|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crisis in Cosmology
The near-final version of the program for the 1st Crisis in Cosmology
Conference, CCC-I is now downloadable from http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/program.htm Comments are welcome. Jose |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Jose B. Almeida wrote: The near-final version of the program for the 1st Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-I is now downloadable from http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/program.htm Comments are welcome. Yes, I have some comments and questions, some to the paper authors and some to big bang cosmologists. In the brief titled "The insignificance of current cosmology" by M Disney it states: "I compare the number of truly independent measurements that have been made, and which are relevant to current cosmology, with the number of free parameters available to the theory. The difference between these numbers is controversial, but is certainly less than 5, and may be as low as 1. In either case it can be argued that there is little statistical significance attached to the good fits which impress conventional cosmologists. I go on to show that this same worrying situation has existed throughout the modern era of cosmology, as the number of free parameters has expanded to accommodate the new data. This expands and updates my ~T The Case against cosmology~T[General Relativity and Gravitation, 32, 1125, 2000. astro-ph 009020] Certainly as a reader of popular articles it seems to me that this is the case. No new predictions are made outside the previously observed range of phenomena. Whenever data extends the range of knowledge, new fixes are applied such as inflation, dark amtter, acceleration etc. This is the mark of curve fitting, not of a valid and useful theory. Therefore I would be interested to see definite statements by a big bang cosmologists about how many parameters they use altogether and how many phenomena this fits, and why each parameter was introduced. Examples of good (,aths and) science in this regard are Euclid and Relativity. Here, the axioms are all made very clear and the logic that connects them, and the results that are interesting and even sometimes surprising. Another paper is titled "Falsification of the expanding Universe" by T. Andrews. It states: "Based on a Fourier analysis of the light curve at a supernova, the Hubble redshift of the Fourier harmonic frequencies is shown to broaden the light curve at the observer by a factor of (1+z). Since this broadening spreads the total luminosity over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity at the observer is decreased by the same factor. This effect accounts quantitatively for the anomalous dimming of supernovae. On the other hand, no anomalous dimming occurs for galaxies since the luminosity of galaxies remain nearly constant over time periods much longer than the light travel time from the galaxies." I don't see why it matters how long a supernova lasts and how long a galaxy lasts. The light arriving now all left at some time and the effect is the same - the light doesn't know about the subsequent few billion years does it? Am I missing the point or is this really bad logic? I do think that there ought to be a crisis in cosmology, but it should be based on clear thinking. Ray Tomes http://ray.tomes.biz |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Ray Tomes
writes: In the brief titled "The insignificance of current cosmology" by M Disney it states: "I compare the number of truly independent measurements that have been made, and which are relevant to current cosmology, with the number of free parameters available to the theory. The difference between these numbers is controversial, but is certainly less than 5, and may be as low as 1. In either case it can be argued that there is little statistical significance attached to the good fits which impress conventional cosmologists. I go on to show that this same worrying situation has existed throughout the modern era of cosmology, as the number of free parameters has expanded to accommodate the new data. This expands and updates my ~T The Case against cosmology~T[General Relativity and Gravitation, 32, 1125, 2000. astro-ph 009020] Certainly as a reader of popular articles it seems to me that this is the case. No new predictions are made outside the previously observed range of phenomena. Whenever data extends the range of knowledge, new fixes are applied such as inflation, dark amtter, acceleration etc. This is the mark of curve fitting, not of a valid and useful theory. Therefore I would be interested to see definite statements by a big bang cosmologists about how many parameters they use altogether and how many phenomena this fits, and why each parameter was introduced. Back when there really were little data in cosmology (Malcolm Longair wrote a wonderful article in the sorely missed QJRAS where he pointed out that there were two-and-one-half facts in cosmology when he started out, and at the time of writing there were nine), people complained that it therefore wasn't "real science", it was "just theory" etc. Now that it is a data-driven science (it would be interesting to print out all the data and make Disney buy it at a penny per page---he would never earn enough in his life to buy it all), people complain that the data are being taken into account. This type of criticism is at such a low level it's really not worth it to respond to it. I don't know what drives Disney. Perhaps it is competition for funds; cosmology DOES capture the public's imagination, and it is the taxpayer who is putting up the money, so if Disney can't convince folks that his research is worth doing, that's his problem. It's certainly not very ethical to put cosmology down, and moreover to do so in such a cartoon fashion. expanding Universe" by T. Andrews. It states: "Based on a Fourier analysis of the light curve at a supernova, the Hubble redshift of the Fourier harmonic frequencies is shown to broaden the light curve at the observer by a factor of (1+z). Since this broadening spreads the total luminosity over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity at the observer is decreased by the same factor. This effect accounts quantitatively for the anomalous dimming of supernovae. On the other hand, no anomalous dimming occurs for galaxies since the luminosity of galaxies remain nearly constant over time periods much longer than the light travel time from the galaxies." I don't see why it matters how long a supernova lasts and how long a galaxy lasts. The light arriving now all left at some time and the effect is the same - the light doesn't know about the subsequent few billion years does it? The author is a crackpot. Am I missing the point or is this really bad logic? I do think that there ought to be a crisis in cosmology, but it should be based on clear thinking. Although a few somewhat sensible folks might have shown some support (I don't know if they realised what they were actually supporting), the conference is more or less a collection of crackpots, many hawking the same wares they have been for years. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Phillip
Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply writes The author is a crackpot. Am I missing the point or is this really bad logic? I do think that there ought to be a crisis in cosmology, but it should be based on clear thinking. Although a few somewhat sensible folks might have shown some support (I don't know if they realised what they were actually supporting), the conference is more or less a collection of crackpots, many hawking the same wares they have been for years. This was my conclusion too. There is a very broad based letter of intent, which almost anyone with an interest in the advance of science would be pleased to sign. Bondi is near the top of the list. But actually the more you look into the people involved, and what they are actually interested in, the more suspect it becomes. I think it probably is reasonable to say that there is a crisis in cosmology, with a range of observations yielding uncomfortable or unexplained results - e.g. missing mass, MOND, Pioneer acceleration, accelerating expansion, and now the ageing problem has again reared its ugly head with the observation of mature galaxies at z=1.4. But simply saying "current thinking is wrong" and coming up with any old guff in its stead isn't going to help towards a solution. Especially as "any old guff" usually means "I don't understand this aspect of relativity, therefore relativity is wrong". I do not think there is any doubt that there is a great deal right with the study of cosmology based on general relativity, and if anyone is to have anything useful to say they will first have to master that much. Then they will have to delve deep into the issues as to what could be changed in gr so as to resolve the clash with quantum theory, without upsetting the body of correct theory in the classical correspondence. Maybe then they will have some insight into observational problems in current cosmology. Regards -- Charles Francis |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Francis wrote
I do not think there is any doubt that there is a great deal right with the study of cosmology based on general relativity, and if anyone is to have anything useful to say they will first have to master that much. Then they will have to delve deep into the issues as to what could be changed in gr so as to resolve the clash with quantum theory, without upsetting the body of correct theory in the classical correspondence. Maybe then they will have some insight into observational problems in current cosmology. ---------------- I couldn't agree more with you, Charles, and I am sure there are others sharing this view among those participating in the conference. Best regards, - José B. Almeida |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Charles Francis
writes: This was my conclusion too. There is a very broad based letter of intent, which almost anyone with an interest in the advance of science would be pleased to sign. Bondi is near the top of the list. Perhaps the list is in alphabetical order? :-) I think it probably is reasonable to say that there is a crisis in cosmology, with a range of observations yielding uncomfortable or unexplained results - e.g. missing mass, I never considered this a problem. Why should most matter be luminous? MOND, The jury is still out on this one. Pioneer acceleration, I haven't been following this too closely. Is there actually a consensus that there is a problem (whatever its solution might be)? accelerating expansion, Again, not really a problem. It was more an accident of history that at the time before it was discovered, most people were setting lambda to 0 in the Friedmann equations for no good reason. and now the ageing problem has again reared its ugly head with the observation of mature galaxies at z=1.4. This is in a different league entirely, since the physics of galaxy formation is not nearly as clear-cut as the other stuff. (I don't remember who it was---James Binney?---who coined the term "gastrophysics" for this.) But simply saying "current thinking is wrong" and coming up with any old guff in its stead isn't going to help towards a solution. Especially as "any old guff" usually means "I don't understand this aspect of relativity, therefore relativity is wrong". Right. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jose B. Almeida wrote:
... Then they will have to delve deep into the issues as to what could be changed in gr so as to resolve the clash with quantum theory, without upsetting the body of correct theory in the classical correspondence. Maybe then they will have some insight into observational problems in current cosmology. Well Narlikar has put forward a variable particle mass theory. That would seem to have all the elements required to me, but I am not an expert. Why is this not taken more seriously by physicists and cosmologists? There is a choice to have a universe that is evolving, or particles that are evolving. Why the preference for the universe? If QT tells us anything, it is that "particles" are not things but processes. There is therefore no reason why particle properties should not depend on local conditions and evolve over time. We are only sampling a very tiny proportion of the universe locally and so cannot hope to detect these differences in the laboratory. -- Ray Tomes http://ray.tomes.biz/ http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Jose B. Almeida
