Is this a misleading representation of boomerang results

[el-fayoumi]

If we can quote what I said (In Arabic), I said there is no way of knowing what after the Hubble horizon. In my post number 4 I mentioned that the observable universe has radius of 90 billion years (estimated) and read in my post number: 17 I told him that Ω cannot be integer 1, because there is no physical constant to be integer. Also, I mentioned to him that I objected to placing 6 zeroes with an experiment that never claimed more than %15 accuracy... and In post 26 I quoted:size and shape of the Universe: the quest for the curvature of space...

Mr.ibrahim if we quote what you said in eltwhed
thread 34898 in the post 47:
you have been asked: "can we say for sure and certain that the entire universe is flat or its only nearly flat locally?"
your answer was: "In fact the entire universe is flat, Radiation comes back since the beginning of the universe".

in the new thread 35046 post 3: Mr.abdelwahed told you that you were wrong! and he gave this page from the book of Dr.Michio Kaku where he explain how it still possible to have a closed universe even if the observable universe is very close to flat.

in the next post 4: you claimed that Mr.abdelwahed didn't understand Dr.Michio Kaku and that he wasn't talking about the closed universe but about the theoretical "Einstein Diameter". and you posted this picture of the observable universe. you claimed again that d.Michio Kaku in his page wasn't talking about the shperical shape of the entire universe but only about "the observable universe has Diameter of 90 billion years". that's WRONG ! what d.Michio Kaku said has nothing to do with your misinterpretation.

in the post 17: you said we can not know for sure that Ω = integer 1". exactly ! that's what Mr.abdelwahed was trying to explain to you several posts before, he gave you a figure showing the ideal flat universe with Ω = exactly 1.0000.. and told you that any small curvature locally can change dramatically the shape of the entire universe. that what dr.Michio was talking about. but you ruined the discussion by claiming for weeks that adding Ω = exactly 1.0000 to the figure is misleading. Mr.abdelwahed answered you several times that the panel for the ideally flat uiverse has nothing to do with the experiment result, you didn't backup your accusation until he came to this forum to ask the physicists.

Mr.ibrahim, no one here play the game of "I didn't say what I actually wrote" . you claimed that we can be sure that the entire universe is flat, because the "Radiation comes back since the beginning of the universe" , YOU WROTE THAT ! and you were trying to prove your point for several weeks, before you changed your mind.

regards,

 

[jerusalem]

my friend Ibrahim64
By denying here what you wrote in our debate .. you just proved my point.
thank you.

 

[Ibrahim64]

Mr.ibrahim if we quote what you said in eltwhed
thread 34898 in the post 47:
you have been asked: "can we say for sure and certain that the entire universe is flat or its only nearly flat locally?"
your answer was: "In fact the entire universe is flat, Radiation comes back since the beginning of the universe".

in the new thread 35046 post 3: Mr.abdelwahed told you that you were wrong! and he gave this page from the book of Dr.Michio Kaku where he explain how it still possible to have a closed universe even if the observable universe is very close to flat.

in the next post 4: you claimed that Mr.abdelwahed didn't understand Dr.Michio Kaku and that he wasn't talking about the closed universe but about the theoretical "Einstein Diameter". and you posted this picture of the observable universe. you claimed again that d.Michio Kaku in his page wasn't talking about the shperical shape of the entire universe but only about "the observable universe has Diameter of 90 billion years". that's WRONG ! what d.Michio Kaku said has nothing to do with your misinterpretation.

in the post 17: you said we can not know for sure that Ω = integer 1". exactly ! that's what Mr.abdelwahed was trying to explain to you several posts before, he gave you a figure showing the ideal flat universe with Ω = exactly 1.0000.. and told you that any small curvature locally can change dramatically the shape of the entire universe. that what dr.Michio was talking about. but you ruined the discussion by claiming for weeks that adding Ω = exactly 1.0000 to the figure is misleading. Mr.abdelwahed answered you several times that the panel for the ideally flat uiverse has nothing to do with the experiment result, you didn't backup your accusation until he came to this forum to ask the physicists.

