PDA

View Full Version : Discoveries from Planck may mean rethinking how the universe began



ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-26, 10:25 PM
This spring, humanity was shown its most detailed map of the early universe ever created. Generated by observations from the Planck spacecraft, the map revealed fluctuations in temperature in the relic radiation left over from the Big Bang—what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).


Recently, scientists on the Planck team announced finding certain large-scale features on the CMB sky that they cannot explain. One of them: a large cold spot, which corresponds to an anomalously large area of high density.
What does this mean? To discuss the findings, The Kavli Foundation held a discussion with three key members on the team. One important question: Will the theory for how the universe began need to be modified, amended or even fundamentally changed?


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-discoveries-planck-rethinking-universe-began.html#jCp

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-26, 10:28 PM
My own observations [and opinions] tells me that any future QGT will most certainly entail the basis of the BB model.
That's not to say we won't have some tinkering around the edges and/or modifications re Inflation [as the article discusses] but that's what science is all about
I don't believe there will be any full scale fundamental change in the BB theory......But I could be wrong.

Shaula
2013-Jul-27, 03:41 AM
The existence and strength of the cold spot are still open to question. Essentially the way they work out the background has a tendency to act like a matched filter for certain kinds of statistical anomaly, there has been a lively debate about the fact that changing the way you do the background subtraction and the way you look for anomalies like this can result in the cold spot going away.

The big issue with the results recently produced is that they didn't address any of these problems, which were found with the WMAP data. They just redid the WMAP analysis.

ASTRO BOY
2013-Jul-28, 08:14 PM
The existence and strength of the cold spot are still open to question. Essentially the way they work out the background has a tendency to act like a matched filter for certain kinds of statistical anomaly, there has been a lively debate about the fact that changing the way you do the background subtraction and the way you look for anomalies like this can result in the cold spot going away.

The big issue with the results recently produced is that they didn't address any of these problems, which were found with the WMAP data. They just redid the WMAP analysis.




So you are saying the cold spot in question could just be an illusion?

Jerry
2013-Jul-29, 04:14 AM
So you are saying the cold spot in question could just be an illusion?

There is a good chance the cold spot found in both Planck and WMap are data reduction artifacts - residual errors in both foreground subtraction and baseline assumptions. CMB maps are drawn with highly processed data.

SRH
2013-Jul-29, 02:48 PM
just curious...does the cold spot line up with the center of the milky way?

Squink
2013-Jul-29, 04:23 PM
just curious...does the cold spot line up with the center of the milky way?Nope. If real, cold spot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot) is in Eridanus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridanus_%28constellation%29), not Sagittarius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_%28constellation%29).

Cookie
2013-Jul-29, 06:06 PM
Thanks for the clarification. Now I can finally put the finishing touches on my vacation plans.

publiusr
2013-Aug-03, 08:00 PM
Are they not calling it a texture?

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-06, 02:43 PM
Planck has indeed put even the theories of inflationary cosmology into the dustbin. This requires more indepth understanding of the nature of space-time gravity and the quantum vacuum. BTW I have a paper on this topic to be published this thursday in the peer reviewed international journal of astronomy and astrophysics this thursday. Follow this link on that day if you are intrested www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa for a free download.

Cougar
2013-Aug-07, 12:40 AM
Planck has indeed put even the theories of inflationary cosmology into the dustbin.

That would be news. What's the punchline?


BTW I have a paper on this topic to be published this thursday....

It's Tuesday, Tunneller! Don't we get advance copies here at CosmoQuestX Bad Astronomy Universe Today?
How about a summary of the Abstract?

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-07, 05:33 AM
Cougar

Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013 arxiv:1304.2785v2
for more on inflationary theories in trouble
Download my full article on thursday. A full article is much better than an abstract.
Also if you are intrested I have been invited to present the paper at the American Society for Gravitational and Space Research (ASGSR) meeting and the 5th International Symposium of Physical Sciences in Space (ISPS). The meeting will be held at the Hilton Orlando Lake Buena Vista located in the Walt Disney World Resort from November 3rd through November 8th, 2013.

Selfsim
2013-Aug-07, 06:41 AM
Cougar

Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013 arxiv:1304.2785v2
for more on inflationary theories in trouble
Download my full article on thursday. A full article is much better than an abstract.
Also if you are intrested I have been invited to present the paper at the American Society for Gravitational and Space Research (ASGSR) meeting and the 5th International Symposium of Physical Sciences in Space (ISPS). The meeting will be held at the Hilton Orlando Lake Buena Vista located in the Walt Disney World Resort from November 3rd through November 8th, 2013.Interesting and pretty involved paper! (I'm pretty confident it'll take me quite a few reads before I 'get it' ... if I do at all, that is ... :))

I look forward to seeing how it goes down with other folk studying such topics in more detail. (Does Guth still commentate on such matters?)

Tunneller: Will you make your presentation available also? (I'd be interested in gaining a better appreciation of 'the problems'. A video or Youtube might help in this regard).

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-07, 08:45 AM
Interesting and pretty involved paper! (I'm pretty confident it'll take me quite a few reads before I 'get it' ... if I do at all, that is ... :))

I look forward to seeing how it goes down with other folk studying such topics in more detail. (Does Guth still commentate on such matters?)

Tunneller: Will you make your presentation available also? (I'd be interested in gaining a better appreciation of 'the problems'. A video or Youtube might help in this regard).

Hie Selfism

Guth along with Andrei Linde and others are strong advocates of the multiverse theory which I don,t subscribe to and aims to explain the cosmological constant problem through the anthropological principle. I am sure many in this field of research share my opinion.

My paper is on Quantum Gravity/Cosmology and is based on standard off the shelf physics which many non specialist will grasp. I do not evoke exotic particles or concepts but rely on the established and repeatedly tested body of physics which is General Relativity and Quantum theory

As for a you tube presentation thats quiet an intresting proposal I will look into it.

thanks a lot wish you all the best.

Selfsim
2013-Aug-07, 09:04 AM
Hmm thanks for your reponse, Tunneller.

I realise its been quite a long campaign and there have been many interesting matters raised (on several different fronts). All efforts are much appreciated.

I look forward to further updates (and more knowledge of the deep thinking involved).

Cheers & Rgds

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-07, 10:40 AM
My own observations [and opinions] tells me that any future QGT will most certainly entail the basis of the BB model.
That's not to say we won't have some tinkering around the edges and/or modifications re Inflation [as the article discusses] but that's what science is all about
I don't believe there will be any full scale fundamental change in the BB theory......But I could be wrong.

Astro Boy

You are right on the money! For a glimpse at what seems to be a strong candidate of a true quantum theory of gravity follow the link that I have directed cougar. Here you will find an equation that unifies quantum theory ,general relativity, Dark energy and dark matter. The Hubble law can also be derived from quantum theory!

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-07, 10:43 AM
My own observations [and opinions] tells me that any future QGT will most certainly entail the basis of the BB model.
That's not to say we won't have some tinkering around the edges and/or modifications re Inflation [as the article discusses] but that's what science is all about
I don't believe there will be any full scale fundamental change in the BB theory......But I could be wrong.

Astro Boy

You are right on the money! For a glimpse at what seems to be a strong candidate of a true quantum theory of gravity follow the link that I have directed cougar. Here you will find an equation that unifies quantum theory ,general relativity, Dark energy and dark matter. The Hubble law can also be derived from quantum theory!

ASTRO BOY
2013-Aug-07, 10:44 AM
Thanks Tunneller...Will do

Cougar
2013-Aug-09, 04:44 PM
Was your paper rejected at the last minute? It doesn't seem to be there. What I get is the following:


Volume 3, Number 3A, July 2013 (Special Issue on The Components of Our Galaxy (http://www.scirp.org/journal/home.aspx?IssueID=3342))
Cover Page, Table of Contents and Others: PDF (size: 3259KB) (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?issueID=3342&issueType=content)





Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34804)

On the M-σ Relationship and SMBH Mass Estimates of Selected Nearby Galaxies (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34804)
Alper K. Ateş, Can Battal Kılınç, Cafer İbanoğlu
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34804&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34804&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34804), PP. 1-9, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A001, Downloads: 113 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)







Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34807)

Homogeneous Distances to Several Stellar Groups in the Second Galactic Quadrant (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34807)
Nadia Kaltcheva, Kevin Moran, Thomas Gehrman, Valeri Golev
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34807&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34807&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34807), PP. 10-17, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A002, Downloads: 80 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)






Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34811)

Magnetic Neutral Points and Electric Lines of Force in Strong Gravity of a Rotating Black Hole (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34811)
V. Karas, O. Kopáček, D. Kunneriath
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34811&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34811&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34811), PP. 18-24, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A003, Downloads: 92 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)

The Tunneller
2013-Aug-09, 05:41 PM
Was your paper rejected at the last minute? It doesn't seem to be there. What I get is the following:


Volume 3, Number 3A, July 2013 (Special Issue on The Components of Our Galaxy (http://www.scirp.org/journal/home.aspx?IssueID=3342))
Cover Page, Table of Contents and Others: PDF (size: 3259KB) (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?issueID=3342&issueType=content)





Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34804)

On the M-σ Relationship and SMBH Mass Estimates of Selected Nearby Galaxies (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34804)
Alper K. Ateş, Can Battal Kılınç, Cafer İbanoğlu
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34804&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34804&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34804), PP. 1-9, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A001, Downloads: 113 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)







Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34807)

Homogeneous Distances to Several Stellar Groups in the Second Galactic Quadrant (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34807)
Nadia Kaltcheva, Kevin Moran, Thomas Gehrman, Valeri Golev
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34807&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34807&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34807), PP. 10-17, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A002, Downloads: 80 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)






Open Access (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34811)

Magnetic Neutral Points and Electric Lines of Force in Strong Gravity of a Rotating Black Hole (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=34811)
V. Karas, O. Kopáček, D. Kunneriath
Abstract (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34811&#abstract) | References (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=34811&#reference) Full-Text PDF (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=34811), PP. 18-24, Pub. Date: July 18, 2013
DOI: 10.4236/ijaa.2013.33A003, Downloads: 92 Open Access Library (http://www.oalib.com/)


LOL no way Cougar, those are still last months papers.The latest issue (August) was supposed to come out on thursday. Thanks for checking. Give it a couple more days.
The wait would be worthwhile. However I am tempted to give you a sneek preview.

borman
2013-Aug-13, 01:19 AM
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785

Three new issues that cause tension:

A new initial conditions problem
A multiverse unpredictability problem
A new “unlikelyness” problem

Because of an energy scale factor issue of a trillion, the universe already had to be very smooth before inflation can begin to make it smoother.

It is suggested that possibly it might be time to consider alternative paradigms.

Cougar
2013-Aug-15, 05:04 PM
There is a good chance the cold spot found in both Planck and WMap are data reduction artifacts....

Actually, the Planck Collaboration confirmed* WMAP's detection of the cold spot, with higher confidence. What is puzzling, to me at least, is that Planck "finds no evidence for non-Gaussian statistics of the CMB anisotropies." Doesn't this imply that the cold spot, while it exists, is not "anomalous"?

As to whether "Discoveries from Planck may mean rethinking how the universe began (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began)," I don't believe anyone ever knew how the universe began in the first place.

________________________
* Planck 2013 results. Overview of products and scientific results (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5062)

Shaula
2013-Aug-15, 05:31 PM
The paper states that the statistical significance of the axis and the cold spot had not increased despite there being more data. So while they are more confident that there is a feature in the output data they have not performed tests to see if it is a matched filter artefact and the signal is not any more significant (which is a surprise, if it is real)

Jerry
2013-Aug-15, 08:26 PM
Actually, the Planck Collaboration confirmed* WMAP's detection of the cold spot, with higher confidence. What is puzzling, to me at least, is that Planck "finds no evidence for non-Gaussian statistics of the CMB anisotropies." Doesn't this imply that the cold spot, while it exists, is not "anomalous"?
Both Planck and WMAP are differential measurements that have to be pinned to a baseline. Both data sets must be radically processed, with noise levels in the background that are in many cases higher than the CMB signal researchers are trying to extract. There are assumptions made about how to pull galactic noise from the signal that will produce residual errors. A 'cold spot' is as likely an artifact of galactic processing as it is a real feature in the cosmos, if not more so.

Jerry
2013-Aug-15, 08:48 PM
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785

Three new issues that cause tension:

A new initial conditions problem
A multiverse unpredictability problem
A new “unlikelyness” problem


Furthermore, the only reason for grafting onto a plateau model rather than some other potential shape is because of the foreknowledge that the plateau model fits Planck2013 data. That means, effectively, what was supposed to be predicted output of the model has now been used as an input in its design. It does not make sense to apply the unlikeliness criterion to models in which the very same volume and initial conditions test criteria were already “wired in” as input.
This reminds me of Keplar's search for the perfect shapes which would properly define the orbits and spacing of the planets. It sounds silly to us now, to talk about triangles inside of spheres inside of tetrahedrons, because we have no reason to suspect these patterns dominate in the astrophysical world. Likewise, the tensors, scalers, power laws, regressions and endless curve fitting exercises are extensions of 'geometrically perfect shapes' logic with no valid underlying physical motivations.

Inflation is a problem: We can always find a set of equations that will get us from the assumed initial conditions to what the universe is today; but splining these lines together without fixed prior conditions is not science. It is just as valid, in fact from a scientific prospective; it is a safer assumption that the initial conditions imposed half a century ago should no longer be part of our universal model.

If we cannot get from here to there in an orderly and scientifically defend-able manner; we cannot connect the universe we know with THE "pre-Planck" event. Yes, it is time to remove the BANG from the big-bang model.

Shaula
2013-Aug-15, 09:44 PM
If we cannot get from here to there in an orderly and scientifically defend-able manner; we cannot connect the universe we know with THE "pre-Planck" event. Yes, it is time to remove the BANG from the big-bang model.
There is no bang in the Big Bang model. The model describes the evolution of the observable universe from a hot dense state a finite time ago. And that is all. the physics the model is based on are known to break down and the model simply cannot be extended scientifically beyond that point. Until we have a theory that can do that there is no bang in the model.

