View Full Version : Smoot's Book: Quadrupoles and Omega=1
Patrick Powers
Nov5-04, 06:11 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I just read George Smoot\'s "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things\nI didn\'t understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in\nthe cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,\none cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to\ncancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these\nquadrupoles mean?\n\n"The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to\na distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the\ntime of decoupling of matter and radiation."\n\n"long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the\nvisible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"\n\nSecond he said that as we move back in time the ratio Omega must be\nextremely close to one. ?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I just read George Smoot's "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things
I didn't understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in
the cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,
one cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to
cancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these
quadrupoles mean?
"The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to
a distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the
time of decoupling of matter and radiation."
"long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the
visible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"
Second he said that as we move back in time the ratio \Omega must be
extremely close to one. ?
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Nov6-04, 11:04 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <9511688f.0411042016.169ca4a6@posting.google.com>, \nfrisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) writes:\n\n> I just read George Smoot\'s "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things\n> I didn\'t understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in\n> the cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,\n> one cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to\n> cancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these\n> quadrupoles mean?\n>\n> "The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to\n> a distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the\n> time of decoupling of matter and radiation."\n>\n> "long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the\n> visible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"\n\nJust some general comments. Perhaps a CMB expert (Ted?) will add some\nmore details.\n\nFirst, keep in mind that this book was written when the amount of\ninformation we had from CMB observations was MUCH less than what we have\nnow.\n\nAs to the quadrupole, normally when one sees a "map of the CMB", two\nthings have been subtracted: the dipole due to our proper motion through\nthe universe (which means that we can never observe the cosmic dipole,\nsince it will never be possible to independently measure our proper\nmotion accurately enough) and the contribution of the galaxy.\n\nAs I understand it, the COSMIC quadrupole moment is low. That means\nthat AFTER subtracting the contribution of the galaxy, the cosmic\nquadrupole moment is somewhat lower than what one would expect. The\nusual explanation for this is "cosmic variance", which is important for\nlow multipoles: since there is only one universe to observe, we might\njust happen to be in one which is a fluke, statistically. For lower\nmultipoles, statistical flukes don\'t get lost in "normal" values as they\ndo for higher multipoles since there are fewer independent patches of\nsky to compare.\n\n> Second he said that as we move back in time the ratio Omega must be\n> extremely close to one. ?\n\nThis is a thorny issue. In the standard cosmological framework, ANY\ncosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter\nuniverse (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).\n\nSome folks argue that, since the values of the cosmological parameters\nare not that far from 1 today, there must be some "mechanism" which\n"adjusted" them, producing this "fine tuning" in the early universe. On\nthe other hand, if the cosmological parameters were significantly\ndifferent than 1, it is extremely unlikely that we would observe them,\nsince that would mean that the universe had expanded for so long that\nstars had died or, in the case of a recollapsing universe, that we were\nclose to the turnaround. An important point is that these parameters\ndon\'t evolve linearly with time, so one has to be careful in discussing\nprobabilities. There is an extremely good discussion in the book "Is\nthe Universe Open or Closed" by Peter Coles and George Ellis (both well\nrespected mainstream cosmologists) who come to the conclusion that many\nof the arguments about the necessity of fine-tuning are exaggerated.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <9511688f.0411042016.169ca4a6@posting.google.com>,
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) writes:
> I just read George Smoot's "Wrinkles In Time." There were two things
> I didn't understand. First was that a quadrupole can be observed in
> the cosmic radiation background. In theory there are two quadrupoles,
> one cosmic and one galactic and it just so happens that they tend to
> cancel so only one faint quadropole is observed. So what do these
> quadrupoles mean?
>
> "The more interesting component of the quadrupole anisotropy is due to
> a distortion in the gravitational potential of the universe at the
> time of decoupling of matter and radiation."
>
> "long-wavelength gravitational waves (with wavelengths as big as the
> visible universe itself) would result in a CMB quadrupole anisotropy"
Just some general comments. Perhaps a CMB expert (Ted?) will add some
more details.
First, keep in mind that this book was written when the amount of
information we had from CMB observations was MUCH less than what we have
now.
As to the quadrupole, normally when one sees a "map of the CMB", two
things have been subtracted: the dipole due to our proper motion through
the universe (which means that we can never observe the cosmic dipole,
since it will never be possible to independently measure our proper
motion accurately enough) and the contribution of the galaxy.
