Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms

On Apr 3, 5:52 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article ,

" writes:

QSOs are very far away. If the nearby distribution is not somehow
magically correlated with the QSO position, than homogeneity is a
reasonable assumption.

Even in this case, averaged along the line of sight to a QSO, the
distribution should be homogeneous.

And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
with CDM predictions?

Just because something else is in conflict with CDM predictions doesn't
mean that your theory, which is also in conflict with standard
predictions, must be right.



I certainly hope the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm
( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) is "in conflict with standard
predictions", because I have serious doubts about the "standard
model". I think the empirical evidence for inhomogeneity on all
adequately observed scales is much stronger than the empirical
evidence for "homogeneity", theoretical preferences notwithstanding. I
also think that the empirical evidence for stellar-mass dark matter is
*much* stronger than the questionable and indirect arguments for CDM.

If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
tangible to discuss.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my contention that we have a better
chance of getting reliable information on the dark matter enigma
locally - right here in the MWG. The AGILE satellite is due for launch
this month, and has the potential for telling us more about the
possibility of faint gamma ray populations in the Galaxy. I anticipate
a very large population of previously unknown, discrete and faint
gamma ray sources that represent members of the more massive classes
of the stellar-mass dark matter predicted by the SSCP. My hope is
that, if this population exists, then AGILE and GLAST will demonstrate
that *empirically*. We would then be in a position to re-evauuate our
theoretical assumptions.

Robert L. Oldershaw

In article ,
" writes:

If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
tangible to discuss.

I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.

On Apr 5, 7:55 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article ,

" writes:
If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
tangible to discuss.

I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.


So that readers may make an informed decision, would you please give
us a specific citation for the paper you feel is most relevent to this
discussion.

Also, would you please carefully inform the readers about *all*
assumptions about the nature and distribution of the dark matter that
are crucial to the arguments presented in this specific paper.

Thank you,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.

In article ,
" writes:

On Apr 5, 7:55 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article ,

" writes:
If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
tangible to discuss.

I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.

So that readers may make an informed decision, would you please give
us a specific citation for the paper you feel is most relevent to this
discussion.

I think any interested reader has already found such information by
searching the archives. For the rest:, it's in A&A volume 408 (2003).
It's also at astro-ph/0306434.

Here's the abstract:

Although controversial, the scenario of microlensing as
the dominant mechanism for the long-term optical variability of
quasars does provide a natural explanation for both the statistical
symmetry, achromaticity and lack of cosmological time dilation in
quasar light curves. Here, we investigate to what extent dark
matter populations of compact objects allowed in the currently
favored Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 cosmology really can explain
the quantitative statistical features of the observed variability.
We find that microlensing reasonably well reproduces the average
structure function of quasars, but fails to explain both the high
fraction of objects with amplitudes higher than 0.35 magnitudes and
the mean amplitudes observed at redshifts below one. Even though
microlensing may still contribute to the long-term optical
variability at some level, another significant mechanism must also
be involved. This severely complicates the task of using
light-curve statistics from quasars which are not multiply imaged
to isolate properties of any cosmologically significant population
of compact objects which may in fact be present.

Note that the abstract is an ABSTRACT, i.e. it mentions only the most
important stuff. More details are in the paper.

Also, would you please carefully inform the readers about *all*
assumptions about the nature and distribution of the dark matter that
are crucial to the arguments presented in this specific paper.

Read the paper. That's what it's for. The only way to answer your
question would be to post the paper here, but that's not the purpose of
newsgroups.

Let me point out two things. One, our assumptions lead to rather
optimistic (but still negative) conclusions. In other words, if the
assumptions are relaxed (a point you seem keen on), then the conclusions
are even more negative. Two, I started out very intriqued with the idea
that most long-term QSO variability is caused by microlensing, discussed
the (dark) matter (pardon the pun) with Hawkins many times and worked on
this question with a variety of collaborators. It's a good theory in
that it makes testable predictions. These predictions were not
confirmed. That's it. Move on.

While qualitatively it is difficult to argue against the claim (and most
authors who did so argued against an oversimplified straw-man version,
in part due to Hawkins himself, which at most ruled out a specific
scenario but not the general idea). A theory stands or falls with
quantitative predictions. If the dark matter is in compact objects, it
must produce microlensing. Compute the predictions and compare to
observations (Hawkins's own observations). QSO microlensing does not
look like it is caused by microlensing, when one looks at it in detail.
(It DOES superficially, otherwise no-one would have bothered with the
idea.) Of course, there are certainly a few compact objects and
microlensing is of course present at some level, but if most of the dark
matter were in compact objects, then only special pleading could make
the observations compatible with this idea.

