A Brief History of the Flat Universe

Well, there's the official history of the flat universe, and, dare I
say it, the real history, which has an important social component.
Dates are approximate.

The Official History (very brief): After the FRW model gained
widepread acceptance in the 1960's, the universe was considered to be
at "critical density", such that expansion was in-between a
perpetual-expansion state, and reversion to contraction. This
provided for a flat manifold. In 1998, BoomeranG observations showed
the CMB to be displaying a flat manifold. WMAP has since improved
these observations. (end of the official history)

The REAL History: With acceptance of the FRW model in the 1960's,
came the concept that the geometry of the universe depended on whether
it was permanently expanding (hyperbolic manifold), at critical
density (flat), or eventually reverting to contraction (spherical).
There were, however, problems with the FRW model, notably the horizon
problem (how such uniformity is possible), and the size problem (how
the universe attained its large size). In 1977 Alan Guth made a
breakthrough with his revolutionary (I would say "magic wand") theory
of inflation. The engine of inflation is such that it is both
constrained by, and producing of, a flat space-time. This is to say,
inflation and the flat universe are ONE AND THE SAME, operationally.

Armed with Guth's inflation, many problems were resolved, but at the
(gladly paid) price of an enforced flat universe. The "critical
density" universe was now gospel in that it was a requirement of
inflation. This went on into the 1990's, even as observational
problems began to multiply. In the 1990's, supernova observations
became seriously discrepant with the critical density universe.
However, the critical density universe could not be discarded without
discarding inflation as well. Remember that it was still the paradigm
that a perpetually-expanding universe would be a hyperbolic continuum.
Since inflation was an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work,
the critical density universe had to be adhered to. This went on for
a few uncomfortable years in the mid 1990's.

Enter the BoomeranG observations! Carried by high-atmosphere
balloons, detailed observations were made of the CMB. The black body
contours were revealed. These were interpreted as observational
evidence for a flat universe.

(Here's the important part) Suddenly, the pressure was off! No
longer was the critical density universe the only observational
confirmation of the flat universe. Now there was new confirmation.
And almost immediately, the supernova data was published and the
critical density universe was refuted. A new paradigm of perpetual
expansion was promulgated, but without the previous requirement that
this would entail a hyperbolic universe. No, with the BoomeranG
observations "confirming" the flat universe, the gap between old
paradigm and new paradigm was filled with DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY.
In this way, the flat universe is retained, and so inflation is
retained, and so the FRW model is retained. Thanks, BoomeranG! And
thanks, WMAP!

But, this is the message of the synchronicity of the supernova
publications, and BoomeranG. The first would not have been possible
without the second. The flat universe had to be retained at all costs!

So you see, this is what I have meant about the circular "evidence"
for a flat universe which is holding up the FRW cosmology. IN FACT,
the concept came first (with "inflation"), and the evolution of the
model is allowed only under the mandatory constraint that the flat
universe be retained. It has gone so far, that it has now become
acceptable to model the universe as consisting MOSTLY of invisible
matter and unknowable energy. Crazy!!

People, the hyperbolic universe is out there, waiting to be found.
How can we slip out of the straight-jacket of inflation and the flat
universe?

Eric Flesch

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:

Well, there's the official history of the flat universe, and, dare I
say it, the real history, which has an important social component.
Dates are approximate.

The Official History (very brief): After the FRW model gained
widepread acceptance in the 1960's, the universe was considered to be
at "critical density",

This is not really true. Einstein and de Sitter suggested one of the
flat models almost 80 years ago, but primarily because it was
mathematically simple and, at the time, couldn't be ruled out
observationally. Later on, in the 1960s and 1970s, observational
evidence was for a low-density universe, implying your favourite
hyperbolic geometry if one assumes no cosmological constant (and there
was no evidence for the cosmological constant then).

such that expansion was in-between a
perpetual-expansion state, and reversion to contraction. This
provided for a flat manifold. In 1998, BoomeranG observations showed
the CMB to be displaying a flat manifold. WMAP has since improved
these observations. (end of the official history)

OK.

The REAL History: With acceptance of the FRW model in the 1960's,
came the concept that the geometry of the universe depended on whether
it was permanently expanding (hyperbolic manifold), at critical
density (flat), or eventually reverting to contraction (spherical).