As I understand it, the COSMIC quadrupole moment is low. That means
that AFTER subtracting the contribution of the galaxy, the cosmic
quadrupole moment is somewhat lower than what one would expect. The
usual explanation for this is "cosmic variance", which is important for
low multipoles: since there is only one universe to observe, we might
just happen to be in one which is a fluke, statistically. For lower
multipoles, statistical flukes don't get lost in "normal" values as they
do for higher multipoles since there are fewer independent patches of
sky to compare.
> Second he said that as we move back in time the ratio \Omega must be
> extremely close to one. ?
This is a thorny issue. In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
universe (\Omega_matter=1, \Omega_lambda=0).
Some folks argue that, since the values of the cosmological parameters
are not that far from 1 today, there must be some "mechanism" which
"adjusted" them, producing this "fine tuning" in the early universe. On
the other hand, if the cosmological parameters were significantly
different than 1, it is extremely unlikely that we would observe them,
since that would mean that the universe had expanded for so long that
stars had died or, in the case of a recollapsing universe, that we were
close to the turnaround. An important point is that these parameters
don't evolve linearly with time, so one has to be careful in discussing
probabilities. There is an extremely good discussion in the book "Is
the Universe Open or Closed" by Peter Coles and George Ellis (both well
respected mainstream cosmologists) who come to the conclusion that many
of the arguments about the necessity of fine-tuning are exaggerated.
ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
Nov14-04, 06:28 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>, \nPatrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cmfrg2\\$jb7\\$1@online.de>...\n\n> how could any force result in a quadrupole?\n> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?\n\nThe quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\nany other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\npattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\nmiddle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\nwe live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\nnear the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n\nThe processes in the early Universe that generated temperature\nvariations in the microwave background also produced variations with a\nquadrupole pattern. There\'s no special reason why they did this: they\nproduced temperature variations of all sorts, on all scales, including\nthe quadrupole. Separating out the Galactic quadrupole from the\nprimordial quadrupole takes some effort, but when you do, you find\nthat the primordial quadrupole is lower than expected in theoretical\nmodels. As Phillip observed, different people in the field disagree\nover how much significance to attach to that discrepancy.\n\nIn addition to the quadrupole, we measure all the other multipoles\n(that is, finer-angular-scale variations). Except for the quadrupole,\nwhich may or may not be anomalously low, the rest of the multipoles\nagree remarkably well with our theoretical models.\n\n>> In the standard cosmological framework, ANY\n>> cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter\n>> universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).\n>\n>That\'s news to me. Why is that?\n\nAll of the "Omegas" are densities of various things, measured relative\nto the critical density. For instance,\n\nOmega_matter = rho_matter / rho_crit\n\nwhere rho_matter is the density of matter and rho_crit is the critical\ndensity.\n\nThe Friedmann equation essentially\nsays that all of the Omegas, including a "curvature term" Omega_k, have\nto add up to one:\n\nOmega_Lambda + Omega_Matter + Omega_radiation + Omega_k = 1.\n\n\nAll of these densities change as the Universe expands, but they\nall change in different ways. It turns out that\n\nrho_lambda = constant\nrho_k = constant / R^2\nrho_matter = constant / R^3\nrho_radiation = constant / R^4.\n\nHere R is the scale factor of the Universe. (The matter one is easy\nto see: if the scale factor goes up by some factor, the volume of any\ngiven portion of the Universe goes up by the cube of that factor,\nso the density goes down.)\n\nAs you go back further and further in time, R gets smaller and smaller.\nSo rho_lambda and rho_k become negligible compared to the matter\nand especially the radiation terms. So in the early Universe,\nwe could ignore curvature and lambda.\n\n>> An important point is that these parameters\n>> don\'t evolve linearly with time\n>\n>I don\'t understand how they evolve with time at all.\n\nBecause they\'re densities. As the Universe expands, densities of\nvarious things get less.\n\n(That doesn\'t mean all the Omegas go down: the critical density\nis also a function of time, so the ratios rho / rho_crit can go\neither up or down. But they don\'t remain constant.)\n\n-Ted\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>,
Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
>helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cmfrg2$jb7$1@online.de>...
> how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?
The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
The processes in the early Universe that generated temperature
variations in the microwave background also produced variations with a
quadrupole pattern. There's no special reason why they did this: they
produced temperature variations of all sorts, on all scales, including
the quadrupole. Separating out the Galactic quadrupole from the
primordial quadrupole takes some effort, but when you do, you find
that the primordial quadrupole is lower than expected in theoretical
models. As Phillip observed, different people in the field disagree
over how much significance to attach to that discrepancy.