writes Charles Francis wrote I do not think there is any doubt that there is a great deal right with the study of cosmology based on general relativity, and if anyone is to have anything useful to say they will first have to master that much. Then they will have to delve deep into the issues as to what could be changed in gr so as to resolve the clash with quantum theory, without upsetting the body of correct theory in the classical correspondence. Maybe then they will have some insight into observational problems in current cosmology. ---------------- I couldn't agree more with you, Charles, and I am sure there are others sharing this view among those participating in the conference. Then why allow abstracts stating, as Baryshev does "There are several especially spectacular puzzles in the standard cosmological model related to the expanding space 1) recession velocities of galaxies can be much more than the velocity of light; 2) cosmological redshift is not due to the Doppler effect; 3) global gravitational redshift exists in homogeneous matter distribution; etc. Likewise the criticisms of Tomes. Surely Baryshev should have been told to read an undergraduate text on general relativity before presenting a paper at such a level of drivel. And at the same time you adopt a policy of hostility toward submissions which do address the issues raised by unification. Regards -- Charles Francis |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Phillip
Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply writes In article , Charles Francis writes: This was my conclusion too. There is a very broad based letter of intent, which almost anyone with an interest in the advance of science would be pleased to sign. Bondi is near the top of the list. Perhaps the list is in alphabetical order? :-) Well spotted. It is :-) I think it probably is reasonable to say that there is a crisis in cosmology, with a range of observations yielding uncomfortable or unexplained results - e.g. missing mass, I never considered this a problem. Why should most matter be luminous? Of course neutrinos are not luminous. But in a homogeneous universe I would expect to find much the same matter in one place as another, and I would expect to account for the matter distribution in galaxies. Missing mass seems to require that we postulate stuff not found in elementary particles physics. Not impossible, of course, but unexplained stuff is symptomatic of a possible crisis. MOND, The jury is still out on this one. Having read the papers and studied the data, I can hardly agree. The MOND law is empirically solid. It is also unexplained. Pioneer acceleration, I haven't been following this too closely. Is there actually a consensus that there is a problem (whatever its solution might be)? The anomalous acceleration is definitely observed. It is also without explanation, despite exhaustive investigations by JPL. accelerating expansion, Again, not really a problem. It was more an accident of history that at the time before it was discovered, most people were setting lambda to 0 in the Friedmann equations for no good reason. Again there is nothing in elementary particle physics which could justify the value of lambda. Again I am not saying the value of lambda impossible, just that it demands explanation, or to be treated with suspicion. and now the ageing problem has again reared its ugly head with the observation of mature galaxies at z=1.4. This is in a different league entirely, since the physics of galaxy formation is not nearly as clear-cut as the other stuff. (I don't remember who it was---James Binney?---who coined the term "gastrophysics" for this.) I've not heard of gastrophysics, and I must confess it is not really my field. However, many moons ago I did do the ptIII course on star formation, and gained the impression that, particularly in view of the large systems involved, the processes were decently modelled in terms of fundamental properties of elementary particles and gravity. I find it very difficult to believe that there is much wrong with the physics of galaxy formation. Sure we can't observe it very well, and that may upset an experimental physicist. But the underlying theory seems to me to be quite sound, and I am not expecting any major changes there. But suppose there were something wrong with the way in which we understand and interpret cosmological redshift. Then all these observations could potentially be explained. MOND and Pioneer both yield values which seem to be related to Hubble. That, it seems to me, is quite a respectable thing to think, as it only means messing with the connection in gtr; Einstein himself was prepared to mess with that. Also, since qm concerns wave motions and cosmological redshift is found for a wave motion, and wave motions do not work too comfortably in curved space-time. So this seems to me to be precisely the sort of thing we should look for. Of course one needs hindsight to know whether unexplained results are really indicative of crisis. Before general relativity no one took the precession of mercury to indicate the breakdown of Newtonian dynamics. Regards -- Charles Francis |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Charles Francis
writes: Having read the papers and studied the data, I can hardly agree. The MOND law is empirically solid. It is also unexplained. I agree as far as the observations go. However, the question is whether the answer is MOND or some generalisation of MOND, or something else entirely. MOND in its original form is simple, but it cannot be right on a number of grounds. More involved theories are quite complicated (see the recent papers by Bekenstein) and lack the simplicity of MOND which is one of its strengths. I've not heard of gastrophysics, and I must confess it is not really my field. However, many moons ago I did do the ptIII course on star formation, and gained the impression that, particularly in view of the large systems involved, the processes were decently modelled in terms of fundamental properties of elementary particles and gravity. I find it very difficult to believe that there is much wrong with the physics of galaxy formation. Stars are much better understood than galaxies. First, they are simpler systems. Second, there are many more detailed observations, particularly from helioseismology. I think it's fair to say that stars are understood much better than the Earth. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 8 | May 26th 04 04:45 PM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 22nd 04 08:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | UK Astronomy | 0 | May 21st 04 06:23 AM |