WMAP Space-Mission Survey of the Universe After the Big Bang Completed -Its Results Hint at a Far Stranger Cosmos
Follow the Daily Galaxy
Add Daily Galaxy to igoogle page AddThis Feed Button Join The Daily Galaxy Group on Facebook Follow The Daily Galaxy Group on twitter
 

« Source of 'Ring of Fire' Violence Discovered | Main | A Mystery Object Impacted Jupiter's Rings: Was It the 1994 Comet Shoemaker-Levy? »

October 08, 2010

WMAP Space-Mission Survey of the Universe After the Big Bang Completed -Its Results Hint at a Far Stranger Cosmos

6a00d8341bf7f753ef0133f0f831c9970b-500wi"WMAP data support the notion that galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky." "To me, this is one of the marvels of the modern scientific age."

 Physicist Brian Greene of Columbia University.

"We discovered what the universe was like 400,000 years ago, providing knowledge beyond the textbook, enabling precise determination of the fundamental data of the universe - geometry, age and composition - dark matter," said David Spergel, 49, who led the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe space mission with Charles Bennett and Lyman Page.


After nine years of plotting the oldest light in the universe, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has shut down. WMAP has captured a full sky picture of tiny temperature fluctuations and cosmic radiation, affirming the universe is 13.7 billion years old. The satellite, which single-handedly helped establish the standard model of cosmology, took its last look at the cosmos Aug. 20, and settled into a final parking orbit around the sun Sept. 8.

"From our experiments, the periodic table which comprises the atoms or normal matter that are said to make up the entire universe actually covers only 4.5 percent of the whole," lead theorist Spergel said. "Students are learning just a tiny part of the universe from their textbooks. It would be dark matter and dark energy that comprise the next 22 percent and 73.5 percent of the universe."

WMAP launched June 30, 2001, with the goal of sensing subtle temperature differences in the cosmic microwave background, the glow of the first atoms to release their radiation 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Since then, it has provided the most accurate measurement of the age of the universe, proved the existence of dark energy, showed that just 4 percent of the universe is made of ordinary matter and supported the idea that the universe inflated from sub-atomic scale to the size of a soccer ball in its first trillionth of a second.

“It’s gone way beyond what I imagined, things I didn’t even think about at the time,” said cosmologist Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University, WMAP’s principal investigator. Before WMAP, much of the universe’s history was a blank book. Astronomers had some idea that the universe started with a Big Bang sometime between 8 billion and 20 billion years ago, and rapidly expanded after that. But they had very little notion of exactly when, or exactly how.

But several of the worlds leading physicists have concluded that the WMAP survey has raised more profound questions than it answers.

Utane Sawangwit and Tom Shanks of Durham University believe that errors on the “gold standard” cosmic microwave background results from the WMAP satellite that includes dark matter, dark energy and the exponential expansion after the big bang known as inflation may be larger than previously supposed.

It is the pattern of ripples detected by microwave background telescopes such as WMAP that underpin the idea that the Universe is composed of 22% dark exotic particles and 74% dark energy with the remaining 4% being the atoms in the ordinary material that we see around us.

This model produces a largest ripple size of about 1 degree on the microwave sky and this is well matched by the ripples seen in the WMAP data. So these WMAP ripples have a size that is roughly twice the size of the Full Moon as they appear on the sky. Models that don’t have dark energy or dark matter tend to produce CMB ripples that are smaller, only about half the standard model size and so just about the size of the Full Moon.  

Sawangwit and Shanks have used point-like radio sources to test how much the WMAP telescope smoothes these CMB ripples and have found evidence that this ”beam smoothing” is much larger than suggested from WMAP’s observations of the planet Jupiter.