In addition to the quadrupole, we measure all the other multipoles
(that is, finer-angular-scale variations). Except for the quadrupole,
which may or may not be anomalously low, the rest of the multipoles
agree remarkably well with our theoretical models.
>> In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
>> cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
>> universe (\Omega_matter=1, \Omega_lambda=0).
>
>That's news to me. Why is that?
All of the "Omegas" are densities of various things, measured relative
to the critical density. For instance,
\Omega_matter = \rho_matter / \rho_crit
where \rho_matter is the density of matter and \rho_crit is the critical
density.
The Friedmann equation essentially
says that all of the Omegas, including a "curvature term" \Omega_k, have
to add up to one:
\Omega_Lambda + \Omega_Matter + \Omega_radiation + \Omega_k = 1[/itex].
All of these densities change as the Universe expands, but they
all change in different ways. It turns out that
\rho_lambda = constant
\rho_k = constant / R^2\rho_matter = constant / R^3\rho_radiation = constant / R^4.
Here R is the scale factor of the Universe. (The matter one is easy
to see: if the scale factor goes up by some factor, the volume of any
given portion of the Universe goes up by the cube of that factor,
so the density goes down.)
As you go back further and further in time, R gets smaller and smaller.
So \rho_lambda and \rho_k become negligible compared to the matter
and especially the radiation terms. So in the early Universe,
we could ignore curvature and \lambda.
>> An important point is that these parameters
>> don't evolve linearly with time
>
>I don't understand how they evolve with time at all.
Because they're densities. As the Universe expands, densities of
various things get less.
(That doesn't mean all the Omegas go down: the critical density
is also a function of time, so the ratios \rho / \rho_crit can go
either up or down. But they don't remain constant.)
[itex]-Ted
--
[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Nov14-04, 07:13 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>, \nfrisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) writes:\n\n> Thank you for the answer about the quadrupoles in the CMB. I think my\n> questions are more basic: how could any force result in a quadrupole?\n> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?\n\nIt sounds like you are thinking of quadrupoles as some sort of particle.\n(I\'m not sure, since I really don\'t understand your question.)\nBasically, the CMB dipole is a difference in temperature 180° apart on\nthe sky, the quadrupole 90°.\n\n> > In the standard cosmological framework, ANY\n> > cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter\n> > universe (Omega_matter=1, Omega_lambda=0).\n>\n> That\'s news to me. Why is that?\n\nThat\'s what the equations say. In the Einstein-de Sitter model, the\ncurvature is zero and there is no cosmological constant. As we go back\nin time, the universe becomes smaller, so we can think of the curvature\napproaching zero, like you don\'t notice the curvature of the Earth in\nyour living room (unless your house is comparable to the size of the\nEarth). Similarly, the cosmological constant (Omega_lambda) is called\nthat since it is constant per unit volume. As the universe is smaller\nfurther back in time, its effect goes down. So we are left with only\nOmega_matter determining the expansion, and that is the definition of\nthe Einstein-de Sitter model.\n\n> > An important point is that these parameters\n> > don\'t evolve linearly with time\n>\n> I don\'t understand how they evolve with time at all.\n\nOmega_matter is the ratio of a density to the critical density, which in\nturn depends on the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant, in turn, is\nthe ratio of the speed of expansion of the universe to its size. As the\nuniverse expands, in general all three of these quantities change\n(obviously, the universe gets bigger and the density drops; the velocity\ncan change too). Similar for lambda, except in this case the density\ndoesn\'t change (that\'s why it\'s called the cosmological CONSTANT, i.e.\nconstant in time for a given volume of space, so in this case the change\nis due to the change in the Hubble constant).\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>,
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com (Patrick Powers) writes:
> Thank you for the answer about the quadrupoles in the CMB. I think my
> questions are more basic: how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?
It sounds like you are thinking of quadrupoles as some sort of particle.
(I'm not sure, since I really don't understand your question.)
Basically, the CMB dipole is a difference in temperature 180° apart on
the sky, the quadrupole 90°.
> > In the standard cosmological framework, ANY
> > cosmological model approaches arbitrarily closely the Einstein-de Sitter
> > universe (\Omega_matter=1, \Omega_lambda=0).
>
> That's news to me. Why is that?
