In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
snt
Posts: 110
Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by snt »

In Tired Light Theory, cosmic background radiation (CMB) is caused by energy loss by photons interacting with electrons in empty space.

A simple question that is unanswered by Inflationary Theory: where does the energy loss of photos go if not to cause CMB?

A citation by Lyndon Ashmore, as it appears founder of New Tired Light Theory (NTL) and author of book The Big Bang Blasted:

The Big Bang Blasted - Tired Light Theory explains CMB
The Big Bang Blasted - Tired Light Theory explains CMB
The_Big_Bang_Blasted_281.jpg (57.65 KiB) Viewed 454 times

"We have already seen how light is redshifted as it passes through the plasma clouds of Intergalactic space. Photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons as they pass through the plasma clouds. Both on absorption and re-emission of the photon the electron will recoil.

Thus, some of the energy of the photon is lost to the electron.

Since the photon has lost energy, its frequency must also reduce (E = hf).

Since the frequency of the photon is now less, the wavelength, λ, will increase (c = fλ).

The photon has been redshifted.

But what of the energy transferred to the electrons when they recoil? This is given off as a secondary photons and forms the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation). The CMB is often cited as being the 'proof' of the Big Bang theory, the radiation left over as the echo of the Big Bang. But it is not as easy as that. Regardless of your beliefs as to how the Universe started, one piece of experimental observation has to be explained - that is, in redshift, the photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. This means that photons of light have less energy on arrival than when they set off from a distant galaxy.

Where did this energy go? --- unanswered by Inflationary Cosmology!!!

In the theory of the expanding universe you will get all sorts of nonsense in an attempt to explain it, but they can't explain it really.

In 'New Tired light' we say that the energy lost by the photons in being redshifted is given given off as the CMB.

The above diagram shows how it works. Light emitted by the distant galaxy travels to Earth and is redshifted as it passes through the plasma cloud. The energy lost by this light is re-radiated as secondary, scattered, radiation by the electrons in the plasma cloud. When we add up all this secondary radiation due to all the plasma clouds and galaxies in the Universe, we get the CMB. It is for this reason that the CMB is homogeous - basically the same everywhere we look.

What evidence do we have for this?

Firstly, we can calculate the expected wavelength of this radiation and show that it is microwave.

Secondly, We can calculate the wavelength at which the intensity of the CMB radiation will 'peak' and we find that it agrees extremely well with measurements.

Thirdly, we expect the plasma clouds to show up as 'clumps' in the CMB with the nearer of the clouds appearing bigger than those further away. When we look at the CMB we find that there are small variations in it. In the Big Bang Theory, these 'clumps' are said to be at the begiining of the Universe and form the 'seeds' from which the galaxies and so on are formed. However, a team of international scientists have found that the larger of the clumps in the CMB are following the Solar system around. This means that they cannot be at the begining of the Universe - as stated in the Expanding Universe theory but they must be 'local'. However. this is what one expects in 'New Tired light'. The nearer the plasma cloud, the larger it looks - and one would expect some apparent 'movement' from a 'local' object.

Lets look at this in more detail...
"

https://www.lyndonashmore.com/CMB_and_Tired_Light.htm

Is their information invalid?
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Atla »

Astro Cat wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 4:25 am
Astro Cat, what do you think could have caused the cosmic inflation at 10^(−36) second, aside from a phase transition? It's so baffling..
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 10:39 am Very good review of Cosmology. I didn't know a lot of the details that you have shown so far, so I have enjoyed that.

I had always thought that I understood the Curved nature of Space that Cosmologists had been expecting and I was really kind of disappointed when they kept measuring a Flat Universe. I had always thought that a Flat Universe meant an Infinite Universe. But yet I have learned to reject any situations where Infinity shows up in an analysis. An Infinite Universe is simply Absurd so a Flat Universe is also Absurd. I don't believe in Infinities with Physical things. I'm still rooting for a Curved Universe when the measurements get more refined.
The universe could still be curved. In inflationary theory, its flatness is predicted sheerly because of its inflated size: the further you zoom in on a ball, the flatter the local topology becomes. Say there was some initial curvature and then inflation happened: the curvature would still be there, the universe would just have inflated to such a monstrous size that the size of an observer's field of view compared to the whole thing would be miniscule and the local spacetime would appear asymptotically flat. The curvature could well simply be too small to detect within a region the size of the visible universe, but it would still exist in such a case.
SteveKlinko wrote:But I have a basic question related to the Density of Dark Energy not scaling. Did I miss the reason for Dark Energy not scaling? It seems that if it doesn't scale then as the scale changes to larger and larger scales that more and more Dark Energy must be added to the equation to keep the density constant. Where have I gone wrong with this?
Different things in the universe have different equations of state derived after doing some differential stuff to the fluid equation (I haven't posted it yet, but we result in this):

