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

Crisis in Cosmology



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 11th 05, 11:20 AM
Jose B. Almeida
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old May 13th 05, 09:27 AM
Ray Tomes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[ 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  
Old May 14th 05, 03:16 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 18th 05, 10:28 AM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 20th 05, 12:48 PM
Jose B. Almeida
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 20th 05, 12:49 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 20th 05, 04:09 PM
Ray Tomes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 01:58 PM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 01:59 PM
Charles Francis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 21st 05, 02:38 PM
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 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.