What, specifically, do you object to in the paper?

On Apr 8, 9:17 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article ,

What, specifically, do you object to in the paper?- Hide quoted text -


Firstly, I acknowledge and appreciate the time you have devoted to
exploring this issue.

The abstract of the paper you cite clarifies exceedingly well what can
be said about the predicted stellar-mass dark matter, and more
importantly to me, what cannot be ruled out at this point based on the
observations discussed in the paper.

Given the fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of basic QSO
and AGN phenomena, and given the fact that highly pertinent dark
matter distributions have to be virtually guessed at, and the fact
that the even paper's authors are saying that even if all the
estimates and assumptions are approximately right, it would be
unscientific to rule out a role for stellar-mass dark matter in QSO/
AGN variability, I think your advice to "move on" is premature.

Based on the evidence you have presented, I feel confident in staying
"in" the game and raising the bet. I will quickly and openly "fold"
if I see empirical evidence that indicates that my hand is a losing
one, but I am not intimidated by bluffing because there is a large
amout of empirical and theoretical evidence that supports my case (see
the website cited below).

May I make, once again, my suggestion for a scientific resolution to
this discussion. Let us see what AGILE and GLAST have to add to the
evidence. Observationally we will be on solid ground and dealing with
local objects about which we have a more dependable understanding.
The SSCP ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicts that the Galaxy
contains a vast population of low-mass "primordial" Kerr-Newman "black
holes". If this prediction is right, then these dark matter objects
would be faint x-ray and gamma ray sources. Even if they were still
too faint to detect individually, AGILE and GLAST should be able to
detect their collective presence. And perhaps, though this may be
asking for too much, AGILE and GLAST will be able to resolve large
numbers of these discrete sources and reveal the presence and true
nature of the dark matter.

Given the exciting and very promising test just discussed above, it
seems silly to go on arguing about what QSO variability *implies* or
does not *imply*, unless the certainty of the implications can be
greatly improved upon. In the short term it looks like *local*
observations: microlensing, AGILE, GLAST, etc., are going to provide
the more direct route to a verification/falsification of stellar-mass
dark matter.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article ,
" writes:

Given the fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of basic QSO
and AGN phenomena, and given the fact that highly pertinent dark
matter distributions have to be virtually guessed at, and the fact
that the even paper's authors are saying that even if all the
estimates and assumptions are approximately right, it would be
unscientific to rule out a role for stellar-mass dark matter in QSO/
AGN variability, I think your advice to "move on" is premature.

The goal of the paper was a different one, as specified in the title.
Can microlensing explain QSO variability? It is a different question
whether QSO variability can rule out a population of compact objects. In
other words, microlensing can always be present at SOME level and the
signal be masked by other (presumably intrinsic) variability. However,
I think it is fair to say that if essentially all the dark matter
(especially if one believes that Omega might be larger than 0.3) is in
compact objects, then at least some samples of QSOs (i.e. those which
are not intrinsically variable) should show a typical microlensing
signature. As far as I know, no-one has demonstrated such a sample.

The difficulty, of course, is separating microlensing from intrinsic
variability. However, there is the system known as the Einstein Cross,
which is a QSO lensed by a nearby spiral galaxy into 4 images with a
time delay of just hours. In other words, any intrinsic variability
would show up in all images, with the corresponding time delay.

This system has been monitored a lot, especially with respect to
microlensing (for the reason mentioned above). Microlensing HAS been
detected. However, as far as I know, it is perfectly consisted with
normal assumptions about stellar mass distributions etc. This system
should be able to detect a large population of compact objects. Of
course, it's just one system, and it might be a fluke, but that sounds
like special pleading.

On Apr 9, 4:17 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article ,

" writes:
Given the fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of basic QSO
and AGN phenomena, and given the fact that highly pertinent dark
matter distributions have to be virtually guessed at, and the fact
that the even paper's authors are saying that even if all the
estimates and assumptions are approximately right, it would be
unscientific to rule out a role for stellar-mass dark matter in QSO/
AGN variability, I think your advice to "move on" is premature.