That's what the equations say. In the Einstein-de Sitter model, the
curvature is zero and there is no cosmological constant. As we go back
in time, the universe becomes smaller, so we can think of the curvature
approaching zero, like you don't notice the curvature of the Earth in
your living room (unless your house is comparable to the size of the
Earth). Similarly, the cosmological constant (\Omega_lambda) is called
that since it is constant per unit volume. As the universe is smaller
further back in time, its effect goes down. So we are left with only
\Omega_matter determining the expansion, and that is the definition of
the Einstein-de Sitter model.
> > An important point is that these parameters
> > don't evolve linearly with time
>
> I don't understand how they evolve with time at all.
\Omega_matter is the ratio of a density to the critical density, which in
turn depends on the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant, in turn, is
the ratio of the speed of expansion of the universe to its size. As the
universe expands, in general all three of these quantities change
(obviously, the universe gets bigger and the density drops; the velocity
can change too). Similar for \lambda, except in this case the density
doesn't change (that's why it's called the cosmological CONSTANT, i.e.
constant in time for a given volume of space, so in this case the change
is due to the change in the Hubble constant).
Patrick Powers
Nov26-04, 01:23 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g\\$ev1\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\ n> In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>, \n> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> >helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cmfrg2\\$jb7\\$1@online.de>...\n>\n> > how could any force result in a quadrupole?\n> > Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?\n>\n> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\n> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\n> pattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\n> middle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\n> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\n> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n>\n\nOK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g$ev1$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
> In article <9511688f.0411111956.498d1751@posting.google.com>,
> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote in message news:<cmfrg2$jb7$1@online.de>...
>
> > how could any force result in a quadrupole?
> > Why would the galaxy and cosmos produce quadrupoles?
>
> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
>
OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
Nov30-04, 12:47 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>, \nPatrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g\\$ev1\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\ n\n>> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\n>> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\n>> pattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\n>> middle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\n>> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\n>> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n>>\n>\n>OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?\n\nHow about it?\n\nThe cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\namplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It\'s hard to decide\nhow to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\none knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n\nI don\'t know if this helps. Ask a question that\'s roughly a thousand\ntimes more specific, and I\'ll try to answer!\n\n-Ted\n\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>,
Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g$ev1$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
>> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
>> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
>> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
>> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
>> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
>> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
>>
>
>OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
How about it?
The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
amplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It's hard to decide
how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
times more specific, and I'll try to answer!
-Ted
--
[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
greywolf42
Dec1-04, 11:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\nnews:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond. edu...\n> In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>, \n> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> >ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message\nnews:<cn377g\\$ev1\\$1@lfa222122.richmond .edu>...\n>\n> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\n> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\n> >> pattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\n> >> middle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\n> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\n> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n> >\n> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?\n>\n> How about it?\n>\n> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n\nThat translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n\n> It\'s hard to decide\n> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n\nThis translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\nexplanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n\n> I don\'t know if this helps. Ask a question that\'s roughly a thousand\n> times more specific, and I\'ll try to answer!\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>,
> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message
news:<cn377g$ev1$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
>
> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> >> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> >> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
> >
> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
>
> How about it?
>
> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
> It's hard to decide
> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
> I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
> times more specific, and I'll try to answer!
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Patrick Powers
Dec1-04, 11:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\ n> In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>, \n> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> >ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g\\$ev1\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\ n>\n> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\n> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\n> >> pattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\n> >> middle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\n> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\n> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n> >>\n> >\n> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?\n>\n> How about it?\n>\n> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It\'s hard to decide\n> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n>\n> I don\'t know if this helps. Ask a question that\'s roughly a thousand\n> times more specific, and I\'ll try to answer!\n>\n> -Ted\n\nWhy is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n\nAccording to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic\nquadrupole. Is that correct?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
> In article <9511688f.0411252242.7ce07f51@posting.google.com>,
> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<cn377g$ev1$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
>
> >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> >> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> >> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
> >>
> >
> >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
>
> How about it?
>
> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories. It's hard to decide
> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
>
> I don't know if this helps. Ask a question that's roughly a thousand
> times more specific, and I'll try to answer!
>
> -Ted
Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
quadrupole. Is that correct?
