Good News for Big Bang theory

The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made
some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang
theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this
area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone.

I have just seen the last part of a BBC 2 Horizon programme (broadcast
in Britain late in the morning on 10 Oct. 2006), which relates to a
recent discussion at sci.astro.research. This made several surprising
(to me) assertions, which included:

1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the
universe.
[In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the
total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant
baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang
predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that
'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted
total.]
2) Following the unexpected discovery of an accelerating expansion of
the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the
multinational high-z supernova search team), the resultant postulated
'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent
mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted
by Big Bang theory.
3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been
run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and
observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely.

In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior
comments at sci.astro.research[1], I would appreciate appropriate
references and/or comments.

In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of
acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite
accurately, which is, again, news to me. Consequently, I would
appreciate the relevant figures (and refs), along with relevant
references for how this is translated into the appropriate required
(repulsive) equivalent mass.

Perhaps of less fundamental importance, in the context of (3), I would
also appreciate clarification of whether that simulation reproduced the
unexpectedly high proportion of very large and old galaxies observed by
the Gemini Deep Deep Survey[2], between 3 and 6 Gyr after the Big Bang,
and the subsequently observed populations of galaxies over the range
0=2E7 to 0.9 Gyr.[3]

Since I have found in the past that Horizon programmes are generally
informative and, at worst, a little na=EFve in those areas where I am
reasonably well read, I find it difficult to believe that the BBC made
this whole thing up. Consequently I am sending copies of these
questions to sci.physics.research and sci.astro.research as well as the
BBC, to find out if such exuberant claims for the successes of standard
theory can, in fact, be substantiated.

References:
[1] most recent parts of
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/678c232=
d463567db

[2] http://www.gemini.edu/project/announ...ss/2004-1.html
http://www.ociw.edu/lcirs/gdds.html
http://www.gemini.edu/media/images_2004-1.html
[3] http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/pres....asp?pid=3D939


John Bell
(Change John to Liberty to bypass anti-spam email filter)

Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"


1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the
universe.

Not really. Firstly what is predicted is density, not total mass.
Secondly, to make a prediction about mass density one requires
supplemental assumptions or observations on curvature and Lambda. Big
bang models have three cosmological parameters, Omega (mass density),
Omega_k (curvature) and Omega_Lambda (cosmological constant) subject to
the constraint that

Omega + Omega_k + Omega_Lambda = 1.

Omega = 1 is critical density for a flat, no Lambda cosmology. Possibly
this identity sums up the "prediction" to which Horizon referred, but I
would not describe this as a prediction of density, Omega.

Observations appear consistent with Omega_k~0 (a flat universe),
0mega~28%, Omega_Lambda~72%, or thereabouts.

[In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the
total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant
baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang
predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that
'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted
total.]

These are roughly the observed figures compared to Omega=1.

2) Following the unexpected discovery of an accelerating expansion of
the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the
multinational high-z supernova search team),

This is the principle discovery, although there are a number of
supporting observations.

the resultant postulated
'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent
mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted
by Big Bang theory.

Yes, the above relation is satisfied for a flat cosmology. As you know,
however, I think there is a misinterpretation of red shift in the
standard model. The teleconnection gives a better fit to SN data with
Omega=1.89, Omega_k=-0.89 (closed finite universe) and Omega_Lambda=0
(no cosmological constant or dark energy).

3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been
run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and
observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely.

Not entirely.

In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior
comments at sci.astro.research[1], I would appreciate appropriate
references and/or comments.

I would refer you to two review papers in Natu

Glazebrook K. et. al., 2004, Nature, 430, 181-184.
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~kgb/MiscPub/...iii-nature.pdf

Cimatti. et. al., 2004, Old Galaxies in the Young Universe, Nature, 430,
184-188. astro-ph/0407131

As described by Glazebrook (2004), there is poor agreement between
current theoretical models of galaxy evolution and empirical data. To
explain this it has been suggested (e.g. Cimatti et. al, 2004) that the
theoretical models may be inaccurate.

