CCC-I: Challenging Observations & New Picture of the Universe

[turbo]

Turbo-1, the 'naive' in this context usually means 'over-simplistic'

That's me!

 

[Thor]

If current trends continue (discovery of even more highly redshifted quasars with solar and super-solar metallicities), what does that tell us about the Universe?

Possibilities include:...

4) There never was a Big Bang. We live in a steady-state universe in which even the most distant things we can ever see are roughly equivalent in metallicity to stars in own neighborhood. "Cosmological" redshift is not due to expansion of the universe, but to energy loss as EM interacts with the fields through which it propagates. The more distance EM has to travel, the more it is redshifted. Another "third rail" idea that can kill the career of an astronomer, but what if it's true?

There are lots more possibilites, including VSL, and perhaps some mix-and-match combinations of the above, but you can see where this is going. Standard-model cosmology has a lot of problems, requiring the invention of non-baryonic dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc, to keep it afloat. It is impossible to refute all these epicycles, just as it is impossible to refute any ideas that are taken on faith. The observed high metallicities of high-redshift quasars WILL cause all these ideas to be challenged, though. It is just a matter of time. When Webb comes on-line, or when the LBT is fully operational and some spunky graduate student measures super-solar metallicity in a quasar at z~7-8 or so, the 13.7Gy Big Bang universe will be absolutely untenable. Hopefully, the standard model will be seriously re-evaluated and not just patched with another epicycle or two. The next several years will be an interesting time.

There is a wealth of data suggesting a cosmic explosion occurred billions of years ago in our neighborhood of the cosmos, but to attribute that 'Big Bang' with the creation of the entire Universe is the height of myopathy.

Why would reasonable scholars believe that the cosmos is limited to that infinitesimal portion we can detect?

Theory of Reciprocity

 

[Chronos]

They don't. Reasonable scholars assume it is the only portion that is observable.

 

[brightstar2005]

Obviously from what turbo-1 said the BB is in deep crisis.

 

[Chronos]

Obviously from what turbo-1 said the BB is in deep crisis.

The vast majority of scientists believe the BB is in excellent health.

 

[SpaceTiger]

You guys should do like badastronomy and make a separate board for this "fringe" stuff. Casual readers might get the impression that the scientific community actually takes it seriously. Besides, it's annoying having to wade through it looking for something of scientific merit.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You guys should do like badastronomy and make a separate board for this "fringe" stuff. Casual readers might get the impression that the scientific community actually takes it seriously. Besides, it's annoying having to wade through it looking for something of scientific merit.

We do have the Theory Development ("TD" in discussions) board, where extreme fringe stuff is put. But there's this big gray area where either there are published papers in peer-reviewed journals to be quoted, or there is genuine data which can be seen as conflicting with whatever standard models are accepted. We have to be strong monitors because of the concern you cite, but we are not high priests of some fixed and invariable Truth.

 

[SpaceTiger]

We have to be strong monitors because of the concern you cite, but we are not high priests of some fixed and invariable Truth.

Anything seriously challenging traditional theories without being widely accepted by the scientific community seems obviously fringe to me. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's as I say, "fringe." This includes MOND, anti-big bang, anti-relativity, anti-dark matter, etc. Scanning the forum, I can see posts on MOND, "leaking gravity", crisis in cosmology...almost half of them.

This has nothing to do with absolute "truth", just the current state of science. If these boards weren't magnets for crackpots, these discussions could be conducted on more even ground, but unfortunately it's the extremists that tend to be on the internet hawking their ideas, not the serious scientists. There was even a talk about this at the last American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting. People who don't gain acceptance by the scientific community have a tendency to fight a propaganda war instead. Part of the reason so many people believe the BS is that the BSers are so much more aggressive about selling to the public.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. It's not my forum.

 

[Garth]

Anything seriously challenging traditional theories without being widely accepted by the scientific community seems obviously fringe to me.