Mr.ibrahim, no one here play the game of "I didn't say what I actually wrote" . you claimed that we can be sure that the entire universe is flat, because the "Radiation comes back since the beginning of the universe" , YOU WROTE THAT ! and you were trying to prove your point for several weeks, before you changed your mind.

regards,

when you ask "Do you agree that it is locally flat" what do you say?
Are we locally flat?
I told Abdel wahed many many many times that we are subjected to the sun gravity, so we are not locally flat. I told him many times that the Earth runs through a geodesy in a curved space-time...
We are not locally in flat space time...
The question is confusing, when I answered him, I was in a conference the question was confusing...
So how do you explain mentioning the diameter of the universe at post 4?


Abdel wahed method is to confuse, and make claims and try to pick on any thing to make a fuss of it, because he does not understand physics...
He does not understand curved space-time, his confuses the curvature of the earth, with why the electromagnetic waves follow the troposphere (because of changing density) and bending the light in the universe...
He cut a video out of Misho Kaka video, and make a claim about it, where the original video?
I do not understand what is all these fuss about, was the question he asked right?
The main points are:
1. I objected on his curve:

because it claimed something was not in the experiment and placed a picture with 8 zeroes beside a picture with experimental result, giving the perception of high accuracy and I told him that this is wrong... "YOU CANNOT HAVE SUCH ACCURACY, IN SUCH EXPERIMENT" do you deny that?
2. I told Abdel Wahed, beyond Hubble horizon we cannot make any statement, it will be just a guess...
3. I guess you are abdel wahed and the tawheed forum, managed to break into my account or my information and you obtained my surname and using it to reply to my comment...


Regards

 

[Ibrahim64]

my friend Ibrahim64
By denying here what you wrote in our debate .. you just proved my point.
thank you.

When you know how to ask a proper question, then you can complain about the answer, is local, means visible universe?
Do you still claim that "Another common misconception is that the energy-time uncertainty principle says that the conservation of energy can be temporarily violated – energy can be "borrowed" from the Universe as long as it is "returned" within a short amount of time"
and How did you obtained my surname?
So you still say that it is a misconception to say "energy can be borrowed"
Why you do not tell people your saying "The relationship between momentum and distance is between two operators while energy and time is between an operator and parameter" you do not understand what Commutators are, you do not understand curved space-time and you join here with many names and reply to your claims...
How many times I mentioned to you that beyond Hubble horizon we cannot make a statement and $\Omega = 1$ is a classical approximation without quantum mechanics... Did not I mention that from the time of 300,000 years till now, general theory of relativity is a good approximation?
Until when you will continue to talk about this? It has been more than 6 months, I am telling you that beyond the Hubble horizon, we cannot say...
It may be true that: $\Omega = 1$ or very close to it, our mean, as I told you 6 months ago, does not permit to have accuracy of 8 digits (as you claim in your figure)...
Here you are asking whether:

Is valid or not, not I replied to a vague question in wrong way...
I wish the science advisor give his/her opinion whether this figure is faithful representation of BooMRang Experiment results presented in paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0011469v1.pdf
Mr jerusalem, do you like to open a new thread about whether the answer to question: "Do you agree that the local space-time is flat" and whether the answer "I do not agree" is right or wrong?
I wish to end this topic...
did not I ask you in post number 4 on 01-26-2012, to give me your sources about the cut down version(shows only an ant on top of big sphere, not knowing whether it is about 2 -dimension creature or what) of Misho kaka video?
Did not I say that he may be talking about : $R_E = \frac{c}{\sqrt{4\pi\rho}}$ (to the forum, it is very nice to be able to write in LaTeX, thks) a theoretical radius?
did not I mention more than Hubble horizon, we do not know?
Do you still to open a new discussion about it?