In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of
acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite
accurately, which is, again, news to me. Consequently, I would
appreciate the relevant figures (and refs), along with relevant
references for how this is translated into the appropriate required
(repulsive) equivalent mass.

Perhaps of less fundamental importance, in the context of (3), I would
also appreciate clarification of whether that simulation reproduced the
unexpectedly high proportion of very large and old galaxies observed by
the Gemini Deep Deep Survey[2], between 3 and 6 Gyr after the Big Bang,
and the subsequently observed populations of galaxies over the range
0=2E7 to 0.9 Gyr.[3]

I think not. At least some of the authors of those papers were involved
with Gemini.

Since I have found in the past that Horizon programmes are generally
informative and, at worst, a little na=EFve in those areas where I am
reasonably well read, I find it difficult to believe that the BBC made
this whole thing up.

Not made up. Perhaps a little distorted. The general attitude to galaxy
evolution is that data is preliminary and evolution models are
questionable. No one is taking them too seriously just yet.




Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

In article , "John
(Liberty) Bell" writes:

The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made
some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang
theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this
area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone.

In general, be aware that television science is not always completely
accurate. Maybe the presenter doesn't know better, maybe he does but
dumbs it down. Also, be aware that "big bang theory" means different
things to different people. Actually, it means "the universe is
expanding from a previous state which was much smaller and much denser";
many folks add one or more additional things to this definition. Here
are my guesses as to what was meant:

1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the
universe.
[In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the
total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant
baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang
predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that
'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted
total.]

This is too vague to judge. The baryonic fraction can be predicted
quite well, but at least as stated not the amount of dark matter. Not
predicted. It can be observed, indirectly, but that is something
different.

2) Following the unexpected discovery

It wasn't unexpected by everyone.

of an accelerating expansion of
the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the
multinational high-z supernova search team), the resultant postulated
'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent
mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted
by Big Bang theory.

This probably means that "inflation" "predicted" a flat universe.
Indeed, all the components (baryons, dark matter, "dark energy") do
indeed add up quite nicely to make the universe at least approximately
flat.

3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been
run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and
observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely.

Use these parameters as the "background" for numerical simulations and
find that they agree with observations. Actually, not "remarkable",
since that is what one expects if one has the model correct and the
correct input parameters.

In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior
comments at sci.astro.research[1],

The statement above is too vague to say that it contradicts prior
comments here (and of course some prior comments here contradict
others).

In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of
acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite
accurately,

It is know to 10% or so. However, what is usually "measured" is
Omega_x, which is actually independent of the rate of expansion. The
rate of expansion (the Hubble constant) is needed to translate an Omega
value into a physical density, but is not needed when discussing
relative amounts.

John (Liberty) Bell wrote:
The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made
some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang
theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this
area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone.


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.

The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light
elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as successful
"predictions". However, when one does a more thorough search of the
scientific literature, one finds that most of the claimed "predictions"
were in fact retrodictions, i.e., after-the-fact explanations of
already discovered facts or approximate results.
The few genuine predictions were often considerably off the mark, and
had to be adjusted, often more than once, as in the case of the
temperature of the microwave background, the level of fluctuations in
the background, and the scale at which "homogeneity" would be found.

The Big Bang model is an exercise in model-building, wherein one
tinkers with the physics and the adjustable parameters until it
reproduces existing observations. To be fair, it does a pretty good
job of modelling the general properties of the observable universe, but
it is, and has always been, rather plastic.

The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the existence of
the dark matter that dominates the observable universe. Its primary
retrodiction for the dark matter, found in nearly all discussions of
the standard Big Bang model and "precision cosmology", is that it is in
the form of hypothetical CDM particles, like axions. After decades of
searching, these hypothetical particles have still not been detected.
Stellar-mass dark matter, which contradicts the Big Bang retrodiction,
appears to have been observed by numerous groups in differing
observational experiments, but this scientific evidence is
downplayed by many in the cosmological community, perhaps because it is
an unwanted result that does not fit in well with the Big Bang model.

