Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

michaelmozina · Oct 2, 2007

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model It seems to me that the "hole" they recently found in the universe puts yet another nail in the coffin off the Lambda-CDM Big Bang model. In fact it seems to refute inflation theories in general. Based on this new information, and based on the growing criticism of Big Bang theory in general, isn't it about time to consider some alternatives, specifically plasma (physics and ) cosmology and EU theory? I don't quite understand what makes Lambda-CDM theory viable at this point. Lambda-CDM theory is based on at least three metaphysical "gap fillers" (inflation, dark energy and dark matter), and it doesn't jive with direct observation. When do other theories become more attractive than failed theories of the past? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

thebigcat · Oct 3, 2007

Um, first, it's not a "hole". It's a "void", difference being that "hole" implies something that objects fall (or are drawn) into. Astronomers have found other voids before, just none quite so massive. Second, this doesn't necessarily threaten any theoretical cosmological model because quite simply the forces implied by these models are all outwieghed by gravity and the "clumpy" arrangement of the universe, sort of like being in the Northern Hemisphere where the cariolis effect causes water to swirl down a drain in a counterclockwise direction unless you actively impart a clockwise motion to the water before pulling the stopper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Oct 3, 2007

Northern Hemisphere where the cariolis effect causes water to swirl down a drain in a counterclockwise direction unless you actively impart a clockwise motion to the water before pulling the stopper. Let's hope it is not like that since the direction of water going down has absolutely nothing to do with which hemisphere you are in. The coriolis effect is only evident in very large scale events like a hurricanes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jaxtraw · Oct 3, 2007

It's amazing how widespread that belief in the plughole coriolis is. And, I'm such a sad nerd I just experimentally tested it. I ran a basin full of cold water (tap on the right side of the basin), then let it out. The water swirled away clockwise. I then ran a basin of hot water (tap on left side of basin) and let it out. The water swirled away anti-clockwise. I will shortly be submitting a paper for peer review.

MeteorWayne · Oct 3, 2007

Aha, a Toilet Paper <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Oct 3, 2007

"Astronomers have found other voids before, just none quite so massive. " Well, really, it's unmassive <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · Oct 3, 2007

Big bang proponents are now acting like bible thumpers. After any new scientfic discovery bible followers rush to make a new interpretation of bible as if bible is a scientific literature. Now we see after a discovery in space, big bang theorists keep adding new 'things' to keep the thoery alive. I'm sick of both. The hole has CMB of mK not 3K, this doesn't fit with the very premises of big bang. Now wait for introduction of some 'pink matter' or 'green energy' to explain why the CMB is in mK in the hole. And then the entire astro community will turn their telescopes to deep space to search for 'pink matter' and 'green energy'. Please do not give me the argument 'that's how science works'. Btw, I'm not a EU proponent either, I'm neutral. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Um, first, it's not a "hole". It's a "void", difference being that "hole" implies something that objects fall (or are drawn) into. <hr /></blockquote> Ok, I (and the article author) stand corrected. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Still, there is no "prediction" of a void like this in Lambda theory or current BB theories. What now? Inflation has never been demonstrated to actually exist in nature via any *controlled* scientific test. This void seems to blow the concept of inflation out of the water. When do we give up on metaphysical theories and look for better scientific answers that don't require faith in metaphysical entities? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Astronomers have found other voids before, just none quite so massive. <hr /></blockquote> The problem here is that nothing like this was ever "predicted" in current theory. What then is the value of Lambda theory, and BB theories based on inflation in the first place? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Second, this doesn't necessarily threaten any theoretical cosmological model because quite simply the forces implied by these models are all outwieghed by gravity and the "clumpy" arrangement of the universe, sort of like being in the Northern Hemisphere where the cariolis effect causes water to swirl down a drain in a counterclockwise direction unless you actively impart a clockwise motion to the water before pulling the stopper.<hr /></blockquote> I'm afraid I don't quite follow that argument. The whole "value" of inflation and Lambda theory was the fact it "predicted" a relatively homogeneous universe and that originally seemed to jive with WMAP data. Now that we know it *doesn't* jive with the data, shouldn't we discard the theory? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The hole has CMB of mK not 3K, this doesn't fit with the very premises of big bang. Now wait for introduction of some 'pink matter' or 'green energy' to explain why the CMB is in mK in the hole. And then the entire astro community will turn their telescopes to deep space to search for 'pink matter' and 'green energy'.<hr /></blockquote> I have that same impression as well. It seems to me that the dogma of astronomy is treated a "sacred" and it is never questioned, even when the data doesn't support the dogma. Astronomy today seems more like a dogma of religious fervor than anything related to "science". Nobody has ever demonstrated that pink, green, or dark energy actually exists, but every week Arxiv has tons of papers related to inflation, dark stuff and metaphysical entities galore. What then is the difference between astronomy today and astrology or religion? It seems like the mainstream is far more interested in protecting the dogma than they are interested in understanding how the universe actually functions based on real forces of nature. Even a pure skeptic, without any allegiance to EU theory or plasma physics theories can see that there is a big problem going on in contemporary astronomy today. In no other field of science would it be acceptable to simply "make up" forces of nature to bridge the gap between current dogma and reality. I never see a chip designer blaming a chip failure on dark forces or inflation. They'd be laughed out of the room if they tried. When I see an automobile manufacturer build a car that runs on dark energy, I'll be happy to believe in dark energy. Until then, it sounds positively metaphysical, along with inflation, dark matter and magnetic reconnection. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

