Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms
rlold...@amherst.edu
the Big Bang Theory", and I intend to keep contributing to it when I
think I have something useful to add.
However, my main interest in participating in that thread was in
demonstrating that an exciting clash of paradigms is about to unfold,
as I will review below. Because the "Good News" thread is moving in
many other directions, I thought I would present a clear, well-defined
summary of my claim via a new thread. Subsequent additions to this new
thread will hopefully remain on-topic.
The most recent copy of ApJ (Vol. 649, 1-13, 2006) has a lead article
by Diemand et al on cosmology. The authors state:
"The key idea of the standard cosmological paradigm for the formation
of structure in the universe - that primordial density fluctuations
grow by gravitational instability driven by collisionless CDM - is
constantly being elaborated on and explored in detail through
supercomputer simulations and tested against a variety of astrophysical
observations. The leading candidate for DM is the neutralino, a WIMP
predicted by the supersymmetric theory of particle physics."
1. CRUCIAL IDEA (I): Let us be up front about it. The standard
cosmological paradigm retrodicts that the dark matter is CDM. If the
dark matter is not in the form of some kind of enormous population of
subatomic particles, then the standard cosmological paradigm will have
been shown to have a fatal flaw. We will know that a new paradigm is
required. The old paradigm will be recognized as a limited
approximation that must be superseded by a more encompassing paradigm
that solves the DM enigma correctly.
2. CRUCIAL IDEA (II): The unbounded Discrete Fractal Paradigm predicted
(ApJ, 322, 34-36, 1988)definitively (prior, testable, quantitative and
non-adjustable) that the dark matter must be in the form of
stellar-mass ultracompact objects (Kerr-Newman black holes). The mass
peaks that are the largest, and most likely to be observed first, are
found at 0.15 solar masses, 0.58 solar masses, and 8 x 10^-5 solar
masses. The stellar scale of nature's hierarchy is dominated by these
three subpopulations. I submit to you that you cannot get a more
definitive prediction than this! See www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw for
full information on the unbounded fractal paradigm.
So, a critical test with a lot riding on it is underway. If CDM does
not exist, then the standard paradigm needs more than a new bell or
whistle tacked on. It will need replacement.
If the definitive DM prediction of the unbounded fractal paradigm is
vindicated, then it will have demonstrated that it alone is the right
path towards a bold and incredibly beautiful new understanding of
nature.
Actually, for those who are a bit impatient to see how this plays out,
nature has given us some hints of what the solution to the dark matter
enigma is likely to look like. If you go to the arxiv.org preprint
site and print out copies of astro-ph/0002363 by Oldershaw and
astro-ph/0607358 by Calchi Novati et al, you will get an overview of
results to date. They are very exciting.
rlold...@amherst.edu
> I thought I would present a clear, well-defined
> summary of my claim via a new thread.
I would like to add a bit more information on the the Discrete Fractal
paradigm's definitive predictions regarding the dark matter.
The mass ratio of the 8 x 10^-5 to 0.15 solar mass systems is about
1/1836.
In this first order approximation, all but the the 8 x 10^-5 solar mass
subpopulation have masses that are integer multiples of about 0.145
solar masses. Thus 0.145, 0.29, 0.44, 0.58 ... solar masses. Well
over 90% of the dark matter mass in the observable universe, however,
should be found in the 0.15 solar mass and 0.58 solar mass
subpopulations.
Where are all these objects, you ask?
1. Microlensing experiments many have already found evidence for large
numbers of these objects (see references in the original post).
2. All radio pulsars, isolated neutron stars, soft gamma ray repeaters,
anomalous X-ray pulsars, central compact objects in supernova remnants,
and rotating radio transients are members of the general class of
objects predicted by the Discrete Fractal paradigm. "But WAIT!", you
say, "most of these are not Kerr-Newman black holes, and most of them
are NOT DARK!".
Exactly so. These systems are the among the more massive systems in
the general class and they appear to be in moderately to highly excited
states. There is a rigorous self-similarity between them and subatomic
nuclei in excited states. The stellar scale systems are ejecting
matter and emitting stellar scale EM radiation in order to de-excite
back to the stable ground state, in exact analogy to what happens with
subatomic nuclei.
Would you like to see one of these systems that appears to have nearly
returned to the ground state? Again, go to the www.arxiv.org site and
download a copy of the preprint by Park et al numbered
astro-ph/0610004. At the center of a SNR they observe (as in a real
object that actually exists in nature) a point-like X-ray source with a
very low temperature black-body spectrum. Emission is fairly steady;
it may or may not be weakly pulsating at 7.5 sec. No counterparts at
other wavelengths are observed. The size of the emitting region is
estimated at 0.4 km, a radius that has been predicted by the discrete
fractal paradigm (ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987). The X-ray luminosity is about
10^33 ergs/sec, which is not that far from the DF prediction of ground
state accretion-generated X-ray luminosities of 10^28 to 10^32 erg/sec.
The system ejected its outer plasma shells, and inside we find an
object well on its way to returning to its ultracompact ground state,
if not virtually already there. This object should be followed
closely, since it might be a very useful test case.
My friends, it may just be a fractal world,
Rob
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlold...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> In this first order approximation, all but the the 8 x 10^-5 solar mass
> subpopulation have masses that are integer multiples of about 0.145
> solar masses. Thus 0.145, 0.29, 0.44, 0.58 ... solar masses. Well
> over 90% of the dark matter mass in the observable universe, however,
> should be found in the 0.15 solar mass and 0.58 solar mass
> subpopulations.
>
> Where are all these objects, you ask?
>
> 1. Microlensing experiments many have already found evidence for large
> numbers of these objects (see references in the original post).
I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively
show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability.
However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause
significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly
corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a
prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You
can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim
that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO
microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle.
rlold...@amherst.edu
>
> I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively
> show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability.
> However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause
> significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly
> corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a
> prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You
> can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim
> that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO
> microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle.
Well, clearly we have a difference of opinion here.
My theory will not be adjusted; I stand by the predictions I have made.
I think your claim that it has been ruled out is more than a little
premature. I think it would be wiser and more scientifically
appropriate to keep an open mind in this area. These are very
challenging observations which require a lot of simplifications and
assumptions in order to come up with take-home results. It is not
surprising that the early results in the various microlensing
experiments have had various levels of uncertainty.
Within the next 10 years this situation should definitely change, as
demonstrated in astro-ph/0609112 v2 by Kochanek et al (at www.arxiv.org
). In fact with the 2008 Kepler mission, and continuing advanced
microlensing experiments, I think we can look forward to much more
definitive observational results on the dark matter within 10 years.
Perhaps we need to be a bit more patient and maintain our scientific
objectivity, as best we can? Let's let nature decide who is right.
Robert Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlold...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
> >
> > I posted some references earlier in a similar thread which definitively
> > show that microlensing canNOT be the dominant cause of QSO variability.
> > However, if these objects exist as you claim, then they should cause
> > significant QSO variability through microlensing, at a level roughly
> > corresponding to the observed variability. Your theory made a
> > prediction and it was falsified. Good theory, but wrong. Move on. You
> > can only save your theory by "adjusting" it, by making an ad-hoc claim
> > that this dark matter is distributed so that it won't cause QSO
> > microlensing. What was your term? Epicycle.
>
> Well, clearly we have a difference of opinion here.
>
> My theory will not be adjusted; I stand by the predictions I have made.
> I think your claim that it has been ruled out is more than a little
> premature. I think it would be wiser and more scientifically
> appropriate to keep an open mind in this area. These are very
> challenging observations which require a lot of simplifications and
> assumptions in order to come up with take-home results. It is not
> surprising that the early results in the various microlensing
> experiments have had various levels of uncertainty.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0306434
Here, the main point is that microlensing can't be the main source of
QSO variability. However, IF most of the dark matter is in compact
objects, then one WOULD expect to detect it (quantitatively; of course
microlensing has been observed, the question is how much mass is in the
objects and how is it distributed). Things might conspire so that the
signal is swamped by other variability, but if it is "just so" then one
should be suspicious.
rlold...@amherst.edu
Good. I think we have a mutually acceptable compromise developing here.
I do think it is possible that microlensing by stellar-mass DM objects
is obcured by other more energetic phenomena in QSOs, and that this
possibility should not be labelled a "just so" story. The preprint I
cited in the previous post is fairly optimistic that QSO studies are
approaching a point where they might make substantial new contributions
to the questions we seek to answer.
The very first reported microlensing event was related to a
multiply-lensed QSO. The estimated mass of the lens was on the order
of 10^-4.5 solar masses. The error bars bracketed the Discrete Fractal
prediction at 8 x 10^-5 solar masses.
Let's not forget about microlensing studies closer to home, too.
Observational astrophysicists, for whom I have the greatest respect,
are, or will be, looking at the Bulge, Disk, Halo, globular clusters,
LMC, SMC, M31, etc., over the next 10 years.
I think we can look forward to an exciting time, one way or the other.