Regards

 

[halifax12]

It may be true that: $\Omega = 1$ or very close to it, our mean, as I told you 6 months ago, does not permit to have accuracy of 8 digits (as you claim in your figure)...
Here you are asking whether:

Is valid or not, not I replied to a vague question in wrong way...
I wish the science advisor give his/her opinion whether this figure is faithful representation of BooMRang Experiment results presented in paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0011469v1.pdf

This figure has nothing to do with BooMRang Experiment, The aim of the first graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat space where Ω is exactly 1. the second panel may refer to wmap result or any case where Ω is very close to 1. I don't see how this figure claims an experiment with 8 digits accuracy? as cepheid said Ω is supposed to be exactly 1 for the flat case.

because it claimed something was not in the experiment and placed a picture with 8 zeroes beside a picture with experimental result, giving the perception of high accuracy and I told him that this is wrong

no, its not wrong to put an ideally flat universe beside a nearly flat one as a comparison.

 

[jerusalem]

my friend Ibrahim I don't know what surname are you talking about! I don't have time for that!
I will go straight to to the key point::

When you know how to ask a proper question, then you can complain about the answer, is local, means visible universe?

your understanding of locality doesn't change your judgement about the entire universe. when you confirm that (we can be sure that the entire universe is flat because the light started its journey since the beginning of the universe). it still wrong and it doesn't matter if local means visible universe or not? you can argue about the meaning of "local", it doesn't change the meaning of "entire universe". when you deny here what you said and what started our debate, I will just thank you and quote your denial and your original post in the other forum.

Until when you will continue to talk about this? It has been more than 6 months, I am telling you that beyond the Hubble horizon, we cannot say...

you started by saying that experiments confirm that the entire universe is flat. you even claimed that Michio kaku was not talking about the possible closed universe but "the sphere of the observable universe". and then you changed your mind.

 

[Ibrahim64]

my friend Ibrahim I don't know what surname are you talking about! I don't have time for that!
I will go straight to to the key point::

your understanding of locality doesn't change your judgement about the entire universe. when you confirm that (we can be sure that the entire universe is flat because the light started its journey since the beginning of the universe). it still wrong and it doesn't matter if local means visible universe or not? you can argue about the meaning of "local", it doesn't change the meaning of "entire universe". when you deny here what you said and what started our debate, I will just thank you and quote your denial and your original post in the other forum.

Ok mr jerusalem
May be we open a new thread about my answer to this question...
Regards

 

[Ibrahim64]

This figure has nothing to do with BooMRang Experiment, The aim of the first graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat space where Ω is exactly 1. the second panel may refer to wmap result or any case where Ω is very close to 1. I don't see how this figure claims an experiment with 8 digits accuracy? as cepheid said Ω is supposed to be exactly 1 for the flat case.

no, its not wrong to put an ideally flat universe beside a nearly flat one as a comparison.

Hello halifax12
I noticed that you joined the same day I made my first reply, and this topic was your first reply in the forum... I do not like to sound paranoid, but really strange, did you join to reply to my post?

Boomrang site present this figure:

http://oberon.roma1.infn.it/boomerang/pressrelease/illustrations/raw_images/model_maps.jpg
to show that the spots make the same angle as that of flat universe...
while that, you claim that this figure is a faithful representation of BoomRang Results...

I find it very strange, especially from someone who joined after my first post...
Kind Regards...

 

[jerusalem]

Ok mr jerusalem
May be we open a new thread about my answer to this question...
Regards

I already invited you my friend before two days to talk about the Parsimony in our forum.

 

[halifax12]

Mr Ibrahim64 I won't comment about the paranoid-thing, its somehow insulting and I don't accept it. I joined to answer a friend in another thread.

Boomrang site present this figure:

http://oberon.roma1.infn.it/boomerang/pressrelease/illustrations/raw_images/model_maps.jpg
to show that the spots make the same angle as that of flat universe...
while that, you claim that this figure is a faithful representation of BoomRang Results...

