|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
Cosmological simulations can be quite useful.
They can lead to definitive predictions by which one can test our cosmological knowledge. A nice case in point is the definitive prediction that there would be roughly 1,000 CDM dark matter "subhalos" for every galaxy. This prediction was generated by one of the first comprehensive simulations (possibly the Millennium Simulation?). Unfortunately, this vast population of "subhalos" has been largely a "no show", as has "cold dark matter" in general. [Mod. note: not clear what you mean by inserting 'definitive' before 'prediction' here -- just habit, perhaps? Numerical models do not make definitive predictions. -- mjh] Cosmological simulations also offer considerable potential for retrodictions. They show us how well our model-building efforts to mimic nature are working. The caveat here is that such retrodictions can create a false sense of success if they are treated as predictions or anything comparable to predictions. Given a large number of dedicated workers and over 50 years of tinkering with a very complicated set of models involving numerous adjustable parameters and theoretical add-ons, is it surprising that the set of models can be used to reproduce observations fairly well? Hardly! The retrodictions are better at illuminating the shortcomings of the models rather than at demonstrating their accuracy in the description of nature. So the brand new Illustris Simulation is useful, but one should note Joel Primack's pointed warning about how this simulation is evaluated scientifically (see his comments in Science). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Cosmological simulations can be quite useful. They can lead to definitive predictions by which one can test our cosmological knowledge. A nice case in point is the definitive prediction that there would be roughly 1,000 CDM dark matter "subhalos" for every galaxy. This prediction was generated by one of the first comprehensive simulations (possibly the Millennium Simulation?). Unfortunately, this vast population of "subhalos" has been largely a "no show", as has "cold dark matter" in general. [Mod. note: not clear what you mean by inserting 'definitive' before 'prediction' here -- just habit, perhaps? Numerical models do not make definitive predictions. -- mjh] Right. Also, if it was generated by one of the first comprehensive simulations, it has hardly been checked. Also is the issue whether one can OBSERVE these halos. That depends on the details of star formation, which is much trickier. Also, less than two months ago I heard a talk which concluded that inserting more and better physics into such simulations makes ameliorates the problem. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:32:54 AM UTC-4, MODERATOR wrote:
[Mod. note: not clear what you mean by inserting 'definitive' before 'prediction' here -- just habit, perhaps? Numerical models do not make definitive predictions. -- mjh] The prediction of a vast population of CDM "subhalos" fits my definition of a definitive prediction. For over 30 years, in a large number of venues, I have promoted the idea of definitive predictions. DEFINITION: predictions that are (1) prior to relevant observations, (2) feasibly testable, (3) quantitative, (4) NON-ADJUSTABLE, and (5) unique to the theory being tested. [Mod. note: predictions made by numerical models in general, and the ones we are discussing in particular, fail on, at a minimum, 4; probably 1 and 5 as well -- mjh] The term "definitive prediction" has been used and defined explicitly in published papers and at many commentary sites, and in letters to editors, etc. But perhaps the message has not been received? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:15:48 PM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
DEFINITION: predictions that are (1) prior to relevant observations, (2) feasibly testable, (3) quantitative, (4) NON-ADJUSTABLE, and (5) unique to the theory being tested. Others have pointed out why such a definition is not particularly useful especially when judging physics calculations in an observational science like astrophysics. But I want to point out that using this definition, the prediction of inflation of the mass density of the universe is a perfect example of a definitive prediction. Consider (1) There are several varieties of inflation but they all predict that Omega (the ratio of the observed mass density to the closure density) should be observed to be exactly 1. This prediction is completely non-adjustable. (2) In 1979, when the first inflation models were developed, the consensus value of Omega was 0.1 (Look at the (in)famous paper written by 4 of the most noted astronomers of the time http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...194..543G ) So not only did inflation give a definitive prediction, it gave a *bold* definitive prediction, in that it went against the current consensus. (3) From the 9 year WMAP results (Bennett et al 2013), the current estimate of Omega is 1.0027 +/- 0.0039 Actually, I think other predictions of inflation are perhaps more remarkable (e.g. for the index of the perturbation spectrum) but they don't fit as nicely into the rules set up for a "definitive" prediction. --Wayne |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , wlandsman
writes: DEFINITION: predictions that are (1) prior to relevant observations, (2) feasibly testable, (3) quantitative, (4) NON-ADJUSTABLE, and (5) unique to the theory being tested. But I want to point out that using this definition, the prediction of inflation of the mass density of the universe is a perfect example of a definitive prediction. Consider (1) There are several varieties of inflation but they all predict that Omega (the ratio of the observed mass density to the closure density) should be observed to be exactly 1. This prediction is completely non-adjustable. If Omega is understood to be what I call Omega + lambda, where Omega is the density parameter for normal matter and lambda the cosmological constant. Back when inflation was developed, most people assumed that lambda was 0, so Omega+lambda=1 implied Omega=1. Note that the idea of inflation was not adjusted or fudged with after it was discovered that there is a significant positive cosmological constant. The prediction was always Omega+lambda=1, but was sometimes formulated differently because of the assumption lambda=0. (To be picky, the prediction is not EXACTLY 1, but rather very close to 1. The essential idea is that the radius of curvature is vastly larger than the Hubble radius. For Omega+lambda=1, the radius of curvature is infinite. (2) In 1979, when the first inflation models were developed, the consensus value of Omega was 0.1 (Look at the (in)famous paper written by 4 of the most noted astronomers of the time http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974ApJ...194..543G ) Interestingly, one of the authors, David Schramm, later became a defender of the Omega=1 idea, where Omega here is just the matter, not the "total Omega". This is ironic because it later turned out that the analysis of the paper you cite, namely, that Omega is much less than 1, has stood the test of time; this could be reconciled with inflation because of the discovery of the cosmological constant. Schramm died around the time this was happening. So not only did inflation give a definitive prediction, it gave a *bold* definitive prediction, in that it went against the current consensus. Right. Actually, I think other predictions of inflation are perhaps more remarkable (e.g. for the index of the perturbation spectrum) but they don't fit as nicely into the rules set up for a "definitive" prediction. I think the prediction that n is approximately 1 but slightly less than 1 is pretty good. This was a firm prediction made at a time when observations could say nothing about this. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes: DEFINITION: predictions that are (1) prior to relevant observations, (2) feasibly testable, (3) quantitative, (4) NON-ADJUSTABLE, and (5) unique to the theory being tested. I'm probably wasting bandwidth to bother with this, but the above is ridiculous. 1 is irrelevant, as I wrote before. 2 is an essential part of the definition of a theory, though I'd omit "feasibly." A prediction is still a prediction, and a theory can still be considered, even if our current technology doesn't allow a given test. Of course until the test is done, ot can't give evidence either for or against the theory. 3 is normal, though if there were some non-quantitative but testable prediction, it would still be evidence. 4 is ridiculous as stated unless there's a special definition of "non-adjustable." The relevent question is how many parameters there are relative to the number of observables. Newtonian theory, for example, requires seven free parameters for each planet (less a few for Earth given freedom to define the AU and year, etc.). 5 is impossible. In general there will be an infinite number of "theories" that could give any specific prediction, but most of them are silly because they have more free parameters than observables. All in all, the key point is whether a theory makes accurate predictions with few free parameters compared to observables. Concordance cosmology stands up very well in that scale; that's why it got its name. -- Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls. Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Cambridge, MA 02138 USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Saturday, May 24, 2014 8:47:26 AM UTC-4, Steve Willner wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article trimmed -- mjh] The above opinions cannot go unanswered. As I have pointed out before at SAR, Einstein's prediction for the eclipse experiment fulfilled all 5 requirements of a definitive prediction. Throughout his career Einstein insisted on such definitive predictions as the only sure path toward accurate understanding of nature, and equally importantly, the only way to avoid long detours into various pseudo-science cul-de-sac situations. #4 is not "ridiculous" to a scientist like Einstein, or Galileo, or Planck, or Schrodinger, or... If theoretical physics is having trouble coming up with definitive predictions, then it is a failing of currently fashionable theoretical physics and not a problem with the time-tested scientific method. Here is an archetypal quotation from Linde concerning the multiverse "theory", delivered at a recent conference on BICEP2. "If you cannot disprove [multiverse "theory"], you have this powerful weapon of thinking about and explaining things around you in an anthropic way." No, that is not a misquote. HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT! I cannot believe that more scientists are not worried about current trends away from the time-tested scientific method and towards Aristotelean "explanations", which are just-so stories without adequate empirical testing. [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: "If you cannot disprove [multiverse "theory"], you have this powerful weapon of thinking about and explaining things around you in an anthropic way." No, that is not a misquote. HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT! What's the problem? Science can never prove anything, it can only disprove hypotheses. So, he is saying that as long as the idea of the multiverse has not been disproven, it offers a means to an anthropic explanation for various things (strengths of fundamental forces etc). In other words, he is saying that not only is this idea not disproven, but it has some evidence in support of it. It is easy to come up with a theory which has not been disproven (and perhaps cannot be disproven); it is more interesting if there is some evidence in favour of the theory (though this can never prove the theory). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:55:34 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
What's the problem? Science can never prove anything, it can only disprove hypotheses. So, he is saying that as long as the idea of the multiverse has not been disproven, it offers a means to an anthropic explanation for various things (strengths of fundamental forces etc). In other words, he is saying that not only is this idea not disproven, but it has some evidence in support of it. It is easy to come up with a theory which has not been disproven (and perhaps cannot be disproven); it is more interesting if there is some evidence in favour of the theory (though this can never prove the theory). Excuse my candor, but I think the above is the "What Me Worry" response made famous by MAD Magazine. Feel free to adopt the untestable multiverse stuff and anthropic reasoning, but I think that would be tantamount to throwing science under the bus. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Cosmological Simulations: Illustris Or Illusion?
In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes: Feel free to adopt the untestable multiverse stuff and anthropic reasoning, but I think that would be tantamount to throwing science under the bus. YOU say it is untestable, ignoring claims that it is. Please rebut them. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simulations/calculations of the future of the universe? | Phillip Helbig---undress to reply | Research | 0 | December 22nd 10 11:17 PM |
Galactic Simulations and the propagation of Gravity | Ian Parker | Astronomy Misc | 9 | February 27th 09 02:30 PM |
interesting simulations of stellar orbits | Timberwoof[_2_] | Misc | 8 | August 1st 08 03:26 PM |
N-Body Simulations | Matthew Montchalin | Astronomy Misc | 5 | May 13th 04 10:56 PM |
Impact Simulations | Lonewolf3 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 18th 03 11:39 AM |