- #1
- 1,256
- 0
Edit: Thread started at the same time as Garth's on the same topic, go https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=170753" instead!
Last edited by a moderator:
Wallace said:I don't have time to add my detailed thoughts about this yet, but I'm sure http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462" would be of interest to a good number of the folk around here!
Here is the abstract, though I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing (it's only 14 pages and written in an easily readable style)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?
Authors: Richard Lieu
(Submitted on 17 May 2007)
Abstract: Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models. The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in point on selective citation. I also show that when all evidence are taken into account, two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much. Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.
LCDM stands for Lambda Cold Dark Matter, which is a cosmological model that describes the evolution of the universe.
Dark matter is a crucial component of the LCDM model, as it makes up about 85% of the total matter in the universe. It helps explain the observed rotation curves of galaxies and the large-scale structure of the universe.
LCDM cosmology proposes that the universe began with a Big Bang, which was followed by a period of rapid expansion known as inflation. This model also suggests that the universe is currently expanding at an accelerating rate due to the presence of dark energy.
Cosmologists play a crucial role in studying LCDM cosmology. They use various observational and theoretical techniques to understand the evolution and properties of the universe, including the distribution of matter and energy, the formation of galaxies, and the behavior of dark matter and dark energy.
The LCDM model predicts the existence of a cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a remnant of the heat from the early universe. This radiation is thought to be the afterglow of the Big Bang and has been observed by various satellites and telescopes, providing strong evidence for the validity of the LCDM model.