Thursday, December 28, 2006

Holiday Gifts


Just when it looked like the last gifts have already arrived, comes the new ASTRONOMY magazine! The cover says it all:

"WHAT IF STRING THEORY IS WRONG? If it is, then dark matter, dark energy and cosmic inflation are in big trouble"

"The standard model has absolutely no place in it for dark matter and dark energy, ingredients that constitute 96% of the universe's gravitating stuff. And it gets worse."

"Inflation, a super-fast expansion of the universe when it was less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second old, explains observations of the CMB made by satellites such as NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). But it can't account for the small-scale structure that led to galaxy formation."

"In the 1980's, when Alan Guth at Massachusets Institute of Technology and Andre Linde at Moscow University first developed the inflation idea, it had nothing to do with string theory, extra dimensions, or supersymnetry. Since then, refinements to inflation scenarios have come only by borrowing ideas from superstring theory."

Dan Hooper, now at Fermilab, has just published his first book in hardcover: DARK COSMOS: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Mass and Energy." He devotes a whole chapter to skeptics of "dark energy." How many of you identify with his words?

"Before arriving at Oxford in 2003, I had never given the evidence for dark energy much thought. The scientific community had largely endorsed the conclusion that we live in a Universe dominated by dark energy, and I, a new researcher who had earned his PhD a mere few months earlier, didn't see much reason to doubt that they were right. While at Oxford, however, I met and became a friend and collaborator of a physicist named Subir Sarkar. Along with being a thoroughly detailed and rigorous particle physicist and cosmologist, Subir is also a dark energy skeptic.

"As the evidence for dark energy accumulated, it did not take long for something of a consensus to be reached by the cosmological community. Subir was one of the cosmologists who paused long enough to ask what assumptions this conclusion was based on. Further, he wondered whether other reasonable assumptions could be adopted that would not lead to a conclusion that dark energy exists. Subir assesssed the evidence for dark energy in much greater detail than most other cosmologists had. In the end, Subir wasn't entirely convinced that dark energy exists."

Bee of Backreaction expresses doubt about standard interpretations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. After the taxpayers entrusted them with an expensive spacecraft, the WMAP team sat on the data for YEARS while they massaged their own interpretation. Their data release was, as Roger Penrose has said, "analysed from the perspective of some fashionable theory." Now that the data is finally available, other researchers have found many anisotropies that the WMAP team missed. Glenn Starkman has found many odd alignments. Kate Land and Joao Maguiejo have also found an "Axis of Evil," suggesting that CMB features are local. Bee has links to their papers.

In the past 6 months this blog has garnered enormous attention. The GM = tc^3 Theory has gained even more supporters worldwide. Well-meaning people have also said "you don't have a theory," it's like watching a car crash, and "it's sad seeing someone who is clearly intelligent, creative, and passionate about science wasting their talents in such a misdirected way." Everyone's concern is appreciated. The status of repulsive energy shows which boats are rising and which are sinking.

16 Comments:

Blogger Bee said...

Bee of Backreaction expresses doubt about standard interpretations of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

I want to clarify: I am not expressing doubts about the standard interpretation. I am writing that there are unexplained correlations in the data. These can be indications for new physics, but might as well be due to our lacking understanding of GR in our local neighborhood. I was writing my post with the intention to say: we are living in an exciting time, there's no 'End of Physics' anywhere near by. Occasionally all this talk about the alleged trouble with physics really depresses me. Cosmology has turned out to be a good antidote ;-)

Have a happy New Year!

Bee

12:18 AM  
Blogger nige said...

... I am not expressing doubts about the standard interpretation. I am writing that there are unexplained correlations in the data. ... - Bee

Well said, Bee!

12:55 AM  
Blogger Bee said...

Hi Nige,

That's got nothing to do with doublespeak. There just is no 'standard interpretation' so far, consequently I am not expressing doubts about it. It's known that there are correlations among the low multipole moments but it is unclear why that is. I have my doubts about some of the theoretical attempts to interpret the data, but that's a different issue. If you like to call that nit-picking, go ahead, I don't mind, I just don't want to be misinterpreted. Best.

B.

3:16 AM  
Blogger nige said...

Hi Bee,

I agree with you!

Someone gets a wavy curve on and people say it's experimental proof of this or that.

The failure of anybody (except for me) to correctly predict the lack of gravitational slowing of the universe is one example.

Either it's due to a failure of gravity to work on masses receding from one another at great speed (due to redshift of force carrying gauge bosons in quantum gravity?) or it's due to some repulsive force offsetting gravity.

The mainstream prefers the latter, but the former predicted the Perlmutter results via October 1996 Electronics World. There is extreme censorship against predictions which are correctly confirmed afterwards, and which quantitatively correlate to observations.

But there is bias in favour of ad hoc invention of new forces which simply aren't needed and don't predict anything checkable. It's just like Ptolemy adding a new epicycle everytime he found a discrepancy, and then claiming to have "discovered" a new epicycle of nature.

Everyone who joins in such games of "doublespeak" profits by being a member of the mainstream in some way, but it is empty scientifically.