Would you not allow an intelligent and informed questionning of the 'traditional theories'? To my way of thinking such questions are the 'stuff' of good science.

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

Would you not allow an intelligent and informed questionning of the 'traditional theories'? To my way of thinking such questions are the 'stuff' of good science.

I'm not saying it should be deleted, I'm suggesting it be moved. Most of the people questioning tradition are either ill-informed or agenda-driven, neither of which is good science. You can increase the signal-to-noise of the regular forum by putting those posts elsewhere.

 

[ohwilleke]

Anything seriously challenging traditional theories without being widely accepted by the scientific community seems obviously fringe to me.

Almost by definition the interesting parts of science, the ones people want to discuss, are those where traditional theories are being seriously challenged. There aren't a lot of new and interesting things be said about Newtonian mechanics in situations where neither quantum mechanics or general relativity apply. It isn't very interesting to have a discussion about the fact that the Earth and other objects in the solar system swirl about the Sun according to Kepler's laws, that our solar system is on the fringe of a large spiral galaxy, and that there are gillions of galaxies in the universe.

I'd also add that a large portion of the scientific community explores at some point in time theories that are not widely accepted by the scientific community at the time they are offered and that seriously challenge traditional theories. Indeed, a substantial proportion of the theoretical physics community is dealing with areas where this is no real scientific consensus. For example, while almost everybody agrees that the standard model of quantum mechanics has widespread phenomenological success, it is also true that probably a solid majority of quantum physics scholars believe (for reasons like apparent CP violations) that it has flaws that will be resolved with future research, and that there is no consensus on how that will be resolved. Similarly, while there is widespread agreement within the scientific community on the existence of the phenomena we call "dark matter", there is not a consensus, even among those who believe that there is some kind of dark matter out there, as to what that "dark matter" is, and a similar situation exists with "dark energy".

That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's as I say, "fringe." This includes MOND, anti-big bang, anti-relativity, anti-dark matter, etc. Scanning the forum, I can see posts on MOND, "leaking gravity", crisis in cosmology...almost half of them.

I would define "fringe" to mean challenges to traditional theories which are not serious. The people who simply say "God did it", or rather than looking for possible flaws in redshift methodology simply deny that red shift is being observed, or people who deny that time dilation (or some phenomena which produces experimentally equivalent results) exist, or who assert that galactic dynamics are Keplerian without considering a dark matter or MOND type modification.

There is a big difference between a minority view, which is based on evidence and an effort to apply a novel hypothesis using the scientific method, and a fringe view, which rejects the scientific method.

This has nothing to do with absolute "truth", just the current state of science. If these boards weren't magnets for crackpots, these discussions could be conducted on more even ground, but unfortunately it's the extremists that tend to be on the internet hawking their ideas, not the serious scientists. There was even a talk about this at the last American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting. People who don't gain acceptance by the scientific community have a tendency to fight a propaganda war instead. Part of the reason so many people believe the BS is that the BSers are so much more aggressive about selling to the public.

The American Astronomical Society would be better served by being aggressive in selling widely accepted theories, and by better discussing in communication directed to the public the basis for the widely accepted theories. Scientific societies systemically underestimate the importance of popularizing science and of validating their conclusions among communities beyond those with PhDs in their own subfields.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Almost by definition the interesting parts of science, the ones people want to discuss, are those where traditional theories are being seriously challenged. There aren't a lot of new and interesting things be said about Newtonian mechanics in situations where neither quantum mechanics or general relativity apply.

First of all, I disagree. I think most of the work that's going on now is extremely interesting and only a very small fraction of it challenges tradition/majority in any serious way. Second of all, this isn't a university, it's a message board. Let's be honest with ourselves, serious scientific progress is probably not going to be made here. Educating the forum-goers about Kepler's Laws and relativity is, in my opinion, a much more valuable pursuit than speculating about MOND.