Jerry
2013-Aug-15, 11:43 PM
There is no bang in the Big Bang model. The model describes the evolution of the observable universe from a hot dense state a finite time ago. And that is all. the physics the model is based on are known to break down and the model simply cannot be extended scientifically beyond that point. Until we have a theory that can do that there is no bang in the model.
No. The bang is THE signature of the hot dense state, the condition prior to the synthesis of the universe as we know it. This synthesis predicted a microwave background and in doing so, limited the size and age of the known universe after the transition from initial conditions. The universe is much larger than a simple extrapolation allows, and so an 'inflationary' cycle becomes necessary, and this should also leave a signature in the microwave power spectrum. The data we have today eliminates virtually every conceived model.

In the theory, there was a hot dense state. There is a universe. The cosmic microwave background is supposed to be the evidential link between the calculated hot dense state and what we see today. The link falls short, or as Neil Tyson explains it "We know there was a hot dense state and then something happened we don't know what, but something happened."

No, we do not know that there was a hot dense state because our observations only tell us there is a cosmic background - we have not been able to pin-the-tail on the 'initial state'. There are a myriad of scenarios that may someday explain why there is a microwave (and an infrared, and a gamma ray) peak in the cosmos. We can't do that today - you simply cannot extrapolate beyond a gross gap in our knowledge and continue to claim we have an understanding of initial conditions.


After Planck2013, the very same argument used to defend inflation now becomes a strong argument against it...

...In sum, by favoring only plateau-like models, the Planck2013 data creates a serious new challenge for the inflationary paradigm: the universally accepted assumption about initial conditions no longer leads to inflation; instead, inflation can only begin to smooth the universe if the universe is unexpectedly smooth to begin with!

Cougar
2013-Aug-16, 12:55 AM
Furthermore, the only reason for grafting onto a plateau model rather than some other potential shape is because of the foreknowledge that the plateau model fits Planck2013 data. That means, effectively, what was supposed to be predicted output of the model has now been used as an input in its design.

I'm not so sure Ijjas' criticism is valid. I've read a small bit of the 2013 Planck results, and as I recall, the Collaboration tested their data against myriad inflationary models. Apparently it did not fit the expected ones, and it did fit the plateau model.

But we're talking about inflation here - which is theorized to have occurred early within the first second! I also note from the results:



"The Universe observed by Planck is well-fit by a six parameter LCDM model, and we provide strong constraints on deviations from this model."

Shaula
2013-Aug-16, 05:54 AM
No. The bang is THE signature of the hot dense state, the condition prior to the synthesis of the universe as we know it.
Sorry but you are wrong. You may have a beef with inflation, that is fine. But leave the Bang out of it. It is not in the mainstream model because we cannot model things that far back. This is as taught at university, as understood by cosmologists. There is a strong temptation that people often give in to that leads them to speculate as to what was happening before the hot dense state but they are just that, speculation. If you think that the Big Bang model lives or dies by a Bang then you are sorely mistaken.

Jerry
2013-Aug-17, 03:05 PM
I'm not so sure Ijjas' criticism is valid. I've read a small bit of the 2013 Planck results, and as I recall, the Collaboration tested their data against myriad inflationary models. Apparently it did not fit the expected ones, and it did fit the plateau model.

But we're talking about inflation here - which is theorized to have occurred early within the first second! I also note from the results:



"The Universe observed by Planck is well-fit by a six parameter LCDM model, and we provide strong constraints on deviations from this model."
The gist of Ijjas complaint is this: The primary smoothness of the CMB is predicted by a synthesis model (that is no longer called a bang) that created baryonic matter, but not the structure. The reason this first phase cannot describe the structure is that the background signature would have frequencies associated with the formation of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. This structure could not have developed in the post-phase (current expansion) because the time element is too long. To solve this problem, the inflationary period is proposed, during which this structure developed. This intermediate phase must include the fingerprints necessary to explain structure, and without these fingerprints, no case can be made for inflation because it does not resolve the fundamental problems inflation was proposed to solve in the first place: size and structure within a time frame constrained by an expanding microwave signature of a primal event that was not a bang.

This is exactly like finding an ancient species, and hypothesizing the species is a precursor to man (one of the 'missing links'). Then studying the DNA of the species and learning the transitional genes that would be necessary to connect the dotes are not there, but then still insisting on keeping this unrelated species is in-family. There is no physical justification for keeping inflation as a root part of the cosmic development if it does not provide the answers it was hypothesized to give us.

Ijja also talks about multiverses, which is another aspect of inflationary physics. If inflation is not simple - constrained by tight parameters; then during the 'plateau phase' the universe can quite literally, fall off in any direction: there is no set of physical laws governing this step. So the inflation that emerges without fingerprints is black box technology - we don't know what happens inside the black box. Without this knowledge or a way to acquire it, there is absolutely zero scientific confidence in our ability to predict, to determine what happened before inflation. This is what the studies of the cosmic microwave background were supposed to provide us with and they have failed. This does not make these studies scientific failures, because they have eliminated a causal inflationary phase. But we should no longer be taught that we have a grasp on the initial synthesis, because the evidence is just not there - we haven't gained the information we were looking for to support the primal model: The CMB is too simple to be what we hypothesized that it is.

Jerry
2013-Aug-17, 08:51 PM
Returning to the 'cold spot'; both WMAP and Planck (and COBE) used data reduction techniques which were designed to 'flatten' the data. The microwave signature is teaming with hot spots, and complex algorithms are used to separate 'the background' from the foreground emissions. 'Cold spots' should not occur, because the assumptions made in the processing algorithms should eliminate them. So even though they show up in the same place in both reductions; they are still likely artifacts. Most worrisome, is that the inability to normalize the data is indicative that the original premise of a uniform background may be wrong; invalidating many of the assumptions made in the reduction process.

Shaula
2013-Aug-18, 04:20 AM
Actually the spot is more likely to be a random fluctuation that just happens to be of a specific nature, size and shape that is being amplified by the filters they are using.

Essentially in order to find/analyse the cold spot they are running a wavelet filter across the image to effectively smooth and enhance it. However any wavelet can act like a form of matched filter for regions which happen to match the profile of its weighting function quite well. The trick to avoiding this kind of unlucky match is to repeat it using a range of weighting functions - it will only be a significant cold spot if it shows up in most of them. In all tested methods bar the original one the significance of the detection is under one sigma.

So it has nothing to do with the data reduction or anything else like that, it is a simple filter tuning artefact. Your worries can be put to bed, your underlying assumption about the cause of the artefact is wrong so they are not justified.

Jerry
2013-Aug-18, 04:30 PM
Actually the spot is more likely to be a random fluctuation that just happens to be of a specific nature, size and shape that is being amplified by the filters they are using.

Essentially in order to find/analyse the cold spot they are running a wavelet filter across the image to effectively smooth and enhance it. However any wavelet can act like a form of matched filter for regions which happen to match the profile of its weighting function quite well. The trick to avoiding this kind of unlucky match is to repeat it using a range of weighting functions - it will only be a significant cold spot if it shows up in most of them. In all tested methods bar the original one the significance of the detection is under one sigma.

So it has nothing to do with the data reduction or anything else like that, it is a simple filter tuning artifact. Your worries can be put to bed, your underlying assumption about the cause of the artifact is wrong so they are not justified.
We are almost on the same page here. Filtering is, by definition, data reduction. We both agree the cold spots likely mean nothing more than over aggressive filters, and part of the baby is going out with the bath water...unless it is cold spots that are real, and the assumption that they do not exist driving the reduction process is aliasing the data away from the real nature of the CMB. This is the dilemma faced by a research trying to remove very intense foreground from a week background: Within limits, they must start with an assumption of what kind of rug the background should look like and try to pull out all the loose threads. You hope that when you are finished, you still have the pattern in the rug placed there by the creator.

(I used to build filters for X-ray, ultrasonic and thermal data. In the most aggressive approach, we were trying to identify carbon ply angles layered inches thick into carbon cloth. Part of the exercise was transforming the signal to the frequency domain, knowing that each layer's reflection would have a unique frequency. In theory, we could then reconstruct the pattern of each layer. We couldn't get the resolution we needed then, but people are doing this today with focusing phased arrays of transducers.)

Reality Check
2013-Aug-19, 01:52 AM
No, we do not know that there was a hot dense state because our observations only tell us there is a cosmic background - we have not been able to pin-the-tail on the 'initial state'.
Actually, Jerry, the best explanation for all of the evidence (not only the CMB) is that there was a 'hot dense state' from which the universe expanded.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence)
So we have pined the tail on the initial state by doing what we do in all fields of science - take our existing knowledge and use it to extrapolate into the past or future. An example - we were not here when the Earth was formed. We apply known physics to our observations and get an age of the Earth of 4.54 billion years.

Jerry
2013-Aug-19, 01:36 PM
Actually, Jerry, the best explanation for all of the evidence (not only the CMB) is that there was a 'hot dense state' from which the universe expanded.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence)
So we have pined the tail on the initial state by doing what we do in all fields of science - take our existing knowledge and use it to extrapolate into the past or future. An example - we were not here when the Earth was formed. We apply known physics to our observations and get an age of the Earth of 4.54 billion years.

It is the more-or-less consistent picture woven from other evidence that makes the tension in the CMB data so damaging. For example, the light element ratios fix the time frame. But using known physics to constrain the time frame also constrains the size and the amount of structure. These physical constraints are several magnitudes too small - it is like trying to constrain evolution to a 6,000 year time frame. To do so, there would have to be evidence of an 'inflationary life event' during which species evolved over days, rather than millenia. If we found fossil evidence of greatly accelerated evolutionary change, we could shorten the time scale. But we don't, so we can't. In the cosmic world we can't find evidence of a period of extremely rapid growth that had no effect whatsoever upon the primal shock wave - the CMB. We can't just assume an 'inflation' happened and tack on this unprovable, aphysical event and extrapolate around it.

It is an odd dilemma: We are hanging onto an important piece of a theory (inflation) that has failed every test, yet if we accept the current 'plateau' version, inflation will never fail because current constraints give us a parameter set that doesn't provide us with any physical evidence to test.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-19, 09:29 PM
It is the more-or-less consistent picture woven from other evidence that makes the tension in the CMB data so damaging.

What "tension in the CMB data"?
What I see is what I expect from science. There are a lot of inflation theories. As more data comes in (e.g. from Planck), the data constrains the number of possible theories. The Planck data does not show that all inflations theories are invalid.

ETA: The more-or-less consistent picture woven from evidence (including the CMB) is evidence for the Big Bang: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence).
The evidence for inflation is a separate issue.

What does "the light element ratios fix the time frame" mean, Jerry?
As far as I know, the primeval abundance of light elements is derived from the model. They are not an input to the model.

Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" claim with citations, Jerry?

We can assume that inflation happens because the hypothesis produces testable, falsifiable predictions. At least one of these has been shown to be correct. That makes inflation into a scientific theory. The paper we are discussing is another set of tests that constrains the possible theories. Though the title does overstate this (Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785)). If you read the paper they explicitly state that plateau models fit the Planck2013 data.
IMO the "new, serious difficulties" they come up with are basically confusing unlikely with impossible. That a plateau potential is unlikely does not matter if the data supports that it is a plateau potential. As an analogy: it is unlikely that the fine structure constant would have the value of ~1/137 given the range of possible values. But it does have that value.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that inflation has been tested successfully. There are the "post-diction" tests of solving the horizon problem, flatness problem and magnetic-monopole problem. Also see Inflation (observational status) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status). N.B. Planck has a more exact value for the spectral index (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5082) which further confirms (and constrains) inflation theories.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-19, 09:48 PM
One of the citations of 'Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013' is interesting: Planck constraints on single-field inflation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3044). Have a look at the variety of models listed.

Jerry
2013-Aug-20, 10:09 PM
What "tension in the CMB data"?
The Planck Data prefers a Hubble constant of ~58; the WMAP data prefers a value of 82. That may not sound like much tension, but there are a number of data sets that converge about the higher value, including the supernova cosmology project results. The tension cannot be easily resolved, because if evolution and dust attenuation are factored in, the supernova data set slips even higher. Tension, by the way, is just a nice way of saying two sets of data do not agree.


What I see is what I expect from science. There are a lot of inflation theories. As more data comes in (e.g. from Planck), the data constrains the number of possible theories. The Planck data does not show that all inflations theories are invalid. Good science demands physical causality. Inflationary theories ignore thermodynamic principles. Cosmologists should be allowed a little license here, because if you are talking about 'a beginning' you can interject as much energy as necessary. But the license should be pulled when the theory proves of no value in making predictions. You can always pull equations off of the shelf that will agree with experimental results. Always. But if the equations cannot be reasonably tied to first principles, there is absolutely no justification for curve fitting.


ETA: The more-or-less consistent picture woven from evidence (including the CMB) is evidence for the Big Bang: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence).
The evidence for inflation is a separate issue.I'll address this in a second post.


What does "the light element ratios fix the time frame" mean, Jerry?The BB theory was based upon a synthesis that created baryonic matter; mostly in very light metal form. With aging, the ratio of light elements, and light to heavy elements decreases. These parameters place limits on both the physical age and size of the universe, both of which are observationally too small.


As far as I know, the primeval abundance of light elements is derived from the model. They are not an input to the model.If the light element ratios were wrong, would they invalidate the model? If not? what would? What physical observation could make the BB an untenable theory?


Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" claim with citations, Jerry? sure, but this general knowledge. There would be no reason for adding an inflationary parameter if the original BB predictions constraining age and size had held true.
higher

We can assume that inflation happens because the hypothesis produces testable, falsifiable predictions. At least one of these has been shown to be correct. That makes inflation into a scientific theory. This is silly. Inflationary models are just that: Models. My son-inlaw produced a set of models that allow Tinkerbell to fly, and he can demonstrate this in video games. What the models are lacking is the thermal-dynamic engine that actually accelerate and brake Tinkerbell's motion. Inflationary physicists face this same conundrum. The difference is, we all know Tinkerbell's flight is just imaginary. I wouldn't have a problem with inflation, if the surviving model(s) were in anyway tied to first principles. They are not. They don't tell us anything about the universes past, except that we still don't understand it.


The paper we are discussing is another set of tests that constrains the possible theories. Though the title does overstate this (Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785)). If you read the paper they explicitly state that plateau models fit the Planck2013 data.
But what are the physical laws supporting the plateau event? Physically, what is the reason for the acceleration of energy and matter, and why did it condense into the physical state we now observe? Why, if there is still a dark energy parameter accelerating expansion, why


IMO the "new, serious difficulties" they come up with are basically confusing unlikely with impossible. That a plateau potential is unlikely does not matter if the data supports that it is a plateau potential. As an analogy: it is unlikely that the fine structure constant would have the value of ~1/137 given the range of possible values. But it does have that value.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that inflation has been tested successfully. There are the "post-diction" tests of solving the horizon problem, flatness problem and magnetic-monopole problem. Also see Inflation (observational status) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status). N.B. Planck has a more exact value for the spectral index (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5082) which further confirms (and constrains) inflation theories.[/QUOTE]

Reality Check
2013-Aug-21, 01:18 AM
The Planck Data prefers a Hubble constant of ~58; the WMAP data prefers a value of 82.

Let us see what the Hubble constant from WMAP and Planck actually is:
WMAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe): 69.32 ± 0.80 km·s−1·Mpc−1
Planck 2013 data release (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2013_data_release): 67.80 ±0.77 (km/s)/Mpc.
Sorry, Jerry, but you are doubly wrong :).
No tension here.

I would like your citations to the current values of the Hubble constant from the Supernova Cosmology Project (they seem to be concentrating on dark energy)



Good science demands physical causality.

Which is present in inflation theories.
Theories do not have to include thermodynamic principles. Their predictions must not violate thermodynamic principles.

There is justification for curve flitting since that is science! You take observations and fit curves from the theory to them. And once again you seem to state an ignorance that inflation makes predictions and that at least one has been tested successfully, Jerry.



These parameters place limits on both the physical age and size of the universe, both of which are observationally too small.

Citations please, Jerry.



If the light element ratios were wrong, would they invalidate the model?

Actually they are! The Li3 abundance is a bit out as far as I know. But that is a complex calculation that also depends on stellar models. So we have the possibility of them being wrong.
What would invalidate the Big Bang model would be a set of observations (not just one as you want) that are totally impossible according to the model, e.g. some 100 billion year old galaxies.


There would be no reason for adding an inflationary parameter if the original BB predictions constraining age and size had held true.
higher

The reason for adding an inflationary parameter has nothing to do with any calculations of the size or age of the universe: Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology))


This is silly. Inflationary models are just that: Models.

Actually the silly thing is dismissing scientific models as just toys :eek:.
Inflationary physicists face and defeat the same conundrum as any other physicists - getting a model the matches the real universe. The interesting thing is that is what inflation actually does despite its very theoretical nature.



But what are the physical laws supporting the plateau event?

Inflation is based on QM and GW so those physical laws. Physically, we have that plateau potentials fit the Planck 2013 data.
The other questions you can answer yourself by reading up on cosmology.

And since you messed up the quotation of my reply, I will retain some of it:
You seem to be unaware of the fact that inflation has been tested successfully. There are the "post-diction" tests of solving the horizon problem, flatness problem and magnetic-monopole problem. Also see Inflation (observational status) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status). N.B. Planck has a more exact value for the spectral index (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5082) which further confirms (and constrains) inflation theories.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-21, 01:38 AM
Let us see what the Hubble constant from WMAP and Planck actually is:
WMAP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe): 69.32 ± 0.80 km·s−1·Mpc−1
Planck 2013 data release (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2013_data_release): 67.80 ±0.77 (km/s)/Mpc.
Sorry, Jerry, but you are doubly wrong :).
No tension here.

P.S. Jerry, if you are worried about the WMAP9 and Planck2013 values not overlapping it is because the data does not give one value. It depends on the model and any other data that is used. For example the matrix of WMAP9 + data + models (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/parameters.cfm) gives
WMAP9 + LCDM = 70.0 +/- 2.2 km·s−1·Mpc−1
(WMAP9+SPT+ACT+SNLS3) + LCDM = 71.2 +/- 1.5 km·s−1·Mpc−1

Shaula
2013-Aug-21, 05:53 AM
But what are the physical laws supporting the plateau event? Physically, what is the reason for the acceleration of energy and matter, and why did it condense into the physical state we now observe?
Swoosh, the goalposts move. You were trying to point out that the models didn't fit, but they do. So now you shift the requirements for a valid proof to be something else.

Seriously Jerry, you have made a whole series of false or misleading claims in this thread and when challenged ignored that and switched to a new niggle. It would help if you gave citations and links to supporting materials when you make these claims, since relying on your interpretation of things clearly doesn't work. We all know you don't like the current mainstream but if it is as riddled with holes as you seem to think surely you should be able to provide better arguments than you have here.

tusenfem
2013-Aug-21, 06:46 AM
Swoosh, the goalposts move. You were trying to point out that the models didn't fit, but they do. So now you shift the requirements for a valid proof to be something else.

Seriously Jerry, you have made a whole series of false or misleading claims in this thread and when challenged ignored that and switched to a new niggle. It would help if you gave citations and links to supporting materials when you make these claims, since relying on your interpretation of things clearly doesn't work. We all know you don't like the current mainstream but if it is as riddled with holes as you seem to think surely you should be able to provide better arguments than you have here.


Let me make that official! It is totally okay to question stuff, also in Astronomy, to obtain an interesting scientific discussion.
However, if you make claims you will have to support them with evidence.

borman
2013-Aug-21, 09:10 PM
Could tension be looming from the CANDLES study?

Apparently the Hubble sequence is present already at least 11 billion years ago. Will there be enough time for it to evolve between 11 billion years ago and reionization epoch? Was inflation not so smooth to produce these templates?

Press Release: http://spaceref.com/astronomy/hubble-illustration-shows-true-shape-of-galaxies-11-billion-ago.html
Paper Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/774/1/47/
Paper (arXiv abstract): http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4980

Reality Check
2013-Aug-22, 12:39 AM
Could tension be looming from the CANDLES study?

Apparently the Hubble sequence is present already at least 11 billion years ago. Will there be enough time for it to evolve between 11 billion years ago and reionization epoch? Was inflation not so smooth to produce these templates?

Press Release: http://spaceref.com/astronomy/hubble-illustration-shows-true-shape-of-galaxies-11-billion-ago.html
Paper Abstract: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/774/1/47/
Paper (arXiv abstract): http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4980
Not really - 2.7 billion years is a long time!
You have to remember that the Hubble Sequence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_sequence#Physical_significance) is not an evolutionary sequence. It is a classification scheme. What the paper shows is that the classification of elliptical and spiral galaxies was similar to today by about 11 billion years ago. This is a problem for galaxy formation models, not inflationary models.

Inflation produces fluctuations that mediated the formation of the first galaxies when the universe was about 500 million years old.

Jerry
2013-Aug-22, 09:44 PM
P.S. Jerry, if you are worried about the WMAP9 and Planck2013 values not overlapping it is because the data does not give one value. It depends on the model and any other data that is used. For example the matrix of WMAP9 + data + models (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/parameters.cfm) gives
WMAP9 + LCDM = 70.0 +/- 2.2 km·s−1·Mpc−1
(WMAP9+SPT+ACT+SNLS3) + LCDM = 71.2 +/- 1.5 km·s−1·Mpc−1
The '82' was a simple typo - 72 is the value preferred by the SNCP. 58 was just a bad number, period.

Jerry
2013-Aug-22, 10:14 PM
Swoosh, the goalposts move. You were trying to point out that the models didn't fit, but they do. So now you shift the requirements for a valid proof to be something else.

Seriously Jerry, you have made a whole series of false or misleading claims in this thread and when challenged ignored that and switched to a new niggle. It would help if you gave citations and links to supporting materials when you make these claims, since relying on your interpretation of things clearly doesn't work. We all know you don't like the current mainstream but if it is as riddled with holes as you seem to think surely you should be able to provide better arguments than you have here.

From Reality Checks article explaining inflation:



Reheating[edit source]

Inflation is a period of supercooled expansion, when the temperature drops by a factor of 100,000 or so. (The exact drop is model dependent, but in the first models it was typically from 1027K down to 1022K.[11]) This relatively low temperature is maintained during the inflationary phase. When inflation ends the temperature returns to the pre-inflationary temperature; this is called reheating or thermalization because the large potential energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the universe with Standard Model particles, including electromagnetic radiation, starting the radiation dominated phase of the Universe. Because the nature of the inflation is not known, this process is still poorly understood, although it is believed to take place through a parametric resonance.
Parametric resonance? Where, in my first principles text, do I read up on parametric resonance? What WMAP and Planck were all about is finding signatures within the background that are indicative of a state change/relaxation however you want to describe it.

'Poorly understood' is the same as saying not understood - not accounted for in our knowledge of physics. You cannot extrapolate through 'poorly understood'. Which comes right back to my simple thesis, or the thesis of the paper this thread is discussing: The current iteration of inflation does not provide the answers, no hint of a signature of a field decay.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-23, 12:16 AM
The '82' was a simple typo - 72 is the value preferred by the SNCP. 58 was just a bad number, period.
Still a bit wrong - your '82' was for WMAP, not SNCP. WMAP9 + LCDM = 70.0 +/- 2.2 km·s−1·Mpc−1 (there are some model values closer to 72).

Jerry, Can you give a recent citation for the SNCP value?
All I can find is their old 1997 values (none of which are 72).

Reality Check
2013-Aug-23, 12:34 AM
Parametric resonance? Where, in my first principles text, do I read up on parametric resonance?

You do know that inflation is not a "first principle" subject?
You would not expect to find parametric resonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator#Parametric_resonance) in an introductory textbook - luckily there is actually clicking on the link that explains parametric resonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_oscillator#Parametric_resonance).

What analysis of WMAP and Planck data were all about is finding signatures within the background that can be matched to models, e.g. the match of Plank 2013 data to plateau potential inflation models.

'Poorly understood' is not the same as saying not understood.
Not understood means that you know nothing about the subject.
Poorly understood means that you know something about the subject but not a lot.

If you want another explanation of reheating then have a look at Reheating after inflation (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Liddle/Liddle5_6.html)

During inflation, all matter except the scalar field (usually called the inflaton) is redshifted to extremely low densities. Reheating is the process whereby the inflaton's energy density is converted back into conventional matter after inflation, re-entering the standard big bang theory.

Once the slow-roll conditions break down, the scalar field switches from being overdamped to being underdamped and begins to move rapidly on the Hubble timescale, oscillating at the bottom of the potential. As it does so, it decays into conventional matter. The details of reheating are an important area of research in inflationary cosmology at the moment for several reasons, but are not important for the generation and evolution of density perturbations which is the main focus of the remainder of this article. Consequently, I'll just note that recently there has been quite a dramatic change of view as to how reheating takes place. Traditional treatments (e.g. as given in Kolb & Turner [7]) added a phenomenological decay term; this was constrained to be very small and hence reheating was viewed as being very inefficient. This allowed substantial redshifting to take place after the end of inflation and before the Universe returned to thermal equilibrium; hence the reheat temperature would be lower, by several orders of magnitude, than suggested by the energy density at the end of inflation.

This picture is radically revised in work by Kofman, Linde & Starobinsky [8] (see also Ref. [9]), who suggest that the decay can undergo broad parametric resonance, with extremely efficient transfer of energy from the coherent oscillations of the inflaton field. This initial transfer has been dubbed preheating. With such an efficient start to the reheating process, it now appears possible that the reheating epoch may be very short indeed and hence that most of the energy density in the inflaton field at the end of inflation may be available for conversion into thermalized form.


A review: Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications (http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.2600)
Rouzbeh Allahverdi, Robert Brandenberger, Francis-Yan Cyr-Racine, Anupam Mazumdar (2010)

Cougar
2013-Aug-23, 02:22 AM
I'd like to hear more about the departure from scale-invariance, and the implications thereof. This concerns the 'formula' for the expansion of the Universe just during inflation, right? As I understand it, in the absence of contrary data, this formula was thought to be a simple power law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law) of exponential expansion for a very short period of time. The "graceful exit" from inflation was a problem, at least initially. So is a "brief burst" model still consistent with the data? And the "burst" does not just expand exponentially, but rather... what? The expansion exponent is large at first, then settles to a lower exponent? Does this involve the exit?

Sorry to turn this into Q&A, but I think the topic is on-point for this thread....

Reality Check
2013-Aug-23, 02:51 AM
What we are talking about concerns the shape of the potential governing the expansion of the Universe just during inflation. This started out as a simple power law (by Guth etc.) but many other potentials for this single scalar field theory of inflation have been investigated. There are also other inflation theories that extend the original, e.g. by adding more or non-scalar fields.
What the Plank 2013 results have done is restrict the viable single scalar field inflation theories to those with plateaus in the potential, i.e. those that start off flat and later become a power law.
Thus a "brief burst" model is still consistent with the data. The universe expands slowly and then exponentially.

This does not involve reheating (the "graceful exit").

Jerry
2013-Aug-23, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Still a bit wrong - your '82' was for WMAP, not SNCP. WMAP9 + LCDM = 70.0 +/- 2.2 km·s−1·Mpc−1 (there are some model values closer to 72).

Jerry, Can you give a recent citation for the SNCP value?

