A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 20th 06, 05:39 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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approximation that must be superseded by a more encompassing paradigm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.
  #2  
Old October 23rd 06, 12:30 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms

wrote:
I thought I would present a clear, well-defined
summary of my claim via a new thread.



I would like to add a bit more information on the the Discrete Fractal
paradigm's definitive predictions regarding the dark matter.

The mass ratio of the 8 x 10^-5 to 0.15 solar mass systems is about
1/1836.

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).

2. All radio pulsars, isolated neutron stars, soft gamma ray repeaters,
anomalous X-ray pulsars, central compact objects in supernova remnants,
and rotating radio transients are members of the general class of
objects predicted by the Discrete Fractal paradigm. "But WAIT!", you
say, "most of these are not Kerr-Newman black holes, and most of them
are NOT DARK!".

Exactly so. These systems are the among the more massive systems in
the general class and they appear to be in moderately to highly excited
states. There is a rigorous self-similarity between them and subatomic
nuclei in excited states. The stellar scale systems are ejecting
matter and emitting stellar scale EM radiation in order to de-excite
back to the stable ground state, in exact analogy to what happens with
subatomic nuclei.

Would you like to see one of these systems that appears to have nearly
returned to the ground state? Again, go to the
www.arxiv.org site and
download a copy of the preprint by Park et al numbered
astro-ph/0610004. At the center of a SNR they observe (as in a real
object that actually exists in nature) a point-like X-ray source with a
very low temperature black-body spectrum. Emission is fairly steady;
it may or may not be weakly pulsating at 7.5 sec. No counterparts at
other wavelengths are observed. The size of the emitting region is
estimated at 0.4 km, a radius that has been predicted by the discrete
fractal paradigm (ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987). The X-ray luminosity is about
10^33 ergs/sec, which is not that far from the DF prediction of ground
state accretion-generated X-ray luminosities of 10^28 to 10^32 erg/sec.
The system ejected its outer plasma shells, and inside we find an
object well on its way to returning to its ultracompact ground state,
if not virtually already there. This object should be followed
closely, since it might be a very useful test case.

My friends, it may just be a fractal world,
Rob
  #3  
Old October 25th 06, 09:00 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old October 25th 06, 07:32 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old October 25th 06, 10:53 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old October 26th 06, 10:29 AM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 09:12 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 07:38 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 11:09 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Joseph Lazio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 200
Default 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  
Old November 1st 06, 07:29 PM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.