Nigel

8:58 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

HI Bee, and a great pleasure hearing from you. Happy New Year! I agree that you are not questioning everything, but pointing out unexplained correlations. We both agree that this is an exciting time. I enjoy your posts.

Happy New Year Nigel too! I always enjoy your inputs, and hope they reach a wider audience. It takes patience, but the post shows that other models are in trouble. There is certainly room for different interpretations.

Your contribution to the Asymptotia discussion was very good. If someone gives the density on the right-hand side units of energy, they must do it to the left-hand side too and c^2 still cancels out.

10:33 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

I agree with most interpretations of the CMB, including the predicted 4.507034% baryonic matter the 23.87% "dark" mass in clusters, and overall density (Omega) = 1. The unexplained correlations are indeed fascinating!

12:01 PM  
Blogger serge said...

Hi all, I'm no cosmologist but I've followed the field for about 40 years. It's nice to see this healthy controversy these days around nice small equations. The alleged censorship of certain views which was mentioned by a commenter would be unfortunate if it is actually occurring, and it very well may be occurring, this is hard to prove. I recommend that researcher also try to prove that censorship is occurring, as well as trying to prove that your equations match reality. The latter is relatively easy when compared with the former. Wishing you success in 2007 and all the other years left in the cosmos.

4:52 AM  
Blogger Rae Ann said...

I know that you all are scientists and must use scientific language and mathematics, etc. to ask and answer questions, but can I leave all of that out and ask a more philosophical question?

The existence of a repulsive or dark energy is philosophically compatible with much of what we do know and understand about things. How do you replace it in that context? I'm not sure I'm forming my question well enough. Sorry.

Have a safe and Happy New Year!

8:40 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Welcome serge, and I hope you have enjoyed the posts about dolphins. Concerning the former, any number of rejection letters cite "speculations and pedagogical discourses that are not closely linked to current research." The web is handy for commenters to write even sillier things. I won't dwell on them.

Happy New year Rae Ann! Repulsive energies might be philosophically compatible, and serve as place-holders until something better comes along. Since no repulsive energies can be observed in nature, such ideas may never be proven. Inflation and "dark energy" can be simply replaced by GM = tc^3, which is compatible with even more experiments.

10:11 AM  
Blogger Kea said...

Wow, that would have been a great present! I know your blog is very popular Louise, because I get many hits from it, and each week they grow in number. How anybody can buy the concept of an Energy for Empty Space when there are such good alternatives is beyond me.

3:42 PM  
Blogger CarlBrannen said...

Regarding "rejection letters", my New Years Resolution is to get published in peer reviewed journals. I think my stuff is more heretical than yours, Louise, and I've thought about it some.

What I'm going to do is to put the things that are most formal, and as far away from heresey as possible together for first attempts. The idea is to get the nose of the camel into the tent.

For your theory, being a dummy, I would write up the first paper as if it applied to a "toy universe" rather than suggesting it applies to the real one. I don't read cosmology papers, but elementary particles is loaded with papers giving toy solutions for toy problems.

10:55 PM  
Blogger nige said...

Rae Ann,

1. The role of "dark energy" (repulsion force between masses at extreme distances) is purely an epicycle to CANCEL OUT GRAVITY ATTRACTION AT THOSE DISTANCES, thus making general relativity consistent with 1999-current observations of recession of supernovas away from us at extreme distances.

2. YOU REPLACE THIS "DARK ENERGY" WITH REDUCED GRAVITY AT LONG RANGES.

YOU GET THE REDUCED GRAVITY AT LONG RANGES THEORETICALLY PREDICTED BY YANG-MILLS QUANTUM FIELD THEORY.

All understood forces (Standard Model) result from exchanges of gauge boson radiation between the charges involved in the forces.

Gravity has no reason to be any different. The exchanged radiation between gravitational 'charges' (ie masses) will be severely redshifted and gravity weakened where the masses are receding at relativistic velocities.

This effect REPLACES DARK ENERGY.

There is NO DARK ENERGY.

The entire effects attributed to dark energy are due to redshift of gravity causing gauge boson radiation in the expanding universe.

This was PREDICTED QUANTITATIVELY IN DETAIL TWO YEARS AHEAD OF THE SUPERNOVAE OBSERVATIONS AND WAS PUBLISHED, back in Oct. 1996.

I can't believe how hard it is to get people to see this.

This prediction actually fits the observations better than a cosmological constant/dark energy. Adding a cosmological constant/dark energy FAILS to adequately model the situation because instead of merely cancelling out gravity at long ranges, it under cancels up to a certain distance and overcompensates at great distances.

The "cosmological constant" the mainstream is using is variable, to fit the data! You can't exactly offset gravity by simply adding a cosmological constant, see:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/11/evolving-dark-energy/

See the diagram there! The mainstream best fit using a cosmological constant is well outside many of the error bars. This is intuitively obvious from my perspective. What is occurring is that there is simply no gravitational slowing. But the mainstream is assuming that there is gravitational slowing, and also dark energy causing acceleration which offsets the gravitational slowing. But that doesn't work: the cosmological constant cannot do it. If it is perfectly matched to experimental data at short distances, it over compensates at extreme distances because it makes gravity repulsive. So it overestimates at extreme distances.