All I can find is their old 1997 values (none of which are 72).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1856 Wendy puts it at 73 +/- 2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3281 She revised it upward to 74

I think if you look at the methodology, the error bars are a little tight; and it should not be too difficult to revise it downward a little. (If those damned most distant SNIae were just a little more cooperative.)

Jerry
2013-Aug-23, 06:05 PM
Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" claim with citations, Jerry?


There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion leads to an origin of this expansion which lies 'only' about a billion years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is in no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome. (Einstein) Some breathing room was found in a fundamental error in the Cepheid distance ladder, but without an inflation parameter of some kind, the 'strange difficulty' remains.

Shaula
2013-Aug-23, 09:16 PM
Some breathing room was found in a fundamental error in the Cepheid distance ladder, but without an inflation parameter of some kind, the 'strange difficulty' remains.
So the problem is only a problem if you take inflation out of the model. Well, don't know about you but that seems like a rather good argument to leave it in there.

Jerry
2013-Aug-24, 05:34 PM
So the problem is only a problem if you take inflation out of the model. Well, don't know about you but that seems like a rather good argument to leave it in there.
When observations rule-out a model as a solution; the model can be either modified or rejected. Any modifications must be valid within the context of known physical laws and you must be able to test the justification for the new model. Ideas that cannot be tested might be good ideas, but they have no scientific value.

And simply demonstrating that the model existed before the observational data was gathered is not justification for the model. The model must be bound by physical law. This is the difference between science, and successfully picking a number on a roulette wheel - if you have enough people making predictions at the table, someone will usually be right.

Here is what Wendy Freedman published in 2004 (revised in 2010): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1856v1.pdf

Measurement of the Hubble constant has been an active subject since Hubble’s original measurements of the distances to galaxies: the deceptively simple correlation between galaxy distance and recession velocity discovered eighty years ago did not foreshadow how much of a challenge large systematic uncertainties
would pose in obtaining an accurate value for the Hubble constant. Only recently have improvements in linear, solid-state detectors, the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the development of several different methods for measuring distances led to a convergence on its current value.

The current tension in the Hubble value is driven by a supernova distance that prefers a greater amount of dark energy than the Tully-Fisher and Planck values. to 'correct' the supernova scale downward, it may be necessary to assume cosmic evolution in supernova magnitudes that run counter to the light-curve width. That is a tough assumption, since it forces the conclusion that supernova are not quite the standard candles we hoped for. The other choice, is that some other primary assumption is wrong.

Jerry
2013-Aug-24, 05:39 PM
So the problem is only a problem if you take inflation out of the model. Well, don't know about you but that seems like a rather good argument to leave it in there.
When observations rule-out a model as a solution; the model can be either modified or rejected. Any modifications must be valid within the context of known physical laws and you must be able to test the justification for the new model. Ideas that cannot be tested might be good ideas, but they have no scientific value.

And simply demonstrating that the model existed before the observational data was gathered is not justification for the model. The model must be bound by physical law. This is the difference between science, and successfully picking a number on a roulette wheel - if you have enough people making predictions at the table, someone will usually be right.

Here is what Wendy Freedman published in 2010: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1856v1.pdf


Measurement of the Hubble constant has been an active subject since Hubble’s original measurements of the distances to galaxies: the deceptively simple correlation between galaxy distance and recession velocity discovered eighty years ago did not foreshadow how much of a challenge large systematic uncertainties
would pose in obtaining an accurate value for the Hubble constant. Only recently have improvements in linear, solid-state detectors, the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), and the development of several different methods for measuring distances led to a convergence on its current value.
The current tension in the Hubble value is driven by a supernova distance that prefers a greater amount of dark energy than the Tully-Fisher and Planck values. To 'correct' the supernova scale downward, it may be necessary to assume (or find evidence of) cosmic evolution in supernova magnitudes that run counter to the light-curve width. That is a tough assumption, since it forces the conclusion that supernova are not quite the standard candles we hoped for. The other choice, is that some other primary assumption is wrong.

Shaula
2013-Aug-24, 05:58 PM
And simply demonstrating that the model existed before the observational data was gathered is not justification for the model. The model must be bound by physical law
So you don't believe that physics should ever advance? OK, unusual position. QM and many other theories appeared to be 'outside physical law' when they first came up, in fact a lot of new theories are. To constrain yourself such that you assume all existing theories must be subject to the constraints imposed by your current theories is a recipe for stagnation. Seeing an effect and saying "It cannot be happening, let me find a way to say it isn't" is not letting the evidence lead you to the science, it is forcing the evidence to fit into your pre-conceptions about how things should be.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-27, 12:34 AM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1856 Wendy puts it at 73 +/- 2.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3281 She revised it upward to 74

Thanks Jerry.
So basically the Hubble constant is about 71 (WMAP, Plank 2013), 73 (2010 paper) or 74 (2012 paper) each with their own systematic error margins.
If we wanted to include them all in one value then the Hubble constant would be 73 +/-2.
I cannot see any "tension" here, Jerry.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-27, 12:46 AM
Some breathing room was found in a fundamental error in the Cepheid distance ladder, but without an inflation parameter of some kind, the 'strange difficulty' remains.
Oh dear Jerry - "backing up" your assertion with an old, outdated, not cited quote from a guy called A. Einstein.
The fundamental error in the Cepheid distance ladder (the discovery of 2 types of Cepheid variables) was found and fixed around 1956 :doh:.

So the question remains:

Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2152206#post2152206) claim with citations, Jerry?
(asked on 2013-Aug-21)
And to make it clearer, Jerry:The citations to the current scientific literature need to involve

The size of the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
The current cosmological parameters

Reality Check
2013-Aug-27, 12:55 AM
Here is what Wendy Freedman published in 2004 (revised in 2010): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1856v1.pdf

What Wendy Freedman is saying is quite clear - it is hard to get a good value of Hubble's constant. That is obvious, e.g. for some decades the scientific community was basically split between those that thought that it was about 50 and those that thought it was about 100.

The current differences in the Hubble value are driven by the different data and models used.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-27, 01:07 AM
And simply demonstrating that the model existed before the observational data was gathered is not justification for the model. The model must be bound by physical law.
The model (e.g. the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric) existed before the observational data was gathered (wow!).
The model was and is still bound by physical law, i.e. General Relativity.
There was theoretical justification for the model before the observational data was gathered, i.e. it was a valid GR solution.
The observations since then have confirmed that the model is correct (with the additions of dark matter, dark energy and inflation). More importantly the observations have not shown that the model is wrong.

This is how science works, Jerry.

Jerry
2013-Aug-27, 11:34 PM
And to make it clearer, Jerry:The citations to the current scientific literature need to involve
•The size of the universe
•The large scale structure of the universe
•The current cosmological parameters

This topic is vast; and the published references to the problems of cosmology are legion. This is a well references summary paper with a philosophical bend that is near to my own. The quote is much longer than is normally allowed, but the entire thought train is necessary. Please note that the 'large scale structure problem' is the homogeneity and flatness over distances that are too vast to be interrelated given the current estimates of the size and age of the universe.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5634v2.pdf Conceptual Problems in Cosmology
F. J. Amaral Vieira


...In summary, the cosmology of the Big Bang assumed the homogeneity and flatness, as well as the immense size of the universe as determined by initial conditions, of which the most representative is the fine tuning required by the value of omega. But it did not develop a physical mechanism to explain them.

It was precisely the interest in magnetic monopoles that led Alan Guth to describe ..(inflation). ...
This brief and violent period of inflationary expansion, as named by Guth, brought an elegant and convincing explanation to the problems that we have just discussed.
...
The inflationary model was elegant, simple and, in general lines, conceptually correct, but it did not work properly as a result of a technical problem whose solution was called "graceful exit." That solution was first found by Andrei Linde of Stanford University and, soon afterward, by Paul Steinhardt and Andreas Albrecht of the University of Pennsylvania. Summarizing, they introduced changes in the equations so that the energy of the false vacuum did not decay so rapidly, as it was the case in Guth's model, but slowly, which means, in practice, altering the original energy diagram to attain a smooth transition of phase. With such change, when the energy oscillates as it reaches true vacuum, it gets converted into the hot and uniform soup of electrons, gluons and quarks from which everything was to be made.

This 'quantum patch should have left a signature in the CMB, but the anticipated power structure was missing from the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles. A work-about was found buy reintroduction of a cosmological constant; and this is consistent with current interpretations of the supernovae Ia data. Continuing:


The discovery of the cosmic acceleration not only resuscitated the Cosmological Constant Problem, but made it even more challenging since it showed that the value of the energy of the vacuum increase over a time that coincides with our presence at this point of the universe. This is also namely the problem on the cosmic coincidence.

In summary, the high value of the cosmological constant that we will find at inflation was drastically reduced to the time it took for the formation of the large structures, and then varied again, this time increasing over a time that coincides with the emergence of life and consciousness.

Guth, in his inspired book, to which we have referred to early, published in 1998, admits that the gravitational effect of the false vacuum during inflation is identical to the effect of the cosmological constant.
Nonetheless, he recalls the existence of an important difference between the two: "While the cosmological constant is a permanent term in the universal equations of gravity, the false vacuum is an ephemeral state that exercised its influence but for a rather brief moment at start of history in the past."

Notwithstanding, time has shown that the cosmological constant is the value we attribute to the energy of the vacuum that has varied in time apparently in order to support life. In this context it is opportune to quote from a comment by Jayant V. Narlikar and Geoffrey Burbidge:
"This is ironical, since the one reason for invoking inflation was to avoid fine tuning of precisely this nature. Now it appears that inflation brought its own fine tuning to an even greater degree!"



So you don't believe that physics should ever advance? OK, unusual position. QM and many other theories appeared to be 'outside physical law' when they first came up, in fact a lot of new theories are. To constrain yourself such that you assume all existing theories must be subject to the constraints imposed by your current theories is a recipe for stagnation.
Seeing an effect and saying "It cannot be happening, let me find a way to say it isn't" is not letting the evidence lead you to the science, it is forcing the evidence to fit into your pre-conceptions about how things should be.
Interesting prospective.

Taking one of several dozen mathematical formulas with no physical roots off-of-the-wall and plugging them into the latest set of data and saying "Oh look, the data agree with this model, therefore, this model is representative of a physical reality." The statement is true. So is this statement: "Epicycles are mathematical models that agree with physical realities, and as the precision of the measurements are improved, you can always find a solution by taking another epicycle off-of-wall. We just don't have any idea which ones we will need until we get more detailed data."

Reality Check
2013-Aug-28, 12:24 AM
This topic is vast; ...
Sorry, Jerry, but you still do not understand my question. I did not ask for papers about the history and philosophy of cosmology.
I asked for the papers to provide the evidence for your assertion.

So the question remains:

Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2152206#post2152206) claim with citations, Jerry?
(asked on 2013-Aug-21)
And to make it clearer, Jerry:The citations to the current scientific literature need to involve

The size of the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
The current cosmological parameters

Reality Check
2013-Aug-28, 12:42 AM
And a couple of unsupported assertions, Jerry :D

This 'quantum patch should have left a signature in the CMB, but the anticipated power structure was missing from the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles.

Citations please, Jerry .
What is this "quantum patch"?
What is its predictions for the signature in the CMB?
What is its predictions for the anticipated power structure?
Who stated that the signature was expected to be detectable in the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles?


A work-about was found buy reintroduction of a cosmological constant; and this is consistent with current interpretations of the supernovae Ia data.

Citations please, Jerry .
When did this "quantum patch" stuff happen?
It sounds as if this happened before 1998 and required the reintroduction of a cosmological constant. But then why was the repeat of this reintroduction of a cosmological constant by the 1998 supernovae Ia data so important that the Nobel prize was given to the discovers in 2011?

Shaula
2013-Aug-28, 05:51 AM
Taking one of several dozen mathematical formulas with no physical roots off-of-the-wall and plugging them into the latest set of data and saying "Oh look, the data agree with this model, therefore, this model is representative of a physical reality." The statement is true. So is this statement: "Epicycles are mathematical models that agree with physical realities, and as the precision of the measurements are improved, you can always find a solution by taking another epicycle off-of-wall. We just don't have any idea which ones we will need until we get more detailed data."
Except that the model is not a shot in the dark, it has physical mechanisms behind. Some of the causes are not known but are constrained. So the first part is wrong. And there are two counters to the second part - principle of parsimony and the fact that there is no other model that even gets close to the predictive power of the current one. But we have had this argument time and time again. You have a much, much lower standard of proof for things that you like than you apply to your own ideas and those of people you agree with. So I am not going to bother trying to meet the impossibly high standards you will insist on for a physics theory that you think works.

Jerry
2013-Aug-28, 02:48 PM
And a couple of unsupported assertions, Jerry :D

Citations please, Jerry .
What is this "quantum patch"?
What is its predictions for the signature in the CMB?
What is its predictions for the anticipated power structure?
Who stated that the signature was expected to be detectable in the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles?


Citations please, Jerry .
When did this "quantum patch" stuff happen?
It sounds as if this happened before 1998 and required the reintroduction of a cosmological constant. But then why was the repeat of this reintroduction of a cosmological constant by the 1998 supernovae Ia data so important that the Nobel prize was given to the discovers in 2011?
Here is an article summarizing:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/01darkmatter/

In March, when the Boomerang results were announced, many cosmologists publicly rejoiced that the position of the first peak in the power spectrum of the microwave background indicated the universe was "flat," a key prediction of inflation, one of the central tenets of modern cosmology. However, cosmologists were puzzled by the small amplitude of the second peak relative to the first because it didn't fit what they expected to see based on another key tenet, the theory of cold dark matter...
Stacy had a graph, showing the predicted power structure and the WMAP and Boomerang results on his U of Maryland website, but I don't know if it survived his move to Case Western.