The goal of the paper was a different one, as specified in the title.
Can microlensing explain QSO variability? It is a different question
whether QSO variability can rule out a population of compact objects. In
other words, microlensing can always be present at SOME level and the
signal be masked by other (presumably intrinsic) variability. However,
I think it is fair to say that if essentially all the dark matter
(especially if one believes that Omega might be larger than 0.3) is in
compact objects, then at least some samples of QSOs (i.e. those which
are not intrinsically variable) should show a typical microlensing
signature. As far as I know, no-one has demonstrated such a sample.

The difficulty, of course, is separating microlensing from intrinsic
variability. However, there is the system known as the Einstein Cross,
which is a QSO lensed by a nearby spiral galaxy into 4 images with a
time delay of just hours. In other words, any intrinsic variability
would show up in all images, with the corresponding time delay.

This system has been monitored a lot, especially with respect to
microlensing (for the reason mentioned above). Microlensing HAS been
detected. However, as far as I know, it is perfectly consisted with
normal assumptions about stellar mass distributions etc. This system
should be able to detect a large population of compact objects. Of
course, it's just one system, and it might be a fluke, but that sounds
like special pleading.


I would not dispute most of what you have said above, except that
using a sample of one to make a case looks alot like "special
pleading", whether it is the case for or against an idea.

With regard to the dark matter enigma, I think we all hope for
empirical evidence that is literally compelling -- evidence that does
not require a lot of assumptions, statistical reasoning,
interpretations, etc.

Within the next 12 months, AGILE will be launched, GLAST should be
launched, and the LHC should come on line. Already, several research
teams are pursuing active microlensing programs (although they have
been rather "silent" lately!?).

I think our best strategy is to be very watchful, but patient. Rather
than argue over uncertain results that can, at least in principle, be
interpreted in different ways, I am going to keep an open mind (maybe
my intuition is wrong and the LHC will find copious axions) and wait
for what the majority of objective scientists will agree is compelling
observational evidence. It is reasonable to expect that our long vigil
may be nearly over.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

" wrote:

I would not dispute most of what you have said
above, except that using a sample of one to make a
case looks alot like "special pleading", whether
it is the case for or against an idea.

Except that you are misrepresenting what is involved
here.

The QSO is not the object under study, it is merely
one end of the instrument being used to do the
measurements, especially convenient in this
particular case because its four time-shifted views
of the QSO provide an unambiguous way to distinguish
microlensing events from QSO intrinsic intensity
variation events.

Given that, there are _four_ microlensing surveys
being taken, one in front of each QSO image, so
there's no "special pleading" involved at all; the
four sample points are angularly separated by more
than the width of a galaxy (perhaps cluster of
galaxies, I'm not familiar with the macrolensing
object in this case) at the distance where the
macrolensing is occurring, surely far enough apart
to be independent samples.

At what point will you admit that your contentions
have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
observations, one is forced to wonder.

HTH

xanthian.

On Apr 13, 3:32 pm, "Kent Paul Dolan" wrote:

At what point will you admit that your contentions
have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
observations, one is forced to wonder.



I draw your attention to the just published paper by Raiteri et al
(Astron. & Astrophys. 464, 871-878, 2007).

They observed the BL Lac AO 0235+164 and discuss the variability of
the continuum flux and its possible relation to planetary-mass
microlenses. The authors also note that another team found that they
could explain the strong intraday radio variability of PKS 0537-441 in
terms of planetary mass microlenses.

There is now a considerable number of papers that have been published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that find credible evidence
for microlensing as an explanation for instances of variability in
QSOs, blazars and AGN. The most common mass estimates for the
microlenses are on the order of 10^-4 solar masses and a few tenths of
a solar mass. These values are consistent with predictions made by
the discrete fractal paradigm, also referred to as the Self-Similar
Cosmological Paradigm, www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .

To me, the observational situation looks quite encouraging, although
still uncertain. You, on the other hand, would prefer me to declare
immediate and total defeat. Interesting.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

" wrote:
"Kent Paul Dolan" wrote:

At what point will you admit that your contentions
have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
observations, one is forced to wonder.

To me, the observational situation looks quite encouraging, although
still uncertain. You, on the other hand, would prefer me to declare
immediate and total defeat. Interesting.

The question isn't whether such objects exist, they are well
known to exist. The question is whether they exist in sufficient
quantity to act as the "missing mass" of the universe, and Phillip
Helbig has explained to you more than sufficiently that they do
not, to which you raised your spurious "special pleading" objection,
the same which I carefully explained to you was a bogus objection.

I stand by my above comment.

xanthian.