The radio sources have the advantage that they are much closer in brightness to the CMB ripples that are being studied than Jupiter which is ~1000 times brighter. But their faintness is also a disadvantage which means that the Durham team have had to stack hundreds of the radio sources to get their result.
If the WMAP CMB map is smoothed by as much as the radio sources appear to be then it may  make it more easy for other models without dark matter (or dark energy!) to fit the CMB data. It will then be interesting to see if the new European PLANCK satellite, currently taking data, will confirm the WMAP results. The PLANCK telescope will also smooth the new CMB maps and again the radio source technique used by Sawangwit and Shanks can be used to help them judge how much.

The same Durham team were also involved with international collaborators in another recent paper which suggested that an independent CMB check on the existence of dark energy might not be as “bullet-proof “ as previously thought.

If dark energy exists it causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate at late times. CMB photons have to pass through giant superclusters of galaxies on their way to be detected by telescopes such as WMAP. Normally a CMB photon gets gravitationally blueshifted as it enters a cluster and redshifted as it leaves and the two effects cancel.

But if the cluster galaxies accelerate away from each other as the photon passes through then the cancellation is not exact and a trace is left in that slightly higher CMB temperatures should be observed in sightlines that pass near to galaxy superclusters.

Previously claims have been made that this “ISW “ signal is seen at high significance when CMB-galaxy correlations are studied. But in a powerful new sample of ~1 million luminous red galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey no such effect is seen and when this result is included, the significances of the previous detections reduce to the point where they are as consistent with a zero detection of dark energy as with the standard model prediction.

If the same null result is seen in the Southern Hemisphere using WMAP and PLANCK CMB data coupled with millions of galaxies to be found in new Southern Surveys such as the ESO  VST ATLAS (PI T. Shanks) then again there will be a significant threat to the standard cosmological model in which dark energy plays a vital role.

The odds are still that the standard model with its dark energy and dark matter will survive but there are certainly many theorists who might hope that it does not! The identification of dark matter with exotic particles as yet undetected in the laboratory and the introduction of dark vacuum energy in an amount that is minute compared to the total energy of the Universe at early-times leaves many cosmologists feeling unsure.

The dark energy problem is particularly severe – most theorists would prefer a zero cosmological constant because it might be hoped that it could be explained by some as yet unknown symmetry of nature. Indeed, if there had to be a cosmological constant then the string theorists of particle physics would actually prefer that it was negative which is the opposite to what is apparently observed in the supernova Hubble diagram. These problems frequently cause theorists to resort to the “anthropic principle” for an explanation.

The standard model also has astrophysical difficulties. For example, in galaxy formation theories, as much “feedback” energy is now being used in preventing stars from forming as in forming them under gravity, seemingly at odds with the simplest “bottom-up” picture of galaxy formation. 

Even the evidence for dark matter is less strong than it was in the 1930’s when Fritz Zwicky first discovered the “missing mass” problem in the centres of rich galaxy clusters. The confirmation from X-ray satellites like Chandra and XMM-Newton that these galaxy clusters contain large amounts of hot gas as well as galaxies and stars has reduced the missing mass/dark matter discrepancy by a factor of 10-100! It remains to be seen whether the remaining factor or 4-5 merits the invoking of a cosmological density of exotic particles as required by the standard model.

The undoubted successes of the standard cosmological model therefore have to be balanced against the above problems. Much depends on the results from the “precision” Cosmic Microwave Background experiments. If these are correct then the standard model, with all its difficulties, will likely be correct. This is why tests of the CMB results such as those made by the Durham team and their collaborators are so important for cosmology.

The effect of the WMAP telescope on the CMB ripples and the search for the signature of dark energy in the CMB-galaxy correlations are crucial for the survival of the standard model. The results at the least give the CMB observational teams a chance to check whether their systematic errors are really well enough established to reject all simpler cosmological models and only accept the standard model with its mysterious dark matter and dark energy components.

The WMAP team, according to New Scientist isn't taking the challenge lighly. They claim that the radio sources observed by WMAP coincide with spots of the sky where the temperature is slightly higher, making the calibration inaccurate. "We're happy to defend WMAP," says team member Gary Hinshaw of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

According to their critics, to explain away theses potentially undermining errors, standard model and WMAP supporters have invented "dark energy" and "great attractors" so as to explain why a created universe did not spread out uniformly at the same speed and in the same spoke-like directions as predicted by theory.