I would define "fringe" to mean challenges to traditional theories which are not serious. The people who simply say "God did it",

Those are posts that should simply be deleted, IMO, as they would be widely acknowledged to lack scientific value.

or rather than looking for possible flaws in redshift methodology simply deny that red shift is being observed

Anybody who even questions the cosmological interpretation of redshift is fringe. Even most of these questioners would probably admit that.

There is a big difference between a minority view, which is based on evidence and an effort to apply a novel hypothesis using the scientific method, and a fringe view, which rejects the scientific method.

And there's a big difference between speculation about MOND and leaking gravity (scientific or not) and discussion about planet-finding methods. The first is definitely "fringe", as I understand the word.

The American Astronomical Society would be better served by being aggressive in selling widely accepted theories, and by better discussing in communication directed to the public the basis for the widely accepted theories.

I agree, but try finding a serious scientist who wants to spend their time doing that. It's harder than you might think.

 

[ohwilleke]

First of all, I disagree. I think most of the work that's going on now is extremely interesting and only a very small fraction of it challenges tradition/majority in any serious way. Second of all, this isn't a university, it's a message board. Let's be honest with ourselves, serious scientific progress is probably not going to be made here. Educating the forum-goers about Kepler's Laws and relativity is, in my opinion, a much more valuable pursuit than speculating about MOND.

We certainly disagree there. Education is primarily a function of a university. A message board is more of an independent press organ. Message boards deal with news, the emphasis being on "new" (and analyze it), as they can get the word out faster than traditional journals. If I want to learn about old, settled theory, I'll buy a textbook. I go to message boards (or blogs) to learn about things that aren't yet in print.

Anybody who even questions the cosmological interpretation of redshift is fringe. Even most of these questioners would probably admit that.

Anyone who doesn't ask questions is not a scientist at all. He is a theologian. What distinguishes fringe and not fringe is how you answer questions.

And there's a big difference between speculation about MOND and leaking gravity (scientific or not) and discussion about planet-finding methods. The first is definitely "fringe", as I understand the word.

A new planet is news. A general discussion about planet-finding methods is pretty darn dull, until someone challenges those methods and proposes an alternate hypothesis (e.g. what if what you're seeing is stellar dynamics or observational error, rather than a planet?).

Also, considering that almost every university with a graduate physics program in the world has a string theorist on staff, and a large proportion of those have people doing brane theory, which is where leaking gravity comes from, it is hardly fringe. Much of what you are calling fringe really is a matter of disciplinary rivalry. Within dark matter theory, suggesting that WIMPZILLAs are dark matter is pretty mainstream. Within quantum physics, WIMPZILLAs are one of many pretty far out there possibilities that are being discussed in the context of a lack of consensus of what physics, if any, undergird the standard model. Within the GR community, suggesting that there is a non-geometrical explanation for GR is a minority view. Within the QM community, it is the mainstream view.

Likewise, I would suggest this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412059 by Merrifield who is primarily a dark matter (not a MOND) camp phenomenologist to suggest that MOND is less fringe than you suggest.

This paper presents a brief review of the evidence for dark matter in the Universe on the scales of galaxies. In the interests of critically and objectively testing the dark matter paradigm on these scales, this evidence is weighed against that from the only other game in town, modified Newtonian dynamics. The verdict is not as clear cut as one might have hoped.

The matter receives a lot of attention in these forums precisely because there is not a clear cut answer. Gray is more interesting than black and white.

I agree, but try finding a serious scientist who wants to spend their time doing that. It's harder than you might think.

Which is why the task falls to amateurs to some extent. If you feel strongly that there is a scientific consensus and that you have a firm command of it, then perhaps you should defend it, instead of taking a de ex machina approach. And, for issues that come up repeatedly, this forum has a sticky for FAQs.

Also, a large proportion of serious scientists are also professional educators, so the resistance is more a product of a scientific culture with a bad attitude, than lack of inclination to explain science.

