Here is a link to an article titled "Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?" by Michael J. Disney who is emeritus professor in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University...
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...d/55839/page/1

The article is highly critical of the way cosmology has been practiced arguing that the number of theoretical entities has outstripped the number of observations supporting them, as the author points out:

"Cosmological theories have grown increasingly complex.... The number of independent observations relevant to cosmology has also grown over time, but it has always been less than the number of free parameters in the reigning theory."

The author uses dark energy, dark matter, and inflation as examples of these folktale-like theoretical entities upon which the concordance model is based. This article, in my opinion, illustrates the fragility of certain aspects of modern cosmology. The longer these entities continue to exist without direct evidence for their existence the less scientists should continue to accept them as taken for granted and established. My unofficial thesis, however, is that the discovery of dark matter particles, if they are found, will go a long way, longer then the discovery of the CMB, toward debunking skeptics such as the author of this article. Cosmologists will be able to say, hey, this was not a folktale-like theoretical entity afterall, it has more or less the properties we were inferring using a variety of observations and it provided the seeds for galaxy formation.

In any case, the tone and content of the article bear an uncanny resemblence to the tone and content of Jerry's arguments. The parameters in theory versus independent observation graph sums up Jerry's argument quite well. So, I thought he would like the article and I thought I'd put it out here for he and others to comment on criticize, etc.

I like this guy's take on the Disney article....

He [Disney] starts with a sequence of hostile comments about the money flowing to cosmology. The subtitle expresses one of the main assertions of the article: current cosmological theory rests on a disturbingly small number of independent observations.

The similarity with the proclamations by people like Woit can't be more obvious. Let us first look at some of his opinions and terminology.

Labels

In the text, cosmic inflation is called a "vague conceptual solution", the Lambda CDM theory is "the currently fashionable concordance model of cosmology". Big Bang cosmology "is not a single theory" while dark matter and dark energy are "insubstantial notions". Also, "modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support". He even says that "cosmology has always had such a negative significance, in the sense that it has always had fewer observations than free parameters, though cosmologists are strangely reluctant to admit it."

An expanding Einstein model was elegant but "it has since run into serious difficulties". He ends up with the thesis that "Acceptance of the current myth, if myth it is, could likewise hold up progress in cosmology for generations to come".

Are these statements based on actual science? Maybe the kind of science used in Disneyland but certainly not the science used by serious researchers.

Populism

You may read it yourself: you will see long kilobytes of vitriolic and untrue statements that are clearly not addressed to people who have any idea about the field. Disney says very openly that "his approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice." Why doesn't he try to convince experts? Because he must know very well that every expert knows why his text is complete junk. But what should the laymen do? Indeed, I think that if people can't learn the technology themselves, they should better believe experts rather than loud non-experts with a personal agenda. I wonder when "supply of objective advice" exactly became an insult.

What he wants to do is to brainwash uninformed people who are unable to figure out why his conclusions are completely absurd, without any need to offer any technical evidence for these statements whatsoever. What a convenient strategy.

Progress in cosmology

Cosmology, the science about the gross structure and history of the whole Universe, has been exciting and mysterious for millenia. A long time ago, the boundaries between science, myths, and religion were somewhat fuzzy. The situation started to change in the 20th century, especially because of Einstein's discovery of general relativity. Because of many observational breakthroughs in the last decade, cosmology has recently become a precision science analogous to particle physics. Many quantities, including the age of the Universe, are measured at one-percent level. Huge amounts of data agree with a simple theory.

How much data do we have?

Disney's statement that the amount of data we have to check the cosmological statement is lower than the number of parameters in the theory is absurd. But how absurd is it? For example, look at this picture from WMAP. It has more than one million pixels of data that can be processed in many ways to obtain hundreds of overall, qualitative numbers such as the spherical harmonics. Each of these numbers must agree with the right cosmological model and the error can't be too high. They do agree.

WMAP is not the only source of the data and constraints that the cosmologists use. They observe billions of stars and other celestial bodies to check the model and deduce that something like dark matter must exist. They observe billions of other galaxies and their relative motion to deduce that something like dark energy must exist, too. Theorists tell them that the cosmological constant is the only known plausible model for dark energy with the right equation of state and most cosmologists simply accept it: it doesn't influence their work too much anyway.

Some of their observations are made during collisions or explosions that offer a huge amount of additional information that constrains the theory. The same conclusion may be deduced from a very large number of these stars and galaxies. The Universe is huge and rich and it offers a diverse spectrum of objects and events to study. Many of them can be measured and have been measured.

