|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
I have enjoyed the give-and-take of the thread entitled "Good News for
the Big Bang Theory", and I intend to keep contributing to it when I think I have something useful to add. However, my main interest in participating in that thread was in demonstrating that an exciting clash of paradigms is about to unfold, as I will review below. Because the "Good News" thread is moving in many other directions, I thought I would present a clear, well-defined summary of my claim via a new thread. Subsequent additions to this new thread will hopefully remain on-topic. The most recent copy of ApJ (Vol. 649, 1-13, 2006) has a lead article by Diemand et al on cosmology. The authors state: "The key idea of the standard cosmological paradigm for the formation of structure in the universe - that primordial density fluctuations grow by gravitational instability driven by collisionless CDM - is constantly being elaborated on and explored in detail through supercomputer simulations and tested against a variety of astrophysical observations. The leading candidate for DM is the neutralino, a WIMP predicted by the supersymmetric theory of particle physics." 1. CRUCIAL IDEA (I): Let us be up front about it. The standard cosmological paradigm retrodicts that the dark matter is CDM. If the dark matter is not in the form of some kind of enormous population of subatomic particles, then the standard cosmological paradigm will have been shown to have a fatal flaw. We will know that a new paradigm is required. The old paradigm will be recognized as a limited approximation that must be superseded by a more encompassing paradigm that solves the DM enigma correctly. 2. CRUCIAL IDEA (II): The unbounded Discrete Fractal Paradigm predicted (ApJ, 322, 34-36, 1988)definitively (prior, testable, quantitative and non-adjustable) that the dark matter must be in the form of stellar-mass ultracompact objects (Kerr-Newman black holes). The mass peaks that are the largest, and most likely to be observed first, are found at 0.15 solar masses, 0.58 solar masses, and 8 x 10^-5 solar masses. The stellar scale of nature's hierarchy is dominated by these three subpopulations. I submit to you that you cannot get a more definitive prediction than this! See www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw for full information on the unbounded fractal paradigm. So, a critical test with a lot riding on it is underway. If CDM does not exist, then the standard paradigm needs more than a new bell or whistle tacked on. It will need replacement. If the definitive DM prediction of the unbounded fractal paradigm is vindicated, then it will have demonstrated that it alone is the right path towards a bold and incredibly beautiful new understanding of nature. Actually, for those who are a bit impatient to see how this plays out, nature has given us some hints of what the solution to the dark matter enigma is likely to look like. If you go to the arxiv.org preprint site and print out copies of astro-ph/0002363 by Oldershaw and astro-ph/0607358 by Calchi Novati et al, you will get an overview of results to date. They are very exciting. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
In article ,
" writes: In this first order approximation, all but the the 8 x 10^-5 solar mass subpopulation have masses that are integer multiples of about 0.145 solar masses. Thus 0.145, 0.29, 0.44, 0.58 ... solar masses. Well over 90% of the dark matter mass in the observable universe, however, should be found in the 0.15 solar mass and 0.58 solar mass subpopulations. Where are all these objects, you ask? 1. Microlensing experiments many have already found evidence for large numbers of these objects (see references in the original post). I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability. However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability. However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle. Well, clearly we have a difference of opinion here. My theory will not be adjusted; I stand by the predictions I have made. I think your claim that it has been ruled out is more than a little premature. I think it would be wiser and more scientifically appropriate to keep an open mind in this area. These are very challenging observations which require a lot of simplifications and assumptions in order to come up with take-home results. It is not surprising that the early results in the various microlensing experiments have had various levels of uncertainty. Within the next 10 years this situation should definitely change, as demonstrated in astro-ph/0609112 v2 by Kochanek et al (at www.arxiv.org ). In fact with the 2008 Kepler mission, and continuing advanced microlensing experiments, I think we can look forward to much more definitive observational results on the dark matter within 10 years. Perhaps we need to be a bit more patient and maintain our scientific objectivity, as best we can? Let's let nature decide who is right. Robert Oldershaw |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
In article ,
" writes: Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote: I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability. However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle. Well, clearly we have a difference of opinion here. My theory will not be adjusted; I stand by the predictions I have made. I think your claim that it has been ruled out is more than a little premature. I think it would be wiser and more scientifically appropriate to keep an open mind in this area. These are very challenging observations which require a lot of simplifications and assumptions in order to come up with take-home results. It is not surprising that the early results in the various microlensing experiments have had various levels of uncertainty. http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306434 Here, the main point is that microlensing can't be the main source of QSO variability. However, IF most of the dark matter is in compact objects, then one WOULD expect to detect it (quantitatively; of course microlensing has been observed, the question is how much mass is in the objects and how is it distributed). Things might conspire so that the signal is swamped by other variability, but if it is "just so" then one should be suspicious. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306434 Here, the main point is that microlensing can't be the main source of QSO variability. However, IF most of the dark matter is in compact objects, then one WOULD expect to detect it (quantitatively; of course microlensing has been observed, the question is how much mass is in the objects and how is it distributed). Things might conspire so that the signal is swamped by other variability, but if it is "just so" then one should be suspicious. Good. I think we have a mutually acceptable compromise developing here. I do think it is possible that microlensing by stellar-mass DM objects is obcured by other more energetic phenomena in QSOs, and that this possibility should not be labelled a "just so" story. The preprint I cited in the previous post is fairly optimistic that QSO studies are approaching a point where they might make substantial new contributions to the questions we seek to answer. The very first reported microlensing event was related to a multiply-lensed QSO. The estimated mass of the lens was on the order of 10^-4.5 solar masses. The error bars bracketed the Discrete Fractal prediction at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses. Let's not forget about microlensing studies closer to home, too. Observational astrophysicists, for whom I have the greatest respect, are, or will be, looking at the Bulge, Disk, Halo, globular clusters, LMC, SMC, M31, etc., over the next 10 years. I think we can look forward to an exciting time, one way or the other. Robert Oldershaw |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
In article ,
" writes: The very first reported microlensing event was related to a multiply-lensed QSO. This is not a coincidence. If you observe variability in a QSO, how do you know it is microlensing? Answer: you can't with a normal QSO. However, with multiple images, intrinsic variability will show up after a certain delay in all images. This time delay can be used to measure the Hubble constant, so many more multiply-imaged QSOs have light curves than non-lensed QSOs. (Here, microlensing is a nuisance.) STATISTICALLY, with lots of observations of lots of QSOs, one can differntiate microlensing from plausible intrinsic variability, but one can't make such a separation in an isolated case. Let's not forget about microlensing studies closer to home, too. Observational astrophysicists, for whom I have the greatest respect, are, or will be, looking at the Bulge, Disk, Halo, globular clusters, LMC, SMC, M31, etc., over the next 10 years. I think these nearby microlensing studies have ALREADY ruled out a fraction of lensing objects anywhere near the critical density over a broad mass range (including yours). (If not, the dark matter would have been found and it would not be the mystery it is.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
In article , " writes: The very first reported microlensing event was related to a multiply-lensed QSO. This is not a coincidence. If you observe variability in a QSO, how do you know it is microlensing? Answer: you can't with a normal QSO. However, with multiple images, intrinsic variability will show up after a certain delay in all images. This time delay can be used to measure the Hubble constant, so many more multiply-imaged QSOs have light curves than non-lensed QSOs. (Here, microlensing is a nuisance.) STATISTICALLY, with lots of observations of lots of QSOs, one can differntiate microlensing from plausible intrinsic variability, but one can't make such a separation in an isolated case. At one time some scientists opined that we would never know much about atoms because they were too far beyond direct observational capabilities. We have done rather well, in spite of those doubts. I have great hopes for QSO variability studies. The enignatic intraday variability is interesting and repeated hints (yes, only hints so far) of about 100-day lensing events is also worth watching. It may take time, but the potential for learning is big. I think these nearby microlensing studies have ALREADY ruled out a fraction of lensing objects anywhere near the critical density over a broad mass range (including yours). (If not, the dark matter would have been found and it would not be the mystery it is.) Well, the paper by Calchi Novati et al which I have cited above tells a different story, and the various teams doing the actual work of these experiments would appreciate a bit less of the "often wrong, never in doubt" attitude of theoretical cosmologists, at least until the empirical situation is clearer. I have gone way, way out on a limb with the Discrete Fractal paradigm perdictions for the dark matter and now those predictions are a matter of public record. I suggest we sit back and relax a bit. If you are right, you have nothing to worry about because nature will prove that you are right. If things go the other way, we will have a new paradigm for nature that is unsurpassed in its beauty, scope, unity and explanatory power. Either way, as scientists, we win. Right? Robert L. Oldershaw |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:
re I have great hopes for QSO variability studies. The enignatic re intraday variability is interesting While interesting, if you're using intraday variability (IDV) in the usual sense, it is not mysterious. There have been quite convincing observations that IDV results from a radio-wave propagation effect in our Galaxy. Quoting from a recent paper Time differences of up to 8 minutes have been measured in the variability pattern arrival times at widely spaced radio telescopes for the three most rapidly varying scintillators PKS 0405-385 (Jauncey et al. 2000), J1819+3845 (Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2002), and most recently PKS 1257-326 (Bignall 2003; Bignall et al. 2004, 2006). In addition, "annual cycles" in the variability characteristics have been determined for five prominent IDV sources, 0917+624 (Rickett et al. 2001; Jauncey & Macquart 2001), J1819+3845 (Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2003), PKS 1257-326 (Bignall 2003; Bignall et al. 2003), PKS 1519-273 (Jauncey et al. 2003), and B0059+3845 (Jauncey et al. 2006). The interesting thing about IDV is what it implies about the central engine and the implications for micro-arcsecond scale structure within it. -- Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/ sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
Joseph Lazio wrote:
While interesting, if you're using intraday variability (IDV) in the usual sense, it is not mysterious. There have been quite convincing observations that IDV results from a radio-wave propagation effect in our Galaxy. Lt. Lazio, HTML police Please note: I am not "using" the IDV for anything. I just find it an interesting phenomenon. Would you please explain a bit more about the physics involved? What would be the cause of the "radio-wave propagation effect in our Galaxy"? Thanks, Robert L. Oldershaw |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|