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec2-04, 06:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or\n> > >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a\n> > >> pattern that\'s cold at the north and south poles and hot in the\n> > >> middle. That\'s what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since\n> > >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there\'s a lot of glowing stuff\n> > >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.\n> > >\n> > >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?\n> >\n> > How about it?\n> >\n> > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n>\n> That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n\nThat is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical. It\nis somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.\nThis "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.\nIt might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.\n\nMost atoms in your body are not radioactive. However, it is extremely\nunlikely that even one DNA molecule in your body contains NO radioactive\natoms.\n\nThere was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens\nwere not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only\nsaid they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".\n\nThis might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".\n\n> > It\'s hard to decide\n> > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n>\n> This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n\nYour words, not Ted\'s, and certainly not warranted by the data. I don\'t\nthink anyone is ignoring it, but it might be better to say nothing than\ncome up with a contrived explanation.\n\nSee the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.\n\nWhat is YOUR explanation?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > >> The quadrupole is just a particular "pattern" in a temperature map (or
> > >> any other function on the sphere). One sort of quadrupole is a
> > >> pattern that's cold at the north and south poles and hot in the
> > >> middle. That's what emission from our own Galaxy looks like. Since
> > >> we live in a spiral galaxy with a disk, there's a lot of glowing stuff
> > >> near the Galactic equator and not much near the Galactic poles.
> > >
> > >OK. So how about that cosmic quadrupole?
> >
> > How about it?
> >
> > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
>
> That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical. It
is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.
This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.
It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.
Most atoms in your body are not radioactive. However, it is extremely
unlikely that even one DNA molecule in your body contains NO radioactive
atoms.
There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens
were not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only
said they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".
This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".
> > It's hard to decide
> > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
>
> This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
Your words, not Ted's, and certainly not warranted by the data. I don't
think anyone is ignoring it, but it might be better to say nothing than
come up with a contrived explanation.
See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.
What is YOUR explanation?
Aaron Bergman
Dec2-04, 06:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\n"gr eywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n\n> <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> news:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n\ n> > It\'s hard to decide\n> > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n>\n> This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n\nNo. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many\npossible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error\nbars, it might just be nothing.\n\nAaron\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> > It's hard to decide
> > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
>
> This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
bars, it might just be nothing.
Aaron
ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
Dec2-04, 06:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\ngre ywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n>news:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond .edu...\n\n>> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n>> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n>\n>That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n\nFalse.\n\nTo decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction\ny, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but\nalso the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large\n(because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"), so it\'s\nnot clear whether the discrepancy is significant.\nIn fact, that\'s precisely what I meant when I said\n\n>> It\'s hard to decide\n>> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n>> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n>\n>This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n>explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n\nThis is also false, for the same reason as above.\n\n-Ted\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
>news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
>> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
>> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
>
>That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
False.
To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction
y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but
also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large
(because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"), so it's
not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.
In fact, that's precisely what I meant when I said
>> It's hard to decide
>> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
>> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
>
>This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
>explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
This is also false, for the same reason as above.
-Ted
--
[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu
Dec2-04, 06:15 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \nPatrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n\n>Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n\nThe short answer is "Why not?"\n\nSome process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations\nin density and temperature. Some of these variations are tiny in\nlength scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength\n"ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very\nlong-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different\nscales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed\ntemperature of the microwave background radiation.\n\nLike the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations\ncover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that\noscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,\nripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).\n\nThe very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave\nbackground is called the quadrupole. It gets a lot of attention\nbecause it\'s the biggest, and because there\'s been some controversy\nover whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions. But\nother than that, it\'s not really special: the quadrupole is there for\nthe same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.\n\nOf course, I haven\'t told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%\nsure where those initial variations came from. The leading theory\nis that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the\nvery, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations\ngot enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.\nThose quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature\nvariations.\n\nOne consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on\nall scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those\nlarger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.\n\n>According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic\n>quadrupole. Is that correct?\n\nNot really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason\nto think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the\nGalactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.\n\nLook at the article\n\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496\n\nThe top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the\nsame coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like\nhot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots\nat top and bottom.\n\n-Ted\n\n--\n[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
The short answer is "Why not?"
Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
in density and temperature. Some of these variations are tiny in
length scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength
"ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very
long-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different
scales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed
temperature of the microwave background radiation.
Like the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations
cover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that
oscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,
ripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).
The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
background is called the quadrupole. It gets a lot of attention
because it's the biggest, and because there's been some controversy
over whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions. But
other than that, it's not really special: the quadrupole is there for
the same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.