Assuming no cosmological constant.

There were, however, problems with the FRW model, notably the horizon
problem (how such uniformity is possible), and the size problem (how
the universe attained its large size).

There is not a consensus as to whether these are really problems.

In 1977 Alan Guth made a
breakthrough with his revolutionary (I would say "magic wand") theory
of inflation. The engine of inflation is such that it is both
constrained by, and producing of, a flat space-time. This is to say,
inflation and the flat universe are ONE AND THE SAME, operationally.

Generically, inflation makes the universe so large that the local
curvature is very close to flat, in the sense that the Earth is flat
locally. It says nothing about the global geometry (except that the
latter is now difficult to measure).

Armed with Guth's inflation, many problems were resolved, but at the
(gladly paid) price of an enforced flat universe. The "critical
density" universe was now gospel in that it was a requirement of
inflation. This went on into the 1990's, even as observational
problems began to multiply.

This is true, and is a case of a few people in influential positions
with axes to gring perpetuating a view long after it was no longer
tenable. But, hey, science once again showed that self-correction works
and the truth won out.

In the 1990's, supernova observations
became seriously discrepant with the critical density universe.

It depends on what you mean by "critical density". The important thing
is that they implied accelerated expansion.

However, the critical density universe could not be discarded without
discarding inflation as well.

It was the combination of the supernovae measurements and "direct"
measurements of the density which led to a low-density flat universe as
the now currently popular "standard model".

Remember that it was still the paradigm
that a perpetually-expanding universe would be a hyperbolic continuum.

Only if one assumes no cosmological constant, but that assumption is not
compatible with observations and assuming inflation or a flat universe
has nothing to do with it.

Since inflation was an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work,

No. Perhaps to solve the problems you mentioned, if indeed they need to
be solved.

Enter the BoomeranG observations! Carried by high-atmosphere
balloons, detailed observations were made of the CMB. The black body
contours were revealed. These were interpreted as observational
evidence for a flat universe.

OK.

(Here's the important part) Suddenly, the pressure was off! No
longer was the critical density universe the only observational
confirmation of the flat universe. Now there was new confirmation.
And almost immediately, the supernova data was published and the
critical density universe was refuted.

Actually, the CMB experiments and the supernovae stuff (each consists of
several papers) were published during the same time frame.

A new paradigm of perpetual
expansion was promulgated, but without the previous requirement that
this would entail a hyperbolic universe. No, with the BoomeranG
observations "confirming" the flat universe, the gap between old
paradigm and new paradigm was filled with DARK MATTER and DARK ENERGY.

Actually, dark matter has nothing to do with it. The value of Omega of
about 0.3 is consistent with "non-cosmological" observations. Dark
energy is just a fancy name for the cosmological constant. It is
observed. It doesn't fill a gap. That would be the case of one assumes
flatness, knows Omega, and postulates dark energy to make up the
difference. But the effects of dark energy, namely accelerated
expansion, are observed.

In this way, the flat universe is retained, and so inflation is
retained, and so the FRW model is retained. Thanks, BoomeranG! And
thanks, WMAP!

Again, all of this observational evidence is independent of whether or
not there was inflation.

But, this is the message of the synchronicity of the supernova
publications, and BoomeranG. The first would not have been possible
without the second. The flat universe had to be retained at all costs!

This is simply wrong.

People, the hyperbolic universe is out there, waiting to be found.
How can we slip out of the straight-jacket of inflation and the flat
universe?

Your evidence, please?

On Fri, 23 Nov 07, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The REAL History: With acceptance of the FRW model in the 1960's,
came the concept that the geometry of the universe depended on whether
it was permanently expanding (hyperbolic manifold), at critical
density (flat), or eventually reverting to contraction (spherical).

Assuming no cosmological constant.

That's right, I had forgotten! It was eventually set to zero. They
certainly called it zero in my undergraduate days (70s, 80s)

Generically, inflation makes the universe so large that the local
curvature is very close to flat, in the sense that the Earth is flat
locally. It says nothing about the global geometry (except that the
latter is now difficult to measure).