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.

Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is
this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial
distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If
scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very
special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify
retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is
in very deep trouble.

Robert Oldershaw

Thus spake "

The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the existence of
the dark matter that dominates the observable universe. Its primary
retrodiction for the dark matter, found in nearly all discussions of
the standard Big Bang model and "precision cosmology", is that it is in
the form of hypothetical CDM particles, like axions. After decades of
searching, these hypothetical particles have still not been detected.

Not only that, but there is no theory for them in elementary particle
physics, in which there are other consistency checks which allow only
those particles which we actually do detect. These exotic particles are
still theoretically impossible, as well as being undetected.


Stellar-mass dark matter, which contradicts the Big Bang retrodiction,
appears to have been observed by numerous groups in differing
observational experiments, but this scientific evidence is
downplayed by many in the cosmological community, perhaps because it is
an unwanted result that does not fit in well with the Big Bang model.

Yes. One should be honest, both CDM and the cosmological constant are
fixes, brought about because observation seems to demand them. However,
if one studies general relativity properly it is also apparent that the
overall structure, including the big bang itself is pretty well forced
upon us from simple, undeniable assumptions. There is, imv, only one
place in which it can reasonably be altered, namely the affine
connection is suspect. Moreover there is a pressing theoretical reason
why it should be changed, namely that general relativity is not, in its
present form, compatible with quantum theory. That explains the
motivation for my research in the teleconnection. The teleconnection
does not alter the overall cosmological structure, which includes a big
bang. But it does alter the interpretation of observations, such that
neither CDM nor Lambda are required and it restores the original
preferred model of a closed finite universe with a big crunch.

The Big Bang model has difficulties with respect to explanations for
why galaxies exist at all, how galaxies form,

Well, it has problems explaining how galaxies formed in the available
timescale. Again that is resolved by the teleconnection in which
redshift is greater at given distance, and the universe is expands more
slowly.

Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is
this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial
distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If
scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very
special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify
retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is
in very deep trouble.

I do not entirely disagree with this. However, there are some
consistency checks which are of a very rigorous nature, and I do not
think it reasonable to call them "mere". For example big bang
nucleosynthesis gives a very precise figure for the proton-neutron
balance, depending on the rate of expansion of the early universe. This
is based on very well understood processes in particle physics, and it
is essential that the observed balance is consistent with Hubble's
constant.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "

Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is
this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial
distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If
scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very
special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify
retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is
in very deep trouble.

I do not entirely disagree with this. However, there are some
consistency checks which are of a very rigorous nature, and I do not
think it reasonable to call them "mere". For example big bang
nucleosynthesis gives a very precise figure for the proton-neutron
balance, depending on the rate of expansion of the early universe. This
is based on very well understood processes in particle physics, and it
is essential that the observed balance is consistent with Hubble's
constant.

Firstly, let me assure group members that I think the evidence for
global expansion of the observable universe, indicating some form of
explosive event in our little corner of the Universe, is quite strong.
Therefore, I am in basic agreement with the standard Big Bang paradigm
as a first approximation to what is occurring locally.

However, I think we are very close to discovering a new and far more
encompassing paradigm, which subsumes the Big Bang paradigm and offers
a more coherent understanding of what we observe from the smallest of
elementary particles to pulsars and stars to galaxies and to the
limited portion of the metagalaxy that is observable. I think we are
moving slowly and somewhat chaotically towards a discrete, unbounded
(in space, time and scale), fractal paradigm for nature.

But here is the main point: we have many competing ideas for new ways
to understand nature. How are we to decide among infinite fractal
paradigms, teleconnections, landscapes, cosmic strings, etc.? The good
news is that there is a bona fide scientific way to do this, if we are
willing to stick to the principles upon which science was founded.

The correct path forward can be unambiguously determined by the answer
to the dark matter enigma. Here is how.