Whoever really thinks that the amount of data we can extract from the Universe is small or even smaller than the number of parameters of the state-of-the-art cosmological model (roughly 17 parameters) is senile beyond imagination.

Emphasis added.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I believe the Cougar's link should be: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/co...ttack-too.html

Unfortunately, the blog guy acts exactly like Disney when it comes to global warming. Ah, well.

This is basically "The Case Against Cosmology" part 2. Mike Disney is a distinguished astronomer with a long history of being deliberately provocative, which sometimes has the salutory effect of making the rest of us ask very carefully how well we know what we think we know.

(This was also exhibited when a controversy came up about the dustiness of spiral galaxies - he coauthored a paper pointing out that data often interpreted as showing that spirals like ours are fairly transparent could also be interpreted as meaning they're so dusty that we don't see very deep into some of them at all. It took a whole new round of multiwavelength observations and analysis to satisfy pretty much everybody that we now understand when and where they're in one limit or the other. At least in today's Universe. Then he helped organize a meeting on the topic, at which he presented some of us with plates of a dish he swore was crow.)[1]







[1] For non-Anglophones: "eat crow" is a phrase meaning, more or less, to publicly admit to one's having been wrong. This is the only time I've seen it used so literally.

Thanks, Kid. Yes, that's a better link. I forgot to mention one has to string-search "Disney" in the link I provided to find the start of the article that your link isolates.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Actually it is more like 26, according to Neried's sources. WMAP cosmology claims 6 free parameters. I think it was Fermi who said with five free parameters, he could make an elephant. I would be happy if anyone would come up with a reasonable description of what Titan is made of, without using made-up words.

Meanwhile:

arXiv:0708.2579 [ps, pdf, other]
Title: Direction-sensitive dark matter search results in a surface laboratory
Authors: Kentaro Miuchi, Kaori Hattori, Shigeto Kabuki, Hidetoshi Kubo, Shunsuke Kurosawa, Hironobu Nishimura, Yoko Okada, Atsushi Takada, Toru Tanimori, Ken'ichi Tsuchiya, Kazuki Ueno, Hiroyuki Sekiya, Atsushi Takeda
Comments: 9 figures, accepted for publication in Phys. Lett. B
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
Limits are good. It means there are not enough WIMPs around to blame a poor dart on.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Disney's attitude is not new. I disagree with him, and with his idea of what cosmology is & should be doing. I think cosmology has been extremely successful, and is as valid as any other science. This does not mean that I think modern cosmologists are infallible, or bound to be right. But I strongly disagree with Disney's implicit assumption that cosmologists are morons.

1. The Case Against Cosmology, M.J. Disney, General Relativity and Gravitation 32(6): 1125-1134, June 2000
   Abstract: It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly overblown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers from many fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received.
   
2. Laudatores Temporis Acti, or Why Cosmology is Alive and Well -- A Reply to Disney Milan M. Cirkovic, General Relativity and Gravitation 34: 119-130, February 2002
   Abstract: A recent criticism of cosmological methodology and achievements by Disney (2000) is assessed. Some historical and epistemological fallacies in the said article have been highlighted. It is shown that -- both empirically and epistemologically -- modern cosmology lies on sounder foundations than it is portrayed. A brief historical account demonstrates that this form of unsatisfaction with cosmology has had a long tradition, and rather meagre results in the course of the XX century.
   
3. A Sober Assessment of Cosmology at the New Millennium, Michael S. Turner, The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 113(784): 653-657, June 2001
   Extract: Before I begin my sober assessment of cosmology, let me discuss the mission statement for the enterprise. As one might expect, this is where the divergence of views often begins. By my definition, cosmology is the scientific quest to understand the most salient features of the universe in which we live. Since most of the history of the universe is uninteresting thermal equilibrium, the interesting moments, those rare departures from thermal boringness which lead to notable features today, are a manageable set.
   
   Others take a much different view. As an extreme example consider Disney (2000), who defines cosmology as the quest to understand the entire spacetime history of the universe (in response to Disney, see Peebles 2000). Not surprisingly, he concludes that the achievements of cosmologists have been minimal and that cosmology may not be a science at all. While more than two decades ago the relativist Ellis (1975) educated us all on the impossibility of Disney's goal — we are absolutely limited in our knowledge of the universe by our past light cone — that has not prevented significant progress toward understanding how the basic features of our portion of the universe came about as well as their implications for the universe as a whole.
   