Robert Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlold...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> The very first reported microlensing event was related to a
> multiply-lensed QSO.
This is not a coincidence. If you observe variability in a QSO, how do
you know it is microlensing? Answer: you can't with a normal QSO.
However, with multiple images, intrinsic variability will show up after
a certain delay in all images. This time delay can be used to measure
the Hubble constant, so many more multiply-imaged QSOs have light curves
than non-lensed QSOs. (Here, microlensing is a nuisance.)
STATISTICALLY, with lots of observations of lots of QSOs, one can
differntiate microlensing from plausible intrinsic variability, but one
can't make such a separation in an isolated case.
> Let's not forget about microlensing studies closer to home, too.
> Observational astrophysicists, for whom I have the greatest respect,
> are, or will be, looking at the Bulge, Disk, Halo, globular clusters,
> LMC, SMC, M31, etc., over the next 10 years.
I think these nearby microlensing studies have ALREADY ruled out a
fraction of lensing objects anywhere near the critical density over a
broad mass range (including yours). (If not, the dark matter would have
been found and it would not be the mystery it is.)
rlold...@amherst.edu
> "rlold...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
>
> > The very first reported microlensing event was related to a
> > multiply-lensed QSO.
>
> This is not a coincidence. If you observe variability in a QSO, how do
> you know it is microlensing? Answer: you can't with a normal QSO.
> However, with multiple images, intrinsic variability will show up after
> a certain delay in all images. This time delay can be used to measure
> the Hubble constant, so many more multiply-imaged QSOs have light curves
> than non-lensed QSOs. (Here, microlensing is a nuisance.)
> STATISTICALLY, with lots of observations of lots of QSOs, one can
> differntiate microlensing from plausible intrinsic variability, but one
> can't make such a separation in an isolated case.
At one time some scientists opined that we would never know much about
atoms because they were too far beyond direct observational
capabilities. We have done rather well, in spite of those doubts. I
have great hopes for QSO variability studies. The enignatic intraday
variability is interesting and repeated hints (yes, only hints so far)
of about 100-day lensing events is also worth watching. It may take
time, but the potential for learning is big.
> I think these nearby microlensing studies have ALREADY ruled out a
> fraction of lensing objects anywhere near the critical density over a
> broad mass range (including yours). (If not, the dark matter would have
> been found and it would not be the mystery it is.)
Well, the paper by Calchi Novati et al which I have cited above tells a
different story, and the various teams doing the actual work of these
experiments would appreciate a bit less of the "often wrong, never in
doubt" attitude of theoretical cosmologists, at least until the
empirical situation is clearer.
I have gone way, way out on a limb with the Discrete Fractal paradigm
perdictions for the dark matter and now those predictions are a matter
of public record. I suggest we sit back and relax a bit. If you are
right, you have nothing to worry about because nature will prove that
you are right. If things go the other way, we will have a new paradigm
for nature that is unsurpassed in its beauty, scope, unity and
explanatory power. Either way, as scientists, we win. Right?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Joseph Lazio
re> I have great hopes for QSO variability studies. The enignatic
re> intraday variability is interesting
While interesting, if you're using intraday variability (IDV) in the
usual sense, it is not mysterious. There have been quite convincing
observations that IDV results from a radio-wave propagation effect in
our Galaxy. Quoting from a recent paper
Time differences of up to 8 minutes have been measured in the
variability pattern arrival times at widely spaced radio telescopes
for the three most rapidly varying scintillators PKS 0405-385
(Jauncey et al. 2000), J1819+3845 (Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2002),
and most recently PKS 1257-326 (Bignall 2003; Bignall et al. 2004,
2006). In addition, "annual cycles" in the variability
characteristics have been determined for five prominent IDV
sources, 0917+624 (Rickett et al. 2001; Jauncey & Macquart 2001),
J1819+3845 (Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2003), PKS 1257-326 (Bignall
2003; Bignall et al. 2003), PKS 1519-273 (Jauncey et al. 2003), and
B0059+3845 (Jauncey et al. 2006).
The interesting thing about IDV is what it implies about the central
engine and the implications for micro-arcsecond scale structure within
it.
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jla...@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
rlold...@amherst.edu
>
> While interesting, if you're using intraday variability (IDV) in the
> usual sense, it is not mysterious. There have been quite convincing
> observations that IDV results from a radio-wave propagation effect in
> our Galaxy.
> Lt. Lazio, HTML police
Please note: I am not "using" the IDV for anything. I just find it an
interesting phenomenon.
Would you please explain a bit more about the physics involved? What
would be the cause of the "radio-wave propagation effect in our
Galaxy"?
Thanks,
Robert L. Oldershaw
Stupendous_Man
> > While interesting, if you're using intraday variability (IDV) in the
> > usual sense, it is not mysterious. There have been quite convincing
> > observations that IDV results from a radio-wave propagation effect in
> > our Galaxy.
rlold...@amherst.edu replied:
> Would you please explain a bit more about the physics involved? What
> would be the cause of the "radio-wave propagation effect in our
> Galaxy"?
Go to ADS
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
Type "scintillation radio waves interstellar" into the "Abstract words"
box.
Click on "submit". Scan the returned list of titles. Read a few
abstracts,
then a paper or two.
Michael Richmond
rlold...@amherst.edu
>
> Go to ADS
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
>
> Type "scintillation radio waves interstellar" into the "Abstract words"
> box.
> Click on "submit". Scan the returned list of titles. Read a few
> abstracts,
> then a paper or two.
>
> Michael Richmond
Thanks for the recommendation. If you could identify a specific review
paper that gives a good, up-to-date summary, I would welcome that. I
had also downloaded astro-ph/0610737 by Mark A. Walker entitled Extreme
Scattering Events: Insights Into The Interstellar Medium On AU-Scales",
and started reading it.
Is it generally accepted that there are previously-largely-unknown
AU-sized, spherically symmetric "objects" composed of plasma, and in
numbers possibly approaching 10^5 times the number of stars? Am I
reading this correctly? Who ordered these objects?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Joseph Lazio
re> Stupendous_Man wrote:
>> Go to ADS
>>
>> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html
>> Type "scintillation radio waves interstellar" into the "Abstract
>> words" box. Click on "submit". Scan the returned list of titles.
>> Read a few abstracts, then a paper or two.
re> Thanks for the recommendation. If you could identify a specific
re> review paper that gives a good, up-to-date summary, I would
re> welcome that.
Rickett (1990, ARAA, <URL:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1990ARA%26A..28..561R
>) is a good place to start.
Although a bit obscure, an extremely lucid discussion is in Narayan
(1992, Proc. R. Soc. London A, 341, 1510.
Finally, there are a couple of conference proceedings that are also
useful:
Cordes, James M.; Rickett, Barney J.; Backer, Donald C.
Radio wave scattering in the interstellar medium; Proceedings of the
AIP Conference, University of California, San Diego, CA, Jan. 18, 19,
1988
(I forget the title, but the proceedings are
Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 278, Issue 1/2, p. 5-10, 2001.)
re> I had also downloaded astro-ph/0610737 by Mark A. Walker entitled
re> Extreme Scattering Events: Insights Into The Interstellar Medium
re> On AU-Scales", and started reading it.
re> Is it generally accepted that there are previously-largely-unknown
re> AU-sized, spherically symmetric "objects" composed of plasma, and
re> in numbers possibly approaching 10^5 times the number of stars?
re> Am I reading this correctly?
I wouldn't say "previously-largely-unknown." Their effects were first
reported by Fielder et al. (1987). As for their numbers, densities,
and geometries, by-and-large all we measure are one-dimensional cuts
through these objects (though that may be changing with some of Dan
Stinebring's work). *If* one models them as spherically symmetric
objects, then, yes, they do appear to have extreme properties.
However, even a casual perusal of a dust cloud or similar image may
cause one to wonder about the appropriateness of assuming spherical
symmetry.
re> Who ordered these objects?
I often wonder if the casual sci.astro reader understands my comment
that I wasn't consulted about the design of the Universe.
rlold...@amherst.edu
During the past month there have been no major developments regarding
the critical paradigmatic test discussed above, but there has been at
least one notable, although tentative, addition to the observational
evidence.
M.R.S. Hawkins has submitted a paper to A&A regarding timescale
variations in AGN. Free copies can be obtained at www.arxiv.org , by
searching on Hawkins or looking up astro-ph/0611491. In this paper data
from two largescale AGN monitoring programs have been combined and
analyzed for timescale variations.
At this point one cannot unambiguously say whether the observed
variations are due to microlensing or due to intrinsic variations by
the quasar (or presumably some combination of the two).
However, if the timescale variations are due to microlensing, then
1. the lower limit mass for the lenses is ~ 0.4 solar masses, and
2. the number of lenses must be significantly more abundant than the
abundance inferred from the MACHO results (Alcock, et al, ApJ, 486,
697, 1997); moreover
3. the results are consistent with derived lens estimates of ~/< 0.2
solar masses for Q2237+0305 (Kochanek, C.S., ApJ, 605, 58, 2004) and
~/< 0.5 solar masses for Q0957+561 (Refsdal et al, A&A, 360, 10, 2000).
