|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Thus spake "
Ideally scientific theories lead to definitive predictions, which are prior to observational answers, are of fundamental importance, are unique to the theory, and are non-adjustable. A theory that cannot make such definitive predictions is in a pre-scientific speculative stage. There is nothing wrong with this speculation, but without a way to adequately test the speculation, it should not be confused with, or conflated with, mature science. If the teleconnection model naturally leads to definitive predictions, I would like to hear more about them. The detail is given in gr-qc/0604047, Does a Teleconnection between Quantum States account for Missing Mass, Galaxy Ageing, Lensing Anomalies, Supernova Redshift, MOND, and Pioneer Blueshift? The central predictive result of the model is that cosmological redshift goes as the square of the expansion parameter. 1+z = a^2(t)/a0^2 which replaces the usually linear relation. In other respects, classical general relativity is obeyed and this is a model obeying a standard FRW cosmology. The redshift relation is consistent with observation for a universe expanding at half the currently accepted rate, which is thus twice as old as a standard model with the same cosmological parameters, and requires 1/4 of the critical density for closure. There follow directly testable revisions to the distance-redshift relation, and to the age-redshift relation. Testing so far is of course retrodiction, in that I have only been able to test against observations already made. However, most of these tests will be done with much more extensive observations over the next 15 or so years, and the predictions should by that time clearly differentiate this from the standard model. The model has fewer adjustable parameters than standard, because I am not using CDM or a cosmological constant (a cosmological constant is possible, but theoretical prejudice would prefer not to have it). The result of supernova analysis is that the magnitude-redshift relation produces a fit marginally better than standard for a closed, zero Lambda universe with density Omega=1.89 (after rescaling omega st critical density is Omega=1). Using 225 supernovae from the Riess and Astier data sets I have a best fit chi^2 value of 210.8, compared to 212.5 for the concordance model. The curves are very close - less than 0.1 magnitude up to z=1.5, and a large number of observations around z=2 would be needed to get a statistically significant test. This should come from the SNAP mission. The model has it that red galaxies are very much older than standard - not only is the universe older, but we are not looking so far back in time at high red shift. The standard model is already distressed by the problem of galaxy ageing, but the model makes a definite prediction that the next generation of very large telescopes will reveal large numbers of mature galaxies at high redshifts. The model predicts that galaxy mass profiles will broadly follow the visible profiles. There are a number of programmes studying lensing profiles which show this to be the case, and which show inconsistencies in CDM models. The model predicts (retrodicts) the MONDian term in galaxy rotation curves. However it ascribes this to a behaviour of redshift affecting the interpretation of Doppler information, and preserves Newtonian Dynamics. This will become a prediction at the point when astronomical measurement of the Milky Way becomes accurate enough for direct measurement of stellar motions. At the moment the only anomalous measurement I have found is in Hipparcos parallax measurements of a few globular clusters (notably Pleiades). The analysis is currently beyond me, but I have ascertained that the anomaly is of the order of magnitude (~1 mas) at which differences in motions predicted by the model can be detected. The Gaia mission should produce data which resolve this. I do not know whether the anomalous motion of IM Pegasi in VLBI measurements can be attributed to the model. Full data is not due to be released until next year. Detection of possible anomalous Doppler shifts in motions of planets in the solar system requires an order of magnitude improvement in the resolution of the best current echelle spectrometers. The model retrodicts the anomalous shift in Doppler data from Pioneer. The analysis is subtle, so there may be room for error, but there is a prediction that this anomalous shift would be removed if direct measurement of position was also available. It is possible that more will be revealed by planetary flybys or by further analysis of old Pioneer data, but I think a dedicated mission to test the anomaly is strictly required. Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Oh No wrote:
The central predictive result of the model is that cosmological redshift goes as the square of the expansion parameter. 1+z = a^2(t)/a0^2 which replaces the usually linear relation. In other respects, classical general relativity is obeyed and this is a model obeying a standard FRW cosmology. The redshift relation is consistent with observation for a universe expanding at half the currently accepted rate, which is thus twice as old as a standard model with the same cosmological parameters, and requires 1/4 of the critical density for closure. There follow directly testable revisions to the distance-redshift relation, and to the age-redshift relation. The model has it that red galaxies are very much older than standard - not only is the universe older, but we are not looking so far back in time at high red shift. The standard model is already distressed by the problem of galaxy ageing, but the model makes a definite prediction that the next generation of very large telescopes will reveal large numbers of mature galaxies at high redshifts. The model predicts that galaxy mass profiles will broadly follow the visible profiles. There are a number of programmes studying lensing profiles which show this to be the case, and which show inconsistencies in CDM