Image

For matter, w~0, so the right hand side of that equation will have the term /a^3.

For radiation, w=1/3, you'll get a term /a^4. (The difference is really that the wavelength of photons scales inversely with scale factor, so you get the "extra" scaling. This doesn't happen with matter).

From theoretical principles (from GR) we expect dark energy's equation of state parameter w=-1 exactly. If it's not from GR but rather from something in QM, then it would have some negative (but rational) value instead, like -2/3. A lot of experiments right now constrain it at least to being at least as negative as -2/3.

If its EoS parameter is -1, then the right hand side vanishes (a^3(1+(-1)) = a^0), so it doesn't scale. If it does scale, then it has to do so in such a small amount that it would give the appearance of not scaling to be consistent with our observations so far.

Image
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

Atla wrote: June 24th, 2022, 1:43 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 4:25 am
Astro Cat, what do you think could have caused the cosmic inflation at 10^(−36) second, aside from a phase transition? It's so baffling..
I don't have QFT under my belt yet so I can't answer this. I was just talking about this elsewhere, coincidentally. They don't offer a QFT class where I am so some of us have been looking into self-teaching or finding someone that will teach remotely.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

snt wrote: June 24th, 2022, 10:09 am The above diagram shows how it works. Light emitted by the distant galaxy travels to Earth and is redshifted as it passes through the plasma cloud. The energy lost by this light is re-radiated as secondary, scattered, radiation by the electrons in the plasma cloud. When we add up all this secondary radiation due to all the plasma clouds and galaxies in the Universe, we get the CMB. It is for this reason that the CMB is homogeous - basically the same everywhere we look.
This wouldn't match with observations about the CMB, however. The universe is isometric and homogeneous at scales of ~100 Mpc, but there are tiny anisotropies in the CMB that wouldn't favor a tired light model of redshift, but very much favor an inflationary model of redshift: the power spectrum of the CMB is extremely sensitive to different cosmologies.

Please take a look at the animation on this page: [url]http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/animbut/anim3.html[/url]

Different cosmologies produce completely different power spectrums. We can predict what the power spectrum would look like under a particular cosmological model:

Image

Likewise measurements of the CMB temperature:

Image

I want to point out that observations were so close to model prediction in this case that the error bars had to be multiplied 400x to even be visible on this plot! That doesn't happen by coincidence or by having something wildly wrong with a model as tired light proposes.
snt wrote:What evidence do we have for this?

Firstly, we can calculate the expected wavelength of this radiation and show that it is microwave.

Secondly, We can calculate the wavelength at which the intensity of the CMB radiation will 'peak' and we find that it agrees extremely well with measurements.
But again, there are anisotropies that tired light doesn't (can't) explain; and I would have to see what is being claimed to agree with which experiments to comment on that.
snt wrote:Thirdly, we expect the plasma clouds to show up as 'clumps' in the CMB with the nearer of the clouds appearing bigger than those further away. When we look at the CMB we find that there are small variations in it. In the Big Bang Theory, these 'clumps' are said to be at the begiining of the Universe and form the 'seeds' from which the galaxies and so on are formed. However, a team of international scientists have found that the larger of the clumps in the CMB are following the Solar system around. This means that they cannot be at the begining of the Universe - as stated in the Expanding Universe theory but they must be 'local'. However. this is what one expects in 'New Tired light'. The nearer the plasma cloud, the larger it looks - and one would expect some apparent 'movement' from a 'local' object.