So the new results are still tentative, but it cannot escape notice
that this study joins a large and growing list of observations that
*suggest* a very large number of dark matter objects within the
conservative mass range of 0.1 - 0.6 solar masses.
Excuse me for pointing this out again, but I think it is very
important. The full range of possible masses for dark matter candidates
extends over a range of 10^70. From within this enormous range, the
Discrete Fractal paradigm predicted (see ApJ reference above) that the
dominant galactic dark matter populations would be observed to fall
within the mass range of 0.1 - 0.6 solar masses (two sharp peaks at
0.15 and 0.58 solar masses).
Surely, the wait for a definitive resolution of the test cannot last
too much longer (he says with a wistful sigh).
Robert L. Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlold...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> M.R.S. Hawkins has submitted a paper to A&A regarding timescale
> variations in AGN. Free copies can be obtained at www.arxiv.org , by
> searching on Hawkins or looking up astro-ph/0611491. In this paper data
> from two largescale AGN monitoring programs have been combined and
> analyzed for timescale variations.
>
> At this point one cannot unambiguously say whether the observed
> variations are due to microlensing or due to intrinsic variations by
> the quasar (or presumably some combination of the two).
>
> However, if the timescale variations are due to microlensing, then
>
> 1. the lower limit mass for the lenses is ~ 0.4 solar masses, and
>
> 2. the number of lenses must be significantly more abundant than the
> abundance inferred from the MACHO results (Alcock, et al, ApJ, 486,
> 697, 1997); moreover
In other words, there must be a contradiction with the well studied
MACHO result.
Excuse ME for pointing this out again, but I've pointed out a couple of
times here before (with refereed-journal references) that Hawkins's idea
that QSO variability is mainly caused by microlensing is interesting,
but doesn't stand up to a quantitative analysis.
To those who work in the field, citing Hawkins as support of your idea
is not going to lend it credibility; quite the opposite.
To quote: "If the variations are interpreted as due to gravitational
microlensing". Even if everything else is correct, this is an
ASSUMPTION. However, this assumption has been ruled out, since if the
variations were due to microlensing, the statistical properties of QSO
light curves published by Hawkins himself should be different than what
they are.
Actually, one could probably rule out your idea, since if all the dark
matter is in these objects, it WOULD cause significant QSO variability
by microlensing, but that has been ruled out. You're in good company:
your theory makes a testable prediction and was tested. It was ruled
out. End of theory. No amount of selective citing will save it.
rlold...@amherst.edu
>
> matter is in these objects, it WOULD cause significant QSO variability
> by microlensing, but that has been ruled out. You're in good company:
> your theory makes a testable prediction and was tested. It was ruled
> out. End of theory. No amount of selective citing will save it.
You are remarkably sure of yourself! Would you go so far as to say that
there is absolutely no chance that you could be wrong?
My post clearly noted the tentative nature of the Hawkins paper.
You say (without citing actual scientific evidence) that the
microlensing interpretation for at least part of the variability has
been ruled out. Apparently the editors and referees at A&A take a more
open-minded view of the situation. Otherwise they would have rejected
the paper or insisted that the microlensing interpretation be removed.
Are we sure that we have considered an adequate range of possibilities
for the spatial distribution and velocity distribution of the dark
matter objects in the AGN setting, before summarily dismissing the
whole idea? I suspect that those who do reject the whole idea are
basing their rejection on an over-simplified models for those
distributions.
I think that it is quite possible that our understanding of QSOs is
still rudimentary and contains significant gaps. Summary dismissals
based on current understanding are probably premature.
Robert L. Oldershaw
rlold...@amherst.edu
For Radio Pulsars" (ApJ 652, 1499-1507, Dec 1, 2006).
Basically the story is as follows. The EGRET observations detected 50
to 100 gamma-ray sources at mid-Galactic latitudes. These sources are
quite faint and have steeper spectra than their counterparts at lower
latitudes; their energies are > 100 Mev. The questions are: What are
these very faint but very energetic sources, and are we seeing the
"tip-of-the-iceberg" type of situation where a very large population of
high-energy sources is out there but are mostly just below current
detection and resolution capabilities?
The cited paper explores the possibility that these mystery sources are
pulsars. Of the 56 source error boxes tested, 13 contained pulsars and
43 mystery sources remain a mystery.
The authors conclude: "Non-pulsar source classes should therefore be
investigated further" and noted that microquasars (black holes in
binary systems) might be a possibility.
It seems to me that a second front is opening up in the critical test
of paradigms that is the topic of this thread. Previously I believed
that microlensing were the best way to resolve the issue of whether or
not there is a huge Galactic population of stellar-mass black holes, as
predicted by the Discrete Fractal Paradigm. Now I am beginning to think
that gamma-ray experiments may provide an equally important, and
possibly more definitive, source of data for this test.
Does anyone have updated information on the status of the advanced
AGILE and GLAST satellites which were scheduled for launch somewhere in
the 2006-2008 time frame? These missions offer order-of-magnitude
increases in sensitivity in the important energy range of 1 Gev to 200
Gev. The combination of microlensing results and gamma-ray results
should be extremely useful in answering the key question of this
thread.
Robert L. Oldershaw
rlold...@amherst.edu
>
Regarding the critical test between the Discrete Fractal Paradigm and
the Standard (Big Bang+Inflation) Cosmological Paradigm, which is the
subject of this thread, some interesting observational results were
made available last week.
In astro-ph/0701325 at www.arxiv.org, Raiteri et al report on optical
spectroscopic monitoring of the BL Lac object AO 235+164. Results for
the broad line region do not fit well with a microlensing
interpretation. Variations in the continuum flux coming from a smaller
and more central region, on the other hand, are consistent with a
microlensing interpretation.
Most relevant to this discussion is the fact that the typical timescale
of the variations (2-3 months) implies lens masses of ~10^-4 solar
masses, as reported by the authors of this preprint. This is quite
consistent with the predicted 8 x 10^-5 solar mass ultracompacts
specified by the Discrete Fractal Paradigm. This class of
planetary-mass dark matter objects is highly diagnostic since no other
theory predicts anything remotely similar.
These results are limited and tentative, but once again one of the two
specific masses uniquely predicted by the DFP has found *empirical*
support.
Microlensing in a quasar (QSO 2237+0305) has recently been
unambiguously identified and reported (astro-ph/0701300), but no mass
estimates are given in their preprint.
RLO
rlold...@amherst.edu
<rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> rlolders...@amherst.edu wrote:
In an effort to keep this thread alive, since I hope that in the not-
too-distant future some highly significant test results will become
available, I offer a brief report on some new data on BL Lac
variability and its possible interpretation in terms of microlensing.
In astro-ph/0701420 at www.arxiv.org the authors Ciprini et al discuss
the variability of the BL Lac object PKS 0735+178.
This system had been monitored for decades and characteristic
timescales in the variations are reported. The "rather achromatic
behavior" has two general times scales: short-term events with
timescales of roughly 27-79 days, and long-term events with timescales
of 4.5-13 years.
If my memory serves me well, numerous authors who have studied QSO
microlensing, such as Refsdal, Gunn, Schild, Hawkins, Schneider, and
many others, have demonstrated that the approximate timescales for
stellar-mass lenses should be on the order of 10 years, and the
approximate time scales for planetary-mass lenses should be on the
order of 90 days.
These two timescales are rough estimates that have to be refined to
take into account the actual parameters of the system being studied.
It is interesting that the newly reported data for PKS 0735+178 once
again suggests the *possibility* of microlensing by two distinct
populations of lenses: a planetary-mass population and a stellar-mass
population.
Clearly, one cannot claim that this new data changes the status of the
"Critical Test" of this thread. It is one more piece of evidence that
could be interpreted in a number of different ways. However, the new
results reaffirm previous observations of two distinct timescales in
the variability of distant QSOs and AGN. In the long run, this may be
an important and diagnostic feature of QSO variability, and its
possible microlensing interpretation.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Kent Paul Dolan
> In an effort to keep this thread alive,
> since I hope that in the not-too-distant
> future some highly significant test results
> will become available,
Thanks for reminding me of a question I've been
wanting to ask here. I read that the Hubble
suffered some major breakdown just short of
its expected lifespan. I'm not claiming I have
any idea what was lost in terms of hardware.
I'm not claiming I know what the planned 2008
mission can return to service, either.
What I want to know is, what was lost in terms
of expected data that would have been settling
or lending support/dismissal to some proposed
solutions of some of the "big questions" here?
What was "upcoming" that is now "indefinitely
delayed"? Are other, planned tools going to
provide this data later, or are we "back to
square one" in some cases?
IMWTK
xanthian.
Stupendous_Man
> I read that the Hubble
> suffered some major breakdown just short of
> its expected lifespan.
The main imaging camera, called ACS, failed.