More...when there is time.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-28, 08:44 PM
Here is an article summarizing:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/01darkmatter/

Do you think a news article is a scientific paper, Jerry :D ?
It is a tiny bit wrong with

In March, when the Boomerang results were announced, many cosmologists publicly rejoiced that the position of the first peak in the power spectrum of the microwave background indicated the universe was "flat," a key prediction of inflation, one of the central tenets of modern cosmology.
A flat universe was a reason that inflation was proposed. That is a post-diction not a prediction.

You need to read what you wrote, Jerry, which was that "the anticipated power structure was missing from the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles".
The news article is stating that the anticipated power structure supporting a flat universe and thus inflation (presumably your "quantum patch") was found in the Boomerang data.
What was not found (but was found in the WMAP data) was support for the existence of dark matter.

However, cosmologists were puzzled by the small amplitude of the second peak relative to the first because it didn't fit what they expected to see based on another key tenet, the theory of cold dark matter.

Jerry, you missed out an easy question to answer in my post (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2153414#post2153414): What is this "quantum patch"?

Hlafordlaes
2013-Aug-28, 10:26 PM
Inflationary paradigm in trouble after Planck2013
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.2785

Three new issues that cause tension:

A new initial conditions problem
A multiverse unpredictability problem
A new “unlikelyness” problem

Because of an energy scale factor issue of a trillion, the universe already had to be very smooth before inflation can begin to make it smoother.

It is suggested that possibly it might be time to consider alternative paradigms.

Thanks for the summary ~ contains about the sum total of what I could glean as a layman.

As I understand it, inflation is needed to get from a too-large stage down to a posited dense energy state within an assumed/required(?) time frame. If inflation as an event/process were to become unsupported, does this mean (a) estimates of the age of the universe need to increase, or (b) there is no way to "get back to" the dense energy state "from here."

Sorry if I'm way off, guys, just trying to deal with this stuff.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-28, 11:23 PM
As I understand it, inflation is needed to get from a too-large stage down to a posited dense energy state within an assumed/required(?) time frame. If inflation as an event/process were to become unsupported, does this mean (a) estimates of the age of the universe need to increase, or (b) there is no way to "get back to" the dense energy state "from here."
The measured age of the universe does not depend on the existence of an inflationary epoch.
It is more exact to say that if an inflationary epoch existed then that has to be regarded as the start of the Big Bang because it effectively hides everything from us. The end of the inflationary epoch is when time becomes meaningful in inflationary cosmology. But the figure of 10-32 seconds "after the Big Bang" is quoted as the value for non-inflationary cosmology. Thus removing the inflationary epoch would have no effect on the age of the universe.

If the universe were to collapse (unlikely given what we know currently) then we could get back to a dense energy state.

Cougar
2013-Aug-28, 11:24 PM
As I understand it, inflation is needed to get from a too-large stage down to a posited dense energy state within an assumed/required(?) time frame. If inflation as an event/process were to become unsupported, does this mean (a) estimates of the age of the universe need to increase...

The Universe's age is constrained to about 13.8 billion years +/- 2% by about five different, independent methods! It might get narrowed down, but it's not going to be changing by much.

As we look in opposite directions of the sky, we notice that, naively, there is not enough time in the universe for the farthest objects in each direction to get so far apart! Traveling at the speed of light, they'd need at least 24 billion years. That's why we need a sudden burst of superluminal inflation early within the first nanosecond of the Universe.

Edit to add: Now that I look at this again, this doesn't seem right, since the most distant objects are also the most far back in time, when the Universe was much smaller. At that point in time, the objects we're seeing now that seem so far apart, were not that far apart. I guess I'll have to stick the figures into a cosmological calculator, but apparently the Universe was not old enough at that time for objects to be as far apart as they were.... Hence the need for an inflationary epoch.

Hlafordlaes
2013-Aug-29, 01:30 AM
The Universe's age is constrained to about 13.8 billion years +/- 2% by about five different, independent methods! It might get narrowed down, but it's not going to be changing by much.

As we look in opposite directions of the sky, we notice that, naively, there is not enough time in the universe for the farthest objects in each direction to get so far apart! Traveling at the speed of light, they'd need at least 24 billion years. That's why we need a sudden burst of superluminal inflation early within the first nanosecond of the Universe.

Ok, so it doesn't affect the age but for infinitesimally, yet was superluminal for that briefest of times. So not due to its duration, but to the missing superluminal juice, there is a 'size' or distance gap of important proportions were inflation to be in question, no? However, what seems to be at stake is that the formula for the juice turns out to be distasteful, even if the juice tastes good and works.

(Long hard shift today, folks, sorry if waning a bit.)

Reality Check
2013-Aug-29, 01:38 AM
You are definitely "waning" since the post does not make much sense.
But if we remove the inflation epoch we gen back to the old working non-inflationary cosmology. There would be no gap. There definitely is no juice (coolaid or otherwise) :)!

Cougar
2013-Aug-29, 01:42 AM
But if we remove the inflation epoch....

I had some second thoughts and added an edit to my previous post. Is that correct?

Hlafordlaes
2013-Aug-29, 01:44 AM
You are definitely "waning" since the post does not make much sense.
But if we remove the inflation epoch we gen back to the old working non-inflationary cosmology. There would be no gap. There definitely is no juice (coolaid or otherwise) :)!

No, not coolaid. What you got there is what remained metaphorically of having read about the unlikeliness problem, in that the candidate solution (formula) appears to still work, but is a lesser or least favored option in the paradigm (juice) that entails it.

borman
2013-Aug-29, 02:04 AM
Steinhardt was one of the three original inflationists along with Linde and Guth. Guth stayed mainline while Linde explored multiverses and Steinhardt explored a Cyclic Ekpyrotic universe. After this paper he finds his cyclic theory remains viable in light of Plank2013. Difficult issues remain with the Guth and Linde approaches. In the diagrams there are the red plateau part of the graph with inflation on the right side. The guess is about what is on the left side of the plateau.

It should be noted that an a priori assumption with these graphs is that classical physics as we know it is valid on both sides of the plateau.

The cyclic idea only temporarily side steps the chicken and egg problem of how it started. It resembles a Hoyle like approach of an indefintely old universe that keeps cycling and did not have a begining. If there is a first start to the cyclic universe, then even here the problem of the left side of the graph has to be faced.

With these difficulties, one may begin to consider alternatives. Presently, the one I find initially of interest is that classical physics was not in operation at this time but only quantum mechanics without superselection, no collapse to a classical result, no measurement problem. The universe may have been in this pure quantum state for an indefintive amount of time measured by classical standards. So the plateau state may have had a very long time to evolve as per the finding of the paper. The universe age we measure to be around 13+ billion years is then only from the emergence of classical physics and classical time. Understand this is not the mainstream view where classical mechanics is in play prior to inflation.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-29, 05:02 AM
What you got there is what remained metaphorically of having read about the unlikeliness problem, in that the candidate solution (formula) appears to still work, but is a lesser or least favored option in the paradigm (juice) that entails it.
You may want to try to explain that statement better after a good nights sleep, Hlafordlaes.
It sounds like the obvious:
* Inflationary cosmology works.
* Non-inflationary cosmology still works but cannot explain as much as when inflation is added.

Hlafordlaes
2013-Aug-29, 09:44 AM
Thanks, RC. Just got a good night's. Had been working 20 hour days for a while, and when the workload finally lifted, wanted to try to get back to this stuff, only I should have waited.

Just reviewed motivations for inflation, such as providing the causal contact needed for observed homogeneity/isotropy, and in initial motivation at least, solve some fine tuning issues. (Never was intended for use as a way to explain any mismatch between the observable size and age of the universe, so there is no gap to explain in that sense as I was musing in my sleep.) Shall now continue to bone up; not interested in coolaid, have no fear.

Jerry
2013-Aug-29, 08:04 PM
Do you think a news article is a scientific paper, Jerry :D ?
Didn't have time to locate the paper - but you can get to it from the article.


You need to read what you wrote, Jerry, which was that "the anticipated power structure was missing from the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles".
The news article is stating that the anticipated power structure supporting a flat universe and thus inflation (presumably your "quantum patch") was found in the Boomerang data.
What was not found (but was found in the WMAP data) was support for the existence of dark matter.
The dark matter signature within the CMB was a critical part of the inflationary scenario. Remember, the CMB (in theory), is uniform because all of the observable universe was create at the same time as the background, and the Nobel Prize-winning theory connecting the CMB with the steps involved in baryon synthesis that is based upon known physics. Searching for the clues of inflation in the CMB required a 'slowing' pulse to ground the theory - to tie it to existing laws; and a 'refraction' of this event in the CMB would have provided the necessary physical link. WMap avoided this dilemma by adding yet another feature, the slow-rolling out of dark energy. A patch on a patch.

I get nervous when forms of inflation are factored in that ignore the requirements of known physics, because they denigrate the work tying the CMB to the synthesis. It is the "We know what happened first, know what happened last, but we have to use magic to explain what happened in between" that bothers me. As soon as you add that magic step, the first step is decoupled from the end result. The 'magic step is just as likely to have created the CMB as the first step; and since (as you pointed out) the Lithium numbers are wrong, the link between the synthesis theory and the CMB is tenuous at best.

If it is possible to defend a creation-based cosmology without an inflationary phase (and I think is is); it is better to do so than it is to add another turtle to the pile.

Reality Check
2013-Aug-30, 02:19 AM
Didn't have time to locate the paper - but you can get to it from the article.

I did. Nothing in it mentions a "quantum patch".



The dark matter signature within the CMB was a critical part of the inflationary scenario.
...snipped irrelevant stuff...

Another citation needed, Jerry!
Please cite the literature where the inflationary scenario alone makes predictions about dark matter.
Still waiting for actual answers to the following from 28 August 2013:

And a couple of unsupported assertions, Jerry :D
....
Citations please, Jerry .
What is this "quantum patch"?
What is its predictions for the signature in the CMB?
What is its predictions for the anticipated power structure?
Who stated that the signature was expected to be detectable in the Balloon and WMAP CMB profiles?
....
Citations please, Jerry .
When did this "quantum patch" stuff happen?
It sounds as if this happened before 1998 and required the reintroduction of a cosmological constant. But then why was the repeat of this reintroduction of a cosmological constant by the 1998 supernovae Ia data so important that the Nobel prize was given to the discovers in 2011?

Start by answering the simplest question: Jerry: What do you mean by "quantum patch"?

Wow, Jerry - the rather ignorant complaint that science progresses by improving its models by adding "A patch on a patch" :doh:!

I get nervous about the ignorance of thinking that a theory based on the requirements of known physics is not based on the requirements of known physics!
You need to learn at least the history of inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)) (created using known physics to explain known physics and tested successfully using known physics :D).
It looks like Shaula has more experience with your probably imaginary and impossibly high standards for science:

Except that the model is not a shot in the dark, it has physical mechanisms behind. Some of the causes are not known but are constrained. So the first part is wrong. And there are two counters to the second part - principle of parsimony and the fact that there is no other model that even gets close to the predictive power of the current one. But we have had this argument time and time again. You have a much, much lower standard of proof for things that you like than you apply to your own ideas and those of people you agree with. So I am not going to bother trying to meet the impossibly high standards you will insist on for a physics theory that you think works.

Jerry
2013-Sep-04, 03:23 PM
... Start by answering the simplest question: Jerry: What do you mean by "quantum patch"?


Another citation needed, Jerry!
Please cite the literature where the inflationary scenario alone makes predictions about dark matter.
Sorry, but you are making my main point: Inflation cosmology doesn't make any predictions about anything. It is a moving goal that is set up after the data are gathered and erected when the evidentuary ball sails above the cross-member. The simplest question, is what kind of evidence could force a 'rethinking of how the universe began'?

Removing the constraints that were built around the WMAP 3 results doesn't seem to bother anyone. Neither does high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra. Not the lithium abundance, not the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, not the fact that no extrapolation supported by evidence can be made to a time of the synthesis that does not include a formation of structure before the synthesis occurred.

No, initially, the concept of inflation did not include a dark matter signature; but to explain the structure we have observed (since the conception of inflation) within a inflationary context, there should be a dark matter signature. Otherwise, dark matter is 'pass through' structure that existed before we could use our physics to define structure. And once you open that can-of-worms; there is no need for an inflationary moment; because giving dark matter a pass is opening a parametric flood gate, and anything else structural can stagger through the inflationary period.

This is what these authors have been pointing out: There is too much structure for all galaxy cluster structure to have formed after the synthesis. Structure which formed during an inflationary period should leave evidence in the CMB; and as near as we can tell, this necessary signature is not complete (or we do not understand it). Therefore, whether a period definable as inflation actually occurred is a moot point: The evidence, at this time, does not tell us there was a definable epic when there was not structure, and we are stuck with turtles - all the way down.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-09, 02:43 AM
Sorry, but you are making my main point:

Sorry but you need to understand the concept of answering questions first before displaying your ignorance, Jerry :doh:!
The question is:

Start by answering the simplest question: Jerry: What do you mean by "quantum patch"?


Your ignorance looks like everything to do with inflation cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status)! There are predictions and some have been verified. This entire thread is about predictions from inflation cosmology and how the 2013 Planck results and these predictions test the validity of the various theories.

That is compounded by ignorance about the scientific process where theories are adjusted as more data comes in, e.g. the Big Bang model added dark matter and dark energy to become the Lambda-CDM model. It does not require the use of time machines to look into the future as you seem to demand :rolleyes:!
ETA: But seriously, Jerry, do you think that the authors of the initial BB theory in the 1920's should have magically known about dark matter and included it?

Reality Check
2013-Sep-09, 02:54 AM
This is what these authors have been pointing out: There is too much structure for all galaxy cluster structure to have formed after the synthesis.
Sorry, Jerry, but you seem to be lying about what "these" authors stated since I recall no authors that you have cited who mention anything about galaxy clusters.
But maybe it has to do with:

So the question remains:

Can you back up your "size and the amount of structure ... are several magnitudes too small" (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?p=2152206#post2152206) claim with citations, Jerry?
(asked on 2013-Aug-21)
And to make it clearer, Jerry:The citations to the current scientific literature need to involve

The size of the universe
The large scale structure of the universe
The current cosmological parameters


Add in the criteria of the current scientific literature about galaxy clusters.
2013-Aug-21 - 19 days and counting

Reality Check
2013-Sep-09, 03:22 AM
The simplest question, is what kind of evidence could force a 'rethinking of how the universe began'?