Of course, I haven't told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%
sure where those initial variations came from. The leading theory
is that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the
very, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations
got enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.
Those quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature
variations.
One consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on
all scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those
larger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.
>According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
>quadrupole. Is that correct?
Not really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason
to think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the
Galactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.
Look at the article
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496
The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
at top and bottom.
-Ted
--
[E-mail me at name@domain.edu, as opposed to name@machine.domain.edu.]
greywolf42
Dec3-04, 04:53 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:coku7n\\$a60\\$3@online.de...\n> In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n\n{snip higer levels}\n\n> > > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> > > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n> >\n> > That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n>\n> That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical.\n\nIt\'s not harsh at all. It doesn\'t matter if the standard prediction is\nstatistical.\n\n> It\n> is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.\n\nNot in the least. One universe is all anyone has. And the statistics are\nsupposedly based on this observable universe. There is no theory that\ncannot be insulated against any disproving observation by simply claiming\nthat *our* universe is just statistically lucky.\n\n> This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.\n> It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.\n\nThe prediction was for pure random. The observation was for highly\nlocalized with the ecliptic. This isn\'t a "random" event.\n\n> Most atoms in your body are not radioactive. However, it is extremely\n> unlikely that even one DNA molecule in your body contains NO radioactive\n> atoms.\n\nThis is totally irrelevant to the issue.\n\n> There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens\n> were not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only\n> said they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".\n\nSince when do we base "research" on Star Trek episodes?\n\n> This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".\n\nSince when do we base "research" on social platitudes? Exceptions never\nprove the rule in the scientific method.\n\n> > > It\'s hard to decide\n> > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n> >\n> > This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n>\n> Your words, not Ted\'s,\n\nOf course. But the meaning is the same.\n\n> and certainly not warranted by the data.\n\nI await your support for the above statement.\n\n> I don\'t\n> think anyone is ignoring it, but it might be better to say nothing than\n> come up with a contrived explanation.\n\nNo one is discussing contrived explanations ... yet. But one will be\ncontrived, eventually.\n\n> See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.\n\nPerhaps you\'d care to be a bit more specific?\n\n> What is YOUR explanation?\n\nI don\'t need one, to point out a contradiction to the standard theory.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:coku7n$a60$3@online.de...
> In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
{snip higer levels}
> > > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> >
> > That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
>
> That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical.
It's not harsh at all. It doesn't matter if the standard prediction is
statistical.
> It
> is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.
Not in the least. One universe is all anyone has. And the statistics are
supposedly based on this observable universe. There is no theory that
cannot be insulated against any disproving observation by simply claiming
that *our* universe is just statistically lucky.
> This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.
> It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.
The prediction was for pure random. The observation was for highly
localized with the ecliptic. This isn't a "random" event.
> Most atoms in your body are not radioactive. However, it is extremely
> unlikely that even one DNA molecule in your body contains NO radioactive
> atoms.
This is totally irrelevant to the issue.
> There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens
> were not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only
> said they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".
Since when do we base "research" on Star Trek episodes?
> This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".
Since when do we base "research" on social platitudes? Exceptions never
prove the rule in the scientific method.
> > > It's hard to decide
> > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
> >
> > This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
>
> Your words, not Ted's,
Of course. But the meaning is the same.
> and certainly not warranted by the data.
I await your support for the above statement.
> I don't
> think anyone is ignoring it, but it might be better to say nothing than
> come up with a contrived explanation.
No one is discussing contrived explanations ... yet. But one will be
contrived, eventually.
> See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.
Perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific?
> What is YOUR explanation?
I don't need one, to point out a contradiction to the standard theory.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
Dec3-04, 04:54 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Aaron Bergman <abergman@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in message\nnews:abergman-AF95CE.11190501122004@localhost...\n> In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\n> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> > news:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n> \n> > > It\'s hard to decide\n> > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n> >\n> > This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n>\n> No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many\n> possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error\n> bars, it might just be nothing.\n\nBut it\'s not "nothing". That\'s the whole point. It\'s a very statistically\nsignificant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.\n\nIn other words, it\'s not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by\n"inherent".\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Aaron Bergman <abergman@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:abergman-AF95CE.11190501122004@localhost...
> In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> > news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
>
> > > It's hard to decide
> > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
> >
> > This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
>
> No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
> possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
> bars, it might just be nothing.
But it's not "nothing". That's the whole point. It's a very statistically
significant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.
In other words, it's not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by
"inherent".
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
Dec3-04, 04:54 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\nnews:col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond. edu...\n> In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \n> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n>\n> >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n>\n> The short answer is "Why not?"\n\nWell, the "why not" is because it wasn\'t predicted by the current theory.\nIf the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously\nunobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go\nlooking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.\n\n> Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations\n> in density and temperature.\n\nOr the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.\n\n> Some of these variations are tiny in\n> length scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength\n> "ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very\n> long-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different\n> scales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed\n> temperature of the microwave background radiation.\n>\n> Like the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations\n> cover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that\n> oscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,\n> ripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).\n\nAgain, this assumes the BB is correct.\n\n> The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave\n> background is called the quadrupole.\n\nOdd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can\'t\nbe observed?\n\n> It gets a lot of attention\n> because it\'s the biggest, and because there\'s been some controversy\n> over whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions.\n\nWell, that would tend to be controversial.\n\n> But\n> other than that, it\'s not really special: the quadrupole is there for\n> the same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.\n\nAnd what is the reason for it being aligned with the ecliptic -- unlike the\nrest of the ripples?\n\n> Of course, I haven\'t told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%\n> sure where those initial variations came from.\n\nThen you don\'t have a viable theory, do you?\n\n> The leading theory\n> is that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the\n> very, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations\n> got enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.\n> Those quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature\n> variations.\n\nHowever, according to the paper, this scenario (inflation) is disproved at\nthe 99.9% confidence level.\n\n> One consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on\n> all scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those\n> larger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.\n>\n> >According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic\n> >quadrupole. Is that correct?\n>\n> Not really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason\n> to think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the\n> Galactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.\n>\n> Look at the article\n>\n> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496\n>\n> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the\n> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like\n> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots\n> at top and bottom.\n\nAnd how is this relevant to the issue?\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
news:col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
> Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
>
> The short answer is "Why not?"
Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current theory.
If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.
> Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> in density and temperature.
Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.
> Some of these variations are tiny in
> length scale (i.e., they correspond to very short-wavelength
> "ripples") and some are very long-scale (i.e., they correspond to very
> long-wavelength "ripples"). That jumble of ripples on all different
> scales leads to a pattern of hot and cold patches in the observed
> temperature of the microwave background radiation.
>
> Like the ripples that produced them, those temperature variations
> cover a wide range of scales, from very small (i.e., ripples that
> oscillate multiple times per degree on the sky) to very large (i.e.,
> ripples that oscillate only once or twice around the whole sky).
Again, this assumes the BB is correct.
> The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> background is called the quadrupole.
Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can't
be observed?
> It gets a lot of attention
> because it's the biggest, and because there's been some controversy
> over whether it agrees well enough with theoretical predictions.
Well, that would tend to be controversial.
> But
> other than that, it's not really special: the quadrupole is there for
> the same reason that the ripples on all other scales are there.
And what is the reason for it being aligned with the ecliptic -- unlike the
rest of the ripples?
> Of course, I haven't told you what that reason is! Nobody is 100%
> sure where those initial variations came from.
Then you don't have a viable theory, do you?
> The leading theory
> is that they were produced during an epoch called "inflation" in the
> very, very early Universe. During that time, quantum fluctuations
> got enlarged by the incredibly rapid acceleration of the Universe.
> Those quantum fluctuations led to the microwave background temperature
> variations.
However, according to the paper, this scenario (inflation) is disproved at
the 99.9% confidence level.
> One consequence of this theory is that fluctuations should exist on
> all scales from the quadrupole (and even larger, although those
> larger-scale ones are hard to observe) on down.
>
> >According to Smoot the cosmic quadrupole tends to cancel the galactic
> >quadrupole. Is that correct?
>
> Not really, although when Smoot wrote his book there was some reason
> to think it might be true. In fact, the cosmic quadrupole and the
> Galactic quadrupole are pretty close to orthogonal to each other.
>
> Look at the article
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496
>
> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
> at top and bottom.
And how is this relevant to the issue?