An older camera, the WFPC2, still remains in working
condition, but it is less sensitive than ACS.
> What I want to know is, what was lost in terms
> of expected data that would have been settling
> or lending support/dismissal to some proposed
> solutions of some of the "big questions" here?
>
> What was "upcoming" that is now "indefinitely
> delayed"? Are other, planned tools going to
> provide this data later, or are we "back to
> square one" in some cases?
Most proposals to take images with HST
called for the ACS. Since it has failed, the
Space Telescope Science Institute has put out
a second call for revised proposals. Astronomers
who were planning to use the ACS to take images
of the faintest sources (which are in many ways
the most important for cosmology) will probably
change their projects, since WFPC2 can't reach
those same faint objects.
rlold...@amherst.edu
This is a brief monthly update on the dark matter enigma/search and
relevant publications on the critical test that is the subject of this
thread.
1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
amounts of matter from the ISM. GLAST has the potential to enlighten
us, so to speak, and should be launched in Oct of 2007.
2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??
3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
very nice target for microlensing surveys!
Thoughts on the questions above would be appreciated.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Stupendous_Man
> ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
> don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
> emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
> is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
> the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
> discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
> hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
> but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
> we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
> would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
> amounts of matter from the ISM.
Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
we be able to detect such sources?
Once you can show that it is plausible for the X-ray background
to come from such compact objects, everyone will listen more
carefully to your other ideas.
> 2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
> microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
> comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
> and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
> With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
> whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
> very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
> searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
> know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
> gives??
Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.
> 3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
> about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
> very nice target for microlensing surveys!
Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
to do it.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
> > 1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
> > ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
> > don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
> > emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
> > is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
> > the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
> > discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
> > hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
> > but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
> > we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
> > would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
> > amounts of matter from the ISM.
>
> Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
> strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
> the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
> it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
> falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
> potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
> and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
> X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
> we be able to detect such sources?
In Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987 I reported my estimates,
which I believe were in the 10^24 to 10^28 ergs/sec range. Surprised?
Maybe you should read that paper. Two things are important to mention
here: (1) very large populations with these levels of X-ray luminosity
do not appear to violate current observations and (2) my estimates
were based on the models of other astrophysicists publishing in about
1986. Their models, and my estimates, might be need to be re-evaulated
based on theoretical progress in the intervening years.
> Once you can show that it is plausible for the X-ray background
> to come from such compact objects, everyone will listen more
> carefully to your other ideas.
Well, I certainly appreciate your optimism, but they did not listen in
1987 and I do not think they listen now either, *unless the population
is detected*. Then they will probably say they predicted such a result
all along.
> > 2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
> > microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
> > comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
> > and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
> > With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
> > whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
> > very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
> > searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
> > know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
> > gives??
>
> Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
> the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
> web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
> their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.
But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
create them, if no one else has.
> > 3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
> > about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
> > very nice target for microlensing surveys!
>
> Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
> to do it.
Dream on. As an uppity maverick with a subscription to Science News as
my credentials, they would probably not even let me wash dishes in the
commisary! But seriously, there are limited areas where I can
potentially contribute something, and many other areas where I totally
rely on others to do *their* thing. The days when an Einstein could do
just about everything by himself are long gone (and even he would have
had very serious troubles without the 3 increasingly important things
done for him by Grossman, and then of course there was Minkowski,
Planck, Lorentz, Poincare, Faraday, Maxwell, Riemann,..., I guess
science is a communal effort and always has been) .
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Stupendous_Man
> > > ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
> > > don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
> > > emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
> > > is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
> > > the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
> > > discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
> > > hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
> > > but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
> > > we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
> > > would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
> > > amounts of matter from the ISM.
>
> > Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
> > strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
> > the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
> > it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
> > falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
> > potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
> > and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
> > X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
> > we be able to detect such sources?
>
> In Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987 I reported my estimates,
> which I believe were in the 10^24 to 10^28 ergs/sec range. Surprised?
> Maybe you should read that paper.
Thanks for the reference. I have just read the paper. It does not
provide any estimates for the luminosity of an isolated compact object
accreting material from the ISM.
> > > 2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
> > > microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
> > > comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
> > > and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
> > > With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
> > > whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
> > > very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
> > > searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
> > > know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
> > > gives??
>
> > Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
> > the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
> > web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
> > their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.
>
> But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
> comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
> that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
> summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
> will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
> create them, if no one else has.
I am not going to track the data down for you. Perhaps someone
else reading this thread will.
> > > 3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
> > > about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
> > > very nice target for microlensing surveys!
>
> > Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
> > to do it.
>
> Dream on.
Well, I was trying to help you, but your reply isn't polite.
I'm not going to help you any more.
Perhaps there is a reason few people are stepping up
to work with you.
Good luck.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
>
> Thanks for the reference. I have just read the paper. It does not
> provide any estimates for the luminosity of an isolated compact object
> accreting material from the ISM.
If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Selected
Papers", then click on Paper #2, then go to section 2.5 "The Enigmatic
Dark Matter", the X-ray estimates for the 0.145 solar mass population
are given (10^26 to 10^29 ergs/sec for disk and halo locations) and
there is a reference to my original published calculations (based I
think on an ApJ paper by Heygi et al?).
> > But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
> > comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
> > that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
> > summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
> > will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
> > create them, if no one else has.
>
> I am not going to track the data down for you. Perhaps someone
> else reading this thread will.
Or maybe explain why it has not been done.
> Well, I was trying to help you, but your reply isn't polite.
> I'm not going to help you any more.
I treat others with the same respect, or sarcasm, that they offer to
me. Nothing in my most recent post was intended to be offensive and
neither was it any more or less polite than your preceeding post.
Perhaps you feel that there is some unexplained reason that you should
receive preferential treatment.
I do believe that science is a communal activity, and should ideally
be based on cooperation rather than competition. But I also strongly
believe in Galileo's famous dictum about the "authority of a thousand"
and the "humble reasoning of a single individual".
To end on an empirical note (since that is what science is all about);
readers might want to take a look at astro-ph/0702621 at www.arxiv.org.
This preprint describes a "tantalizing hint" of populations of gamma
ray emmiters in the bulge and halo of the Galaxy. Very preliminary,
but interesting. GLAST may pull back the veil enough for a first look
at the putative populations.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Richard Saam
> 2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
> microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
> comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
> and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
> With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
> whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
> very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
> searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
> know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
> gives??
>
>
> Thoughts on the questions above would be appreciated.
>
> Robert L. Oldershaw
Zeroing in on your number 2:
Is it a matter of funding?
Who is supposed to do such work?
Is there a coordinated effort to do such?
Could it be that such uch work is expensive
in terms of man-hours and computer resources
and is considered secondary (expendable)
relative to other space programs?
Richard
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Selected
> Papers", then click on Paper #2, then go to section 2.5 "The Enigmatic
> Dark Matter", the X-ray estimates for the 0.145 solar mass population
> are given (10^26 to 10^29 ergs/sec for disk and halo locations) and
> there is a reference to my original published calculations (based I
> think on an ApJ paper by Heygi et al?).
Do you think that Omega = 0.3 (approximately) is in objects of 0.145
solar masses? If so, then can you explain why high-redshift QSOs do not
show the expected microlensing signal?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
persecuted; he must also be right.
---Stephen Jay Gould
rlolders...@amherst.edu
remove
>
> Do you think that Omega =3D 0.3 (approximately) is in objects of 0.145
> solar masses? If so, then can you explain why high-redshift QSOs do not
> show the expected microlensing signal?
>
--=AD----
> A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
> persecuted; he must also be right.
>
Gould
I think you should explicitly explain what you mean by "the expected
microlensing signal".
What specific assumptions go into the calculation of "the expected
microlensing signal"?
Do you assume a homogeneous distribution of stellar-mass dark matter
objects? If so, you are merely setting up a "straw man" so that you
can easily knock it down.
Assuming that the distribution of the stellar-mass dark matter objects
roughly follows the distribution of luminous matter, what exactly (in
numbers and units) is "the expected microlensing signal" that you are
referring to?
And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
with CDM predictions?
Here's a quote from Massey: "The first thing that strikes me is the
voids. Vast expanses of space are completely empty." CDM proponents
have traditionally argued that the particle-mass dark matter should be
spread out much more homogeneously than luminous matter. The SSCP
( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicted that the stellar-mass dark
matter should roughly follow the luminous matter. Looks to me like
nature is trying to tell us something, and fudging the CDM hypothesis
once again until it is forced to agree with observations seems like a
dubious strategy, from the point of view of science anyway.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu~rloldershaw
..=2E.......................................................................=
..=2E....................................
"Why should one not be able to live contentedly as a member of the
service personnel in the lunatic asylum? After all, one respects the
lunatics as the ones for whom the building in which one lives exists.
Albert Einstein
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> I think you should explicitly explain what you mean by "the expected
> microlensing signal".
>
> What specific assumptions go into the calculation of "the expected
> microlensing signal"?