Lets look at this in more detail...[/i]"

https://www.lyndonashmore.com/CMB_and_Tired_Light.htm

Is their information invalid?
I have no idea what this last part is talking about (the "small variations" are the anisotropies I'm talking about above). But I have no idea what it's talking about with there being something "following the solar system around." I'd need to see something specific about that, but it sounds like it's probably just the CMB dipole (observations of the CMB forms a dipole due to our motion with respect to the CMB).
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Atla »

Astro Cat wrote: June 25th, 2022, 2:10 am
Atla wrote: June 24th, 2022, 1:43 pm
Astro Cat wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 4:25 am
Astro Cat, what do you think could have caused the cosmic inflation at 10^(−36) second, aside from a phase transition? It's so baffling..
I don't have QFT under my belt yet so I can't answer this. I was just talking about this elsewhere, coincidentally. They don't offer a QFT class where I am so some of us have been looking into self-teaching or finding someone that will teach remotely.
Sometimes I wonder about the rather ludicrous idea that the observable universe's expansion could somehow be linked to its entropy. Can't think of anything else that I could link dark energy to, that would be internal to our observable universe, and detectable with today's technology.

Space is relative, maybe it's literally the case that we perceive the size of the observable universe relative to us, as a manifestation of the entropy of the observable universe. Which might mean that between 10^(-36) and 10^(-33) second, there was an explosion of entropy, that might left behind signs that we could look for.

Anyway, even by my standards this idea is pretty far out, I'll stop boring you with my ideas I promise. :)
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

Atla wrote: June 25th, 2022, 3:11 am Sometimes I wonder about the rather ludicrous idea that the observable universe's expansion could somehow be linked to its entropy. Can't think of anything else that I could link dark energy to, that would be internal to our observable universe, and detectable with today's technology.

Space is relative, maybe it's literally the case that we perceive the size of the observable universe relative to us, as a manifestation of the entropy of the observable universe. Which might mean that between 10^(-36) and 10^(-33) second, there was an explosion of entropy, that might left behind signs that we could look for.

Anyway, even by my standards this idea is pretty far out, I'll stop boring you with my ideas I promise. :)
What I do know about QFT and inflation is that gravity is basically the counterbalance to the inflaton field energy, and I can tell you that there are serious people out there that propose gravity has an entropic nature. That's about all I'm willing to say though without a deeper understanding of QFT. I expect to acquire this over the next year as I graduate with my MS and start my PhD.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by SteveKlinko »

Astro Cat wrote: June 25th, 2022, 1:57 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 23rd, 2022, 10:39 am Very good review of Cosmology. I didn't know a lot of the details that you have shown so far, so I have enjoyed that.

I had always thought that I understood the Curved nature of Space that Cosmologists had been expecting and I was really kind of disappointed when they kept measuring a Flat Universe. I had always thought that a Flat Universe meant an Infinite Universe. But yet I have learned to reject any situations where Infinity shows up in an analysis. An Infinite Universe is simply Absurd so a Flat Universe is also Absurd. I don't believe in Infinities with Physical things. I'm still rooting for a Curved Universe when the measurements get more refined.
The universe could still be curved. In inflationary theory, its flatness is predicted sheerly because of its inflated size: the further you zoom in on a ball, the flatter the local topology becomes. Say there was some initial curvature and then inflation happened: the curvature would still be there, the universe would just have inflated to such a monstrous size that the size of an observer's field of view compared to the whole thing would be miniscule and the local spacetime would appear asymptotically flat. The curvature could well simply be too small to detect within a region the size of the visible universe, but it would still exist in such a case.
SteveKlinko wrote:But I have a basic question related to the Density of Dark Energy not scaling. Did I miss the reason for Dark Energy not scaling? It seems that if it doesn't scale then as the scale changes to larger and larger scales that more and more Dark Energy must be added to the equation to keep the density constant. Where have I gone wrong with this?
Different things in the universe have different equations of state derived after doing some differential stuff to the fluid equation (I haven't posted it yet, but we result in this):

Image

For matter, w~0, so the right hand side of that equation will have the term /a^3.

For radiation, w=1/3, you'll get a term /a^4. (The difference is really that the wavelength of photons scales inversely with scale factor, so you get the "extra" scaling. This doesn't happen with matter).