Kind Regards...

I never said that this figure is a faithful representation of BoomRang Results. The aim of the first graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat space where Ω is exactly 1. the second panel may refer to wmap result or any case where Ω is very close to 1.

 

[jerusalem]

I never said that this figure is a faithful representation of BoomRang Results. The aim of the first graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat space where Ω is exactly 1. the second panel may refer to wmap result or any case where Ω is very close to 1.

this is my problem with my friend Ibrahim, I write south he understand north. he is trying to impose what the figure never meant. he claimed for both figures that Ω = 1.00000000 statement is misleading. I will repeat the answer of cepheid "My answer would be no, and I wonder why you think it might be. Ω is supposed to be exactly 1 for the flat case"

you were accusing me for the same reason in both figures.
and no one in this thread understand what you are claiming my friend ibrahim.

 

[Ibrahim64]

Mr Ibrahim64 I won't comment about the paranoid-thing, its somehow insulting and I don't accept it. I joined to answer a friend in another thread.

I never said that this figure is a faithful representation of BoomRang Results. The aim of the first graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat space where Ω is exactly 1. the second panel may refer to wmap result or any case where Ω is very close to 1.

Hello halifax12
Ok, so you joined to answer a friend while this thread was your first reply, and this friend is not Mr jerusalem..
I am over the paranoid-thing now...
WMAP site:http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/080999/index.html
shows this figure:

as you can see, the first maxima is around 1 degree as it is in boomrang...
strange, while that you think the graph in the middle:

represents the WMAP result...
cheers...

 

[Ibrahim64]

this is my problem with my friend Ibrahim, I write south he understand north. he is trying to impose what the figure never meant. he claimed for both figures that Ω = 1.00000000 statement is misleading. I will repeat the answer of cepheid "My answer would be no, and I wonder why you think it might be. Ω is supposed to be exactly 1 for the flat case"

you were accusing me for the same reason in both figures.
and no one in this thread understand what you are claiming my friend ibrahim.

I mentioned many times, why your statement is wrong...
The figure presented by Boomrang, shows that the spots matches one of flat universe, to have $\Omega = 1$, there is no such experiment that can give such accuracy, as I mentioned to you, to have 6 figures, we use liquid hydrogen, to remove thermal noise in the lab... so, you gave a wrong perception and message of what the figures means, they simply showing that the spots, matches the one that corresponds to flat universe... No way they can give 6 or 8 numbers figure...
$\Omega$ we do not know the exact value, it may be really = 1, we cannot be certain for sure, and we may never know, there is no such experiment, as we know, that can corroborate or falsify that...
So, to put it simply, your figure shows, inadvertently, that boomrang shows that $\Omega = 1$ to 8 figures because the results of the experiment has spot size that matches the one of $\Omega = 1$ to 8 figures...
so in effect, what you are claiming:
1. There is a noticeable difference in the spot sizes between $\Omega = 1$ and $\Omega = 1.02$
2. The Boomrang results, matches $\Omega = 1.00000000$ to 8 significant figures...
I hope you understand what I mean...
Kind Regards
...

 

[jerusalem]

I mentioned many times, why your statement is wrong...
The figure presented by Boomrang, shows that the spots matches one of flat universe, to have $\Omega = 1$, there is no such experiment that can give such accuracy, as I mentioned to you, to have 6 figures

my friend it not my problem if you can not understand the same answer again and again. yes there is no experiment that can give such accuracy. but the statement in the lower left panel is not supposed to represent any experiment ! forget about Mr-halifax12 if you are "over the paranoid-thing now" I don't know him and I won't use his answer. read again:

You are quite right AFAICS. The aim of the graphic panel is to illustrate the ideally flat case where Omega is exactly 1.
At no time did I get any other impression, such as that you were saying something about the precision of the instruments.