>
> Do you assume a homogeneous distribution of stellar-mass dark matter
> objects? If so, you are merely setting up a "straw man" so that you
> can easily knock it down.
QSOs are very far away. If the nearby distribution is not somehow
magically correlated with the QSO position, than homogeneity is a
reasonable assumption.
> Assuming that the distribution of the stellar-mass dark matter objects
> roughly follows the distribution of luminous matter, what exactly (in
> numbers and units) is "the expected microlensing signal" that you are
> referring to?
Even in this case, averaged along the line of sight to a QSO, the
distribution should be homogeneous.
> And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
> fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
> results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
> with CDM predictions?
Just because something else is in conflict with CDM predictions doesn't
mean that your theory, which is also in conflict with standard
predictions, must be right.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-13283-1175533...@hercules.herts.ac.uk>,
>
> "rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
>
> QSOs are very far away. If the nearby distribution is not somehow
> magically correlated with the QSO position, than homogeneity is a
> reasonable assumption.
>
> distribution should be homogeneous.
>
> > And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
> > fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
> > results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
> > with CDM predictions?
>
> Just because something else is in conflict with CDM predictions doesn't
> mean that your theory, which is also in conflict with standard
> predictions, must be right.
I certainly hope the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm
( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) is "in conflict with standard
predictions", because I have serious doubts about the "standard
model". I think the empirical evidence for inhomogeneity on all
adequately observed scales is much stronger than the empirical
evidence for "homogeneity", theoretical preferences notwithstanding. I
also think that the empirical evidence for stellar-mass dark matter is
*much* stronger than the questionable and indirect arguments for CDM.
If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
tangible to discuss.
Finally, I would like to reiterate my contention that we have a better
chance of getting reliable information on the dark matter enigma
locally - right here in the MWG. The AGILE satellite is due for launch
this month, and has the potential for telling us more about the
possibility of faint gamma ray populations in the Galaxy. I anticipate
a very large population of previously unknown, discrete and faint
gamma ray sources that represent members of the more massive classes
of the stellar-mass dark matter predicted by the SSCP. My hope is
that, if this population exists, then AGILE and GLAST will demonstrate
that *empirically*. We would then be in a position to re-evauuate our
theoretical assumptions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
> in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
> variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
> that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
> published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
> tangible to discuss.
I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
>
> "rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
> > in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
> > variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
> > that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
> > published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
> > tangible to discuss.
>
> I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
> their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.
So that readers may make an informed decision, would you please give
us a specific citation for the paper you feel is most relevent to this
discussion.
Also, would you please carefully inform the readers about *all*
assumptions about the nature and distribution of the dark matter that
are crucial to the arguments presented in this specific paper.
Thank you,
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> On Apr 5, 7:55 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
> remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> > In article <mt2.0-25716-1175618...@hercules.herts.ac.uk>,
> >
> > "rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> writes:
> > > If you feel certain that the dark matter predictions of the SSCP are
> > > in conflict with the large amount of empirical evidence for
> > > variability and microlensing in quasars, blazars, etc., then I suggest
> > > that you write a carefully thought out analysis and try to get it
> > > published in a scientific journal. Then we would have something
> > > tangible to discuss.
> >
> > I have already done so and cited it here many times. Readers can draw
> > their own conclusions from the fact that you ignore it.
>
> So that readers may make an informed decision, would you please give
> us a specific citation for the paper you feel is most relevent to this
> discussion.
I think any interested reader has already found such information by
searching the archives. For the rest:, it's in A&A volume 408 (2003).
It's also at astro-ph/0306434.
Here's the abstract:
Although controversial, the scenario of microlensing as
the dominant mechanism for the long-term optical variability of
quasars does provide a natural explanation for both the statistical
symmetry, achromaticity and lack of cosmological time dilation in
quasar light curves. Here, we investigate to what extent dark
matter populations of compact objects allowed in the currently
favored Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 cosmology really can explain
the quantitative statistical features of the observed variability.
We find that microlensing reasonably well reproduces the average
structure function of quasars, but fails to explain both the high
fraction of objects with amplitudes higher than 0.35 magnitudes and
the mean amplitudes observed at redshifts below one. Even though
microlensing may still contribute to the long-term optical
variability at some level, another significant mechanism must also
be involved. This severely complicates the task of using
light-curve statistics from quasars which are not multiply imaged
to isolate properties of any cosmologically significant population
of compact objects which may in fact be present.
Note that the abstract is an ABSTRACT, i.e. it mentions only the most
important stuff. More details are in the paper.
> Also, would you please carefully inform the readers about *all*
> assumptions about the nature and distribution of the dark matter that
> are crucial to the arguments presented in this specific paper.
Read the paper. That's what it's for. The only way to answer your
question would be to post the paper here, but that's not the purpose of
newsgroups.
Let me point out two things. One, our assumptions lead to rather
optimistic (but still negative) conclusions. In other words, if the
assumptions are relaxed (a point you seem keen on), then the conclusions
are even more negative. Two, I started out very intriqued with the idea
that most long-term QSO variability is caused by microlensing, discussed
the (dark) matter (pardon the pun) with Hawkins many times and worked on
this question with a variety of collaborators. It's a good theory in
that it makes testable predictions. These predictions were not
confirmed. That's it. Move on.
While qualitatively it is difficult to argue against the claim (and most
authors who did so argued against an oversimplified straw-man version,
in part due to Hawkins himself, which at most ruled out a specific
scenario but not the general idea). A theory stands or falls with
quantitative predictions. If the dark matter is in compact objects, it
must produce microlensing. Compute the predictions and compare to
observations (Hawkins's own observations). QSO microlensing does not
look like it is caused by microlensing, when one looks at it in detail.
(It DOES superficially, otherwise no-one would have bothered with the
idea.) Of course, there are certainly a few compact objects and
microlensing is of course present at some level, but if most of the dark
matter were in compact objects, then only special pleading could make
the observations compatible with this idea.
What, specifically, do you object to in the paper?
rlolders...@amherst.edu
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
>
> What, specifically, do you object to in the paper?- Hide quoted text -
Firstly, I acknowledge and appreciate the time you have devoted to
exploring this issue.
The abstract of the paper you cite clarifies exceedingly well what can
be said about the predicted stellar-mass dark matter, and more
importantly to me, what cannot be ruled out at this point based on the
observations discussed in the paper.
Given the fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of basic QSO
and AGN phenomena, and given the fact that highly pertinent dark
matter distributions have to be virtually guessed at, and the fact
that the even paper's authors are saying that even if all the
estimates and assumptions are approximately right, it would be
unscientific to rule out a role for stellar-mass dark matter in QSO/
AGN variability, I think your advice to "move on" is premature.
Based on the evidence you have presented, I feel confident in staying
"in" the game and raising the bet. I will quickly and openly "fold"
if I see empirical evidence that indicates that my hand is a losing
one, but I am not intimidated by bluffing because there is a large
amout of empirical and theoretical evidence that supports my case (see
the website cited below).
May I make, once again, my suggestion for a scientific resolution to
this discussion. Let us see what AGILE and GLAST have to add to the
evidence. Observationally we will be on solid ground and dealing with
local objects about which we have a more dependable understanding.
The SSCP ( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicts that the Galaxy
contains a vast population of low-mass "primordial" Kerr-Newman "black
holes". If this prediction is right, then these dark matter objects
would be faint x-ray and gamma ray sources. Even if they were still
too faint to detect individually, AGILE and GLAST should be able to
detect their collective presence. And perhaps, though this may be
asking for too much, AGILE and GLAST will be able to resolve large
numbers of these discrete sources and reveal the presence and true
nature of the dark matter.
Given the exciting and very promising test just discussed above, it
seems silly to go on arguing about what QSO variability *implies* or
does not *imply*, unless the certainty of the implications can be
greatly improved upon. In the short term it looks like *local*
observations: microlensing, AGILE, GLAST, etc., are going to provide
the more direct route to a verification/falsification of stellar-mass
dark matter.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> Given the fundamental uncertainties in our understanding of basic QSO
> and AGN phenomena, and given the fact that highly pertinent dark
> matter distributions have to be virtually guessed at, and the fact
> that the even paper's authors are saying that even if all the
> estimates and assumptions are approximately right, it would be
> unscientific to rule out a role for stellar-mass dark matter in QSO/
> AGN variability, I think your advice to "move on" is premature.
The goal of the paper was a different one, as specified in the title.
Can microlensing explain QSO variability? It is a different question
whether QSO variability can rule out a population of compact objects. In
other words, microlensing can always be present at SOME level and the
signal be masked by other (presumably intrinsic) variability. However,
I think it is fair to say that if essentially all the dark matter
(especially if one believes that Omega might be larger than 0.3) is in
compact objects, then at least some samples of QSOs (i.e. those which
are not intrinsically variable) should show a typical microlensing
signature. As far as I know, no-one has demonstrated such a sample.