models. The model predicts (retrodicts) the MONDian term in galaxy rotation curves. However it ascribes this to a behaviour of redshift affecting the interpretation of Doppler information, and preserves Newtonian Dynamics. This will become a prediction at the point when astronomical measurement of the Milky Way becomes accurate enough for direct measurement of stellar motions. . The model retrodicts the anomalous shift in Doppler data from Pioneer. The analysis is subtle, so there may be room for error, but there is a prediction that this anomalous shift would be removed if direct measurement of position was also available. It is possible that more will be revealed by planetary flybys or by further analysis of old Pioneer data, but I think a dedicated mission to test the anomaly is strictly required. Well, there can be no doubt that the teleconnection model has taken that important first step: making definitive predictions. I applaud your willingness to make clear testable predictions. The main predictions of revised redshift relations would seem to be testable within the near future. This is also the case for your prediction of large numbers of mature galaxies at large redshifts. The last 3 predictions may be more difficult to prove one way or the other, but in principle are they valid predictions/retrodictions. Now all we need are the observational data. Turning to proponents of the standard Big Bang paradigm, are there definitive predictions that this paradigm makes by which we could put it to the acid test, so to speak. If the dark matter were found not to be in the form of CDM, would that indicate a serious problem with the paradigm? Are there other tests that would verify robustness the paradigm, or clearly show us that its limitations have been reached? Rob |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
In article ,
" writes: One of the most persistent and disturbing problems found in discussions of the standard Big Bang cosmological model concerns the blurring of distinctions between true predictions and mere retrodictions. Also, what is included in the term "big bang" is variable. The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as successful "predictions". Prediction, prior observation, prediction, assumption later verified by observation. The Big Bang model has difficulties with respect to explanations for why galaxies exist at all, how galaxies form, the existence and nature of the dark matter, and the succession of ever-larger-scale deviations from homogenity as dependable observations have reached larger scales. One could go on at length, but you get the picture. Galaxy formation is not really a central tenant of the big bang. In other words, we need to distinguish between "the universe is expanding from a former state which was much hotter and much denser" and "we understand everything in the universe". In particular, not understanding galaxy formation doesn't imply that there is any reason at all to doubt the big bang in the narrower sense of the term. There is also nothing in principle wrong with the fact that we don't completely understand galaxy formation---it just means that there is more work to do. New species of animals are being discovered all the time. That doesn't mean that zoology is somehow fundamentally flawed or that the discovery of new animals requires a radical reformulation of zoology. Science is a way of thinking, not a collection of facts. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:
re One of the most persistent and disturbing problems found in re discussions of the standard Big Bang cosmological model concerns re the blurring of distinctions between true predictions and mere re retrodictions. re The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light re elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as re successful "predictions". However, when one does a more thorough re search of the scientific literature, one finds that most of the re claimed "predictions" were in fact retrodictions, i.e., re after-the-fact explanations of already discovered facts or re approximate results. The few genuine predictions were often re considerably off the mark, and had to be adjusted, often more than re once, as in the case of the temperature of the microwave re background, the level of fluctuations in the background, and the re scale at which "homogeneity" would be found. [...] re The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the re existence of the dark matter that dominates the observable re universe. This is a oft-repeated claim, but one that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even fairly basic descriptions of the Big Bang model explain that there are three possibilities (assuming that the cosmological constant is 0): 1. The matter density in the Universe is high enough that the expansion eventually slows and reverses (leading to the "Big Crunch"). Such a universe is termed "closed." 2. The matter density in the Universe is not high enough to reverse the expansion. The Universe continues to expand forever. Such a universe is termed "open." 3. The matter density in the Universe is at the critical value so that the expansion ceases only after an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang model (and general relativity from which it is derived) do not predict the matter density of the Universe, regarding that as a parameter to be determined from observation. Moreover, there is no requirement for cases 1--3 that the matter be luminous (i.e., that it interacts via the electromagnetic force). All that is required is that it interact gravitationally, so dark matter, luminous matter, or both are allowed. A robust analogy is to trajectory of an object. Consider a planet of mass M and radius R (assumed spherical and without an atmosphere). We can predict, with considerable confidence from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of such a planet is a_g = GM/R^2. Does an object of initial velocity v fall back to the surface of this planet? -- 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