The simplest answer is one you should know, Jerry - an set of observations (not just one) that makes the Lambda-CDM model not work.
None of the things you mention really effect the Lambda-CDM model.

And yet more unsupported assertions, Jerry.


Removing the constraints that were built around the WMAP 3 results doesn't seem to bother anyone

What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed? When? Are they in the WMAP 7 redutls? What about the WMP 9 results? What about Plank 2013 results?
Asked on 9 September 2013.


Neither does high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra.

Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models.
Asked on 9 September 2013.



Not the lithium abundance

Not a problem for the Lambda-CDM model. It is a problem for the models of the productions of lithium in stars.



not the spots in space that are colder than the CMB,

Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.
Asked on 9 September 2013


not the fact that no extrapolation supported by evidence can be made to a time of the synthesis that does not include a formation of structure before the synthesis occurred.

There is the problem that this reads like gibberish!
"synthesis" in this context generally refers to Big Bang nucleosynthesis which is nothing to do with the formation of structure. The inflationary variation of structure that formed the seed for large scale structures happened well before Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Jerry
2013-Sep-10, 06:29 PM
The simplest answer is one you should know, Jerry - an set of observations (not just one) that makes the Lambda-CDM model not work.
None of the things you mention really effect the Lambda-CDM model.
Again, making my point that the Lambda model gets a pass on what should be really difficult stuff.


Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models.
Just as the current version of inflation pushes structure formation to an unobservable platform, metallicity is pushed back in time to a period of Pop III stars, the sole evidence of which is the metallicity which would require more time that Lambda allows, if observed phenomenon (supernova) are held responsible. It is curious that a cosmos-wide event (pop III stars) that involves major magnetic field braking left no evidence in the CMB.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.2754.pdf


What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed? When? Are they in the WMAP 7 redutls? What about the WMP 9 results? What about Plank 2013 results?WMAP set up a proportional relationship between DM/DE that was adjusted outside of the final WMAP error bars. As I said, this doesn't bother me, but the tightness of error bars did. By setting such tight constraints, WMAP Scientists essentially said 'these are the constraints everyone has to work with'.

Wmap 9 and supernova:

04.628±0.093% Baryons
24.02+00.88% Dark Matter
71.35+0.96% Dark Energy

Planck:
4.9 percent normal matter
26.8 percent dark matter
68.3 percent dark energy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_i s_13_82_billion_years.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe


Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.The uniform temperature of the CMB (in Lamba) is THE evidence that the current universe started on the click of a stop watch, so to speak. (A staggered start would lead to more variation in temperature.) Cold spots would make the initial event less uniform; and in any case would be more indicative of fluctuating or cycling models. http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4360

Progress is being made. Releasing Planck data while tension exists between methods is an exciting step. There is internal tension in the supernova distance scaling and gamma ray burst data as well. There is a lot of room for improvement.

Shaula
2013-Sep-10, 07:37 PM
You didn't put any error bars on the Planck measurements. How can you claim tension without them?

Jerry
2013-Sep-10, 09:03 PM
You didn't put any error bars on the Planck measurements. How can you claim tension without them?

The estimates are outside of the WMAPs limits, so there is implied tension - to accept the Planck values you have to expand the WMAP limits.

As the BA states:
And that range includes 13.82 billion years. It’s at the high end, but that’s not a big deal. It’s completely consistent with the older estimate, but Planck’s measurements are considered to be more accurate. It will become the new benchmark for astronomers. Phil is talking about the age, not the the mass proportions, and it is in the baryon/dark stuff ratios that the tension resides, because the 'more accurate' Planck values fall outside of the WMAP and supernova limits.

As I have mentioned before, the internal tension in the supernova data are pushing the supernova hubble values in the opposite direction.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-11, 01:43 AM
Again, making my point that the Lambda model gets a pass on what should be really difficult stuff.

Nothing to do with your unsupported assertion that the Lambda-CDM model gets a pass on what should be really difficult stuff.
The simplest answer is one you should know, Jerry, because it is the answer for any scientific model! A set of observations (not just one) that makes the model not work.
For the Lambda-CDM model there is even a single observation that would invalidate it - a distant galaxy (e.g. > 10 billion light years) that is blue-shifted.



Just as the current version of inflation pushes structure formation to an unobservable platform,

Just as you keep on repeating this unsupported assertion and other unsupported assertions, it becomes more likely that they are not real!
Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (21 days and counting!) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155098#post2155098)
Jerry: Questions from 28 August 2013 (14 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155097#post2155097)

My question was:
Jerry: What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
along with the ignored questions:
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models.
Asked on 9 September 2013.
Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.
Asked on 9 September 2013

And I get no actual answer about WMAP 3 What I got was:


WMAP set up a proportional relationship between DM/DE that was adjusted outside of the final WMAP error bars. As I said, this doesn't bother me, but the tightness of error bars did. By setting such tight constraints, WMAP Scientists essentially said 'these are the constraints everyone has to work with'.

Sorry, Jerry, but this looks like an expression of ignorance about what was done with the WMAP data and what scientists do with data.
The various releases of WMAP data (3 years , 5 years, 7 years, 9 years worth of data) were combined with various other datasets and fitted to various models.
If you select one model and one set of data , e.g. WMAP X and supernova. then you expect to get more accurate parameters as you get more WMAP data (releases for N = 3, 5, 7, 9). This is what happens in all observations in science - more data = more accurate results.
Anyone who understands this concept will know that the WMAP 9 results will have smaller error bars than the WMAP 3 results for the simple reason that there is more data. i.e. 9 years of data rather then 3 years of data!

Blindly citing a blog post and Wikipedia is not wise, Jerry. You have no idea whether the numbers in the two sources are compatible, e.g. they may be for different models.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-11, 01:58 AM
The estimates are outside of the WMAPs limits,

What there is is implied cherry picking. You have selected one set of WMAP 9 results (there are dozens of them) and are trying to tell us that these have to be duplicated by the Planck 2013 results.
To accept the Planck values, you have to look at how the Planck 2013 data was fitted to the models.
To compare the Planck values, you have to find the comparable WMAP 9 results.
To think that there is "tension" between the results you have to find the scientific literature where the Plank results are doubted because of the WMAP results.


As the BA states: Phil is talking about the age, ...
Yes, Jerry, as the BA states: Phil is talking about the age of the universe in a post titled The Universe Is 13.82 Billion Years Old (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_i s_13_82_billion_years.html). Well duh :D.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-11, 02:23 AM
Oh dear Jerry, I inadvertently did your research for you but you will not like this pre-print about the tension between the WMAP 9 and Plank 2013 results because there is none (statistically) :D!
Test of Consistency between Planck and WMAP (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2911)

Within the context of the concordance model of cosmology, the spatially flat \Lambda CDM Universe with power-law form of the primordial spectrum, we test the consistency of the data from WMAP and Planck CMB experiments looking for possible systematics. The best fit concordance model to each experiment is used as a mean function along with a Crossing function with an orthogonal basis to fit the data from the other experiment searching for any possible deviation. This method has been proposed and applied before on other data sets in the context of Crossing statistic. We report that allowing overall amplitude shift in the observed angular power spectra of the two experiments, the best fit mean function from Planck data is very well consistent to WMAP 9 year data but the best fit mean function generated from WMAP-9 data is not consistent with Planck data at 3\sigma level. This is an expected result when there is no clear systematic/tension between two experiments and one of them has a considerably higher precision. We conclude that there is no clear tension between Planck and WMAP 9 year data from statistical point of view (allowing the overall amplitude shift) while the precision of the Planck data is significantly higher than WMAP 9 year data. Our results highlights the fact that while the derived angular power spectrum from CMB experiments are function of various cosmological parameters, comparing individual parameters might be misleading in the presence of cosmographic degeneracies. Another main result of our analysis is about the importance of the overall amplitudes of the observed spectra from Planck and WMAP experiments since fixing the amplitudes at their reported values results to an unresolvable tension between the two experiments at more than 3\sigma level which can be a hint towards a serious systematic.
My emphasis for the no tension between data.
Note the unresolvable tension when the step of "fixing the amplitudes at their reported values" is taken. The discussion in the pre-print includes "This is an important issue to be resolved that why the overall amplitude of the WMAP 9 year and Planck data are so different.".

Shaula
2013-Sep-11, 05:50 AM
The estimates are outside of the WMAPs limits, so there is implied tension - to accept the Planck values you have to expand the WMAP limits.
Not without error bars they are not. Not without making sure they are using the same set of assumptions. Plus - what do those error bars mean? Are they the 3 sigma? 5? 1?

The numbers as presented are in no way shape or form enough to justify your statements. Yet agin you are picking the results that fit your aim, misrepresenting or badly presenting them and drawing unwarranted conclusions from them.

This is how shabby your citation strategy is: You have cited Wikipedia for WMAP and gone on about the tight error bars and how they rule out other results. On the Wikipedia page you linked to those sections are marked as requiring a citation. Yup that is right. Your citation is to an unreferenced part of Wikipedia. You have never shown that you go into these sources with anything more than a desire to harvest selective quotes that can be used to support your goal. This is why I don't argue with you much. It is pointless, you are not anything close to rigorous or careful and I end up having to check all of your sources. When they prove to be misrepresented, weak or unreviewed you just skip over that and present a new one. It is exhausting and a waste of my time.

Jerry
2013-Sep-11, 05:10 PM
Oh dear Jerry, I inadvertently did your research for you but you will not like this pre-print about the tension between the WMAP 9 and Plank 2013 results because there is none (statistically) !
Test of Consistency between Planck and WMAP...

My emphasis for the no tension between data.
Note the unresolvable tension when the step of "fixing the amplitudes at their reported values" is taken. The discussion in the pre-print includes "This is an important issue to be resolved that why the overall amplitude of the WMAP 9 year and Planck data are so different."
...And once again, you are demonstrating my point: The authors are saying that even though the Planck data (and Planck error bars) fall outside of WMAP error bars, we can raise our heads high and say 'no problemo'.

Yes, when you homogenize data sets you can move the error bars, but this is a red-faced approach. But you can't publish data with wider error bars and say in the text that the data is 'more precise'! Tighter error bars are the definition of more precise. What you can say the data is more accurate, and you can say with confidence that the WMAP data is less precise, less constraining than previously published numbers, and the error bars have been moved. No problemo!




Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (19 days and counting!)
Here is a good one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4201v2.pdf
Ok, this is in regards the formation of Population III stars - the point being that these are still 'place holders' in the formation data that are necessary because otherwise there is tension between the high metal content in the ΛCDM universe.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4201v2.pdf][/url]
The ΛCDM universe in which galaxies begin their evolution with primordial abundances, Population III must have formed at some point. Still, their observational signatures and evidence for their existence is still elusive. (The only hints so far are from extremely metal-poor stars in the Milky Way’s halo.)
It is a pretty grim extrapolation, to gaze out there and say the only hint of evidence of pre-Pop III stars is found in our galactic halo. It is easy to say that without the Pop III population, which we have been searching for for decades, (and some authors now insist reside beyond a permanent horizon), that there is tension between the metallicity of the early universe and ΛCDM. Or you can say 'No problemo!'

Reality Check
2013-Sep-11, 11:23 PM
...And once again, you are demonstrating my point: ...

And once again you are not reading the literature or even what I quote, Jerry.
The authors are saying that the Planck data and WMAP data are consistent but there is a problem.


Yes, when you homogenize data sets you can move the error bars, but this is a red-faced approach.

Actually when you gather more data from a single experiment (like WMAP) you expect that the results get more accurate because you have more data. The analysis of the bigger datasets confirms this. That is the science-based approach.
When you "homogenize" data sets from different experiments then things get more complex. In general you expect to get larger error bars since each experiment will have its own systematic errors, e.g. different instruments, different baselines used.

It looks like you have the idea that the error bars in the WMAP data were just made up arbitrarily, Jerry. But they are calculated exactly as you want them to be calculated - from the data. What we can say is there is more data with each WMAP release, and we can say with confidence that the WMAP data is more precise because the error bars get smaller with each release, more constraining than previously published numbers, and the error bars have been reduced. No problem with this undergraduate level physics, Jerry!





Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (19 days and counting!)

Here is a good one: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.4201v2.pdf
Ok, this is in regards the formation of Population III stars

Ok, you still cannot understand what you asserted or my question about the assertion, Jerry. Unless you think stars are the large scale structure of the universe :rolleyes:!

Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (22 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155098#post2155098)
Jerry: Questions from 28 August 2013 (14 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155097#post2155097)

You still have not answered the following with the citations to the literature:
Jerry: What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Unless this is the trivial: they collected more data and found that the error bars reduced. Wow - undergraduate-level or even college science!

More ignored questions from that post:
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models.
Asked on 9 September 2013.
Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.
Asked on 9 September 2013.

Jerry
2013-Sep-11, 11:58 PM
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models.
Asked on 9 September 2013.I posted a paper that points out there is no evidence (yet) of Pop III stars. None. A model that requires a phenomena that is not observed is speculative at best - . Connect the dots: We have the high iron spectra, we do not have the pop III stars. As long as deeper probes into the universe to not reveal how this high iron content appeared so early, Pop III stars are as real as sasquatch. And don't tell me they exist because without them, the model doesn't work! That is my point.


Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.
Asked on 9 September 2013.http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4360 ALMA Observations of the Coldest Place in the Universe: The Boomerang Nebula

Reality Check
2013-Sep-12, 12:17 AM
I posted a paper ...
that has nothing to do with your assertion or my question about it:
Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (22 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155098#post2155098)

You post a paper that is doubly irrelevant: about a single nebula (not your assertion of cold spots (plural)), and no mention of this being a problem with the Lambda-CDM model or any other cosmological issue. So the question remains:


Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem.
Asked on 9 September 2013 (3 days and counting).