1. The dark matter component is such an important component of the
observable universe that any theory, model or paradigm that did not
anticipate it is immediately suspect and identified as seriously
incomplete.

2. Any theory, model or paradigm that expects to treated as more than
abstract arm-waving must predict or retrodict a specific candidate for
the dark matter. If any paradigm/theory cannot come up with its own
unique and definitive candidate solution to the dark matter enigma,
then I submit that the paradigm/theory is of little use to the science
of nature. It may be a fun and challenging exercise in abstract
thought, but it is nothing more.

3. Finally, we let observations decide which prediction/retrodiction is
the most accurate, and the paradigm associated with that
prediction/retrodiction will have been revealed as the correct path
forward.

Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the
dark matter?

The discrete fractal paradigm, decades ago, said that the dark matter
must exist and this has been strongly supported. This paradigm
definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of
Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58
solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these
predictions.

If people believe strongly in competing paradigms, let us see them come
forward in a scientific manner, and put their competing predictions in
writing before the community of scientists. And let us see them accept
nature's verdict when that becomes known. If the discrete fractal
paradigm fails the dark matter test, I will readily admit it.

[Mod. note: can I remind posters again that it is not enough to assert
that their favourite model explains all the mysteries of the universe:
it's necessary to provide references, preferably to published
peer-reviewed work in a mainstream physics journal, or at least some
attempt at justification for your assertions that can be evaluated on
its merits. If you can't do this, please take your postings to
alt.sci.physics.new-theories. I am letting this through because most
of it is discussion rather than unsupported assertion, but further
posting along these lines is discouraged -- mjh]

Thus spake "
The correct path forward can be unambiguously determined by the answer
to the dark matter enigma. Here is how.

1. The dark matter component is such an important component of the
observable universe that any theory, model or paradigm that did not
anticipate it is immediately suspect and identified as seriously
incomplete.

One should distinguish different forms of dark matter. There is
conventional dark matter, for example some (the exact proportion is not
known) baryonic matter is dark. Neutrinoes are hot dark matter, and
account for an unknown proportion, in accordance with there mass.
Primordial black holes, if they exist, are not counted as baryonic, but
may again account for an unknown fraction. But the standard model also
requires Cold Dark Matter, which may include primordial black holes, but
certainly does not consist entirely of primordial black holes or they
would have been detected with microlensing. In addition, the standard
model requires that cold dark matter haloes have a particular profile to
account for galaxy rotation curves. What bugs me slightly is that I
think this particular prediction actually falsifies the standard model.
The profile is not found from either lensing or from evolution models,
and so far independent tests of CDM in particular local tests, e.g. in
globular clusters, always seems to come up with zilch.

Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the
dark matter?

Yes. The background to the teleconnection model is described in detail
in gr-qc/0508077, and the predictions are found in gr-qc/0604047. The
model is essentially standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, but
cosmological redshift is reinterpreted such that it has half the
standard expansion rate, so requires 1/4 of the critical density for
closure. This means that baryonic matter can form 10-20% of its mass,
and the remaining can be neutrinos, so that no cold dark matter is
required, although I have no particular objection to primordial black
holes. The model explains galaxy rotation curves without requiring CDM
haloes.

The discrete fractal paradigm, decades ago, said that the dark matter
must exist and this has been strongly supported.

We know a lot of matter is dark in all models. Even within the last few
years, hosts of new stars were found in the ultraviolet. There may be an
undisclosed number of brown dwarves. The real issue is whether exotic
dark matter is required, stuff which has no place in particle physics.

This paradigm
definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of
Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58
solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these
predictions.

As I say, I have no objection in principle, to the potential existence
of primordial black holes, but we know from microlensing there are not
enough of them to account for the cold dark matter in the standard
model, and nor do galaxy profiles obey the laws which would be expected
of conventional gravitating bodies. Some more exotic solution seems to
be required.




Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:
Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the
dark matter?