From theoretical principles (from GR) we expect dark energy's equation of state parameter w=-1 exactly. If it's not from GR but rather from something in QM, then it would have some negative (but rational) value instead, like -2/3. A lot of experiments right now constrain it at least to being at least as negative as -2/3.

If its EoS parameter is -1, then the right hand side vanishes (a^3(1+(-1)) = a^0), so it doesn't scale. If it does scale, then it has to do so in such a small amount that it would give the appearance of not scaling to be consistent with our observations so far.

Image
So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?

Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 25th, 2022, 8:58 am So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?

Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
I don't personally have any objections to an actually infinite universe; but I do think it would be interesting if the universe were exactly flat. I don't know what else to call it than interesting. Would it demand an explanation? I don't know, seems like it depends on whether or not there are good explanations for why it would be balanced that way (perhaps some symmetry).

Yes, dark energy is effectively added, and yes, in GR it's considered a property of space. There are all kinds of philosophical and mathematical nuances there though with the issue of background dependence vs. background independence (e.g. is space real or is space sheerly relational between things that are real). That's probably a whole conversation unto itself though.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by SteveKlinko »

Astro Cat wrote: June 27th, 2022, 10:06 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 25th, 2022, 8:58 am So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?

Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
I don't personally have any objections to an actually infinite universe; but I do think it would be interesting if the universe were exactly flat. I don't know what else to call it than interesting. Would it demand an explanation? I don't know, seems like it depends on whether or not there are good explanations for why it would be balanced that way (perhaps some symmetry).

Yes, dark energy is effectively added, and yes, in GR it's considered a property of space. There are all kinds of philosophical and mathematical nuances there though with the issue of background dependence vs. background independence (e.g. is space real or is space sheerly relational between things that are real). That's probably a whole conversation unto itself though.
I suppose that since Dark energy is a property of Space then the Theory that Quantum Fluctuations are what causes the Expansion of Space must be a good fit. Each Quantum Fluctuation can create a Matter Anti Matter Particle Pair that immediately recombines but leaves some sort of extra Space where it it was created. All the countless Fluctuations add their own little bits of extra Space to create the Expansion of the Universe at the scale of the Universe. I believe there have been some studies that confirm this.

Sorry but, Boo on Infinite Universes.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Atla »

Astro Cat wrote: June 25th, 2022, 3:18 am What I do know about QFT and inflation is that gravity is basically the counterbalance to the inflaton field energy, and I can tell you that there are serious people out there that propose gravity has an entropic nature. That's about all I'm willing to say though without a deeper understanding of QFT. I expect to acquire this over the next year as I graduate with my MS and start my PhD.
Well I'm highly skeptical of this early inflationary epoch anyway, I think JWST will confirm that it never happened. I think space itself can't expand either.
Instead, I think we may have ran into the same problem as with the Information paradox: we assumed too much or too little about the nature of quantum fluctuations. For example in the early homogeneous universe, why would they be as common and as violent, as they are today here on Earth?
True philosophy points to the Moon
ratfink
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: July 13th, 2022, 7:09 pm

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by ratfink »

Wow! asrocat knows everything.
What matters is evidence and we must separate what is observational evidence from crystal spheres included to prop up a failed theory as is the BB.
Aristocat is confused in putting forward crystal spheres rather than observations or facts.
Dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are all crystal spheres that have no evidence to support them, They are crystal spheres added to a theory to make it work, But it doesn't.
The BB predicts certain things and to make it work experimentalists have to find it. Unfortunately for aristocat, after nearly 80 years of looking, they can't! So they don't exist.
Real evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!' Cos they prove the BB wrong.

So astrocat, why didn't the release of the james webb show evolution of galaxies as the BB requires.
Unless it is wrong
Cheers
ratfink
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 12410
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Sy Borg »

ratfink wrote: July 13th, 2022, 7:52 pmDark matter, dark energy, and inflation are all crystal spheres that have no evidence to support them, They are crystal spheres added to a theory to make it work, But it doesn't
I don't know what you mean by "crystal spheres". It is a common mistake to decry science as a defective finished product, when science is never a finished product but a work in progress, ready to change when new findings are confirmed.

No one is saying that the BB, dark matter or dark energy are known phenomena, rather, they are considered amongst science's great mysteries. They these are placeholder labels used to describe observed phenomena, based on observation, where there are gaps in our knowledge.

ratfink wrote: July 13th, 2022, 7:52 pmReal evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!'
It may be the only visible entities are fully formed galaxies while many amorphous entities may not reflect enough light to be seen. It could be a similar situation to exoplanet exploration, which made some people think that "hot Jupiters" were the most common type of planet, when they are just the most visible, being bigger and brighter than rocky planets, and the dip in a star's brightness is much easier to find in close orbiting planets. Tracking a planet that takes months or years to orbit its star is much harder than tracking one whose orbit is mere days, or even hours.

If we were to be humble and fair-minded, we would marvel at the brilliant forensic skills and ingenuity of cosmologists in being able to discover as much about the cosmos as they have done.
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

ratfink wrote: July 13th, 2022, 7:52 pm The BB predicts certain things and to make it work experimentalists have to find it. Unfortunately for aristocat, after nearly 80 years of looking, they can't! So they don't exist.
Yet this simply isn't true. The evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy is abundant. You mention the JWT, but for instance the deep field image released just recently (SMACS 0723). This is a deep field reaching z = 8.5 (12.9-13.1 billion years ago):

Image

Do you notice the galaxies that are stretched into thin lines in quasi-circular patterns, or other galaxies that appear warped and distorted? This is called gravitational lensing, and it's caused by background galaxies' light being warped by the mass of the SMACS 0723 cluster. These lensing effects are actually only possible because of dark matter: SMACS 0723 doesn't have enough mass from its baryonic matter to gravitationally lens to this degree!
ratfink wrote:Real evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!' Cos they prove the BB wrong.
I'm not sure where you got this notion unless from an extremely old textbook. Here is a fun little history lesson about galaxy morphologies: those "fuzzy" galaxies, spheroids, are called "ETGs" in the field to this day. Spiral-looking galaxies are called "LTGs."

"ETG" stands for "early-type galaxy" and "LTG" stands for "late-type galaxy." Hubble originally thought, as you proposed here, that the fuzzy spheroid galaxies condensed and began to rotate to form spirals (hence "early" and then "late" types).

Yet this is actually backwards! ETGs are actually caused by different galactic processes associated with quenching (which is my active research right now, in fact): for simplicity's sake, let's say that much of the time, ETGs (spheroids) are the result of collisions between LTGs (disks/spirals). So the naming convention is actually backwards (and, for whatever Godforsaken reason, we still use it to this day -- much to the confusion of undergraduates).
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 373
Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
Location: USA

Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology

Post by Astro Cat »

Sy Borg wrote: July 13th, 2022, 8:50 pm No one is saying that the BB, dark matter or dark energy are known phenomena, rather, they are considered amongst science's great mysteries. They these are placeholder labels used to describe observed phenomena, based on observation, where there are gaps in our knowledge.
I think people just don't like the "dark" monikers. It makes them sound mysterious or nebulous. Yet we know a great deal about these things, especially dark energy. We know that dark matter is mostly or entirely relativistically cold. We know where it's located (in galactic halos; and we can see where thanks to effects like gravitational lensing and collisions such as in the Bullet Cluster). The only thing that's mysterious about it isn't its gross properties but simply what it actually is. I think of this a lot like knowing a car has an engine and knowing in general how the engine works but not knowing precisely how the engine works. I think the layperson just doesn't understand how much we do actually know about dark matter.

Dark energy, we know even more well. We know its density parameter (just as we do dark matter's), we know its equation of state (at least that it is more negative than -2/3). We know that there is something that exists with a particular density parameter and equation of state in order to explain why the universe is flat despite the mass and radiation that exists within it that should be curving it, so we just call it "dark energy." Then, amazingly, when we perform different tests based on the predictions of the properties it must have, we find that they converge exactly the way we expect them to (such as in this plot I posted elsewhere):
Image

Anyway, this wasn't pointed at you Sy Borg so much as just readers in general. These things aren't these mysterious things that astrophysicists and cosmologists just waggle their fingers about to fill in gaps. These things are conclusions that we know a lot about.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
--Richard Feynman
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021