The difficulty, of course, is separating microlensing from intrinsic
variability. However, there is the system known as the Einstein Cross,
which is a QSO lensed by a nearby spiral galaxy into 4 images with a
time delay of just hours. In other words, any intrinsic variability
would show up in all images, with the corresponding time delay.
This system has been monitored a lot, especially with respect to
microlensing (for the reason mentioned above). Microlensing HAS been
detected. However, as far as I know, it is perfectly consisted with
normal assumptions about stellar mass distributions etc. This system
should be able to detect a large population of compact objects. Of
course, it's just one system, and it might be a fluke, but that sounds
like special pleading.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
I would not dispute most of what you have said above, except that
using a sample of one to make a case looks alot like "special
pleading", whether it is the case for or against an idea.
With regard to the dark matter enigma, I think we all hope for
empirical evidence that is literally compelling -- evidence that does
not require a lot of assumptions, statistical reasoning,
interpretations, etc.
Within the next 12 months, AGILE will be launched, GLAST should be
launched, and the LHC should come on line. Already, several research
teams are pursuing active microlensing programs (although they have
been rather "silent" lately!?).
I think our best strategy is to be very watchful, but patient. Rather
than argue over uncertain results that can, at least in principle, be
interpreted in different ways, I am going to keep an open mind (maybe
my intuition is wrong and the LHC will find copious axions) and wait
for what the majority of objective scientists will agree is compelling
observational evidence. It is reasonable to expect that our long vigil
may be nearly over.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Kent Paul Dolan
> I would not dispute most of what you have said
> above, except that using a sample of one to make a
> case looks alot like "special pleading", whether
> it is the case for or against an idea.
Except that you are misrepresenting what is involved
here.
The QSO is not the object under study, it is merely
one end of the instrument being used to do the
measurements, especially convenient in this
particular case because its four time-shifted views
of the QSO provide an unambiguous way to distinguish
microlensing events from QSO intrinsic intensity
variation events.
Given that, there are _four_ microlensing surveys
being taken, one in front of each QSO image, so
there's no "special pleading" involved at all; the
four sample points are angularly separated by more
than the width of a galaxy (perhaps cluster of
galaxies, I'm not familiar with the macrolensing
object in this case) at the distance where the
macrolensing is occurring, surely far enough apart
to be independent samples.
At what point will you admit that your contentions
have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
observations, one is forced to wonder.
HTH
xanthian.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
>
> At what point will you admit that your contentions
> have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
> observations, one is forced to wonder.
I draw your attention to the just published paper by Raiteri et al
(Astron. & Astrophys. 464, 871-878, 2007).
They observed the BL Lac AO 0235+164 and discuss the variability of
the continuum flux and its possible relation to planetary-mass
microlenses. The authors also note that another team found that they
could explain the strong intraday radio variability of PKS 0537-441 in
terms of planetary mass microlenses.
There is now a considerable number of papers that have been published
in peer-reviewed scientific journals and that find credible evidence
for microlensing as an explanation for instances of variability in
QSOs, blazars and AGN. The most common mass estimates for the
microlenses are on the order of 10^-4 solar masses and a few tenths of
a solar mass. These values are consistent with predictions made by
the discrete fractal paradigm, also referred to as the Self-Similar
Cosmological Paradigm, www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw .
To me, the observational situation looks quite encouraging, although
still uncertain. You, on the other hand, would prefer me to declare
immediate and total defeat. Interesting.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> At what point will you admit that your contentions
>> have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
>> observations, one is forced to wonder.
> To me, the observational situation looks quite encouraging, although
> still uncertain. You, on the other hand, would prefer me to declare
> immediate and total defeat. Interesting.
The question isn't whether such objects exist, they are well
known to exist. The question is whether they exist in sufficient
quantity to act as the "missing mass" of the universe, and Phillip
Helbig has explained to you more than sufficiently that they do
not, to which you raised your spurious "special pleading" objection,
the same which I carefully explained to you was a bogus objection.
I stand by my above comment.
xanthian.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
I am pleased that we now acknowledge the possibile existence of
planetary-mass and stellar-mass dark matter objects. Microlensing
evidence from research within the Local Group provides considerable
support for that possibility.
I also am pleased that you have identified the key question: whether
or not this general population could be large enough to account for
the dark matter, but also could have so far remained largely at and
below the limits of detection.
With all due respect, I do not believe that you, P. Helbig, or anyone
else has enough theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence to
definitively answer that question. I believe that you can selectively
choose a set of observations that supports your contention, and I can
do the same. We have staked out our positions and now we should let
nature sort it out.
My focus is on new evidence, which surely will be forthcoming. As
this new evidence becomes available, I hope readers will identify it,
acknowlegde it and discuss how the new evidence pertains to our
understanding of the dark matter enigma.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Oh No
>On Apr 14, 12:37 pm, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> "rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>> > "Kent Paul Dolan" <xanth...@well.com> wrote:
>> >> At what point will you admit that your contentions
>> >> have _already_ been abundantly falsified by
>> >> observations, one is forced to wonder.
>> > To me, the observational situation looks quite encouraging, although
>> > still uncertain. You, on the other hand, would prefer me to declare
>> > immediate and total defeat. Interesting.
>>
>> The question isn't whether such objects exist, they are well
>> known to exist. The question is whether they exist in sufficient
>> quantity to act as the "missing mass" of the universe, and Phillip
>> Helbig has explained to you more than sufficiently that they do
>> not, to which you raised your spurious "special pleading" objection,
>> the same which I carefully explained to you was a bogus objection.
>>
>> I stand by my above comment.
>>
>> xanthian.
>
>
>I am pleased that we now acknowledge the possibile existence of
>planetary-mass and stellar-mass dark matter objects. Microlensing
>evidence from research within the Local Group provides considerable
>support for that possibility.
So does everybody. The most numerous stars by far are smaller than the
sun, but they are not bright enough to see directly.
>
>I also am pleased that you have identified the key question: whether
>or not this general population could be large enough to account for
>the dark matter, but also could have so far remained largely at and
>below the limits of detection.
This is a well studied and well understood question. This population is
a long way short of the mass required by the standard model.
>
>With all due respect, I do not believe that you, P. Helbig, or anyone
>else has enough theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence to
>definitively answer that question.
I would think that everyone who has taken an undergraduate course in
astrophysics knows the answer to this question. That is why your
contributions are so embarrassing.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email
rlolders...@amherst.edu
>
> >I also am pleased that you have identified the key question: whether
> >or not this general population could be large enough to account for
> >the dark matter, but also could have so far remained largely at and
> >below the limits of detection.
>
> This is a well studied and well understood question. This population is
> a long way short of the mass required by the standard model.
>
> >With all due respect, I do not believe that you, P. Helbig, or anyone
> >else has enough theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence to
> >definitively answer that question.
>
> I would think that everyone who has taken an undergraduate course in
> astrophysics knows the answer to this question. That is why your
> contributions are so embarrassing.
Implicit in your comments is the conviction that we have have a very
good understanding of how the Universe works and that there are no
major errors in our assumptions that directly and indirectly relate to
the dark matter problem.
Surely you jest?! The long-standing dark matter enigma proves that our
understanding may be quite limited. One could list other problems that
suggest the possibility of major shortcomings in our knowledge of
nature.
Since I readily admit to not possessing the clairvoyance that you act
as if you have, I prefer to let nature answer the dark matter riddle,
rather than relying on the "often wrong, never in doubt" hypothesizing
that one finds in textbooks.
Could we switch to discussions of relevant empirical data (preferably
new data) and what they might imply about the true nature of the dark
matter?
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Oh No
>On Apr 16, 5:07 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >I also am pleased that you have identified the key question: whether
>> >or not this general population could be large enough to account for
>> >the dark matter, but also could have so far remained largely at and
>> >below the limits of detection.
>>
>> This is a well studied and well understood question. This population is
>> a long way short of the mass required by the standard model.
>>
>> >With all due respect, I do not believe that you, P. Helbig, or anyone
>> >else has enough theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence to
>> >definitively answer that question.
>>
>> I would think that everyone who has taken an undergraduate course in
>> astrophysics knows the answer to this question. That is why your
>> contributions are so embarrassing.
>
>
>Implicit in your comments is the conviction that we have have a very
>good understanding of how the Universe works and that there are no
>major errors in our assumptions that directly and indirectly relate to
>the dark matter problem.
>
one R Oldershaw who doesn't read text books.
>Surely you jest?! The long-standing dark matter enigma proves that our
>understanding may be quite limited. One could list other problems that
>suggest the possibility of major shortcomings in our knowledge of
>nature.
The first thing you should do is master in what respects our
understanding might be limitted. To do that you should learn what that
understanding entails, instead of pouring scorn on anyone who has taken
the trouble to learn about it.
>
>Since I readily admit to not possessing the clairvoyance that you act
>as if you have, I prefer to let nature answer the dark matter riddle,
>rather than relying on the "often wrong, never in doubt" hypothesizing
>that one finds in textbooks.
>
>Could we switch to discussions of relevant empirical data (preferably
>new data) and what they might imply about the true nature of the dark
>matter?
