Inflationary Cosmology Paradigm Confirmed

[Brian]

This pretty much finalizes validation of the Big Bang Theory and the inflationary model in one fell swoop. http://bicepkeck.org/

 

As the authors' state, "inflation predicts that the quantization of the gravitational field coupled to exponential expansion produces a primordial background of stochastic gravitational waves with a characteristic spectral shape." This research looked for the signature in cosmic background radiation which would indicate "curl" in the polarization of the scattered light consistent with inflation and inexplicable by fluctuations in density of matter.

 

The summary sentence in the paper's (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3985.pdf) conclusion speaks volumes -- it reads: "The long search for tensor B-modes is apparently over, and a new era of B-mode cosmology has begun."

 

A tip of my hat to an outstanding piece of work (and an excellent example of what real scientific research looks like...)

Edited March 19, 2014 by Brian

[joeblast]

awesome...inflation was really the only thing that made sense in terms of the "superlatively flat landscape" as a street-sweeper putting a clean slate on things.

[thelerner]

It'll be a cold day in an infinite expanse of space before I believe such rubbish.

 

 

michael 'turtles all the way down' thelerner

[silent thunder]

Awesome.

Thanks for the post.

 

And double thanks for working stochastic into my life today... I LOVE that word.

[dawei]

Ironically enough, I was recently thinking to ask you to explain the various more popular paradigms.

 

As I understand the idea behind the red shift, I thought they were saying that it was shifting away from us in every direction. I am not sure what that implication means (as if we're the center of something).

 

It seems to me that if you put dots on a balloon, they all start out close together and as it blows up, ALL dots move away from EVERY dot. Each dot thinks it is the center of dots moving away. But I'll let out the air and let you clear this up for me

[joeblast]

dot on, dawei. balloon analogy is correct. except in 3d instead of the 2d surface. so maybe a nice big loaf of banana bread, with chunks of walnut inside. yum, tasty

 

I'm personally not too worried about the trillion or so years of veritable nothingness that's predicted. its just time, and that crap disappears when your meditation is deep enough anyway

[dawei]

dot on, dawei. balloon analogy is correct. except in 3d instead of the 2d surface. so maybe a nice big loaf of banana bread, with chunks of walnut inside. yum, tasty

 

I'm personally not too worried about the trillion or so years of veritable nothingness that's predicted. its just time, and that crap disappears when your meditation is deep enough anyway

 

eggzachary ! I was trying to come up with a better 3d model... I was full of cold air but you put the hot air (and smell) into it

[joeblast]

and the hot air I think can be equated to the dark energy that causes the ingredients to react, rise, and bake

[silent thunder]

[Owledge]

I guess the conclusions could be right ... or let's say logical, based on the currently dominant false assumptions.

[Marblehead]

I guess the conclusions could be right ... or let's say logical, based on the currently dominant false assumptions.

 

Hehehe. Nice word usage.

[Owledge]

As I understand the idea behind the red shift, I thought they were saying that it was shifting away from us in every direction. I am not sure what that implication means (as if we're the center of something).

 

It seems to me that if you put dots on a balloon, they all start out close together and as it blows up, ALL dots move away from EVERY dot. Each dot thinks it is the center of dots moving away. But I'll let out the air and let you clear this up for me

The alternative approach would be to consider the thin gaseous atmosphere in space and its spectrum-shifting effect on light rays, and you get a nice mathematical model for why objects farther away from the observer appear redder than closer ones.

As an encore, you could then take plasma-based electromagnetical currents in space into account and thus could get rid of the ominous correctional math called 'dark matter'. This is an especially funny one, for while they don't claim to know what dark matter actually is, they do claim to know what it isn't. And they claim it isn't that which could neatly explain all gravitational processes and is known to us.

(And don't get me started on name choices like "strange particle"!)

Sometimes it's really difficult to distinguish modern science from the wizardry in Discworld novels.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Owledge

[themiddleway]

The alternative approach would be to consider the thin gaseous atmosphere in space and its spectrum-shifting effect on light rays, and you get a nice mathematical model for why objects farther away from the observer appear redder than closer ones.