Prediction, prior observation, prediction, assumption later verified by observation. By my accounting this list should read: 1. Background Radiation: prediction, but initially off by about 400% and had to be adjusted to come into agreement with observations. 2. Global expansion: agreed, this was prior knowledge. 3. Abundances of light elements: definitely not predicted! We had good approximate abundances prior to any BB paradigm. Also, the theoretical abundances have been repeatedly revised as the observational situation has changed, especially with helium, deuterium and lithium. Even today, articles appear which question how well the BB paradigm is able to retrodict these abundances. For an introduction to this important issue, see Oldershaw, R.L., American J. of Physics, vol. 56, 1075-1081, 1988. 4. Assumption invoked to simplify mathematics, which has evolved into near dogma. See the reference above for a discussion of this issue. If we believe that either the observable universe or the Universe is "homogeneous", then we do so out of a near-religious faith and a desire to protect the standard paradigm. There is an ongoing debate over whether the very large-scale distribution of galaxies is fractal, as on smaller scales, or whether it goes over into a statistically homogeneous distribution on large enough scales. The proponents of the fractal distribution have pointed out that the homogeneity proponents subtly assume homogeneity from the beginning in their analysis of the data. A scientist should take a prudent stance with respect to this controversy. We are at the limits of observability and are definitely not sure if we are afforded a representative sample, even with respect to the observable universe. There is also nothing in principle wrong with the fact that we don't completely understand galaxy formation---it just means that there is more work to do. New species of animals are being discovered all the time. That doesn't mean that zoology is somehow fundamentally flawed or that the discovery of new animals requires a radical reformulation of zoology. Science is a way of thinking, not a collection of facts. Ok, but quite simply: is there some prediction or test by which the new, and heavily reworked, modified, adjusted, Big Bang paradigm can be falsified, or does the present incarnation of the Big Bang paradigm not meet Popper's criterion for science? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Joseph Lazio wrote:
This is a oft-repeated claim, but one that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even fairly basic descriptions of the Big Bang model explain that there are three possibilities (assuming that the cosmological constant is 0): 1. The matter density in the Universe is high enough that the expansion eventually slows and reverses (leading to the "Big Crunch"). Such a universe is termed "closed." 2. The matter density in the Universe is not high enough to reverse the expansion. The Universe continues to expand forever. Such a universe is termed "open." 3. The matter density in the Universe is at the critical value so that the expansion ceases only after an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang model (and general relativity from which it is derived) do not predict the matter density of the Universe, regarding that as a parameter to be determined from observation. Moreover, there is no requirement for cases 1--3 that the matter be luminous (i.e., that it interacts via the electromagnetic force). All that is required is that it interact gravitationally, so dark matter, luminous matter, or both are allowed. A robust analogy is to trajectory of an object. Consider a planet of mass M and radius R (assumed spherical and without an atmosphere). We can predict, with considerable confidence from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of such a planet is a_g = GM/R^2. Does an object of initial velocity v fall back to the surface of this planet? So, is your basic argument that the Big Bang paradigm is a one-size-fits-all model which can accommodate new observational discoveries by morphing and adding on epicycles without limits? Does this paradigm make testable predictions which will allow us to probe its limits of applicability? I would like you to consider this comparison. The discrete fractal paradigm subsumes the Big Bang paradigm. It does not say the BB paradigm is wrong, but rather that it is a good approximation to what is happening locally in an infinite discrete fractal cosmos. For a wealth of information on this paradigm (at various levels) see www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw . And here is the key scientific difference between the discrete fractal paradigm and the BB paradigm. The fractal paradigm predicts, unequivocally, what the dark matter must be, and thereby subjects itself to a scientific test of the highest stringency. Can the Big Bang paradigm match this challenge and come up with a definitive prediction by which it could be tested in a similar fashion. I suspect that it cannot come up with a prediction that is prior, unique to the paradigm, fundamental and nonadjustable. In my view, the discrete fractal paradigm may not be fully developed yet, but at least it is science. The Big Bang paradigm is regarded as "right" by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists, but if it does not make any new definitive predictions and is excessively "adjustable", is it still subject to the rules of science? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:
[Regarding predictions of the Big Bang model] re 3. Abundances of light elements: definitely not predicted! We had re good approximate abundances prior to any BB paradigm. Also, the re theoretical abundances have been repeatedly revised as the re observational situation has changed, especially with helium, re deuterium and lithium. Even today, articles appear which question re how well the BB paradigm is able to retrodict these abundances. I think this is a somewhat limiting, and not very realistic, approach to how science is done. (Also, this may be beginning to stray from astronomy into philosophy of science.) Theories provide a coherent explanation for facts. We may have had a reasonably accurate accounting of the light element abundance prior to the development of the Big Bang model. (I'll confess that I don't know the history of this particular aspect all that well.) That still begs the question of why the light element abundance is what it is. It's one thing to measure the light element abundance. Simply knowing that the abundance of deuterium is some value, the abundance of helium is another value, and that of lithium is yet another value is nice, but this is merely a collection of facts. The Big Bang model predicts that there should be some light elements in the Universe not manufactured by stars, because for a short while in the past the Universe had the density and temperature of the interior of a star and fusion was possible. The Big Bang model also predicts that the abundances of these light elements are, in some sense, related and that they are related to the photon-to-baryon ratio. Worrying about whether the actual abundance values were measured before or after the development of the Big Bang model itself misses the point. -- 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
In article ,
" writes: 1. Background Radiation: prediction, but initially off by about 400% Not bad for a first guess. and had to be adjusted to come into agreement with observations. This makes it sound like it was "fudged". Of course, theory and observations are give-and-take and discrepancy might lead one to correct the theory, but you make it sound like one could arbitrarily fit any observations. 4. Assumption invoked to simplify mathematics, which has evolved into near dogma. See the reference above for a discussion of this issue. If we believe that either the observable universe or the Universe is "homogeneous", then we do so out of a near-religious faith and a desire to protect the standard paradigm. There is an ongoing debate over whether the very large-scale distribution of galaxies is fractal, It is ongoing, but not in serious circles. There IS a scale above which there is large-scale homogeneity. Ok, but quite simply: is there some prediction or test by which the new, and heavily reworked, modified, adjusted, Big Bang paradigm can be falsified, or does the present incarnation of the Big Bang paradigm not meet Popper's criterion for science? Certainly. But you have to define exactly what you mean first. Second, it is a widespread misconception that disproving one aspect of a theory also disproves the foundations. That is not necessarily the case. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
In article ,
" writes: So, is your basic argument that the Big Bang paradigm is a one-size-fits-all model which can accommodate new observational discoveries by morphing and adding on epicycles without limits? Newtonian gravity allows a planet at any distance from the sun, unlike Kepler's wrong geometrical conclusions. If that is "one size fits all", then so is ANY theory with a free parameter. No epicycles, though. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:
re Joseph Lazio wrote: This is a oft-repeated claim, but one that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even fairly basic descriptions of the Big Bang model explain that there are three possibilities (...): 1. The matter density in the Universe is high enough that the expansion eventually slows and reverses (...). Such a universe is termed "closed." 2. The matter density in the Universe is not high enough to reverse the expansion. The Universe continues to expand forever. Such a universe is termed "open." 3. The matter density in the Universe is at the critical value so that the expansion ceases only after an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang model (...) do not predict the matter density of the Universe, regarding that as a parameter to be determined from observation. Moreover, there is no requirement for cases 1--3 that the matter be luminous (...). All that is required is that it interact gravitationally, so dark matter, luminous matter, or both are allowed. A robust analogy is to trajectory of an object. Consider a planet of mass M and radius R (...). We can predict, with considerable confidence from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of such a planet is a_g = GM/R^2. Does an object of initial velocity v fall back to the surface of this planet? re So, is your basic argument that the Big Bang paradigm is a re one-size-fits-all model which can accommodate new observational re discoveries by morphing and adding on epicycles without limits? re Does this paradigm make testable predictions which will allow us re to probe its limits of applicability? [...] I notice that you didn't answer my question: Does an object of initial velocity v fall back to the surface of this planet? I fear that this is straying from astronomy into philosophy of science, but I don't understand your reasoning. By your apparent logic, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation does not predict the trajectory of an arbitrary object near a planet of a specified size and mass. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ED CONRAD KNOCKS 'EM DEAD ON LARRY KING LIVE | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 13th 06 01:27 AM |
PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICS OF BILLY MEIER, EXTRATERRESTRIALS EATING CROW | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 11th 06 08:55 PM |
Even More on BILLY MEIER & EXTRATERRESTRIALS -- Major Media Conspiracy Against Truth ---- Just like 911 Gov't Hoax & Man as Old as Coal ---- | Ed Conrad | Misc | 0 | May 10th 06 11:04 PM |
ED CONRAD WILL WIN IN THE LONG RUN -- 1996 Prediction Coming True -- Evolution Going Belly Up -- Man as Old as Coal | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 10th 06 01:31 PM |
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 06 09:08 PM |