Predications based on the Big Bang can account for less than 20% of the mass and density of the known, observable Hubble length universe. Nor can this theory explain gravity, the discordant data on red shifts, galaxy distribution, colliding galaxies, the abundance of hydrogen and helium, the existence of elementary particles, and why the movement of distant galaxies appears to be accelerating.

Critics of the standard model say that only the addition of ad hoc hypothetical appendages and parameters which are constantly adjusted have prevented the Big Bang theory from complete collapse.

Casey Kazan via University of Durham


astro.dur.ac.uk/~dph3us/cmb_press_release.doc

wired.com

 

 

 

Comments

brilliant article. thank you Mr Galaxy.

We understand only 4.5% of all the matter and energy in the universe, and we are searching for ET intelligence. What if ET intelligence were made of matter and energy in the remaining 95.5%?

Oddly, the tone of this article is extremely confident that the standard model (inculding dark energy and dark matter) will prevail. But if you consider all that this artile mentions that scientists cannot explain, then really what they are talking about is an extremely exotic universe that might be trillions of years old. To avoid this, nearly everyone now thinks it's only a matter of time before scientists discover something (probably dark matter) that will confirm the standard model. But remember this: red-shifted galaxies at extreme distance with old stard suggests that the universe might be very, very old. No one wants to think that because scientists want to believe that they can see the hand of God in the creation myth. That's why they're holding onto dark energy and dark matter and even the anthropic principle. If you let the facts as they are known now stand, then the universe is very, very puzzling.

(standard model)(observation)=(dark energy)(dark matter)(we have no idea what's going on)

The Big Bang is just a theory that suits our current observations and measurements from our point of reference. Thing is we are finding out that there are structures at the edge of the universe far too advanced to have been created just 14 billion years ago, that should be reason enough to start thinking outside the box. My favorite "guess" being that there could be an infinite amount of big bangs that have happened, are happening and will happen in the future.

Or there was no big bang at all and the Universe wasn't created in an explosion. They don't have a clue what's going on and they won't say that because *gasp* it would make them look stupid.

how the cosmic microwave say 13,7 billion years? where they still come?

Does all this mean that before the Big Bang (sic)there existed an infinite emptiness? If so, where did all the matter that comprises the universe(s)come from?

Reply to ali(e)n. Still no learn communicate in English?

@ Simon Salosny http://riseoflegends.com/worlds/Alin_Nation.htm

:) pls replay to my questions, better.

A few random comments. Reader "Observer" needs study what the (unfortunately named) Big Bang actually is. It has nothing whatever to do with any "explosion". In future, please read up on the subject before commenting.

Dark Matter is an interesting scientific mystery. But not quite so mysterious as it is often described as being. DM is simply something with mass that have not yet been able to observe. We have quite detailed maps now, of just how it is distributed. Some part of it is probably in the form of MACHOs... basically regular matter that happens not to shine. But even researchers of MACHOs are coming to the conclusion that MACHOS can only explain a fraction of the DM which we know exists. We already know of particles which have mass that interact only very weakly with other matter. Like neutrinos. In fact, neutrinos are candidates for the source of the missing matter. Although it's looking like they probably would not be enough. So we're probably just looking at different, more massive particles (WIMPs) which, like the neutrino, interact only weakly with other matter. There are particles in the standard model of Quantum Mechanics which would be good candidates. It's possible that we might observe them in the LHC.

BTW, data from, e.g., the Bullet Cluster pretty well rules out any revised gravity model to explain what DM has been invoked to explain.