I have already released new relevant empirical data on sar, which shows
that there are unforeseen problems in the interpretation of red shifts.
The implications are major and will result in, among other things, a
complete reassessment of just how much dark matter is required for a
consistent universe. I think we will find there is enough conventional
matter, and hey presto, your "prediction" that much of it is in stellar
size objects will turn out to be correct. The facts that you never
grasped the nature of the problem, and that we have long known this mass
is in stellar size objects will probably continue to elude you.
rlolders...@amherst.edu
>
> I have already released new relevant empirical data on sar, which shows
> that there are unforeseen problems in the interpretation of red shifts.
> The implications are major and will result in, among other things, a
> complete reassessment of just how much dark matter is required for a
> consistent universe. I think we will find there is enough conventional
> matter, and hey presto, your "prediction" that much of it is in stellar
> size objects will turn out to be correct. The facts that you never
> grasped the nature of the problem, and that we have long known this mass
> is in stellar size objects will probably continue to elude you.
Your characterization of my assessment of the current status of
astrophysics is incorrect and offensive. I have repreatedly stated my
utmost respect for the observational side of astrophysics, and I think
that a lot of excellent theoretical work has been done in recent
decades. My complaint is with some theoreticians who think we have
things just about completely figured out and therefore are highly
resistant to new theoretical ideas. I hope that is clear enough for
you.
According to you:
1. There "are unforseen problems in the interpretation of red shifts".
2. The dark matter does not exist.
Are you totally sure about this? Might you possibly be wrong? Are the
majority of astrophysicists who think that the evidence for dark
matter is quite strong just misguided?
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
[Mod. note: further personal discussion of this kind should be taken
to private e-mail. As a general rule, if your posting is mostly
addressed to a specific person, you should consider whether it is
really suitable for the newsgroup -- mjh]
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
"rlolders...@amherst.edu" <rlold...@amherst.edu> writes:
> I am pleased that we now acknowledge the possibile existence of
> planetary-mass and stellar-mass dark matter objects. Microlensing
> evidence from research within the Local Group provides considerable
> support for that possibility.
Again, there was never a time when this was not accepted. The question
is, how many are there?
Oh No
>Your characterization of my assessment of the current status of
>astrophysics is incorrect and offensive. I have repreatedly stated my
>utmost respect for the observational side of astrophysics, and I think
>that a lot of excellent theoretical work has been done in recent
>decades. My complaint is with some theoreticians who think we have
>things just about completely figured out and therefore are highly
>resistant to new theoretical ideas. I hope that is clear enough for
>you.
I don't know any theorists who think things are just about figured out.
Your regular diatribes appear to be directed against theorists in
general, whom you accuse of overlooking the obvious while they try to
explain to you that things are more complicated than you realise. That
is what I find offensive.
>According to you:
>
>1. There "are unforseen problems in the interpretation of red shifts".
Indeed.
>
>2. The dark matter does not exist.
I did not say that. There is certainly a great deal of dark matter. The
difference is that, if I am correct, then it can be explained by
conventional physics, including the long known existence of large
numbers of planetary mass and stellar mass dark objects.
>
>Are you totally sure about this? Might you possibly be wrong?
Based upon the data, I found a level of confidence on the conclusion at
within 10^-25 of certainty. It is difficult to be more certain than
that.
>Are the majority of astrophysicists who think that the evidence for
>dark matter is quite strong just misguided?
The evidence for dark matter depends upon our understanding of red
shift, which in turn depends on the special and general theories of
relativity. We know that the general theory of relativity in its present
form is not theoretically compatible with quantum theory in its present
form. My analysis is based upon addressing that issue. It leads to a
fundamental change in the paradigm and alters the interpretation of
almost all measurements of stellar kinematics and cosmological
parameters, but once that change, which affects only red shift, has been
made, it leaves the rest of conventional physics intact.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I have repreatedly stated my utmost respect for
> the observational side of astrophysics, and I
> think that a lot of excellent theoretical work has
> been done in recent decades. My complaint is with
> some theoreticians who think we have things just
> about completely figured out and therefore are
> highly resistant to new theoretical ideas.
But that's not your behavior.
What you are rejecting that Phillip Helbig has
furnished to you is exactly word from the
observational side of physics: MEASUREMENTS of
microlensing event frequencies, using the excellent
instrument one end of which is the Einstein Cross.
Those MEASUREMENTS falsify the hypothesis you've
repeatedly supported, that the missing mass which
explains the galactic rotation curves consists of
large numbers of large but dark compact matter
objects.
Such object certainly do exist, and they are seen
and counted as microlensing events, so we know
that the instrument being used to look for them is
indeed a functional tool.
There just aren't sufficient microlensing events
recorded to support that those large compact matter
objects exist in _sufficient numbers_ to BE that
"missing dark matter".
Full stop.
Now if you want to go on maintaining your hypothesis
into the face of falsifying data, well, enjoy
yourself.
"A man must have a hobby sir, to keep from going
flat."
There's not much I, Charles Francis, Phillip Helbig
or anyone else on earth can do to help you while you
keep that non-science habit unchanged.
However, we don't need to heed your hypothesizing
any more, or treat you with the respect due to
researchers who ARE using the scientific method, for
continuing to maintain what observational physics
has already falsified.
The microlensing event count data from the
observational side of physics has _already proved
you wrong_.
That's a done deal, it isn't necessary to wait for
more falsifying data from future observations.
Ignoring falsifying data isn't "science", it's
something else the testy moderator won't let me
describe here in my preferred terminology.
I know, I get bounced articles regularly
because I prefer blunt "Wake up!" responses
to those engaged in obdurate unwillingness
to accept well established facts that
discredit their cherished agendae.
Rather than resubmit them, I just figure
that what I can see, "vel caeco appareat",
everyone but my intended target has already
seen too, and remember that my duty and
obligation to educate the entire world
remains unproven to exist.
Quantum valeat.
xanthian.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
<No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:
> >2. The dark matter does not exist.
>
> I did not say that. There is certainly a great deal of dark matter. The
> difference is that, if I am correct, then it can be explained by
> conventional physics, including the long known existence of large
> numbers of planetary mass and stellar mass dark objects.
> >
> >Are you totally sure about this? Might you possibly be wrong?
>
> Based upon the data, I found a level of confidence on the conclusion at
> within 10^-25 of certainty. It is difficult to be more certain than
> that.
If forget who said "cosmologists are always certain, but often wrong".
Seriously, the acid test is still a refereed-journal paper. Not
everything in refereed-journal papers is correct, but most stuff which
is rejected when submitted to a refereed-journal paper is either wrong
or irrelevant. Of course, a lot of stuff is irrelevant for research but
still worth discussing (most things, actually). However, with respect
to research, as Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence. Any unorthodox speculation here will probably not be followed
up by anyone who could contribute it unless it appears in a refereed
journal.
[Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who said that `cosmologists
are often in error, but never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of
course, would not fall into the elementary error in classical
statistical tests of confounding a confidence level of rejection of
the null hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance of one's
favourite alternative -- mjh]
Oh No
LOTHESvax.de>
>In article <mt2.0-31567...@hercules.herts.ac.uk>, Oh No
><No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> >2. The dark matter does not exist.
>>
>> I did not say that. There is certainly a great deal of dark matter. The
>> difference is that, if I am correct, then it can be explained by
>> conventional physics, including the long known existence of large
>> numbers of planetary mass and stellar mass dark objects.
>> >
>> >Are you totally sure about this? Might you possibly be wrong?
>>
>> Based upon the data, I found a level of confidence on the conclusion at
>> within 10^-25 of certainty. It is difficult to be more certain than
>> that.
>
>If forget who said "cosmologists are always certain, but often wrong".
>Seriously, the acid test is still a refereed-journal paper. Not
>everything in refereed-journal papers is correct, but most stuff which
>is rejected when submitted to a refereed-journal paper is either wrong
>or irrelevant. Of course, a lot of stuff is irrelevant for research but
>still worth discussing (most things, actually).
I find the discussions useful, and believe they lead on toward better
papers. Certainly people inform me of things I have overlooked or do not
know, and that must be helpful.
> However, with respect
>to research, as Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
>evidence. Any unorthodox speculation here will probably not be followed
>up by anyone who could contribute it unless it appears in a refereed
>journal.
We will see what the reviewers have to say, and I will let you know.
>
>
>[Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who said that `cosmologists
>are often in error, but never in doubt'.
Indeed. One of the benefits of discussion is in trapping error. I try
not to trust any calculation I do until it is independently checked. In
the case in hand, I have worked with a colleague and we have
independently reproduced all results, as well as checked our
calculations against published right up to the very last formula, which
we did independently. I find it difficult to think we have left room for
error, but I would expect the reviewers to reproduce the calculation
also. It is not a difficult one, maybe a day or less with a spreadsheet
for someone familiar with astronomical calculations.