4. The Mathematical Universe, Max Tegmark, eprint arXiv:0704.0646
   Abstract: I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. I discuss various implications of the ERH and MUH, ranging from standard physics topics like symmetries, irreducible representations, units, free parameters and initial conditions to broader issues like consciousness, parallel universes and Godel incompleteness. I hypothesize that only computable and decidable (in Godel's sense) structures exist, which alleviates the cosmological measure problem and help explain why our physical laws appear so simple. I also comment on the intimate relation between mathematical structures, computations, simulations and physical systems.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

The Disney paper presents an image of cosmology that is the same as Jerry’s and as Tim Thompson has observe, Disney applies the same root reasoning. It is a much more succinct read than Jerry's tyrates.

But there is a fundamental difference: Disney claims the parametric extensions known as cosmology include assumptions not legitimately grounded in first principles. Jerry, as Neried and others have pointed out, lodges the same complaint, and then turns around and argues first principles are also incorrect. The absurdity of this position (that the Newtonian equivalence principle is incorrect) is mitigated by his claim that this extraordinary hypothesis is readily testable: If it is true, the rather terrestrial looking surface of Titan must indeed be terrestrial: Silicate sand, sulfur, magna, carbonates, limestones and a heavy lacing of iron and other metals which are much too heavy to construct the skin of Titan, given Newtonian constraints of Titan’s density.

http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/Bil301/Titan2008.html

We may have to wait for another venture to the outer planets with a wider array of instrumentation to fully resolve the issue.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Is this paper for real? Data? Analysis? Do adjectives count for debate points? What is the point of this paper?

A Sober Assessment of Cosmology at the New Millennium
By: Michael S. Turner


http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102057

Compare M. Turner’s paper to M. Bell and D.McDiarmid's paper:

"An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is compatible in all respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model"

http://aps.arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0701093

This is one of a group of 16 papers by Morley Bell. Each paper has data and analysis (multiple graphs) which support a proposition that is presented as a hypothesis. (Bell presents and discusses competing hypotheses.) I do not understand why postulating “Inflation”, “Dark Energy/Matter", or speculation concerning the first three minutes is considered to be the “boldest of enterprises” as compared to Morley’s hypothesis that is is supported by data and analysis.

Abstract
Is Cosmology a set of puzzles? Follow the facts to solve the puzzles?

One certainly hopes so.

Bell is arguing that the redshift measured in certain types of objects presents a distorted picture of how distant the objects are, and hence their size. There are very few astrophysicists who agree with Bell's interpretation of the data, but I think everyone agrees it is a puzzle that can be arranged in many different ways.

It is also worth mentioning that believing the universe sits on the back of a giant turtle is also a cosmology. In this respect, scientific cosmology is generally granted a little more license than most sciences, but not much. In theory this license ends when observations no longer agree with the cosmology. But it is really hard to prove the universe does not sit on the back of a giant turtle.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Please note I am not defending Disney’s paper or attempting to holistically attack the standard cosmological model. It is an interesting theory.

Does this article defend “cosmology”? It could be a mistake to compare cosmology to string theory. String theory is not a theory.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/co...ttack-too.html

P.S. Peter Woit is a physicist who has a blog “Not Even Wrong” that is a critic of String Theory. I do not understand why Peter Woit’s critic of “String Theory” is insane. Disney’s criticism of the “standard cosmological model” may lack teeth, is it “insane”?

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=385

Perhaps one way to assess the debate is to ask, is modern cosmology approaching "closure" or not, where I define "closure" to mean, the point where new independent observations agree with the current deduced parameter set-- they do not require the introduction of new parameters. It was my impression that modern cosmology is indeed approaching closure-- it's true that we got three big kicks in the pants with the need for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, but more recent observations have not required new interpretations or new parameters. The convergence of the Hubble parameter is kind of a subset of this overall trend, and the other key parameters seem to be coming into focus more and more. For me to think cosmology is really in such a sorry state, I would need to see some new independent cosmological measurement that also requires the introduction of a new free parameter into the model. If I see that, then I'll say "OK, Disney was right", but if new observations just require minor tinkering, I'll conclude the opposite. Perhaps the jury is still out on that.

The theory of inflation predicts a flat universe with omega=1. During the early-to-mid 1990s, it became incresingly obvious that the matter density was not enough to create such conditions. Would it be fair and reasonable to say that inflation required and therefore predicted a nonzero energy density (in other words, dark energy)?

