Wednesday, June 16, 2004

I support intelligent debate on this topic of course. However, having attended two major APS meetings on the topic with Mike Turner, Saul Perlmutter talking at both, and I will also be at GR17 in Dublin, it is clear to me that you are fighting a hopeless rear guard action. In the course of doing so, you will be led to change your mind. Resistance is futile. I think Sean Carroll's attitude is the objective optimum one - the best Bayesean estimate. ;-)

Note best fit in latest Physics Today is a Big Rip Phantom Energy w ~ -1.31 (if I recall correctly) but it is ~ 1 standard deviation away from my hard prediction of w = -1 as an exact result. So we will see how new data affects this. Also recall my other hard prediction, no dark matter detectors will click with the right stuff that explains Omega(DM) ~ 0.23. That would be like Michelson-Morley showing the speed through aether - I mean once we remove curvature corrections from general relativity. There is some small discrepancy there as I recall, but it is my impression that it can be explained by GR?

On Jun 16, 2004, at 10:23 AM, michael ibison wrote:

Thank you for your note Domingos.

"I appreciate your comments and am interested in what you have to say.
Sean Carroll (according to Jack) cites the following alleged PREDICTIONS
made by BB:

'How about acoustic peaks in the power spectrum of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background? And the polarization signal, and its spectrum? And the baryon density as deduced from light-element abundances agreeing with that deduced from the CMB? And baryon fluctuations in the power spectrum of large-scale structure? And the transition from acceleration to deceleration in the Hubble diagram of high-redshift supernovae? And the relativistic time delay in supernova light curves?'

I think I can contest the allegedly predictive role of BB for some of these, but would appreciate a view from someone more qualified. Would you be good enough to offer a short comment on each of them?

Best wishes,


On Jun 16, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jun 16, 2004, at 5:23 AM, Domingos Savio de Lima Soares wrote:


"Hello Jack,

Thanks for your message --- enthusiastic message, I should say --- defending the inflationary Big Bang model. I, and my students as well, have now material for much discussion. Thanks, indeed. Ned Wright's web page is present in my own personal page for a long time now, I would like to mention. And I always recommend it for those interested
in cosmology. In any case, I added, after receiving your note on the "Errors" section, a special link for this particular section of Ned's page. What you, Sean Carroll, Mike Turner and followers, need to explain is

1- Why the "dark cake", Fig. 10 of Freedman and Turner (astro-ph/0308418), has only 0.5% that is actually observed? Remember, from the 4% of baryons,there are some 3.5% still dark, i.e., invisible, that is to say, we can't see, measure, whatever. Do they exist or perhaps should we wait a bit more?"

I do not claim to be an expert in data analysis. That's Turner's et-al's job. I seem to recall Turner saying that was mostly cold hydrogen gas? What is important however is the 96%!

"2- Take w=-1."

That's what my theory says it must be - both dark energy and dark matter. However globs of w = -1 dark matter will look like w = 0 CDM from far away in terms of gravity lensing. This is a crucial test of my theory BTW. No dark matter particles! We, I mean Ken Shoulders, seem to be seeing this phenomena on lab scale!

"What do you do with the so-called 'cosmological constantproblem'?"

I have solved it! Vacuum coherence explains it. The dominant contribution to Vacuum Coherence is a condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs bound together by virtual photons all occupying the same center of mass bound pair state. The phase variations in this macro-quantum occupied single particle state give Einstein's metric guv field.

The incoherent estimate of Einstein's cosmological constant /\ is ~ 1/Lp^2

My theory says that the coherent value of the cosmological constant is

/\ = Lp^-2[Lp^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

The "equilibrium" is at /\ = 0 where the Vacuum Coherence is the Planck density.

Vacuum Coherence obeys a covariant Landau Ginzburg eq. that must be solved self-consistently with Einstein's eq

Guv + /\guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv

"You know, the value implied by the inflationary BB model makes our universe 10 to the minus 10 second old and 3 cm large, which is definitely, and frankly, not observed."

Again this is no longer a problem - it is solved conceptually.

"3- Why not make science with a character, I mean, following strictly "scientific method" and listening to what Nature presents and we can see?"

This is polemics - not a valid objection. It is obvious to my mind, that the preponderance of evidence is on the side of mainstream precision cosmology with dark energy now that I have explained the cosmological constant paradox as a simple vacuum coherence effect analogous to the two-fluid model of superfluids. Einstein's gravity emerges as a simple ODLRO effect with general coordinate transformations as derivative from local phase transformations on the vacuum coherence field. Curvature and torsion are simply local compensating gauge fields from stringy "vortex" singular lines in the phase of the vacuum coherence where the intensity of the vacuum coherent scalar field(s) drop to zero. Space-time physics is local because of the locality of the ODLRO vacuum coherence.

"Of course, you may turn out to be right in the end, BUT --- sorry fot the capitals --- you are not with all that just now. So, it is perfectly normal that others have their chance also. That's the point.

Cheers, explain that,


Domingos S.L. Soares
Depto. de Fisica - ICEx
UFMG - C.P. 702
30161-970 - Belo Horizonte

Let's keep the censorship issue distinct from the physics content. I completely support your complaint of censorship and black listing of physicists. Censorship prevents the kind of debate we are having here. I personally agree with Sean Carroll that funding of the kind of alternative you profess is a bad bet. Up until ~ 2003 you may have had a valid case there, but no longer. The kind of cosmology you profess is dead in the water and will lose support rapidly with all the new data coming in. It's time to move on. The same is true for the two eccentric theories Hal Puthoff has been promoting in the media i.e. PV theory of gravity and random EM ZPF origin of inertia of lepto-quarks, which BTW cannot explain the rest mass of the neutrinos. Both gravity and inertia are like Siamese Twins. They BOTH come from vacuum coherence (e.g. Higgs mechanism). You cannot have real matter Omega ~ 0.04 without vacuum coherence. All you have then is pre-inflation false globally flat vacuum. Vacuum coherence is also the inflation scalar field(s).

No comments: