Michael Mozina wrote:Nereid wrote:Aye, and there's the rub - in the case of inflation and dark energy, there is simply no other explanation that comes even remotely close to being both consistent and able to explain the data.
That is simply a false statement.
It seems that I was insufficiently precise ...
Wrt to their respective domains of applicability, there are no other theoretical constructs which have the same, or even close,
quantitative explanatory power as inflation and DE, in terms of the good observational and experimental results (within the relevant domains).
Intersecting matter/antimatter "singularities" might explain "inflation", and expanding EM fields could explain the acceleration of the universe.
Well, a zillion things 'might' or 'could' explain stuff ... the point is this: there are none, published today, in the relevant peer-reviewed journals
There is no need to interject unevidenced particles to explain the "bang" of the "Big Bang", or the acceleration we see.
Perhaps you could clarify this? I wasn't aware that either inflation or DE involved "unevidenced particles".
What the heck *is* dark energy,
Good question!
At the moment, it would seem to be something like Einstein's cosmological constant, and somehow related to vacuum energy. There are rather few constraints on its detailed nature (so far), but the astonishing thing is that just a single parameter seems to account for so many thousands of good observations!
and how do you know that EM fields are not the cause of acceleration?
We don't ... and if you'd like to develop that idea into a fully quantitative, consistent theory, get it published, you may make a big contribution to cosmology.
However, until then ...
And Occam's Razor cuts in more ways than one - "consistency across many domains" is buried in it.
I'm willing to let it cut both ways, but it should be imposed universally to all topics. We don't need "dark energy" to explain acceleration. Why then are we buying into that idea?
OK, so what is the competing explanation, which does as good (or better) a job of accounting for all the relevant good observations? and is also internally consistent? and consistent with all well-established theories which have domains of applicability which overlap?
Is it necessary for me to repeat the nature of science (cosmology in this case) in every part of my responses? Or can I simply ask you to re-state your comments in terms of theory/consistency/observation and experiment (quantitatively, in all cases, of course)?
And we already have quite a bit of 'Occam's Razor history', re 'new "particles"' ... a great deal of the Standard Model's success can be said to flow from new fields and particles ... indeed, even OM's own work would be null and void without the 'new particle' neutrino ...
Well, unlike a "monopole",
You've mentioned "monopole" several times now ... what is it? And how is it relevant to modern cosmology?
the neutrino was "theorized" based on a perceived loss of energy in specific particle physics reactions. It could and has been "studied", and we have begun to "measure" it with some precision.
Indeed.
And how much of what you wrote is, shall we say, revisionist?
At the time, just how much better were the good observational or experimental results (in cosmology), favouring the neutrino, than inflation? How many years was it between its theoretical debut and it being detected?
Or we could go back a few years, and consider helium? Or 'nebulium'?
That is completely not true of "monopoles" or Guth's "free lunch " "inflaton fields".
Really? So, just so that I understand your point here ... in the MM view of the nature of cosmology, the science, just what is 'legal' in terms of theoretical constructs?
Nobody has every documented any such thing in a lab. Ever.
There are no neutron stars "in a lab" either, nor black holes, nor galaxies, nor supernovae, nor EeV particles, nor ...
In the MM view of the science of astronomy, must an entity be "documented in a lab" before it can be 'legal'?
Both particles, the one Guth was trying to "minimize" and the magic free lunch inflaton field were creations of Guth's mind, nothing more. There has never been any evidence of monopoles or inflaton fields here on earth. Ever.
Er, and there are theories, in physics, astronomy, cosmology, ... which are NOT creations of {someone's} mind?
Pity that they can't account, quantitatively, for *Olbers' paradox, *the primordial abundance of light nuclides, *the H-R diagram, *the CMB, *the Hubble relationship, *quasars, ...
It's a pity you aren't willing to help do that. Instead you'd rather simply "put faith" in some mathematical constructs that may or may not even apply to reality.
{insert statement concerning science here}
Start by explaining Guth's "ultimate free lunch". How was that a free lunch, and how is a free lunch not violating the first law of thermodynamics?
A good book that has a concise, non-mathematical explanation is Joseph Silk's "the infinite cosmos" (ISBN 0-19-850510-8 ). If you'd like a good answer, more quickly, why not post that question on Physics Forums?
And, wrt "the first law of thermodynamics", can you show that inflation violates this? With math (not just words)?
And at the hand-waving, word salad level, how does one choose between competing ideas?
Well, I tend to pick the one that has observational evidence to support it. Plasma tends to move and flow in the presence of strong EM fields. I don't need "dark energy" to explain movement in plasma.
II count two (inflation and DE) - what's the third?
Monopoles. Remember the reason Guth introduced the "need" for inflation? What evidence can you present to suggest that there was ever really a "problem" with monopoles in the first place?
OK, now it's clear.
Whatever reason Guth might, or might not, have had for developing inflation, surely the only relevant question, today, is "how critical are "monopoles" to modern inflation theory?" AFAIK, they aren't, at all.
Perhaps you've missed them, but there are plenty of papers full of evidence of inflation and DE (not to mention all the consistency links ...) - would you be interested in reading some of them?
I've read all kinds of papers that report to find evidence of "dark energy", but none of them have ever explained what "dark energy" is, let alone how it applies back to particle physics. None of them have explained why "dark energy" is a "better" scientific answer than expanding EM fields. Until I see some logical reason to suggest that movement in plasma can't be caused by electrical flow and standard plasma physics, I see no direct evidence for either dark energy or inflaton fields. Show me one lab experiment in controlled conditions that has demonstrated either particle actually exists. Both of of these ideas come purely from an "interpretation" of what we see in the movements of the universe, nothing more. There is no evidence for DE or inflation fields in QM or GR.
{insert statement concerning science here}