Detections of Gravimetric waves and/or Whimps, would be leading toward closure. Otherwise, we have what was expected, what is being observed, and the parametric changes necessary to mate the two.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

It is extremely important to note that Non-Baryonic Dark Matter is entirely different than the first or the last terms...

That is...Non-Baryonic Dark Matter is NOT Big Bang Theory Dependent

Inflation was/is a mathematical "Fix", and Dark Energy/Anti-Gravity is the end game in finding the 74% missing universe (Lambda) once you plug in the HYPOTHESIZED WIMP CDM model to TRY and say what that Non-baryonic Dark Matter is "Doing".

The Non-Baryonic DM is necessary for the rotation curves of the galaxies and the cluster dynamics, and that in and of itself is NOT 'Global'.

IF that Non-baryonic DM is Neutrino-like, then the first and last terms are...

Infact, if that were the case, then it would be reasonable to say that the Non-Baryonic Dark Matter, is the 96%

Then, how that 'gets here' would become part of the initial conditions for how our universe is working.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

The observation that the dark matter density is insufficient for flatness is essentially the same observation as the need for dark energy. It just has to do with the dynamical behavior of the expansion, because cosmological dark matter and dark energy really don't show up anywhere else except in the total scale parameter of the universe. If the observations we use to interpret the need for dark energy are being interpreted incorrectly, then the inferred dark matter density would likely be higher. I don't really know, but I suspect it is easier to exchange dark energy for dark matter than it is to just be without flatness-- the flatness might be a more robust result observationally.

Having said that, I might note that flatness is not a requirement of inflation, it is just the main reason one might invoke inflation. In other words, inflation is a useful way to explain the flatness, but it would be possible to have less inflation and a nonflat universe today. It just wouldn't be very helpful-- inflation is invoked to avoid fine tuning problems, and if the inflation isn't enough to generate apparent flatness yet the universe is still in the general ballpark of flatness, that's a fine tuning problem of its own. So what I mean is, those who favor inflation generally do so because they think any universe that is remotely close to flat is too finely tuned to not have inflation, but then the inflation itself had better not be finely tuned, so it must make a flat universe a very likely result for a wide range of possibilities. That sounds like what you are saying also, but I don't think there's a way to infer the dark matter contribution separately from the dark energy contribution to that flatness, they are distinguished entirely by their different effects on the dynamics of the universe's scale size (sometimes called their different "equation of state"-- how their gravity responds to expansion by virtue of their different pressures).

Those are two 'local' thingies (and I think you mean gravitational waves (GW), or GW radiation; and WIMPS, weakly interacting massive particles).

However, there may well be other 'local' detections that (better) nail down DM, and there is quite a lot of astronomy that will better constrain the concordance model - much more detailed understanding of the z~1000 to ~10 early universe; unambiguous detection of the (late) ISW (integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect), BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) probes; tighter constraints on DE (especially if it can be clearly shown to be 'not geometry); to give just a few examples.

It is fair to say the Disney appoarch is philosophically removed from Tegmark's essays. Both are scientific, but place different emphasis on how models can and should be developed, and how and when new free parameters can and should be introduced. It is not unusual for proponents of one philosophical line of reasoning to call adherants to another insane, but on this board, it would bring a strong rebuke. There are genuine differences of opinion within the bounds of scientific reasoning.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Very interesting indeed the article by Prof. Disney, who maybe could be charged with plagiarism (at least, for the title) by the late Hannes Alfvén, who published on 1984 one of his "heretic" works under the title Cosmology: Myth or Science?.

Prof. Disney's thesis is highly criticized here, I see (no wonder, obviously), as surely did happen to Alfvén work: more than twenty years later, however, scientific knowledge has so much improved in cosmology, but the problems faced by scientists have as much lowered?
Or do they have increased (if not worsened)?

Surely a more pertinent set of questions, about Disney's and Alfvén papers, include:

* how accurate are their portrayals?

* for the parts which can be objectively tested, how well do they match the results of such testing?

* how pertinent are the criticisms to the way modern cosmology, as a science, is done?

Myself, I don't see much point in considering either paper beyond the scope - stated or implied - of the papers themselves. And in this respect, it seems pretty clear that much of the commentary about either, by mainstream cosmologists and others, is pretty much spot on.

Oh, Nereid,
no wonder that you punctually replied to my post!

I posed some questions, I get back other questions... no problem, so is life!

However I might agree with you on the scope of, and the commentary about, the papers, but I deem to have been consistent with the OP, as there it was proposed the article to Jerry's attention "...for he and others to comment on criticize...", and so I did.

Regards.