A far more tantalizing mystery is that of Dark Energy. Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" explains it. But does anyone really understand what that is? It could be the energy of the vacuum. And we know, quantitatively what that would be. Unfortunately, it comes out to be 10^120 times too large to explain the Cosmological Constant. So we figure that something else must be *mostly* cancelling that out, without completely cancelling it out. So far as I know, nothing that we know at this time rules out the possibility of a revised theory gravity for explaining Dark Energy.

But looking back in time, the "Big Bang", which really should have been called the "Cosmic Expansion", or really *anything* other than the inaccurate term "Big Bang", is extremely well supported by the extant data, and is pretty much an inescapable conclusion at this point.

And the WMAP data, among other things, pretty firmly establishes the age of our Universe at very close to 13.7 billion years.

- Steve Bergman

@Steve Bergman And who may I ask wrote the definitive guide to the big bang ? I want you to convince one sane person that everything was created from a walnut sized object without magic being involved. Expansion, explosion doesn't matter it's all theory and subject to criticism. Using WMAP to say the Universe is 13.7 billion years old is just stupid. It's like saying that I can see to the end of my nose so that's it nothing exists beyond. The OBSERVABLE Universe is 13.7 billion years old not everything.

thursday nights cbs 8 pm est.

Observer,

Like I said before. You need to study what the Big Bang is before pretending that you know enough to criticize it. Walnut sized object? There is a great deal of difference between saying that a walnut sized object exploded, and saying that space itself expanded from a point to its current size.

Expansion and inflation explain the preponderance of extant data very well. And as we now have very convincing evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, independent of any Big Bang considerations, Dark Matter is in no way evidence against the standard model. I believe the article uses the term "exotic particles" to describe it. Although there is no reason to think that Dark Matter is anything more exotic than are, say, neutrinos. The article is rather odd and overly speculative. But that's true of most Daily Galaxy fare. This is not to imply that our current model is complete. It most certainly is not. But it's demonstrated itself to be a reliable core to build upon. Any rival theory would have to, first, explain everything that it does. And that is a very tall order, indeed, as Fred Hoyle discovered, in wasting the last 52 years of his life in a failed attempt to do just that.

WMAP is one data source which gives us a 13 to 14 billion year age for our Universe. Temperatures of the coolest white dwarves, and GRB data, among other things, yield numbers in agreement with those. WMAP happens to yield the greatest precision.

While it is unknown whether our Universe is infinite or finite, I'm not sure that it really makes sense to talk about anything beyond our light cone. If your theory doesn't make testable predictions, it's not science, but philosophy. So far as I know, we cannot make any sort of testable predictions regarding the Universe beyond our light cone. So if you agree that the observable Universe is 13.7 billion years old, then we agree to as far a point as science can currently take us. The difference being that you want to go on and make up a philosophy of your own, while I prefer to reserve speculation until such time as testable predictions might be made.

I should also note that the age of the Universe and the size of the Universe are two completely different things. That if the Universe is infinite, it has been since the instant of the Big Bang. And if it is finite, it has likewise been so since the instant of the Big Bang. And also, I should caution that what happened at the very instant of the Big Bang is not yet science, since we don't have a testable theory to apply under those conditions. Two many infinities which can't be normalized away at this time.

M-Theory is nice, and now a logically consistent single theory. It may even be right. But until we see some testable predictions, we can't say much more. Well, except that it's kinda beautiful.

It takes a while to being to get one's mind around the concepts of inflation and expansion. But once you do, things do make a great deal of of sense.

@Steve Bergman You have brought up nothing new to even warrant an answer. You seem to live in Mr Rogers neighbourhood rather than reality. Of course the article is speculative because Big Bang, Dark Matter et al are all speculations!
You are making it sound like the theory of the Big Bang is some known fact, no one knows anything outside of the microwave radiation being detected. Since you seem to know precisely that space expanded, from nothing or negative matter or whatever you want to come up with God even, you provide evidence to support that ? No one even knows if the Big Bang was simply a local event, sticking theories on suppositions is not a good thing Steve.

@Observer,
I very much agree in your comments to Steve Bergman.

