Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Alternative Cosmology?
CosmicAtheist
Member (Idle past 4892 days)
Posts: 31
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 04-07-2010


Message 16 of 25 (559830)
05-11-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
05-11-2010 7:11 PM


Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2010 7:11 PM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 17 of 25 (559833)
05-11-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by cavediver
05-11-2010 7:08 PM


That's 'cos you still don't understand them Anyone who groups the two together so naively will never be taken seriously. Dark energy has always been half expected by those of us in theoretical phsyics and was no real surprise - though a fantastic discovery. How does that equate to a fudge?
I grouped them in the sense I could see a paradigm shift happening in both areas, not that they were both interrelated and/or the same.
And in what sense are you saying 'half-expected' ? In the sense 'it was predicted' or in the sense 'the theory could accomodate it' ? (or maybe some other sense)
Dark matter on the other hand was a surprise, and requires a much more complex answer. However, the vast majority of observations suggest that cold dark matter (WIMPs) forms the primary component, as opposed to just about every other conceivable way of changing physics to accomodate observation.
Of course, you can hypothezise new undetectable particles to accomodate observation, just as you can add epicyles on a geocentric system to make it fit the observations. And it'll work.
But that's the whole idea of a paradigm shift. It attacks the problem from a whole new angle (maybe the sun is at the center ?). Likewise, New physics shouldn't be discarded, especially if they come in the form of complementing General Relativity in the same way it itself complemented Newton's Universal gravity.
Critics seem to have this bizarre notion that we guess an answer that seems cool, and then consider the problem solved. Although a tempting way of working, surprisingly real science does not progress this way...
But of course, this is not what I did. I still consider this problem to be wide-open in the scientific community.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2010 7:08 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 05-11-2010 7:39 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 19 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2010 7:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 18 of 25 (559836)
05-11-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
05-11-2010 7:27 PM


New Paradigm
You may not be aware of it, but the best candidate currently to do what you are suggesting is M-Theory.
M-theory - Wikipedia
There have already been hints that the multi-membrane explanation for our so-far inability to detect the gravition will also neatly explain the misleadingly-named problem of "Dark Matter", as well as providing a better understanding of what conditions may have been like "before" Inflation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-11-2010 7:27 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2010 7:47 PM Iblis has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 19 of 25 (559837)
05-11-2010 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
05-11-2010 7:27 PM


I grouped them in the sense I could see a paradigm shift happening in both areas
Can you? Anyone who addresses both subjects simultaneously automatically qualifies for crank status (just because the two concepts have 'dark' in their names doesn't mean that they are in any way linked.) Or are you suggesting that there are two independent paradigm shifts? Any clue as to what these are?
And in what sense are you saying 'half-expected' ? In the sense 'it was predicted' or in the sense 'the theory could accomodate it' ?
Both. And in each case, from both General Relativity (cosmological constant) and quantum gravity (e.g. SuperGravity) You do realise that the accelerating Universe is just the Friedmann Lemaitre Robertson Walker cosmology? Any clues when this was developed? It wasn't the 90s...
Of course, you can hypothezise new undetectable particles to accomodate observation,
Is this all you think has been done in the search for the nature of dark matter?
But that's the whole idea of a paradigm shift. It attacks the problem from a whole new angle (maybe the sun is at the center ?). Likewise, New physics shouldn't be discarded, especially if they come in the form of complementing General Relativity in the same way it itself complemented Newton's Universal gravity.
And you are suggesting that this hasn't been done? Your evidence? That we haven't taken up a new paradigm? Could it be that we have considered many new paradigms but none have matched observation as well as CDM?
I still consider this problem to be wide-open in the scientific community.
And your consideration is based upon evidence, or upon a general suspiscion that if scientists can be wrong about creation, they can be wrong about cosmology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-11-2010 7:27 PM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 20 of 25 (559839)
05-11-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Iblis
05-11-2010 7:39 PM


Re: New Paradigm
You may not be aware of it, but the best candidate currently to do what you are suggesting is M-Theory.
If I said that the answer to Dark Matter has just been revealed to lie within the leaking branes of M-Theory, or the intricacies of Loop Quantum Gravity, then many would quit their whinging, and nod their heads saying - yeah, I knew it. I would love this to be the case as it would be a great test/observation of these theories at work. It would be fantastic. BUT THE FUCKING EVIDENCE AT THE MOMENT FAVOURS THE FUCKING BORING COLD DARK MATTER AND SO WHAT I WOULD PREFER IS FUCKING IMMATERIAL.
ABE: Rant in no way aimed at Iblis - he was just an innocent casuality
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Iblis, posted 05-11-2010 7:39 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Iblis, posted 05-11-2010 8:45 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 21 of 25 (559843)
05-11-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by CosmicAtheist
05-11-2010 6:07 PM


