in your math formula. Your math formula of personal choice explicitly does *not* (not, not, not!) pay attention to the "pressure" on the outside of the plates! It explicitly *oversimplifies* the physical process!

You can't change the pressure on the outside of the plates. The volume between the plates is the only factor that matters when calculating the pressure between the plates.

You don't like his "formula of personal choice", could you provide another one? I've posted the forumula, could you point out where it goes wrong in the derivation?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here's an idea, wrt MM's "known forces of nature".

Start with gravity, which is, per his own statements, one such.

IIRC, MM proposed a very simple test which demonstrates that gravity, as a force of nature, exists*; something like this: hold your Tesco plasma ball in one hand, hand facing down; with your other hand underneath it, palm up, let go of the ball ... the ball will drop into your (lower) hand; ergo, gravity exists.

As was pointed out, and as is clear anyway, all this test shows is that the plasma ball falls when released from one's hand; to call that 'gravity' is rather underwhelming.

Call it whatever you want, but it is possible to repeat this process again and again and again, and setup control mechanisms to study the process, etc.

However, we can proceed empirically - being very careful to define just what we mean by this word - and do lots of tests with lots of different objects, in lots of different places, at lots of different times.

This is the part that *cannot* ever be done with DE or inflation. We can't "experiment" at all with Lambda's bag of metaphysical friends. They are not in any way similar to gravity in the sense that we cannot and never will be able to experiment with them in controlled conditions.