All the cosmological fuzz and buzz about Big Bang and everything else following this illogical "theory", is based on mathematical singularities which cannot exist in the real World/Universe.

- The BB is totally out of date and logical order and the failed cosmological theories should all be exchanged and based on the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology)

NB: In my opinion, the CMB is an "eternal soup" in which all cosmic objects are "floating" in an Universe where Light and Matter constantly interact, building and dissolving all kind of objects in the Universe.

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen

It is strange to note that no one here is talking about the nature of the primordial matter created at Big Bang. That has given rise to both the dark and visible matter. The matter is baryonic in nature while the former is not. The dark matter must therefore consist of quark/ gluons that have since frozen in free state as the strong nuclear field became weaker in strength from a very high value at Big Bang. The residual matter thus got converted from the residue matter of quarks that were created originally. These quarks may well be very massive that decayed into the 6 quarks that now have formed the visual matter we know today.

Observer,

You're obviously pretty confused. Dark Matter is extremely well established by freely available, and easily understood data.

Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

The Bullet Cluster data is explained in a very clear way by CIT physicist Seam Carrol here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwyTaSt0XxE

It's an excellent video, and you'll probably want to study the whole thing. But the particularly relevant bit starts at 35:07. The thing you will find if you really study the consensus model, is that while some things may seem, at first, to be grafted on in an arbitrary way... if you take the time to really study the data that is being explained by any particular part, it works out to be pretty water tight. That's why it's still the consensus model. Astronomers and physicists *love* to poke holes in things. In fact... they make their names and further their careers by poking holes in things. But not by doing so with irrational arguments. The consensus model, while known to be incomplete, has stood up pretty well to pretty much everything that has been thrown at it. I've already mentioned Fred Hoyle's decades long attempt to supplant it. I'll get into more detail about Alfvén's attempts in my response to the self-styled "natural philosopher" who has joined us.

-Steve

Ivar,

Firstly, your linked WP article suggests that this so-called "Plasma Cosmology" rejects General Relativity. This despite the fact that devices so commonplace as the GPS units in our cars would not be functioning properly is GR corrections were ignored. If I'm reading it correctly, that's enough to kill "Plasma Cosmology", right there. But let's assume that I'm misreading that bit, or that it is in error, and look further.

"Plasma Cosmology" seems to have some very major problems. Whereas the current consensus model *predicted* the existence of the CBR, and thus the results of COBE and WMAP, "Plasma Cosmology" offers no explanation at all for them. That's bad. Especially since computer modeling demonstrates how the tiny variations in the WMAP data really do correspond to actual structure of mass distribution in the universe, made from actual observations today.

In fact, it offers no explanation at all for the observed structure of the Universe at large scales.

It depends upon matter-antimatter mutual annihilation. And yet our gamma ray telescopes see no evidence of this. (Yes, I know how they sweep that bit under the rug... in a not very convincing way.)

It provides no explanation for the Dark Matter which we know is there from observations of colliding galaxy clusters, as I pointed out to "Observer" in a previous post, and through observations of gravitational lensing, which I'm pointing out now.

In fact... I'm not sure how you could read the "Comparison to Mainstream Cosmology" section of the link you provided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology#Comparison_to_mainstream_cosmology

and still take this "Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe" fantasy seriously.

Despite having a much cooler name than Big Bang, "Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe" seems to be a vague and sketchy theory looking for a Universe to apply to. But whatever that Universe is, it doesn't seem to look much like ours.

-Steve

@Steve,

- If you want to know something about the existing “cosmological constants” and accepted rules and laws, search for and study all the anomalies they produce.

Google for instants "general relativity - critics" and study the Ca. 1.200.000 links.

- I’m afraid that traditional/conventional cosmologists and astrophysicists are an endangered species.

Plasma Cosmology Site
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html#

PDF link about the CMB
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
-------------------------

NATURAL MOVEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSE

- If one cannot recognise the natural movements in the macrocosmic and macrocosmic Universe, one has to invent artificial ideas for the natural movements.