Also, it is worth noting the scientists are less objective in evaluating challenges to traditional theories v. defending them, then you would expect. The best predictor of a scientist's stance on those issues is birth order, i.e. is the scientist an oldest child or a younger one. See here: http://www.sciencebookguide.com/book.html?book=31

 

[Garth]

Anyone who doesn't ask questions is not a scientist at all. He is a theologian.

A person who doesn't ask questions is a fundamentalist, in religious belief or science; theologians ask questions.

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

We certainly disagree there. Education is primarily a function of a university.

Universities don't generally have the reach to educate the general public. They're meant to train professionals.

Message boards deal with news, the emphasis being on "new" (and analyze it), as they can get the word out faster than traditional journals. If I want to learn about old, settled theory, I'll buy a textbook. I go to message boards (or blogs) to learn about things that aren't yet in print.

The vast majority of work is based on old theory (or only a slight variation to it). Genuine new theory (like relativity) is very rare and most of the stuff that gets posted on here is fringe and not taken very seriously by the mainstream. By acting as a conduit for this fringe work, the message board basically distills science that isn't ready for public consumption. Thus, the "news" you're getting may have a net effect of disinformation.

Anyone who doesn't ask questions is not a scientist at all. He is a theologian. What distinguishes fringe and not fringe is how you answer questions.

No, what distinguishes fringe and not fringe is hard data supporting or refuting a theory. You're describing the distinction between science and philosophy/religion. Things like non-cosmological redshift have long since been disproven to the satisfaction of at least 95% (probably more) of the scientific community. Based on the articles that are posted here, readers won't have a broad enough picture to judge that for themselves.

I admit, however, that it's not an easy job to distinguish these things if you're not in the field. That's why I'm suggesting that longshot theories in general be moved to the other forum, regardless of the trustworthiness of the source.

A new planet is news. A general discussion about planet-finding methods is pretty darn dull, until someone challenges those methods and proposes an alternate hypothesis (e.g. what if what you're seeing is stellar dynamics or observational error, rather than a planet?).

That's not the kind of challenge I'm talking about. I have no problems with that. I'm referring more to these all-encompassing pseudo-theories that claim to solve dark matter, quantum gravity, etc.

Also, considering that almost every university with a graduate physics program in the world has a string theorist on staff, and a large proportion of those have people doing brane theory, which is where leaking gravity comes from, it is hardly fringe.

It's still fringe. I know and work with professors who do that stuff, but most of them would tell you that it's not mainstream. Well, string theory is sort of mainstream in physics, but from an observational standpoint there's not hard evidence...but there's already a forum in the physics section for that.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, this is why I'm not suggesting you delete this material, just move it.

Much of what you are calling fringe really is a matter of disciplinary rivalry.

Not really. Much of what I would call fringe is done by some of my most respected peers.

Within dark matter theory, suggesting that WIMPZILLAs are dark matter is pretty mainstream. Within quantum physics, WIMPZILLAs are one of many pretty far out there possibilities that are being discussed in the context of a lack of consensus of what physics, if any, undergird the standard model.

That's not an issue of rivalry so much as it is different problems that need to be solved. Either way, though, I would also call WIMPZILLAS fringe theory, as they're just one possibility among very many.

Within the GR community, suggesting that there is a non-geometrical explanation for GR is a minority view. Within the QM community, it is the mainstream view.

This is simply untrue. All the GR people I've worked with acknowledge that geometrization fails at small scales and all the quantum people acknowledge that it works on large scales.

The matter receives a lot of attention in these forums precisely because there is not a clear cut answer. Gray is more interesting than black and white.

Funny that it doesn't get much attention where I work. Do you suppose that the faculty only talk about issues that are simply black and white?

Which is why the task falls to amateurs to some extent. If you feel strongly that there is a scientific consensus and that you have a firm command of it, then perhaps you should defend it, instead of taking a de ex machina approach.