And yes, Jerry - I do know that there are nebula whose temperature is lower than the CMB. But the question is about your assertion of cold spots in the universe that have cosmological implications, i.e. to the Lambda-CDM model.

Jerry
2013-Sep-12, 12:28 AM
Colder than the CMB could be a problem because the CMB is supposed to be the signature of a moment when matter was created by a well-modeled process that emitted radiation in a specific frequency range. The age of the universe is the time it took this event to cool to the current temperature of the CMB. Cold spots could be a problem if you assume the CMB is a uniform background. So why are there cold spots? The paper says adiabatic expansion. So what kind of expansion created the CMB if not uniform, adiabatic expansion? I guess all adiabatic expansions are not equal.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-12, 01:49 AM
Cold spots could be a problem if you assume the CMB is a uniform background.

Yes there would be a problem if there were cosmological scale cold spots. Thus my question for you:
Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013 (3 days and counting).


So why are there cold spots? The paper says adiabatic expansion.

You have presented no evidence that these cosmologically significant "cold spots" exist.
You answer your own question: there are nebula that are cold because of adiabatic expansion.



So what kind of expansion created the CMB if not uniform, adiabatic expansion? I guess all adiabatic expansions are not equal.
You would be wrong, Jerry:
The expansion of the CMB was adiabatic. Thus the CMB cooled.
The expansion of the nebula was adiabatic. Thus the nebula cooled.
So they are both cooling caused by adiabatic expansions. They are "equal".

They are also different adiabatic expansions. The CMB is a cosmological scale gas of photons. A nebula is a "tiny wee" blob of gas molecules. That a nebula is cool does not mean that the CMB has to be cooler or vice versa :doh:!

P.S. It is amazing that you are not aware of the actual cosmologically significant "cold spot", Jerry.

Shaula
2013-Sep-12, 06:20 AM
The authors are saying that even though the Planck data (and Planck error bars) fall outside of WMAP error bars, we can raise our heads high and say 'no problemo'.
Because that was the likely result given the higher precision of one. And because you can use fundamental statistics to show that this is the case. In fact you can conceptualise this trivially. Take any RGB image and smooth it repeatedly. Work out a spectral median for it and an SD. You get a median and a low SD. Then do this for the full res version. The artificially low SD of the low res one means that there is every chance that the median + 3 sigma ranges do not overlap.

But of course "All your models belong to fail" and we are just hiding from the truth is the conclusion you leapt to based on one sentence. Again.

Jerry
2013-Sep-12, 01:32 PM
Shaula,
The Planck values are outside of the confidence limits of the WMAP data. It doesn't mean WMap failed, it means the confidence placed in the data was overly optimistic.

Whenever observations fall outside of expected or predicted values, it is time to rethink; and that means revisiting all assumptions. Pop III stars are an assumed commodity. So are gravitational waves. So is the hard relationship between redshift and recessional velocity. Think about that.

Jerry
2013-Sep-12, 01:51 PM
Yes there would be a problem if there were cosmological scale cold spots. Thus my question for you:
Please list the spots in space that are colder than the CMB, Jerry, and state why they are a problem. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013 (3 days and counting).


What I stated, is that there are places in space that are cooler than the CMB. It is a problem, because when the gases from your car engine expand into the atmosphere, they cool only to the temperature of the ambient air, and no further. If a nebula, or anything else, is expanding in a region bounded by the CMB, the lowest temperature reached by adiabatic gas expansion will not fall below the CMB. Nebula set up a gravitational gradient that allows additional cooling; but that is gravitational, not purely adiabatic.

My question, by the way, was mostly rhetorical: If tension in the model does not lead to a 'rethinking'; what possibly could? Failure of gravitational wave detectors? No evidence of Pop III stars? Mature galaxies in our most distant observations? Evidence there is an uncorrected Malmquist bias in current counts of quasar distributions? Degenerate gamma ray burst profiles? What does it take?

And you mostly answered my question by stating a single, deeply blueshifted galaxy would work. That is a good answer.

Shaula
2013-Sep-12, 03:57 PM
Shaula,
The Planck values are outside of the confidence limits of the WMAP data. It doesn't mean WMap failed, it means the confidence placed in the data was overly optimistic.

Whenever observations fall outside of expected or predicted values, it is time to rethink; and that means revisiting all assumptions. Pop III stars are an assumed commodity. So are gravitational waves. So is the hard relationship between redshift and recessional velocity. Think about that.
Nope. You seem to be mistaking statistical confidence intervals for some absolute measure of the accuracy of a model. They are data and sampling dependent. Always have been, always will be. It is why you really need a good background in them to properly understand and use them. I have a mediocre background in them, but I understand this well enough.

Think about that? I have. And I have read material about it. And I have read the material you have provided. The balance of probability is still with the current models.


My question, by the way, was mostly rhetorical: If tension in the model does not lead to a 'rethinking'; what possibly could?
A significant disagreement of meaurements with the model. Which your imaginary tension is not.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-12, 11:49 PM
What I stated, is that there are places in space that are cooler than the CMB.

I know that you stated that and that is correct. The problem is that you have the idea that two separate processes:
* the adiabatic cooling of the CMB.
* the adiabatic cooling of nebulae.
are somehow tied together.
In the real universe, nebulae are not "bounded" by the CMB. AFAIK it is the dust in these cold nebulae that shield the interior from sources of heating such as stars and the CMB and then adiabatic cooling allows them to be cooler than stars and the CMB.
Ask yourself a couple of basic questions Jerry:

Astronomers know about the CMB. Why do they not say that the minimum temperature of nebulae must be the CMB temperature? Why are they comfortable with the measured temperatures of these cold nebulae?

So the second half of the question remains, Jerry:
Please state why the nebulae that are colder than the CMB are a problem for the Lambda-CDM model.
Asked on 9 September 2013 (4 days and counting).
This needs a discussion of the actual physics of cold nebulae rather than dubious analogies (nebulae are not surrounded by air!).

FYI, Jerry, look at Eddington's Temperature of Space (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html). The effective temperature of the interstellar radiation in the Milky Way was calculated by Eddington in 1926 to be 3.18 K. So by your logic, cold spots cause a big problem with the existence of stars :D.

P.S.
Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation (22 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155098#post2155098)

Jerry: Questions from 28 August 2013 (14 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155097#post2155097)
Start by answering the simplest question: Jerry: What do you mean by "quantum patch"?

Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013.

Jerry, can you confirm that your answer to
Jerry: What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
(asked on 9 September 2013) is that no constraints were removed?
Otherwise I need your actual answer.

Jerry
2013-Sep-16, 07:19 PM
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013.
That is just silly, and again, it makes my point: Current models include unproven conjectures. Current models use population III stars to fill the void.

The metal problem:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4995v1.pdf arXiv:1011.4995v1
Galactic chemical evolution: the observational side

The Simple Model age-metallicity relation is linear, while the MDF is logarithmic: for example, there are a thousand stars at [Fe/H]=0 for each star at
[Fe/H]=−3. The observed solar neighborhood MDF shows a deficiency in metal-poor stars compared to the Simple Model; this deficit is known as the
“G-dwarf problem”. The widely accepted explanation for the G-dwarf problem is that inflow of low-metallicity gas has occurred during the evolution of the Galactic disk,
with an exponential decay timescale of∼5 Gyr (e.g., Sommer-Larsen 1991).

Unfortunately, papers which discuss the extant and detail of the metal problem coached in such terms largely predate the internet. (Burbidge, Chamberlain and Hoyle)

The open lithium question:

The identification of the main Li source and the extent of Li depletion in the envelopes of low-mass stars remain, in our
opinion, the major open questions in the field, as far as theory is concerned; other important problems are related to the possibility of pre-galactic Li production, the extent of ν-nucleosynthesis in CCSN and the GCR properties in the merging units that formed the halo.


http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.1090v3.pdf On the physical properties of z~6-8 galaxies
Daniel Schaerer Stephane de Barros
arXiv:1202.4870
Evolutionary synthesis models as a tool and guide towards the first galaxies
\arXiv:0809.1988
Searching for Pop III stars and galaxies at high redshift
Daniel Schaerer
arXiv:1011.4624
Pop III Stellar Masses and IMF
Michael L. Norman

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0929v1.pdf arXiv:0905.0929v1
Formation of the First Stars and Galaxies

Bromm, Whalen and Yoshida have spent there entire research lives modeling what the pop III stars could be or should be; and thousands of big telescope hours have been spent trying to find the Pop III galaxies and mass functions.

But why are they so certain that the Pop III stars exist - fast breeders of elements not thought to be synthesized in ordinary stars? Because the high metallicities of galaxies deep in look-back time rule out the possibility that the population of supernova we see today created the high metal content we see. Without these theoretical stars with these theoretical properties, the universe could not have evolved within the time constraints imposed by the lambda CMB scenario.


In the likely situation in which stars more massive than 8M(solar) are born in the Pop III stellar cluster, supernovae will start to explode after a few million years. Even if the stars in the cluster are all coeval (i.e. born from the same initial burst of star formation) supernovae will explode at different times due to their mass spread. For a stellar cluster inside a Pop III with properties as the ones discussed above, we expect, for a Miller-Scalo IMF, about N= 2−20 supernovae to blow. If you read the 1998 paper, they were quite optimistic the search for pop III would be fruitful within a decade. Likewise, searches today are equally optimistic:

A second crucial observational campaign aims at a census of very high-z SNe through deep broadband near-IR imaging. One key objective
is to search for possible pair instability supernova events, which would clearly stand out owing to their extreme intrinsic brightness, as well as their very long durations,
a few years in the observer frame. The goal of making useful predictions for the high-redshift frontier is now clearly drawing within reach, and the pace of progress is likely to be rapid.
Both inflation and Pop III stars are written into theories because without them, the scale and content of the observed universe exceed the size and age constraints of the lamda model. What is fun, is that we get to see how these these models play out; especially once the James Webb telescope is deployed.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-16, 10:42 PM
That is just silly, and again, it makes my point: ...

That is really silly because it makes the point that you are not even reading what I write :eek::

I know that you stated that and that is correct. The problem is that you have the idea that two separate processes:
* the adiabatic cooling of the CMB.
* the adiabatic cooling of nebulae.
are somehow tied together.
In the real universe, nebulae are not "bounded" by the CMB. AFAIK it is the dust in these cold nebulae that shield the interior from sources of heating such as stars and the CMB and then adiabatic cooling allows them to be cooler than stars and the CMB.
Ask yourself a couple of basic questions Jerry:

Astronomers know about the CMB. Why do they not say that the minimum temperature of nebulae must be the CMB temperature? Why are they comfortable with the measured temperatures of these cold nebulae?

So the second half of the question remains, Jerry:
Please state why the nebulae that are colder than the CMB are a problem for the Lambda-CDM model.
Asked on 9 September 2013 (4 days and counting).
This needs a discussion of the actual physics of cold nebulae rather than dubious analogies (nebulae are not surrounded by air!).

The second half of the question remains, Jerry:
Please state why the nebulae that are colder than the CMB are a problem for the Lambda-CDM model.
Asked on 9 September 2013 (8 days and counting).
This needs a discussion of the actual physics of cold nebulae rather than dubious analogies (nebulae are not surrounded by air!).



The metal problem:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.4995v1.pdf arXiv:1011.4995v1
Galactic chemical evolution: the observational side

And once again an irrelevant paper which does not answer
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013 (8 days and counting).



Unfortunately, papers which discuss the extant and detail of the metal problem coached in such terms largely predate the internet. (Burbidge, Chamberlain and Hoyle)

Oh dear, Jerry - this implies that you are relying on your memory of old, probably outdated papers.
What is worse it implies that you do not know how to cite scientific papers (which does not depend on the existence of the Internet!).
Since you obviously have copies of these papers (which are not available on the Internet), can you attach them to your reply to:
Citations for the high metallicity in the most distant observable spectra and that they cannot be explained by the current models. (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
Asked on 9 September 2013 (8 days and counting).



The open lithium question:
...snipped yet more irrelevant (but generally interesting) citations...

The open lithium problem that I never asked you about, Jerry and yet another irrelevant citation (Production and evolution of Li, Be and B isotopes in the Galaxy (http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5662v2))!
I know about the actual lithium problem with BB nucleosynthesis. It is that this highly successful model does not get the Li abundance correct. But, as you must know, Jerry, this depends on accounting for the production of Li in stars.

Jerry: Where are these papers about structure formation? (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155098#post2155098)
2013-Aug-21 - 27 days and counting

Jerry: Questions from 28 August 2013 (20 days and counting) (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155097#post2155097)
Start by answering the simplest question: Jerry: What do you mean by "quantum patch"?

Jerry, can you confirm that your answer to
Jerry: What constraints that were "built around the WMAP 3 results" were removed (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?145415-Discoveries-from-Planck-may-mean-rethinking-how-the-universe-began&p=2155103#post2155103)
(asked on 9 September 2013) is that no constraints were removed?
Otherwise I need your actual answer.

Reality Check
2013-Sep-16, 10:50 PM
BTW Jerry: You would be surprised at how many older papers are on the Internet.
For example Burbidge, Geoffrey has 633 abstracts listed in ADS many of which have printable articles, e.g.
A New Catalogue of Quasi-Stellar Objects (1986) (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1986IAUS..119...51H&data_type=PDF_H IGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf)

Jerry
2013-Nov-03, 05:48 PM
Here is a paper that highlights the unresolved tension between the Planck, WMAP and SNIa data sets: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3828

Cosmological Constraints from Measurements of Type Ia Supernovae discovered during the first 1.5 years of the Pan-STARRS1 Survey


When combined with BAO+CMB(Planck)+H0, the analysis yields \Omega_M = 0.277^{+0.010}_{-0.012} and w = -1.186^{+0.076}_{-0.065} including all identified systematics, as spelled out in the companion paper by Scolnic et al. (2013a). The value of w is inconsistent with the cosmological constant value of -1 at the 2.4 sigma level. This tension has been seen in other high-z SN surveys and endures after removing either the BAO or the H0 constraint. If we include WMAP9 CMB constraints instead of those from Planck, we find w = -1.142^{+0.076}_{-0.087}, which diminishes the discord to <2 sigma. We cannot conclude whether the tension with flat CDM is a feature of dark energy, new physics, or a combination of chance and systematic errors. The full Pan-STARRS1 supernova sample will be 3 times as large as this initial sample, which should provide more conclusive results.