Well, if today's universe is truly flat, as WMAP is claimed to show,
it's a fair extension to say that the mechanism which produced the
universe, i.e., inflation, produced the flatness causally. Surely you
agree.

Since inflation was an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work,

No. Perhaps to solve the problems you mentioned, if indeed they need to
be solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation has a good round-up of
all of this, including the problems. I think most cosmologists agree
that these are genuine problems which are addressed by inflation.

And almost immediately, the supernova data was published and the
critical density universe was refuted.

Actually, the CMB experiments and the supernovae stuff (each consists of
several papers) were published during the same time frame.

Yep, the scientific community knew what was going on, during the
publication process.

But the effects of dark energy, namely accelerated
expansion, are observed.

Insofar that the term "dark energy", is just a placeholder for the
actual cause, sure. (The actual cause being, in my view, geometry)

But, this is the message of the synchronicity of the supernova
publications, and BoomeranG. The first would not have been possible
without the second. The flat universe had to be retained at all costs!

This is simply wrong.

I have here presented that the history of the published literature
shows that this was the motivation. I think any archivist would agree
that my interpretation is a fair call.

People, the hyperbolic universe is out there, waiting to be found.
How can we slip out of the straight-jacket of inflation and the flat
universe?

Your evidence, please?

addressed in another posting.

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:

On Fri, 23 Nov 07, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The REAL History: With acceptance of the FRW model in the 1960's,
came the concept that the geometry of the universe depended on whether
it was permanently expanding (hyperbolic manifold), at critical
density (flat), or eventually reverting to contraction (spherical).

Assuming no cosmological constant.

That's right, I had forgotten! It was eventually set to zero. They
certainly called it zero in my undergraduate days (70s, 80s)

Indeed. The cosmological constant is an idea whose time has come, and
gone, and come, and gone. In the 1970s and 1980s, classical cosmology
had gone about as far as it could with the methods of the day and there
was no evidence for a cosmological constant, so many folks set it to
zero just to make calculations simpler.

Generically, inflation makes the universe so large that the local
curvature is very close to flat, in the sense that the Earth is flat
locally. It says nothing about the global geometry (except that the
latter is now difficult to measure).

Well, if today's universe is truly flat, as WMAP is claimed to show,

No-one claims that WMAP demonstrates that the universe is "truly flat",
but rather that Omega + lambda is rather close to 1. Observationally,
one would require an infinitely small error to measure it as "truly
flat". And if exact flatness is included within the error bars, so are
both positive and negative curvature (though with a rather large radius
of curvature).

it's a fair extension to say that the mechanism which produced the
universe, i.e., inflation, produced the flatness causally. Surely you
agree.

Generically, inflation implies (near) flatness. But flatness does not,
in itself, imply inflation.

Since inflation was an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work,

No. Perhaps to solve the problems you mentioned, if indeed they need to
be solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation has a good round-up of
all of this, including the problems. I think most cosmologists agree
that these are genuine problems which are addressed by inflation.

That's probably true. But, to be fair, most cosmologists don't work
directly with these problems and probably quote what (they think) is the
majority opinion when asked. There are certainly many big-name
cosmologists who doubt the extent to which the problems which inflation
can solve even exist (i.e. they debate the fact that they are problems;
they don't debate the observational facts). John Barrow, George Ellis
and Peter Coles, to name a few. Even if it is a minority opinion, it is
a) the opinion of those who have actually studied the problems for years
and b) as long as this is a real debate one can't say that inflation is
an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work.

And almost immediately, the supernova data was published and the
critical density universe was refuted.

Actually, the CMB experiments and the supernovae stuff (each consists of
several papers) were published during the same time frame.

Yep, the scientific community knew what was going on, during the
publication process.

Actually, the first paper by the Supernova Cosmology Project reported
evidence (though with large error bars) FOR the Einstein-de Sitter
universe. It later turned out that this was due to the effects of one
unusually bright object in their sample. It was only later that the
evidence started to accumulate for the flat lambda model. Two
independent teams came to this conclusion, and in neither case was it
what they a priori wanted to believe.

But the effects of dark energy, namely accelerated
expansion, are observed.

Insofar that the term "dark energy", is just a placeholder for the
actual cause, sure. (The actual cause being, in my view, geometry)

Again, the two effects are not degenerate and can and are distinguished
observationally.