cosmicdustbunnie · Oct 3, 2007

the article says 'devoid of nearly all matter', so its not certain it is totally void? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> *twinkle twinkle* </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

Well, the problem we have is that none of the alternative cosmological models come nearly as close as Lambda-CDM to explaining the majority of our observations. For sure, there are "holes" in the Lambda-CDM model. But none of the other models are any better, in fact they all have even bigger holes in them! Until we find an alternative to redshifts of z />0.1 being caused by cosmic expansion, an alternative that fits with the majority of our observations, we stick to the model with the highest proportion of observational evidence to support it, which is still Lambda-CDM. It's not dogmatic to do this, it's simply a case of weighing up the evidence in each case. We found the CMBR that was predicted by the big-bang theory. Big-bang theory does not predict there will be a relatively large void in the CMBR. Do we abandon big-bang theory then, when, apart from the "hole", nearly everything else fits so well, considering that none of the alternatives fit nearly as well as Lambda-CDM? Oh and by the way, I am not a "do or die" supporter of the Lambda-CDM concordance model, I support the theory that best fits with our observations. I mean, the CMBR itself is supposed to be a by-product of the big-bang, and regardless of this "hole", on the grand scale the observable universe is still homogeneous. There are holes all over, this one is just a bit larger... does the exception prove the rule? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Well, the problem we have is that none of the alternative cosmological models come nearly as close as Lambda-CDM to explaining the majority of our observations.<hr /></blockquote> That simply is not true IMO. That is perhaps the way you see things from your very subjective point of view, but if you're an EU advocate like me, that statement simply rings hollow. It's also a bit misleading IMO. Any theory that resorts to three different metaphysical entities cannot possibly be considered "better" than any theory which does not resort to any metaphysical entities. Alfven described a universe design via EU theory over 20 years ago. What makes his notions any less viable than idea based on metaphysics? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />For sure, there are "holes" in the Lambda-CDM model. <hr /></blockquote> There's "holes" in the fact it relies upon no less than three different metaphysical fudge factors IMO. The holes in the universe itself that it failed to predict are simply a side issue as I see it. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But none of the other models are any better,<hr /></blockquote> Define "better" for me in some scientifically testable manner. How is it "better" to rely upon "dark" things that cannot be shown to even exist in reality? I'd rather explore a limited EU theory that is based on testable aspects of plasma physics than I would be inclined to support a theory based on metaphysical fudge factors to bridge the gap between theory and observation. What makes it "better" to rely upon metaphysical entities only because those metaphysical entities bridge the gap between gravitation theories and observation? I think you need to define "better" for me. I don't see that as "better" at all. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> in fact they all have even bigger</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

So how does EU deal with the "hole" then? Or the SNe Ia observations of the late 1990's? If EU is ok with expansion, can I take it then that you are ok with the Lambda part of the model, it is the CDM that you object to? Fair enough. There are alternative possibilities that might explain the movement of stars at the edges of galaxies, is EU one of them? If you agree with expansion, then do you agree with the possibility of Big-Bang then? Is it only CDM and dark energy that worry you? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