As an encore, you could then take plasma-based electromagnetical currents in space into account and thus could get rid of the ominous correctional math called 'dark matter'. This is an especially funny one, for while they don't claim to know what dark matter actually is, they do claim to know what it isn't. And they claim it isn't that which could neatly explain all gravitational processes and is known to us.

(And don't get me started on name choices like "strange particle"!)

Sometimes it's really difficult to distinguish modern science from the wizardry in Discworld novels.

I don't have any understanding of the mathematics underpinning cosmology. But is standard cosmology setting aside Occam's razor by branding plasma cosmology as heresy? Can someone explain to me in laymans terms why the standard model is correct ? I have no investment in either by the way. Edited March 26, 2014 by themiddleway

[Owledge]

I don't have any understanding of the mathematics underpinning cosmology. But is standard cosmology setting aside Occam's razor by branding plasma cosmology as heresy? Can someone explain to me in laymans terms why the standard model is correct ? I have no investment in either by the way.

Just because someone is a scientist doesn't necessarily mean they're not a fool, and fools tend to confuse a useful theory with truth, just because it "works". Yes, it works ... but only within their own model. It's self-validating.

The science establishment has invested in their doctrines, that's why there'll always be resistence to big change.

Much more interesting than the study of science is the study of the history of science (I'd call it a subdiscipline of social psychology) is very worthwhile, for it helps to see how people keep making the same mistakes over and over.

[themiddleway]

 

Big Bang model originated with the observation that the Universe is expanding. The Big Bang model became the dominant model when one of its predictions, the cosmic microwave background, was observed.Seems reasonable enough.

 

This blog refutes the claims of plasma cosmology:http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

Edited March 27, 2014 by themiddleway

[Owledge]

Big Bang model originated with the observation that the Universe is expanding. The Big Bang model became the dominant model when one of its predictions, the cosmic microwave background, was observed.Seems reasonable enough.

 

This blog refutes the claims of plasma cosmology:http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/15/how-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong/

I've read the whole thing and it contains a few typical flaws that one would find when established doctrine meets alternative views: Lack of objectivity (personal, borderline ad hominem judgment), a mild personal agenda based on the idea that for some reason there is a need to keep the public away from those ideas, a view clouded by what he has learned and accepted (which would naturally make it difficult for him to think outside of the box), totally superficial study of the matter (very likely including cherrypicking of the easiest-to-criticize statements to make it easier for him to appear superior).

 

You just cannot expect objectivity from someone who is perfectly fine going on working with what he has learned. He lacks understanding of (my previously mentioned) history of science, which could give him a sincere incentive to dedicate the necessary time to explore the matter that would come natural for an unburdened truthseeker.

 

The whole matter is way too complex to allow for an easy and clear validation or refutation and this complexity also allows plenty of copouts in arguments.

 

Pretty much every time an established view was challenged and eventually shown wrong, the proponents of the old view could find great supposedly logical and empiric arguments for why their view has to be right. They would - based on their own science that is being challenged - prove that they are right, and within their system it would make perfect sense.

As it were, an expert in evolutionary biology would be a layman in examining the validity of evolutionary biology, and probably vice versa.

This is the belief component in scientific disputes. People are just too damn indoctrinated to be able to take a look at themselves objectively. The real dispute is not going on on a scientific level then. And especially in a time of widespread existential fears, this will affect the scientific conduct, too.

 

With increasing focus on details, the mind will become inflexible, unable to see the big picture. Scientists who don't heed Bruce Lee's words and keep concentrating on the finger will eventually come up with a 'waterproof' explanation of how the finger makes the moon appear in the sky. ... Common sense is often being lost in that process.

 

BTW there's an active debate right now in the USA about "getting the money out of politics", and I say the same has to happen in science. It's always at the root of people's lack of objectivity and becoming defensive.

 

P.S.: The comment section on that blog post is interesting, too, and states various things better than I can here.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Owledge