But, this is the message of the synchronicity of the supernova
publications, and BoomeranG. The first would not have been possible
without the second. The flat universe had to be retained at all costs!

This is simply wrong.

I have here presented that the history of the published literature
shows that this was the motivation. I think any archivist would agree
that my interpretation is a fair call.

We are talking in both cases about observational programs which lasted
several years, started independently and published several papers over a
period of years. It seems strange to see a conspiracy here.

On Mon, 26 Nov 07 10:26:39 GMT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
Well, if today's universe is truly flat, as WMAP is claimed to show,

No-one claims that WMAP demonstrates that the universe is "truly flat",
but rather that Omega + lambda is rather close to 1.

And why would that be, if not causally? All today's paper are just
taking it as 1. So they are using the idea that it is "truly flat" in
all their calculations and graphs. How can you say that "no-one
claims" it, when everyone does it?

it's a fair extension to say that the mechanism which produced the
universe, i.e., inflation, produced the flatness causally. Surely you
agree.

Generically, inflation implies (near) flatness. But flatness does not,
in itself, imply inflation.

That's right! But I suspect you are taking an unpublished position of
advocacy in this discussion, whilst I am treating the published
literature.

There are certainly many big-name
cosmologists who doubt the extent to which the problems which inflation
can solve even exist (i.e. they debate the fact that they are problems;
they don't debate the observational facts). John Barrow, George Ellis
and Peter Coles, to name a few. Even if it is a minority opinion, it is
a) the opinion of those who have actually studied the problems for years
and b) as long as this is a real debate one can't say that inflation is
an absolute requirement for the FRW model to work.

That is interesting. So when do they publish?

Actually, the first paper by the Supernova Cosmology Project reported
evidence (though with large error bars) FOR the Einstein-de Sitter
universe. It later turned out that this was due to the effects of one
unusually bright object in their sample. It was only later that the
evidence started to accumulate for the flat lambda model. Two
independent teams came to this conclusion, and in neither case was it
what they a priori wanted to believe.

Whatever the operational reasons, their early results supported the
"critical density" universe, and their later results, once BoomeranG
was out, refuted it. The results speak for themselves. Their
accounting of how they came to those results, are just afterthoughts.
So there was one critical data point that made a big difference?
"Yeah, right".

I have here presented that the history of the published literature
shows that this was the motivation. I think any archivist would agree
that my interpretation is a fair call.

We are talking in both cases about observational programs which lasted
several years, started independently and published several papers over a
period of years. It seems strange to see a conspiracy here.

Hmm, if you watch a roomful of people late at night, you might notice
that some of them begin to yawn. Soon the yawns spread. It is a
conspiracy of communication, telling people that it is bedtime. But
it's not strange. Similarly, to see bands of astronomers following
research precedents and social dictates may seem conspiratorial in a
operational sense, but it is no more strange than a yawn.

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:

On Mon, 26 Nov 07 10:26:39 GMT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
Well, if today's universe is truly flat, as WMAP is claimed to show,

No-one claims that WMAP demonstrates that the universe is "truly flat",
but rather that Omega + lambda is rather close to 1.

And why would that be, if not causally?

Why not? They are free parameters. If you know what caused them to
have the values they do, then please let us know. These are MEASURED
values. We shouldn't let our expectations influence what we measure.

All today's paper are just
taking it as 1.

In what context? In many cases, for the accuracy needed, 1 is good
enough. If I want to calculate how much fuel my car needs to drive to
Stockholm, I don't need to know the distance to the millimeter, or even
to the kilometer, precisely.

So they are using the idea that it is "truly flat" in
all their calculations and graphs. How can you say that "no-one
claims" it, when everyone does it?

The error is quite small. For the purposes of the calculations, it
doesn't matter. But for, for example, those who wish space to be
hyperbolic, a negative curvature is still possible. However, due to the
large radius of curvature, direct effects of this curvature are
difficult to observe.

That's right! But I suspect you are taking an unpublished position of
advocacy in this discussion, whilst I am treating the published
literature.

One doesn't need to know anything about inflation in order to determine
the cosmological parameters from observation. Whether or not someone
mentions that the values are in accordance with expectations from
inflation doesn't matter. (And, again, even inflation doesn't say
"exactly flat", but rather a huge radius of curvature.)