Yes. The background to the teleconnection model is described in detail
in gr-qc/0508077, and the predictions are found in gr-qc/0604047. The
model is essentially standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, but
cosmological redshift is reinterpreted such that it has half the
standard expansion rate, so requires 1/4 of the critical density for
closure. This means that baryonic matter can form 10-20% of its mass,
and the remaining can be neutrinos, so that no cold dark matter is
required, although I have no particular objection to primordial black
holes. The model explains galaxy rotation curves without requiring CDM
haloes.


Do I understand correctly that, regarding the dark matter issue, the
teleconnection model says that the critical density is 1/4 of the usual
value and thus much less dark matter is required? You seem to imply
that the additional matter could be neutrinos (80-90%!), CDM,
primordial black holes, etc. Do I misunderstand, or does the
teleconnection model not make a specific prediction about the detailed
nature of the dark matter?


This paradigm (discrete fractal paradigm)
definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of
Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58
solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these
predictions.

The original prediction was made in ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987.

A discussion of observational results and how they do or do not agree
with the predictions of various paradigms can be found at Fractals 10,
27-38, March 2002. An easy way to get a look at this paper is to go to
my website at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, then click on "selected
papers", and then choose paper #5. The graph summarizing the
observational data says it all!

As I say, I have no objection in principle, to the potential existence
of primordial black holes, but we know from microlensing there are not
enough of them to account for the cold dark matter in the standard
model, and nor do galaxy profiles obey the laws which would be expected
of conventional gravitating bodies. Some more exotic solution seems to
be required.

I think we are probably in for a lot of surprises. The more we press
our theories, models and paradigms for specific, definitive
predictions, the more we will learn when the observational data becomes
available. Eschew plasticity, embrace principles!

Rob

Thus spake "
Oh No wrote:
Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the
dark matter?

Yes. The background to the teleconnection model is described in detail
in gr-qc/0508077, and the predictions are found in gr-qc/0604047. The
model is essentially standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, but
cosmological redshift is reinterpreted such that it has half the
standard expansion rate, so requires 1/4 of the critical density for
closure. This means that baryonic matter can form 10-20% of its mass,
and the remaining can be neutrinos, so that no cold dark matter is
required, although I have no particular objection to primordial black
holes. The model explains galaxy rotation curves without requiring CDM
haloes.


Do I understand correctly that, regarding the dark matter issue, the
teleconnection model says that the critical density is 1/4 of the usual
value and thus much less dark matter is required?

That's right.

You seem to imply
that the additional matter could be neutrinos (80-90%!), CDM,
primordial black holes, etc. Do I misunderstand, or does the
teleconnection model not make a specific prediction about the detailed
nature of the dark matter?

No specific prediction, except for remarking that exotic dark matter is
not required. Otherwise dark matter should take forms allowed by
conventional physics, protostars, dwarfs, neutrinoes, normal kinds of
thing which we expect to be dark.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email

Oh No wrote:


Do I understand correctly that, regarding the dark matter issue, the
teleconnection model says that the critical density is 1/4 of the usual
value and thus much less dark matter is required?

That's right.

You seem to imply
that the additional matter could be neutrinos (80-90%!), CDM,
primordial black holes, etc. Do I misunderstand, or does the
teleconnection model not make a specific prediction about the detailed
nature of the dark matter?

No specific prediction, except for remarking that exotic dark matter is
not required. Otherwise dark matter should take forms allowed by
conventional physics, protostars, dwarfs, neutrinoes, normal kinds of
thing which we expect to be dark.


Ok, now I understand your position on the dark matter better.

The dark matter issue is one of the most important issues facing
astrophysicists today, but it is certainly not the only one. I can
envision cosmological hypotheses that do not specifically make
predictions about the dark matter, but do make testable predictions
about other important issues.

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.

If others who study the field of cosmology and/or read posts in this
news group would like to identify definitive predictions made by other
theories, I would very much like to hear your examples, especially if
they apply to the dark matter. If we have trouble identifying such
definitive predictions, does that tell us something quite
uncomfortable, but important to acknowledge, about the state of
astrophysics?