>Most working cosmologists, of
>course, would not fall into the elementary error in classical
>statistical tests of confounding a confidence level of rejection of
>the null hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance of one's
>favourite alternative -- mjh]
I would hope not. In this there is only one alternative, as far as I
know at the present time. Understanding the alternative fully means
delving into recherche areas of differential geometry, but I don't see
how there can be another alternative consistent with the general
principle of relativity, and consistent with foundations of quantum
theory.
Kent Paul Dolan
> [Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who
> said that `cosmologists are often in error, but
> never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of
> course, would not fall into the elementary error
> in classical statistical tests of confounding a
> confidence level of rejection of the null
> hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance
> of one's favourite alternative -- mjh]
Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
"confidence", and blithely accepting it, but would
instead make the reasoned inference that some
completely incorrect assumption about physical
reality had intruded, and was the much more likely
source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of
accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise
theory known to science.
xanthian.
Oh No
>In a parenthetical comment, mjh wrote:
>
>> [Mod. note: it's supposed to be Lev Landau who
>> said that `cosmologists are often in error, but
>> never in doubt'. Most working cosmologists, of
>> course, would not fall into the elementary error
>> in classical statistical tests of confounding a
>> confidence level of rejection of the null
>> hypothesis with a confidence level of acceptance
>> of one's favourite alternative -- mjh]
>
>Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
>the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
>"confidence",
This is the statistical definition of confidence. If someone tossed a
coin 377 times, and it came up heads 288 times and tails only 89 times,
you would be pretty confident that there was something funny going on.
> and blithely accepting it, but would
>instead make the reasoned inference that some
>completely incorrect assumption about physical
>reality had intruded,
That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption about reality has
intruded. The test is simple enough however, that there is not a lot
that can be wrong, apart from the assumption that the standard Doppler
law applies.
>and was the much more likely
>source of "confidence" more firm than the limits of
>accuracy even of quantum theory, the most precise
>theory known to science.
>
Quantum theory does not apply here. It is a simple test analogous to
tossing a coin.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com>
>> Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
>> the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
>> "confidence",
> This is the statistical definition of confidence.
Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle
and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been
completely changed by not allowing the thought to be
completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the
standard definition of staticial confidence, your
followup is a complete non sequitur.
>> and blithely accepting it, but would instead make
>> the reasoned inference that some completely
>> incorrect assumption about physical reality had
>> intruded,
> That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption
> about reality has intruded. The test is simple
> enough however, that there is not a lot that can
> be wrong, apart from the assumption that the
> standard Doppler law applies.
Oh really? And what would the test have produced if
your assumption that dopplar shifts should be
spherically isotropic from the solar system were
instead the incorrect assumption?
Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you
to much more obvious sources of error in your
thinking, error that would create a blatantly
incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such
unbelievablely high "confidence" when that
"confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support
of your agenda.
The galaxy has been a busy and frequently explosive
place, on levels large and small. I can think of no
reason whatever to presume that looking different
directions from the solar system shouldn't find you
looking at groups of stars with vastly different
histories, and therefore properties.
Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology
presentations, the Milky Way is already a composite
galaxy made up of several smaller collided galaxies,
not to mention the collision upcoming with
Andromeda.
There have not yet been sufficient total turns of
our galaxy to throughly blend the star populations
of the separate galaxies of which it is comprised,
so looking different directions from Sol will be
looking at different mixture proportions (think
"stripes in an incompletely stirred mixture of
vanilla and chocolate pudding", if it helps) of the
contributing collided galaxies, making different
average motions the _expectation_, not some
astonishing discovery that supports overthrowing the
accepted wisdom of cosmology.
Verba volant, scripta manent.
xanthian.
Oh No
>Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thus spake Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com>
>
>>> Most scientists of any stripe would not fall into
>>> the error of seeing such an outlandish level of
>>> "confidence",
>
>> This is the statistical definition of confidence.
>
>Oh, nice job of splitting a sentence in the middle
>and then answering a fragment whose meaning has been
>completely changed by not allowing the thought to be
>completed. Since I was nowhere quarreling with the
>standard definition of staticial confidence, your
>followup is a complete non sequitur.
I am glad to hear it. By putting confidence in inverted commas, you
rather made it appear that you did not know what the word means in
context.
>>> and blithely accepting it, but would instead make
>>> the reasoned inference that some completely
>>> incorrect assumption about physical reality had
>>> intruded,
>
>> That is the point. Clearly an incorrect assumption
>> about reality has intruded. The test is simple
>> enough however, that there is not a lot that can
>> be wrong, apart from the assumption that the
>> standard Doppler law applies.
>
>Oh really? And what would the test have produced if
>your assumption that dopplar shifts should be
>spherically isotropic from the solar system were
>instead the incorrect assumption?
I have pointed out that an alternative is to drop assumptions on which
all our physical theories are based. You are welcome to do that if you
find it more reasonable.
>Your agenda commitment to teleconnection blinds you
>to much more obvious sources of error in your
>thinking,
Your agenda on the other hand appears to be committed to hurling insults
with regard to things you do not understand. Indeed, as I recall, when
you objected to the formation of sci.physics.foundations, it was on the
ground that hurling abuse was against the charter.
>error that would create a blatantly
>incorrect null hypothesis and thus provoke such
>unbelievablely high "confidence" when that
>"confidence" is incorrectly misdirected to support
>of your agenda.
As Martin has pointed out, no competent cosmologist is likely to make
such an elementary error. It is your error to accuse me of it, not mine.
As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence in the statistical
sense, as a level of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis, not
as a level of confidence for accepting a particular alternative. If you
are not happy with that, then you should study the definition and stop
arguing with it.
Oh No
>large and small. I can think of no reason whatever to presume that
>looking different directions from the solar system shouldn't find you
>looking at groups of stars with vastly different histories, and
>therefore properties.
>
>Indeed, according to recent TV cosmology presentations, the Milky Way
>is already a composite galaxy made up of several smaller collided
>galaxies, not to mention the collision upcoming with Andromeda.
Before you complain that I snipped the rest of your post, may I just
point out that if you had followed any of the analysis you would already
know that your hypothesis that such things can explain the result can be
rejected with just as high a level of confidence as the null hypothesis
used in the tests.
Kent Paul Dolan
> As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence
> in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence
> for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level
> of confidence for accepting a particular
> alternative.
So, then, the posting:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/42b49dbe7e53af8e
In which it is claimed, essentially, that by
rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis
that is left is the one of your agenda:
In this there is only one alternative, as
far as I know at the present time.
Understanding the alternative fully means
delving into recherche areas of differential
geometry, but I don't see how there can be
another alternative consistent with the
general principle of relativity, and
consistent with foundations of quantum
theory.
was forged by someone else in your name, since
you claim here that you've made no such illogical
presumption?
I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/f09fb976c7e71191
Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists,
should not feel that they have the right to demand
to be treated with the respect freely granted to
those who do.
Verba volant, scripta manent.
xanthian.
[Mod. note: please try to talk about the science, not each other's
motivations --- mjh]
Oh No
>
>> As I pointed out, I have used the word confidence
>> in the statistical sense, as a level of confidence
>> for rejecting the null hypothesis, not as a level
>> of confidence for accepting a particular
>> alternative.
>
>So, then, the posting:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/42b49dbe7e53af8e
>
>In which it is claimed, essentially, that by
>rejecting the null hypothesis, the only hypothesis
>that is left is the one of your agenda:
>
> In this there is only one alternative, as
> far as I know at the present time.
> Understanding the alternative fully means
> delving into recherche areas of differential
> geometry, but I don't see how there can be
> another alternative consistent with the
> general principle of relativity, and
> consistent with foundations of quantum
> theory.
>
>was forged by someone else in your name, since
>you claim here that you've made no such illogical
>presumption?
Of course I claim no such thing. Distinguish the logical steps, and be
precise with the language. The null hypothesis is rejected at a high
level of confidence according to statistical analysis. That does not
allow you to apply that level of confidence to another theory. As a
second, and distinct logical step once the null hypothesis has been
rejected, if there is only one theory consistent with the facts,
consistent with general relativity, and consistent with quantum theory,
then one is lead to accept that theory. Even so, you cannot apply the
statistical definition of confidence to the acceptance of that theory,
since that would neglect things which may not have been thought of.
>
>I'll reiterate the advice I gave to Oldershaw, here:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.research/msg/f09fb976c7e71191
>
>Those who are unwilling to behave as scientists,
>should not feel that they have the right to demand
>to be treated with the respect freely granted to
>those who do.
I don't think you are in a position to advise until such point as you
know what you are talking about. In this case it is your out of hand
rejection of both scientific theory and of empirical analysis which
shows whether you are willing to behave as a scientist. Note that while
posters here scientifically more minded and also better qualified than
yourself, such as Philip Helbig, Steve Willner, and the moderator
himself, will obviously not accept what I say purely on the basis of my
say so, nor do they reject it out of hand. In contrast to yourself, they
have given good advice.
[Mod. note: further purely personal discussion in this thread will be
rejected. -- mjh]