The creational basics are:

1. Light from cosmic explosions = Electromagnetic forces (Biblically: “Let there be light”)
2. Cosmic gas and dust = all the physical elements.

The universal movements are:

1. Electric forces create large electromagnetic and thermal cosmic swirls in gas and matter in a cosmic molecular cloud. (pre-galaxy)
2. The swirling gas and matter heats up in the fast rotating cosmic swirls.
3. The swirling effect sorts out some elements/gases and lumps other usable elements together = “Gravity”.
4. The sorting and lumping movement in the swirls creates larger spheres of gas and matter.
5. When each larger sphere of gas and matter has reached their critical ”individual” point of density, they are slung out of the swirling movement = “Antigravity”.
6. The larger spheres of gas become stars and the larger sphere of matter becomes planets etc., all swirling out of a galaxy centre. (As our Solar System once was created)
7. In this way gas and matter in a cosmic cloud are sorted and lumped in large spheres – and the electromagnetic rays beams vertically out from the swirls as seen in many galaxies.

As described above, the universal movement, goes “both ways”; inwards and outwards. There is NO need for all kind of theories of anti this or that or theories of “parallel Universes”.

There is No need for strange artificial mathematical singularity theories about “Black Holes” and “Big Bang”, which theory generally is based on a miscalculation of the speed of light that is not constant in different cosmic media.

If one doesn’t account for the light speed decrease, one fatally miscalculate both the distance and apparent movement = and then you have the strange and complete illogical idea/theory/hypothesis of Big Bang and the expanding and even still accelerating Universe.

- It is not the Universe that contracts and expands – it is the basically cosmic movements IN the Universe that naturally contracts (gravity) and expands (antigravity) as described above.

Remember KISS: Keep it simple stupid.

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen. Denmark
http://www.cosmology-unified.net
http://www.native-science.net

@Steve,

- If you want to know something about the existing “cosmological constants” and accepted rules and laws, search for and study all the anomalies they produce.

Google for instants "general relativity - critics" and study the Ca. 1.200.000 links.

- I’m afraid that traditional/conventional cosmologists and astrophysicists are an endangered species.

Plasma Cosmology Site
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html#

PDF link about the CMB
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
-------------------------

NATURAL MOVEMENTS IN THE UNIVERSE

- If one cannot recognise the natural movements in the macrocosmic and macrocosmic Universe, one has to invent artificial ideas for the natural movements.

The creational basics are:

1. Light from cosmic explosions = Electromagnetic forces (Biblically: “Let there be light”)
2. Cosmic gas and dust = all the physical elements.

The universal movements are:

1. Electric forces create large electromagnetic and thermal cosmic swirls in gas and matter in a cosmic molecular cloud. (pre-galaxy)
2. The swirling gas and matter heats up in the fast rotating cosmic swirls.
3. The swirling effect sorts out some elements/gases and lumps other usable elements together = “Gravity”.
4. The sorting and lumping movement in the swirls creates larger spheres of gas and matter.
5. When each larger sphere of gas and matter has reached their critical ”individual” point of density, they are slung out of the swirling movement = “Antigravity”.
6. The larger spheres of gas become stars and the larger sphere of matter becomes planets etc., all swirling out of a galaxy centre. (As our Solar System once was created)
7. In this way gas and matter in a cosmic cloud are sorted and lumped in large spheres – and the electromagnetic rays beams vertically out from the swirls as seen in many galaxies.

As described above, the universal movement, goes “both ways”; inwards and outwards. There is NO need for all kind of theories of anti this or that or theories of “parallel Universes”.

There is No need for strange artificial mathematical singularity theories about “Black Holes” and “Big Bang”, which theory generally is based on a miscalculation of the speed of light that is not constant in different cosmic media.

If one doesn’t account for the light speed decrease, one fatally miscalculate both the distance and apparent movement = and then you have the strange and complete illogical idea/theory/hypothesis of Big Bang and the expanding and even still accelerating Universe.