That is interesting. So when do they publish?

They have. Read the literature. Coles and Ellis wrote an entire book
on why they believe the universe is not the Einstein-de Sitter model.
They spend an entire chapter discussing the flatness problem.

Whatever the operational reasons, their early results supported the
"critical density" universe,

True.

and their later results, once BoomeranG
was out, refuted it.

In urban areas, compared to the countryside, a) there are fewer storks
and b) the birth rate is lower. Don't confuse correlation (in this
case, temporal correlation) with causation.

The results speak for themselves. Their
accounting of how they came to those results, are just afterthoughts.

This is simply rubbish and an unnecessary criticism of the people
involved. Hey, get their original data, reduce them yourself, do the
analysis, and you'll get the same result if you don't make any mistakes.
If you can find where they fudged, let us know!

And yes, there was another group which INDEPENDENTLY got the same
results.

On Wed, 28 Nov 07 09:11:23 GMT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The results speak for themselves. Their
accounting of how they came to those results, are just afterthoughts.

This is simply rubbish and an unnecessary criticism of the people
involved. Hey, get their original data, reduce them yourself, etc

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/o...nts/index.html
Data creep of fundamental constants. e.g. Millikan's oil drop
experiment, as explained by Richard Feynman:

"It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge
on the electron after Millikan. If you plot them as function of time,
you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, the next one's a
little bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than
that, until finally they settle down to a number that is higher. Why
didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a
thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's
apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that
was too high above Millikan's, they would look for and find a number
closer to Millikan's value when they didn't look so far. And so they
eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things
like that."

But I guess you would call Feynman's text, "simply rubbish"?.

How about the speed of light? From the web page:
"In 1929, Birge published his review of all the evidence available up
to 1927 and came to the conclusion that the best value for velocity of
light was 299,796 ± 4 km/s. ...

"From around 1928 to 1945, the velocity of light appeared to be about
20 km/s lower than before and after this period. The 'best' values,
found by the leading investigators using a variety of techniques, were
in impressively close agreement with each other, and the available
data were combined and adjusted by Birge in 1941 and Dorsey in 1945.
In the late 1940s the speed of light went up again. ...

"How can the lower velocity from 1928 to 1945 be explained? If it was
simply a matter of experimental error, why did the results of
different investigators and different methods agree so well? And why
were the estimated errors so low?"

I suppose, Phil, that your explanation would be that the speed of
light actually was 20 km/s lower from 1928 to 1945, right?

[Mod. note: speculation about other posters' interpretation of facts
is discouraged -- mjh]

Eric

In article ,
(Eric Flesch) writes:

On Wed, 28 Nov 07 09:11:23 GMT, Phillip Helbig wrote:
(Eric Flesch) writes:
The results speak for themselves. Their
accounting of how they came to those results, are just afterthoughts.

This is simply rubbish and an unnecessary criticism of the people
involved. Hey, get their original data, reduce them yourself, etc

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/o...nts/index.html
Data creep of fundamental constants. e.g. Millikan's oil drop
experiment, as explained by Richard Feynman:

Yes, this has happened. Einstein himself was guilty of it once.
However, just because someone made some mistake in the past is no reason
to suspect that this applies to all measurements, or to specific
measurements, unless you have additional evidence---which you don't.

Ugamegold - UK leader in the provision of WoW Gold. Buy World of Warcraft Gold, WoW Power Leveling and other MMOG Services at Ugamegold.

Everything is good when new, but friends when old..*.　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\　　/~ .~\　　/~　~\ ***　 '　　　`\/'　　　*　'　　　`\/'　　　* 　V　 (　MY LOEV TO YOU.*)(　　　　　　　 . *) /\|/\　\　　 wow gold,　 .*./ \　wow gold[i], *./ 　|　　 `\ .　　　. .*/'一　`\ .　　　. .*/' 　|　　　 `\ * .*. */' _　　_ `\ * .*. */' 　　　　　　`\ * */'　( `\/'*)　`\ * */' 　　　　　　　`\/'　　 \　 */'　　`\/' 　　　　　　　　　　　　`\/'