I have better things to do than to spend hours defending positions that are firmly held in the scientific community.

Also, it is worth noting the scientists are less objective in evaluating challenges to traditional theories v. defending them, then you would expect. The best predictor of a scientist's stance on those issues is birth order, i.e. is the scientist an oldest child or a younger one.

I acknowledge that there are prejudices in the scientific community, but I hardly think that means we should be looking to amateurs for guidance. Ignorance is much worse than bias, particularly when those biases compete with one another.

Likewise, I would suggest this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412059 by Merrifield who is primarily a dark matter (not a MOND) camp phenomenologist to suggest that MOND is less fringe than you suggest.

He's only looking at galactic scales, the problem MOND was designed to solve. MOND is much less believable when you try to apply it to cosmology. Nonetheless, it is still possible that it's correct, I don't deny that, I'm simply saying that it's an argument that continues only in the background of mainstream scientific progress. These things should always be discussed, but not at the expense of genuinely exciting scientific results...you know, ones that have a high probability of being right.

 

[turbo]

Anything seriously challenging traditional theories without being widely accepted by the scientific community seems obviously fringe to me. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's as I say, "fringe." This includes MOND, anti-big bang, anti-relativity, anti-dark matter, etc. Scanning the forum, I can see posts on MOND, "leaking gravity", crisis in cosmology...almost half of them.

This forum is followed by lots of young folks, many of whom probably just lurk and do not post questions that are important to them, simply because they do not wish to be stomped flat by "those in the know". These kids are the core of our next generation of physicists, and they should be encouraged to re-evaluate the assumptions behind our commonly-held beliefs and either falsify them or re-affirm them. If these bright young people are told that they have to blindly accept everything that came before them and is commonly accepted, and then "build" upon it, they are being programmed to perpetuate the failures of our generation. (Google on Cargo-Cult Science by Feynman)

It is one thing to pass on the knowledge of our generation to the next, and it is another entirely to pass on our prejudices and ignorances without insisting on a self-check feedback process to weed out the unproductive ideas.

This has nothing to do with absolute "truth", just the current state of science. If these boards weren't magnets for crackpots, these discussions could be conducted on more even ground, but unfortunately it's the extremists that tend to be on the internet hawking their ideas, not the serious scientists.

Some regard the "current state of science" as the "absolute truth". Unfortunately to achieve this level of certainty, you might have to enroll in Divinity School, and check your inquisitive nature at the door. There is an old divinity school in central Maine called the Bangor Theological Seminary. I became acquainted with a few of the students at that school after playing chess with them and talking with them on campus, close to where my apartment was, and started privately calling it the "Bangor Teleological Cemetary". The school seemed to be set on killing any inquisitive natures they might have had. Orthodoxy is not going to produce another Feynman, nor another Einstein. Neither of them regarded previous theories as sacred, and both insisted that we must constantly re-examine the assumptions of previous models to avoid repeating mistakes that are handed down to us as "givens". I will gladly link to examples of their writings, if you'd like.

There was even a talk about this at the last American Astronomical Society (AAS) meeting. People who don't gain acceptance by the scientific community have a tendency to fight a propaganda war instead. Part of the reason so many people believe the BS is that the BSers are so much more aggressive about selling to the public.

This is not true. It is very easy to popularize science and gain support for its funding. Feynman (a giant in his day) gave public non-technical lectures that were geared toward ordinary people (intelligent non-physicists), that were very successful in conveying his wonderment and satisfaction at learning about simple concepts in the real world. People gravitated to him, and he was a great PR man for science, even when physics was seemingly degenerating into the "non-applicable" field of QFT. Sagan had even more popular commercial success with his Cosmos series, although I'd expect to get more out of an hour of Feynman than out of 4 hours of Sagan.