- It is not the Universe that contracts and expands – it is the basically cosmic movements IN the Universe that naturally contracts (gravity) and expands (antigravity) as described above.

Remember KISS: Keep it simple stupid.

Natural Philosopher
Ivar Nielsen. Denmark
http://www.cosmology-unified.net
http://www.native-science.net

Once again it happen: Sorry for the double posting caused by a posting-dysfunction on this site.

Ivar,

Your response does nothing to address my specific criticisms of your so-called "Plasma Cosmology", except to provide an example of how it provides only vague qualitative descriptions for features of our Universe which the consensus model either predicted, or has more detailed and rigorous explanations for. You might as well preface each of your 7 bullet-points with "And then god commanded that...", because they read like "genesis", and suffer from the same profound lack of supporting evidence.

Here is a revised list of specific criticisms of your "Plasma Cosmology":

1. It provides no explanation for the Hubble expansion, which can now be observed with even amateur-grade spectroscopes.

2. It provides no explanation for the Dark Matter, which multiple independent typed of observations confirm exists in Universe.

3. It provides no explanation for the quantitative distribution of elements which we observe in the Universe.

4. It has no explanation for even the existence of the cosmic background radiation, let alone its fine stucture. In fact, the COBE and WMAP data directly contradict it.

6. It predicts gamma ray emissions from matter/antimatter annihilations. But we don't see any evidence of them.

7. It requires finely tuned filimented structures (which might be called "Designer Filaments") at any scale, and in any situation, in which it tries to describe clumping of matter into galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, etc. Except that we do not observe anything that looks anything at all like what it requires.

I have a few more, but they are contingent upon your answers to these criticisms.

In short, this "Plasma Cosmology" looks to be only the skeleton of a theory, which describes things in broad strokes without detailed quantitative description. Where it has made predictions, or had implications which were concrete enough to be tested, it has largely been shown not to correspond with the observed data.

You appeal to the KISS principle. But that doesn't do you much good when your "simple" theory is barely the Cliffe's Notes version of a real scientific theory, and abjectly fails to align with even the most fundamental and well tested bits of the actual astronomical observations. A theory should be as simple as possible... *but no simpler*.

Please address these specific and concrete criticisms rather than engaging in further hand-waving. And in addition, if you have some *specific and concrete* point which you feel that this "Plasma Cosmology" explains better than the consensus model, please present it. (i.e. please avoid wide, sweeping, unsupportable statements and stick to the facts and the data.) I hope it's not too much to ask a self-proclaimed "Natural Philosopher" to stick to the facts.

BTW, regarding your comments on singularities. Note that they were a logical consequence of General Relativity. They were not put in to explain anything. Einstein didn't even *like* that implication of GR. It was only later that we discovered evidence of their existence. And that, my friend, is the mark of a solid, useful, rich, and elegant theory. When rigorous exploration of their math extracts predictions which the original theorist doesn't like... but which later turn out to be correct predictions.

I'll also note that you probably don't want to turn this into a discussion of how many hits this or that Google search returns. Very few scientists regard your "Plasma Cosmology" seriously. And it's pretty much only the IEEE which occasionally agrees to accept a paper, provided the paper's author is not *completely* divorced from reality.

-Steve

"We understand only 4.5% of all the matter and energy in the universe, and we are searching for ET intelligence. What if ET intelligence were made of matter and energy in the remaining 95.5%?"

Octavian,

Read Stephen Baxter. He writes extensively of the Xeelee's "war" against the Photino-Birds.

-Steve


Post a comment

« Source of 'Ring of Fire' Violence Discovered | Main | A Mystery Object Impacted Jupiter's Rings: Was It the 1994 Comet Shoemaker-Levy? »




1


2


3


4


5


6


7


8





9


11


12


13


14


15

Our Partners

technology partners

A


19


B

About Us/Privacy Policy

For more information on The Daily Galaxy and to contact us please visit this page.



E