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

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

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.

"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

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?

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?

"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

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.

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.

"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