All you need to get the correct expansion curve is to delete gravitational retardation altogether. You don't need general relativity to examine the physics.

Ten years ago (well before Perlmutter’s discovery and dark energy), the argument arose that if gravity is caused by a Yang-Mills exchange radiation quantum force field, where gravitons were exchanged between masses, then cosmological expansion would degenerate the energy of the gravitons over vast distances.
It is easy to calculate: whenever light is seriously redshifted, gravity effects over the same distance will be seriously reduced.

At that time, 1996, I was furthering my education with some Open University courses and as part of the cosmology course made some predictions from this quantum gravity concept.

The first prediction is that Friedmann’s solutions to GR are wrong, because they assume falsely that gravity doesn’t weaken over distances where redshifts are severe.

Whereas the Hubble law of recessionis empirically V = Hr, Friedmann’s solutions to general relativity predicts that V will not obey this law at very great distances. Friedmann/GR assume that there will be a modification due to gravity retarding the recession velocities V, due effectively to the gravitational attraction of the receding galaxy to the mass of the universe contained within the radius r.

Hence, the recession velocity predicted by Friedmann’s solution for a critical density universe (which continues to expand at an ever diminishing rate, instead of either coasting at constant - which Friedmann shows GR predicts for low density - or collapsing which would be the case for higher than critican density) can be stated in classical terms to make it clearer than using GR.

Recession velocity including gravity

V = (Hr) - (gt)

where g = MG/(r^2) and t = r/c, so:

V = (Hr) - [MGr/(cr^2)]

= (Hr) - [MG/(cr)]

M = mass of universe which is producing the gravitational retardation of the galaxies and supernovae, ie, the mass located within radius r (by Newton’s theorem, the gravity due to mass within a spherically symmetric volume can be treated as to all reside in the centre of that volume):

M = Rho.(4/3)Pi.r^3

Assuming as (was the case in 1996 models) that Friedmann Rho = critical density = Rho = 3(H^2)/(8.Pi.G), we get:

M = Rho.(4/3)Pi.r^3

= [3(H^2)/(8.Pi.G)].(4/3)Pi.r^3

= (H^2)(r^3)/(2G)

So, the Friedmann recession velocity corrected for gravitational retardation,

V = (Hr) - [MG/(cr)]

= (Hr) - [(H^2)(r^3)G/(2Gcr)]

= (Hr) - [0.5(Hr)^2]/c.

Now, what my point is is this. The term [0.5(Hr)^2]/c in this equation is the amount of gravitational deceleration to the recession velocity.
From Yang-Mills quantum gravity arguments, with gravity strength depending on the energy of exchanged gravitons, the redshift of gravitons must stop gravitational retardation being effective. So we must drop the effect of the term [0.5(Hr)^2]/c.

Hence, we predict that the Hubble law will be the correct formula.

Perlmutter’s results of software-automated supernovae redshift discoveries using CCD telescopes were obtained in about 1998, and fitted this prediction made in 1996. However, every mainstream journal had rejected my 8-page paper, although Electronics World (which I had written for before) made it available via the October 1996 issue.

Once this quantum gravity prediction was confirmed by Perlmutter’s results, instead of abandoning Friedmann’s solutions to GR and pursuing quantum gravity, the mainstream instead injected a small positive lambda (cosmological constant, driven by unobserved dark energy) into the Friedmann solution as an ad hoc modification.

I can’t understand why something which to me is perfectly sensible and is a prediction which was later confirmed experimentally, is simply ignored. Maybe it is just too simple, and people hate simplicity, preferring exotic dark energy, etc.

People are just locked into believing Friedmann’s solutions to GR are correct because they come from GR which is well validated in other ways. They simply don’t understand that the redshift of gravitons over cosmological sized distances would weaken gravity, and that GR simply doesn’t contains these quantum gravity dynamics, so fails. It is “groupthink”.

1:52 AM  
Blogger L. Riofrio said...

Happy New Year Kea, Carl, Nige. I hope everyone gets a forum to publish their ideas. Empty Space Energy has growing doubts (many physicists doubted it in 1998) and will soon fall in favour of a better idea.

Nigel, some form of modified gravity such as yours needs to be considered. A lot of things in the LCDM model don't fit the data! The CV post leaves room for "something we haven't thought of yet." Now, if only CV would quit erasing comments.

I am working on putting more equations up for a post about Friedmann equations.

8:29 PM  
Anonymous viagra online said...

I love reading Astronomy magazine because it has a lot of different theories which gives me the opportunity of comparing!

10:56 AM  
Anonymous effet du viagra sur les hommes said...

Thanks mate... just dropped by. Will look for BIKE STN when we get to Seattle. Still in Buenos Airies.

5:44 AM  
Anonymous convert pdf to word said...

Hello! Thank you very much for this adorable, cute and sweet article! It was so lovely to read it!

5:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page