It seems like the OP is asking if the Ω = 1.00000000.. statement in the lower left panel is misleading. My answer would be no, and I wonder why you think it might be. Ω is supposed to be exactly 1 for the flat case, given that you are talking the total density parameter.

as you can see no one in this thread understand what you are claiming ibrahim.

about the boomerang http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0011469v1.pdf
you claimed that Ω = (1.07 ± 0.06) is not the result but only predictions!
I answered you that if you can not understand the text, you can look to the figure #5:

represents the WMAP result

see how you change your mind every second, just two pots before you were asking if this is faithful representation of BoomRang Results ? if you continue this way no one will bother to answer you. I know you for months, you change your mind every time and deny what you wrote?

you confirm that (we can be sure that the entire universe is flat because the light started its journey since the beginning of the universe). it still wrong even if you play with the meaning of "locality" it doesn't change the meaning of "entire universe". again: if your are denying what you wrote and what started the debate, then the game is over, and its not worth it to argue any more, you will just keep changing your mind every time. and I don't have time for that!

 

[Mark M]

Ibrahim64 and Jerusalem:

If you're debating whether it not the universe has a perfectly flat global topology (though I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about), the universe is only FLRW on average over very large distances. Taking into account the fact that the cosmological constant implies that the matter density would need to be fine tuned, and that inflation would make any curvature absolutely negligible in our observable universe, it is highly unlikely the universe is exactly flat.

 

[Ibrahim64]

Hello Mark M

Ibrahim64 and Jerusalem:

If you're debating whether it not the universe has a perfectly flat global topology (though I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about), the universe is only FLRW on average over very large distances. Taking into account the fact that the cosmological constant implies that the matter density would need to be fine tuned, and that inflation would make any curvature absolutely negligible in our observable universe, it is highly unlikely the universe is exactly flat.

I actually mentioned that exactly to him several months ago...
I hope, we are not debating that the universe is exactly flat...
What happened is, I am a member of Arab Atheist group and Mr Jerusalem, is member of Islamic Religious group, and they asked if we can discuss the existence of god, since I am physicists, I asked to have scientific discussion, using published papers only...
Mr Jerusalem agreed, and I presented that:
1. The existence of the universe can be explained using science, as spontaneous,
2. The hypotheses that god created the universe add a new constraint...
3. Atheism then is more parsimonious, and more probable...
so this led to discussion that the universe does not require energy or interference to form... I presented Boomrang result, that, in classical approximation, without quantum mechanics, the universe is flat, which according to Einstein theory of general relativity, means that the total energy equals zero...

so $\Omega = 1$ is just classical approximation and I told mr Jerusalem exactly that it needs un-realistic fine tuning of the distribution of matter to have $\Omega = 1$ exactly in my 17th post on: 02-08-2012...
I told him as well that, in physics, there is no integer number that represents physical quantities...
He modified a graph shown WMAP to this way:

and I objected, because I see he misrepresented the results...
so the question is that figure correct or misrepresent the actual experimental results?
In essence, if WMAP results says: $\Omega = 1.02 \pm 0.02$, do you agree with this figure? Taking a value in the middle and placing it next to other graph that has 8 zeroes? May be, I am a bit pedantic, but I am experimental physicists, and to me placing so many zeroes with an experimental results gives wrong message, do you agree?
Kind Regards...

 

[Chalnoth]

so this led to discussion that the universe does not require energy or interference to form... I presented Boomrang result, that, in classical approximation, without quantum mechanics, the universe is flat, which according to Einstein theory of general relativity, means that the total energy equals zero...

This last point isn't entirely accurate and doesn't actually matter.

The total energy is zero for a closed universe ($\Omega > 1$), not a flat universe. Even there, that's not an absolute statement, but one speaking of a very specific way of writing down your terms. The problem is that energy is never an absolute concept, and as a result is just not something that is conserved in General Relativity. So even if a new universe required some amount of energy, it really wouldn't matter, because total energy isn't conserved, and locally energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings.