Perhaps, which is why I am not completely against the BBT, but I have read some websites with stimulating new ideas as you mentioned. But don't you think after 30 years of failing to detect dark matter that there should be more funding towards alternative explanations like plasma cosmology? I am not saying they should ditch dark matter but open up new possibilities.
Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia Wiki on Plasma Cosmology, interesting stuff.
I won't pretend to be an expert in this field, but that usually doesn't stop me from offering my opinion.
From my understanding, Plasma Cosmology (PC) has a fundamental problem. You have to work through the "back door" to arrive at observations using PC. That is, only in very special cases will PC produce such observations as the temperature fluctuations in the CMB. For a scientist, this sets off very loud alarms. This is starkly contrasted by the BBT in which the observations we see are the exact observations we would expect to see. The prime example is how the BBT is able to very accurately predict the characteristics of the CMB. PC doesn't even predict that the CMB should be there, and has to twist over itself to explain it.
When comparing the BBT and PC there really is no comparison. The BBT says that certain things just HAVE to be there while PC can only say that these same things could perhaps exist, or not.
And again, I am by no means an expert but this is what I have gleaned through my reading. If I am way off base please let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by CosmicAtheist, posted 05-11-2010 6:07 PM CosmicAtheist has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 22 of 25 (559854)
05-11-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by cavediver
05-11-2010 7:47 PM


Re: New Paradigm
cavediver writes:
AAAAAAAARGH!!!
LOL, I did marginalize it to "hint".
But what I'm telling slevesque is really Wow, there's at least one prominent applicant for that job already. Sure, LQG is another, though not as awesome a one. There have been tons of alternative-to-the-big-bang-but-not-really hypotheses already, Inflation is the one that won so far and got to wear the official hat.
I hope there's lots of ranting in this thread about how the alleged old paradigm has been reworked already, but I'm not going to put too much effort into it myself. 8 billion years? 10-15 billion years? Only 13 billion years? Whatever.
It's not going to be 6014 years, count on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by cavediver, posted 05-11-2010 7:47 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4956 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 23 of 25 (571243)
07-30-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CosmicAtheist
05-10-2010 11:17 PM


What they say is what I say and what most people who have actually done some study on the matter say - it is appaling pseudo-scientific nonsense.
I spent some time looking into 'plasma physics' and 'electric universe' theories. They are so full of holes that no scientist I know even considers them to be real science - let alone credible physics.
What I think has happened is that all the electric and electronics lads have got a bit peed-off at all the attention the physics community is getting. They have therefore (through the IEEE) decided to establish their own cosmology and apply for nice grants :-)
Hannes Alfvn was a good plasma physicist but an awful cosmologist.
I recommend a search of the literature before taking this seriously. You will find a couple of dozen papers in the standard references - most from a journal setup by the IEEE specifically. Look further and you will find one name comes up time and again - A. L. Peratt.
Check the content of the papers and what you get is:
In my plasma lab I can make displays that look reely reely like that stuff in them galaxies and things. Therefore the universe must all behave like my lab machine...innit....
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : Additional material

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CosmicAtheist, posted 05-10-2010 11:17 PM CosmicAtheist has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 24 of 25 (613420)
04-25-2011 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by slevesque
05-11-2010 5:16 PM


slevesque writes:
I think this is a very interesting topic to look after in the up coming years. I could see a paradigm shift coming in cosmology if enough counter-evidence to the current BBT can pile up to become unavoidable.
Dark matter and energy are areas where I could see the paradigm shifting early. I'm sure cavediver remembers how I once called them fudge factors, and I still think they are.
It's like back when Newton's theory of universal gravity came to explain a lot of incredible things, but failed to explain the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. To explain the difference, an ''unknown'' planet named Vulcan was hypothesied to exist.Some looked for that planet for over 50 years. We now know that the answer lied elsewhere, namely new physics with Einstein's relativity.
I think it is a distinct possibility that the same is happening with dark matter. We have been searching for it for what, at least 20-30 years now ? With no concensus on what it is, and only very disputed evidence of it's detection. Maybe then the answer to the discrepencies dark matter is hypothesied to explain will in fact be answered from another direction, maybe new physics once again ?
I'm sure the old-schoolers in physics such as Cavediver will disagree with me. But then again, that's why we need young and naive New-comers on the scene like me
AbE I read a quote on that phenomenon once, something along the liens of ''science progresses with the replacement of the old minds''. (It may be something worded totally differently, but this was the essence of the message)
Yes, of course, physics will get a good shave with Occam's razor and it is new blood that will be doing the job. Cavediver will stick to his old guns till the day he dies. How long will it take is hard to tell, but it is clear that BBT won't be spared by the razor. Let's face it; what exists is observable at least indirectly while all the evidence for the dark matter and energy together with inflationary expansion is the radiation those entities emit in the process of fitting the wrong initial assumptions.
None exists in any other fashion. The dropping of the assumptions may safely remove the whole bunch of the mystical singularities.
As it is, most of the alternative theories are not free from inconsistencies and contradictions, yet next to the astronomical scale of contradictions inherent in the mainstream view without anybody seeming to mind the absurdities, those inconsistencies are minor indeed.
Plasma or Standing Wave cosmology and others may seem novel or rather unusual, yet none of them at any point suggests any total break-down of the necessity itself. Nor in any of these "crank" theories the galaxies are assumed to behave like a bunch of scared birds with distances accelerating like a magic carpet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by slevesque, posted 05-11-2010 5:16 PM slevesque has not replied

  
luluxiu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4316 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 08-06-2011


Message 25 of 25 (628234)
08-07-2011 10:56 PM


It's like when Newton's gravitational theory to explain the common lot of incredible things, but did not explain the perihelion of Mercury's orbit precession. To explain the difference, "unknown" planet named Vulcan hypothesied exist.Some the planet to find 50 years of age.
Edited by Admin, : Spamify the signature.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024