In reply to Ken G.

Ken, it seems absolutely certain the standard cosmological model will change. The question is how.

It appears that gravity waves will not be detected. (I believe they will not for theoretical reasons.) Should have confirmation, negative or positive next year?

There are rumblings that dark matter should have been detected (laboratory experiments) by now also. Should have confirmation, negative or positive next year? Has anyone heard anything?

Comment:
Note the standard model is dependent on the kicks in the pants. If the kicks are not facts, the theory will need to be changed and other mechanisms found to explain the observations.

I agree, but more importantly, will the changes be fundamental or just minor "tinkering"? I don't think we have much idea on that, other than the historical fact that we are generally not as close to the answer as we think we are!I don't know of any definitive upper limiits that are expected soon that can rule out gravitational waves as predicted by GR. The observations are still too slippery.
It's pretty hard to know when you should have seen something, and dark matter has way too many places to hide in parameter space. It will get more and more problematic, but never ruled out.

At an academic conference, I recently heard a paper that claimed that a few dark matter search teams were quite conservative in their attempts to detect dark matter, thus they were ruling out almost all of their results as inconclusive.

Another group, rather than analyzing their data on a case by case basis, has been looking for trends in their general data. (By looking at the general trend, they can look at the WIMP events that are within other Weak Force events caused by neutrinos.) They claim to have success in detecting dark matter.

The most sensitive currently running laboratory dark matter searches are probably Xenon 10 and CDMSII. If you go to their web sites, you will see that they are just at the point of nipping off a very small corner of the preferred part of the parameter space - most of the theoretically likely combinations of parameters are still beyond their reach.

In reply to Ken G.‘s comment.

I thought the GRW detectors had reached the required sensitivity to enable the question as to whether GRW does or does not exist, to be answered. It should be noted that these are very, expensive experiments, with large research teams.

The next level of GRW detectors are intended, to use GRW observations for astronomical analysis, not simple detection.

See this thread my comment #7.

Gravitational Wave Detection

In reply to Ken G.'s comment:

The dark matter detection is also a very expensive experiment. The next level of detection was intended for astronomical analysis not simple detection. It is assumed the next level of GRW experiments (space based) will be cancelled, if earth based experiments can not detect GRW. I am not sure what will happen concerning the dark matter experiments.

At what point does funding dry up for very expensive experiments, that prove that something does not exist? In the case of dark matter there is not strong theoretical support for its existence. (i.e. from particle physics not from cosmology.) It is very possible, exotic dark matter does not exist.

Exclusion Limits on the WIMP-Nucleon Cross-Section from the First Run of the
Cryogenic Dark Matter Search in the Soudan Underground Lab

D.S. Akerib, M.S. Armel-Funkhouser, M.J. Attisha, C.N. Bailey, L. Baudis, D.A. Bauer, P.L. Brink, R. Bunker,… (and 43 other individuals, see paper for details.)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507190

Gravitational Wave detection or no detection will have a big impact on cosmological theories.

There was some optimism followed by silence, concerning a significant improvement in sensitivity of the Germany/British GEO600 detector, which this article asserts is the most sensitive GRW detector on the planet. This was the last public comment, that I could find. It included a prediction of detection within 18 months and was issued 26 June 2006. See link for details.

http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1024311

Comments:
1) There have been some concerns raised by theoreticians concerning no detection as of yet of GRW, however, time will tell.

2) The US has a budget of $365 MM for their GRW detectors. No detection of GRW as of yet.

3) As noted above, the US LIGO detector is planned to be upgraded to match and exceed the German/British detector, sensitivity. The super LIGO is to be in service by 2013.

William,
Neither the gravitational wave detectors nor the laboratory dark matter detectors were expected to see the objects of their respective searches at their current levels of sensitivity. The expectations for the dark matter searches arise from the constraints on the parameter spaces by various supersymmetric and other theories. CDMSII and XENON 10 lack the sensitvity to probe most of the parts of the parameter space favored by such theories.

As far as GW, although GEO has incorporated certain advanced features, its arms are are only 600 m long as compared with 4 km for LIGO. LIGO was never expected to see any GW at this level of sensitivity (I've been following LIGO for about 10 years - before construction started). The reports 10 years ago stated that we would have to be very lucky to see any GW at this stage. When the upgrades are complete, we definitely expect to see GW. Detection, in the sense of proving the existence of GW,was never really a goal ofLIGO inthe sense that, if that was all it did, we might very well never have built it. LIGO was constructed and is being upgraded to do astronomy.