He modified a graph shown WMAP to this way:

and I objected, because I see he misrepresented the results...
so the question is that figure correct or misrepresent the actual experimental results?
In essence, if WMAP results says: $\Omega = 1.02 \pm 0.02$, do you agree with this figure? Taking a value in the middle and placing it next to other graph that has 8 zeroes? May be, I am a bit pedantic, but I am experimental physicists, and to me placing so many zeroes with an experimental results gives wrong message, do you agree?
Kind Regards...

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

 

[Ibrahim64]

This last point isn't entirely accurate and doesn't actually matter.

The total energy is zero for a closed universe ($\Omega > 1$), not a flat universe. Even there, that's not an absolute statement, but one speaking of a very specific way of writing down your terms. The problem is that energy is never an absolute concept, and as a result is just not something that is conserved in General Relativity. So even if a new universe required some amount of energy, it really wouldn't matter, because total energy isn't conserved, and locally energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings.

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...
My knowledge does not go beyond relativistic quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity, my specialisation is in plasma physics... But I understand what Alan Guth said about inflationary universe, with ($\Omega > 1$) total energy equal zero, but I did not want to go this way, I thought I can use general theory of relativity, which makes a claim that the curvature of the space-time equals constant times the energy - momentum tensor...

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

Actually, the original figure from Boomrang, presents experimental result at the top...

Regards...

 

[Chalnoth]

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...

It's sometimes labeled as a misconception, but the effect is the same in the end. Even a vacuum is not stationary, and has random fluctuations. It is entirely possible for some rare fluctuations in a vacuum state to produce new inflating regions of space-time, very much like our early universe.

My knowledge does not go beyond relativistic quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity, my specialisation is in plasma physics... But I understand what Alan Guth said about inflationary universe, with ($\Omega > 1$) total energy equal zero, but I did not want to go this way, I thought I can use general theory of relativity, which makes a claim that the curvature of the space-time equals constant times the energy - momentum tensor...

The curvature of space-time most definitely is not a constant times the energy-momentum tensor. The two are related, but not simply by a constant proportionality. More importantly, the curvature we are talking about is not space-time curvature, but only spatial curvature. The space-time of our universe is most definitely curved. The question is whether or not we can take a particular time-slicing which has zero spatial curvature or not.

Actually, the original figure from Boomrang, presents experimental result at the top...

Regards...

Yes, the results are on top, while simulations with different amounts of curvature are on bottom. What's your point?

 

[jerusalem]

Mr. ibrahim we agreed to ask a Science Advisor and stop arguing

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

I am afraid that Mr.ibrahim won't get that answer.

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...

I never said that,
it doesn't matter what you are when you said:
"energy can be borrow from NOTHING" that called misconception
the space is not "NOTHING"
the vacuum energy is not "NOTHING"
the surroundings is not "NOTHING"

energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings"

...

Yes, the results are on top, while simulations with different amounts of curvature are on bottom. What's your point?

he said that this figure is misleading because "it claims an accuracy that can never be reach by experiment"
I told him 100s of time that the panel in the bottom has nothing to do with experiment.

 

[sea100]

though I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about

well I was following this topic without any trouble, until Ibrahim64 came and no one understand what he is trying to say. its clear that he is trying hard to look or for any mistake for personal reason. the forum is not made for this.

 

[George Jones]

I have closed this thread.

What happened is, I am a member of Arab Atheist group and Mr Jerusalem, is member of Islamic Religious group, and they asked if we can discuss the existence of god, since I am physicists, I asked to have scientific discussion, using published papers only...
Mr Jerusalem agreed, and I presented that:
1. The existence of the universe can be explained using science, as spontaneous,
2. The hypotheses that god created the universe add a new constraint...
3. Atheism then is more parsimonious, and more probable...

Physics Forums Rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

to which everyone agrees when they register, state

Religious Discussion: Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what is not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.