See also http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3824

Personally, I think the most likely reason for the discrepancies between the Planck and WMAP data sets is the lack of thermal profiling in the WMAP detectors - they did not have enough accurate thermal sensors. The WMAP team initially created algorithms to provide the necessary thermal corrections - after WMAP III, they could not find an algorithm that produced a concordant map, so they added the pixel-by-pixel thermal corrections. This correction process has the potential for creating an offset bias in the complete parametric package. In contrast, the Planck mission was able to directly measure minute changes in the detector temperatures, and did not have this degree of freedom to work with. Essentially, WMAP had an adjustable dark energy parameter and Planck did not.

It only required a slight degree of tuning to line up the knobs between WMAP, SNIa and Baryonic acoustic oscillation observations to build a concordant model that bisected all three data sets. As I have stated before, the tension between these data sets and the PLANCK observations is real and unresolved at this time.

(I have zero confidence in the BAO observations. They rely upon our ability to measure very small differences in spectral energies at very great distances; and I don't think the required accuracy is there to build real constraints.)

Reality Check
2013-Nov-04, 11:58 PM
Here is a paper that highlights the unresolved tension between the Planck, WMAP and SNIa data sets:

Wow - do you really expect such different instruments (Planck, WMAP and Pan-STARRS1) to give identical results, Jerry?
Of course there is "tension" between the datasets - they are from radically different instruments!
Strangely Cosmological Constraints from Measurements of Type Ia Supernovae discovered during the first 1.5 years of the Pan-STARRS1 Survey (http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3828) does not talk about tensions between the datasets. The abstract talks about tension between calculated values of w and the flat Lambda-CDM value of w = -1.
Using their data, they get a w that includes -1.
Adding BAO+Planck+H0, they get a w that excludes -1.
Adding WMAP9 instead of Planck, they get a better w that still excludes -1.
Other SN surveys get w around -1.
The unresolved question is whether this stems from systematic errors, a feature of dark energy or new physics.



(I have zero confidence in the BAO observations. They rely upon our ability to measure very small differences in spectral energies at very great distances; and I don't think the required accuracy is there to build real constraints.)
This looks like a personal opinion rather than an evidence-based assertion but:
What is the required accuracy, Jerry?
What is your evidence that astronomers "ability to measure very small differences in spectral energies at very great distances" does not met this required accuracy, Jerry?

Jerry
2013-Nov-13, 05:51 PM
Wow - do you really expect such different instruments (Planck, WMAP and Pan-STARRS1) to give identical results, Jerry?
Of course there is "tension" between the datasets - they are from radically different instruments!
Strangely Cosmological Constraints from Measurements of Type Ia Supernovae discovered during the first 1.5 years of the Pan-STARRS1 Survey (http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3828) does not talk about tensions between the datasets. The abstract talks about tension between calculated values of w and the flat Lambda-CDM value of w = -1.
Using their data, they get a w that includes -1.
Adding BAO+Planck+H0, they get a w that excludes -1.
Adding WMAP9 instead of Planck, they get a better w that still excludes -1.
Other SN surveys get w around -1.
The unresolved question is whether this stems from systematic errors, a feature of dark energy or new physics.


This looks like a personal opinion rather than an evidence-based assertion but:
What is the required accuracy, Jerry?
What is your evidence that astronomers "ability to measure very small differences in spectral energies at very great distances" does not met this required accuracy, Jerry?
Good question - it is personal opinion, but look at the Dicke effect and the Wilson effect: The Dicke effect is a peak narrowing, the statistical results of molecular collisions. The Wilson effect is just opposite and a little more intuitive: more massive (and brighter) objects have broader peaks. Together the effects are degenerative; and they limit the precision at which the peak width can be used to predict the magnitude and/or distance to local stars. We should anticipate similar effects on the peaks of distant observations. There is another, related complication when studying highly red-shifted events - Lyman forest drop-out. There is also amplification of certain wavelengths due to meta-stable states; and in a redshifted environment, it is impossible to predict the net effect on peak distributions. BAO studies use fairly simple models, and as we all know, there is no way to test whether or not simple models are valid; models which ignore a wide variety of physical mechanisms that can either broaden or narrow spectra.

Amber Robot
2013-Nov-13, 07:54 PM
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4360 ALMA Observations of the Coldest Place in the Universe: The Boomerang Nebula

Going to this paper is a bit of a diversion from a discussion on cosmology. This paper refers to earlier work by Sahai & Nyman (1997), in which CO absorption was found against the CMB, indicating some gas that is "colder than the CMB". That paper, which refers to an earlier theoretical work predicting this effect (Sahai 1990), states the following:


The required conditions are that the mass-loss rate,
dM/dt, be high enough to keep the CO (1–0) line optically thick
in the outer regions of the envelope, and cooling by adiabatic
expansion be sufficient to drive Tkin, the gas kinetic temperature,
below Tbb. The high opacity of the (1–0) line then prevents
radiative excitation by the microwave background, and collisional
excitation forces Tex(1–0) toward Tkin.

This is a very specific, peculiar scenario occurring in circumstellar outflows and has no bearing on cosmology.

Jerry
2013-Nov-14, 03:58 AM
This is a very specific, peculiar scenario occurring in circumstellar outflows and has no bearing on cosmology.

The point I was making in the post is that temperature is a highly localized effect. One of the evidences cited by Wright of the BBT is that gas temperatures have been measured between here and the BB that are consistent with a net cooling over time. However, the agreement between predicted temperatures and what is observed depends upon where and how the temperature is measured - very much a cherry picking exercise.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5625 On Measuring the CMB Temperature at Redshift 0.89

See http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7547 for an overview and the latest improvements. This paper posted today is also relevant: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2937 Constraining Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering with Linear Cosmology

Amber Robot
2013-Nov-14, 09:27 PM
The point I was making in the post is that temperature is a highly localized effect.

It would seem that a temperature could be determined for any system, but perhaps you are saying that there's a limit to how large a system can be and remain isothermal. Referring to this paper about the ultracold CO doesn't have any bearing on that issue though and was at best a diversion, at worst a disingenuous approach to arguing your point.


However, the agreement between predicted temperatures and what is observed depends upon where and how the temperature is measured - very much a cherry picking exercise.

What the phrase "cherry picking" means to me is that only specific data are chosen from a larger set of exisiting data, and it is only those data that agree with a pre-determined conclusion that are chosen, while data that disagree are ignored. Is this what is happening with predicted temperatures of gas between here and the BB? What data do you think are being ignored? Which places are showing disagreement with the BB theory in this regard?

I am not familiar with all of the data, but one set of observations I know about that show a net cooling over time are those of the excitation of carbon monoxide as measured by ultraviolet absorption. In diffuse gas, the CO should have sub-thermal rotational excitation, with the lower limit to its excitation temperature being the CMB temperature. As redshift increases, this rotational excitation increases, in lock step with what is expected for a cooling of the CMB. See, for example: Noterdaeme et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 526, id.L7, 2011.

Jerry
2013-Nov-19, 05:48 PM
It would seem that a temperature could be determined for any system, but perhaps you are saying that there's a limit to how large a system can be and remain isothermal. Referring to this paper about the ultracold CO doesn't have any bearing on that issue though and was at best a diversion, at worst a disingenuous approach to arguing your point.



What the phrase "cherry picking" means to me is that only specific data are chosen from a larger set of exisiting data, and it is only those data that agree with a pre-determined conclusion that are chosen, while data that disagree are ignored. Is this what is happening with predicted temperatures of gas between here and the BB? What data do you think are being ignored? Which places are showing disagreement with the BB theory in this regard?

I am not familiar with all of the data, but one set of observations I know about that show a net cooling over time are those of the excitation of carbon monoxide as measured by ultraviolet absorption. In diffuse gas, the CO should have sub-thermal rotational excitation, with the lower limit to its excitation temperature being the CMB temperature. As redshift increases, this rotational excitation increases, in lock step with what is expected for a cooling of the CMB. See, for example: Noterdaeme et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 526, id.L7, 2011.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5625v1.pdf

Our high-resolution measurement yields Trot between 1.1 and 2.5 K, which is significantly lower than the expected value of TCMB = 5.14 K at z = 0.89.
As a general rule, actually as a law of thermodynamics and definition of background temperature, the lowest measured temperature is the upper limit on the background temperature. Again, you generally assume that all higher temperatures are affected by local radiation. 1.1 to 2.5 K is consistent with local background temperatures, but much too cold to be consistent with an expanding microwave background at a z shift of 0.89. The authors look for possible solutions:


In this section, we discuss several possible explanations for this discrepancy...The true temperature of this rotating gas is likely higher than this measured temperature of rotation because of blended-in jet core components with spectral index of alpha> 0 which biases the measurement towards a lower temperature.
In other words, 'when we find a result which does not agree with our pet theory, we reject the results on the bases that there is 'likely' interfering spectral lines than make the temperature look lower than it really is'.

You cannot cherry pick; assume the rotational energies that you measure that agree with your theory are virgin; but other, similar measurements are 'biased low' by interfering spectra. As I stated before, in thermoldynamic studies, you generally assume the root or background temperature is at least as low as the lowest measured temperature: That is the definition of background. If the measured temperature is too low, either you have poor calibration or your theory about what the temperature should be is wrong. You do not conclude that some of the measurements are right (because they agree with the theory) and, in this case higher resolutions measurements, are 'likely' wrong because they don't.

This explanation utterly fails the 'Jerry test': You cannot use results to support a prevailing theory that would be laughed out of the classroom if someone used the same convoluted logic to manipulate data so that it supports a half-baked theory.

If you look at a broad collection of efforts to measure background temperatures at different cosmological distances, they are riddled with these types of assertions and assumptions; rendering the entire exercise highly suspect.

Reality Check
2013-Dec-04, 12:24 AM
One of the evidences cited by Wright of the BBT is that gas temperatures have been measured between here and the BB that are consistent with a net cooling over time.

Edward J. Wrights What is the evidence for the Big Bang? section (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence) has no mention of gas temperatures. Nor do your citations.
There is (as your citations suggest) the "Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.". He cites
The evolution of the Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature: Measurements of TCMB at high redshift from carbon monoxide excitation (2010) (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164)

On Measuring the CMB Temperature at Redshift 0.89 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5625) is all about the observation of radio source PKS 1830-211 and does not suggest that every observation is affected.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7547 is irrelevant (we are not talking about gravitational lensing).
http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2937 Constraining Dark Matter-Baryon Scattering with Linear Cosmology[/QUOTE] is irrelevant.

Reality Check
2013-Dec-04, 12:38 AM
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5625v1.pdf

Jerry, you should not cherry-pick one paper about one observation :).
On Measuring the CMB Temperature at Redshift 0.89 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5625) is all about the observation of radio source PKS 1830-211 and does not suggest that every observation is affected.

We report on a measurement of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation field, T_CMB, at z = 0.88582 by imaging HC3N (3-2) and (5-4) absorption in the foreground galaxy of the gravitationally lens magnified radio source PKS 1830-211 using the Very Long Baseline Array and the phased Very Large Array. Low-resolution imaging of the data yields a value of Trot = 5.6+2.5-0.9 K, for the rotational temperature, Trot, which is consistent with the temperature of the cosmic microwave background at the absorber's redshift of 2.73(1+z) K. However, our high-resolution imaging reveals that the absorption peak position of the foreground gas is offset from the continuum peak position of the synchrotron radiation from PKS 1830-211 SW, which indicates that the absorbing cloud is covering only part of the emission from PKS 1830-211, rather than the entire core-jet region. This changes the line-to-continuum ratios, and we find Trot between 1.1 and 2.5 K, which is lower than the expected value. This shows that previous, Trot, measurements could be biased due to unresolved structure.
This is a specific case where there is an absorbing cloud that reduces Trot. Try reading the conclusion. The authors only talk about PKS 1830-211.
This is also an observation of HC3N absorption in a gravitationally lensed source.
The evolution of the Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature: Measurements of TCMB at high redshift from carbon monoxide excitation (http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164) looks at CO in ordinary observations, i.e. different wavelengths.


Quote Originally Posted by Sato
In this section, we discuss several possible explanations for this discrepancy...The true temperature of this rotating gas is likely higher than this measured temperature of rotation because of blended-in jet core components with spectral index of alpha> 0 which biases the measurement towards a lower temperature.
In other words: when there is strong evidence (see above) that the Trot should be about TCMB (~5.6K) we should look for reasonable explanations rather than going against the scientific consensus.

Amber Robot
2013-Dec-04, 01:12 AM
In other words: when there is strong evidence (see above) that the Trot should be about TCMB (~5.6K) we should look for reasonable explanations rather than going against the scientific consensus.

But Jerry will say that that is putting the cart before the horse. If you are trying to prove that the TCMB was 2.73(1+z), you can't use that expectation as evidence. What he says this paper found was that they had at low resolution they got the answer that BB theory predicts, but when they went in with high resolution data they actually got a much lower value. That they then when on to explain that away as a discrepancy is evidence of the bias toward the BB theory being correct.

I'm not saying that I agree with Jerry, just that I understand his argument with respect to this paper.

borman
2013-Dec-31, 03:01 PM
Guth et al respond to Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb questioning some assumptions.
Inflationary paradigm after Planck 2013
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7619