EU theory *assumes* that the universe is *not* homogeneous by nature. In fact it implies that it is full of plasma threads and has "holes/voids". The SN1A data has been "interpreted" in terms of "tired light" type theories for quite some time. The movement of stars in galaxies is driven by gravity *and* by currents that flow through the galaxy itself. Alfven and Peratt have published a number of papers on that topic. I'm not particularly sold on the bang concept. I believe that redshift could be due to some sort of tired light effect rather than pure movement of matter. It could be a combination of factors involving movement and tired light processes. It is however possible that BB theory is viable, but not by resorting to inflation and dark things that have never been shown to actually exist in nature. I'm open to the possibility that expansion is occurring and even that acceleration is occurring (like it occurs in solar wind), but it is not possible that this acceleration is due to "dark energy", since dark energy has never been shown to actually exist. I guess the short answer is while I'm not sold on the notion of a Big Bang, I don't reject it either. I do however reject all forms of metaphysics, including Lambda theory because of it's reliance upon inflation and dark things that have never been shown to actually exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

Yes, "Tired light" theory has been around since the late 1920's and is one of the alternative theories I was referring to, one which has less observational evidence to support it than Lambda-CDM. For tired light to be correct, it needs to be able to explain the time-dilation observed in supernovae at the furthest distances, and it cannot do that. It also has to deal with a seeming abundance of light elements in the universe. The Lambda-CDM concordance model predicts both. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2462v1.pdf http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/backgroundhistory.pdf FYI, for anyone interested, the two links above are to papers that I think are useful and relate to this conversation. The first on is a general critique of current theory, and the second paper details the history behind the background radiation debate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

Interesting papers there. I skimmed the first one, but from what I can see, the author does have some good points to make, but has to admit that Lambda-CDM is still the model that best fits our observations, but the Shanks and Blanchard models aren't so far behind it (but I stick with my assertion that the alternatives have more holes in them, as they do!). "Perhaps all models are equally poor: the two competitors certainly do not come across as much more inferior than the standard model. What cannot be quantified in terms of figure-of-merit, however, is how much more credibility should one assign to a model that relies on less bizarre postulates." As you have said, it all depends on your view of metaphysics. You don't like it, but a lot of cosmologists feel it is the only way to proceed in a universe where a lot of information is simply unavailable to us, and always will be. Cosmology needs to be more speculative in its approach that the other sciences (if you consider cosmology as science, and some people don't!), if it is to deal with concepts where we have no way to get any evidence. So we build metaphysical models, then test them against the reality of our observations. If one model fits a little better than others, we stick with that model, devise ways to test it further, and test it until we either confirm it, or find another model that fits even better, and then we devise ways to test that model instead. Currently we are stuck on Lambda-CDM concordance. I am sure that if more and more observations come in that conflict with it, eventually another theory will supercede it (because it fits better!). When that day comes I will happily use that model. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As you have said, it all depends on your view of metaphysics. You don't like it, but a lot of cosmologists feel it is the only way to proceed in a universe where a lot of information is simply unavailable to us, and always will be. <hr /></blockquote> I don't see how you can *assume* that new forces of nature exists somewhere *out there*, if they don't exists here. How do you know other forces of nature exists somewhere in the distance? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Cosmology needs to be more speculative in its approach that the other sciences<hr /></blockquote> I don't mind someone speculating about known forces of nature having some influence on distance objects. What alternative is there? What I object to is someone speculating that new forces of nature exists *somewhere out there in the distance* and have some influence on mass that is located *only out there*. That's a giant leap of faith if you ask me. How do I know that a new force of nature is required to explain a distant event? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> (if you consider cosmology as science, and some people don't!),<hr /></blockquote> I certainly do consider EU theory/plasma physics to be a serious and important branch of science. I do not however believe that inflation or dark things constitute "science" because they have never been shown to exist in nature in any controlled scientific test. It's like pointing to the sky and claiming "darkevilforcesdidiit" IMO. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> if it is to deal with concepts where we have no way to get any evidence.<hr /></blockquote> It seems to me that if dark matter exists, there should be a controlled scientific test to demonstrate that it exists and that demonstrates that it has some influence on normal matter. If that part can't be <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