We need to encourage young folks to think for themselves - to look at the papers and the public pronouncements, and evaluate them FOR THEMSELVES. Otherwise, they won't become scientists - they will become functionaries and bureaurocrats in the scientific community. There are open questions in cosmology that need real inquiries and real answers. Teaching our kids to regard the BB and the standard model as "hands-off" and expecting them to be satisfied with scrambling for crumbs on the margins is really self-destructive and dumb.

 

[ohwilleke]

A person who doesn't ask questions is a fundamentalist, in religious belief or science; theologians ask questions.

Garth

Fair point. I certainly didn't intend to disparage critically thinking theologians. It's the scientists who think it is fringe to even ask questions that I have a beef with.

 

[Cosmo16]

There will alays be a crisis in cosmology. That is because a cosmologists ultimite goal is the theory of everything. And, as everyon learns eventually, the more we know, the more we realize how little we know.

Cosmologists finding descrepancies in their theories is not the sign of a field in crisis, but instead the sign of one that is healthy and vibrant. When cosmolgists take all of their theories for granted without further destruction of their own theories, that is is when Cosmology will be in a crisis. For when a scientific field believes everything to be going perfect, that is when it is trully in the most trouble.

 

[brightstar2005]

When every one can point at least two competing theories in cosmology and alternatives will be taken seriously then we may consider that the field is healed.

Once something becomes widely accepted it is no more challenging. You may conisider also The Final Theory.

 

[Chronos]

No serious scientist considers any theory 'proven', just the most likely explanation. Were that the case, why would anyone bother to continue making observations? People who make a career out of asking questions have a reason for asking them. They do not care to rehash the ones that have been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. Striking evidence is required to resurrect those issues. It is very doubtful that even a gifted amateur can ask a question that has not already been convincingly answered.

 

[Cosmo16]

Chronos- That maqy be true, but after all Einstein was just a gifted amateur, and he changed the face of physics.

 

[brightstar2005]

There are many questions to be answred yet.
I don't think that we will find the answers in the mainstream because nature has to be extremely complex if it can be explained in the standard spacetime framework. Instead I like authors like Stephen Wolfram and Eugene Savov who point toward a fundamental simplicity.

 

[wolram]

I love asking questions that get those in the know re examining
there notes, but i know i will not be satisfied with the answer, because
i know that cosmology lacks rulers, yard sticks, and no matter how
informed my mentor is on theory, he has few known measurements
to rely on, having said that main stream science can only observe, test,
measure, predict, theorise on, by using the wealth of information gathered
by science, What else is there?

 

[SpaceTiger]

There are many questions to be answred yet.
I don't think that we will find the answers in the mainstream because nature has to be extremely complex if it can be explained in the standard spacetime framework. Instead I like authors like Stephen Wolfram and Eugene Savov who point toward a fundamental simplicity.

New theories will always start outside of the mainstream, that's pretty much a given. The whole point of this is signal-to-noise ratio. The vast majority of fringe work turns out to be wrong, so unless you're directly involved in the development, you'd be wasting your time reading it until it becomes established. Mainstream work using mostly established theory, on the other hand, turns out to be useful and/or right the majority of the time.

All I'm trying to establish is that the separation of the material is justified by the existence of two separate audiences: one that just wants astronomy news and one that wants explore the frontiers of astronomical/physical theory. This separation exists both within the general public and within the astronomical community itself. Whether or not you or I think a particular theory is worthy of one's time is beside the point.

 

[brightstar2005]

any theory that offers a simple and logical picture of the universe, like for instance the theory of interaction, is worth the effort of learning it.

 

[SpaceTiger]

any theory that offers a simple and logical picture of the universe, like for instance the theory of interaction, is worth the effort of learning it.

Right, and I'll bet mechanics think it's worth the effort for me to learn everything about my car. You can't realistically expect everybody to want to learn about every new theory. I barely have any free time in the day doing my own job; I can't imagine people in other fields can afford to become experts in fringe astronomy.