Well I have to admit I have reservations about dark matter and dark energy too. But when it comes to explaining the curves of galactic motion, the simplest answer is that there is unseen mass. Occam's razor and all that. What do you think of the possible "direct proof" of dark matter last year - link to NASA article ? The "evidence" seems to be building up, doesn't it? As to the other metaphysical force, dark energy, well that is supposedly responsible for the acceleration of the metric expansion of space. If we discount dark energy, we have to find another reason for the apparent extra dimness of the closer type 1a supernovae, why do they look further away than they should? What mechanism might cause closer "standard candles" to have dimmer light than expected when compared to more distant ones? Tired light is out, as there hasn't been enough time for the light to get tired, and the light from further objects would be more tired, would it not? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Well I have to admit I have reservations about dark matter and dark energy too.<hr /></blockquote> That reservation on your part is entirely logical unless someone can show these things exist in controlled tests. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But when it comes to explaining the curves of galactic motion, the simplest answer is that there is unseen mass. <hr /></blockquote> Ok. I agree that there may be "missing mass", just as I might agree that something up in the sky is a "UFO". That doesn't mean I think that the UFO is from another planet, or that the missing mass is some exotic form of mass. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Occam's razor and all that. What do you think of the possible "direct proof" of dark matter last year - link to NASA article ? The "evidence" seems to be building up, doesn't it?<hr /></blockquote> It think it's completely outrageous to call that "proof of dark matter". That boast alone says volumes IMO. All that can be shown by this raw data is that mass is "missing" based on standard solar and galactic theories, and that most of that "missing mass" tracks (physically) with the physical galaxy infrastructure, not in the plasma between the stars. There is nothing there to "prove" than any of the missing mass is contained in "dark matter", or than the UFO is from another planet. There is "evidence" of missing mass to be found in that data. How we go about explaining that missing mass is a whole different ballgame. There is definitely not any evidence that the missing mass is found in dark matter, and there is certainly not "proof" of the existence of dark matter found in that data. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As to the other metaphysical force, dark energy, well that is supposedly responsible for the acceleration of the metric expansion of</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+manuel+oliver/0/1/0/all/0/1 FYI, there are many other ways to explain "missing mass" without resorting to any sort of metaphysical entities. Dr. Manuel's work suggests that this "missing mass" is probably found in the stars themselves, not in some new form of exotic matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

cosmicdustbunnie · Oct 3, 2007

i like being ignored <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> *twinkle twinkle* </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 3, 2007

Sorry there dustbunnie, you pointed out that the "void" isn't totally empty, which is correct. There is a cold spot in the CMBR that seems to correspond with an area of space that has fewer galaxies than everywhere else. But seeing as the "void" is seen by some as in direct conflict to the homogeneous and isotropic universe described by the LCDM model, even if the "void" has galaxies inside it, there seem to be far less than everywhere else. To me, if the observable universe contained a lot of these "voids", it would mean the current LCDM model is totally wrong. But just the one "void"? That cold spot (or little blue blob) has been there all along in the WMAP data, but now we have looked and found few galaxies in that area. It's cause might be due to some specific event perhaps, and might still allow for the LCDM concordance model that seems to fit so well otherwise (or fits a little better than other models!). Remember, according to current theory, the universe was around for 380,000 years before the CMBR was emitted. The variations supposedly introduced by quantum fluctuations during inflation might have lead to a cold spot or two by the time recombination happened and the CMBR was emitted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

pyoko · Oct 3, 2007

Basically, it's not a void at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

michaelmozina · Oct 3, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />To me, if the observable universe contained a lot of these "voids", it would mean the current LCDM model is totally wrong. But just the one "void"?<hr /></blockquote> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_ig/990166/990166COBE_120.jpg Those dark spots in the background of the COBE data are numerous. We have only researched *one* of them. That doesn't mean there is only one hole/void in the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Huge Hole Found in the Lambda-CDM and Big Bang Theories

michaelmozina

Guest

thebigcat

Guest

origin

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

cosmicdustbunnie

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

cosmicdustbunnie

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

pyoko

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page