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
greywolf42
Dec3-04, 04:59 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\nnews:col76s\\$ue5\\$1@lfa222122.richmond. edu...\n> In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\n> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n> ><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> >news:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n >\n> >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n> >\n> >That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n>\n> False.\n>\n> To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction\n> y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but\n> also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large\n> (because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"),\n\nActually, "cosmic variance" is simply an escape clause that can be used to\nclaim that any observation is not at variance with theory. Unfortunately,\nthe only universe that we can observe is our own. The theoretical crutch of\n"many universes" is just theory. They may not exist. But this is way\nbeyond the prior use of the concept.\n\n> so it\'s\n> not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.\n\nBut it\'s quite clear. It is a highly ordered, statistically significant\nobservation that there is something physical going on, that is aligned with\nthe ecliptic.\n\n> In fact, that\'s precisely what I meant when I said\n>\n> >> It\'s hard to decide\n> >> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> >> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n> >\n> >This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> >explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n>\n> This is also false, for the same reason as above.\n\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
news:col76s$ue5$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> ><ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> >news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
>
> >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> >
> >That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
>
> False.
>
> To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction
> y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but
> also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large
> (because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"),
Actually, "cosmic variance" is simply an escape clause that can be used to
claim that any observation is not at variance with theory. Unfortunately,
the only universe that we can observe is our own. The theoretical crutch of
"many universes" is just theory. They may not exist. But this is way
beyond the prior use of the concept.
> so it's
> not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.
But it's quite clear. It is a highly ordered, statistically significant
observation that there is something physical going on, that is aligned with
the ecliptic.
> In fact, that's precisely what I meant when I said
>
> >> It's hard to decide
> >> how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> >> one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
> >
> >This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> >explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
>
> This is also false, for the same reason as above.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec4-04, 03:11 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <L4Nrd.1524\\$fi2.646@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > > > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> > > > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n> > >\n> > > That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n> >\n> > That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical.\n>\n> It\'s not harsh at all. It doesn\'t matter if the standard prediction is\n> statistical.\n\nEvidence, please? :-)\n\n> > It\n> > is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.\n>\n> Not in the least. One universe is all anyone has. And the statistics are\n> supposedly based on this observable universe. There is no theory that\n> cannot be insulated against any disproving observation by simply claiming\n> that *our* universe is just statistically lucky.\n\nIt appears that you don\'t understand the concept of cosmic variance. It\nis NOT an excuse which can apply to any anomalous observation.\n\n> > This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.\n> > It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.\n>\n> The prediction was for pure random. The observation was for highly\n> localized with the ecliptic. This isn\'t a "random" event.\n\nAgain, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitude, not\ndirection.\n\n> > There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens\n> > were not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only\n> > said they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".\n>\n> Since when do we base "research" on Star Trek episodes?\n\nI don\'t. However, as I\'m sure most readers are aware, it illustrates my\npoint (as does the snipped part about radioactive atoms) that one does\nNOT expect ALL specific predictions (like multiple amplitudes) to be\n"right on the nose". Rather, some variance is expected. A perfect,\nfair coin has a 50-50 heads-tails probability, but I doubt that if you\ntoss it 40 times it will come up 20 and 20.\n\n> > This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".\n>\n> Since when do we base "research" on social platitudes? Exceptions never\n> prove the rule in the scientific method.\n\nIn this case, I think that this proverb, admittedly normally used in\nanother context, is appropriate.\n\n> > See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.\n>\n> Perhaps you\'d care to be a bit more specific?\n\nWhy? Should I quote other posts in that thread in their entirety?\n\n> > What is YOUR explanation?\n>\n> I don\'t need one, to point out a contradiction to the standard theory.\n\nInitially, perhaps. However, science normally progresses by explaining\nmore as time goes by.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <L4Nrd.1524$fi2.646@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > > > The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > > > amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> > >
> > > That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
> >
> > That is too harsh, since the "standard predictions" are statistical.
>
> It's not harsh at all. It doesn't matter if the standard prediction is
> statistical.
Evidence, please? :-)
> > It
> > is somewhat difficult to quantify statistics with only one universe.
>
> Not in the least. One universe is all anyone has. And the statistics are
> supposedly based on this observable universe. There is no theory that
> cannot be insulated against any disproving observation by simply claiming
> that *our* universe is just statistically lucky.
It appears that you don't understand the concept of cosmic variance. It
is NOT an excuse which can apply to any anomalous observation.
> > This "cosmic variance" has been discussed in the literature for years.
> > It might be more surprising if every quadrupole was right on the nose.
>
> The prediction was for pure random. The observation was for highly
> localized with the ecliptic. This isn't a "random" event.
Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitude, not
direction.
> > There was an episode of Star Trek in which McCoy figured out the aliens
> > were not the humans they pretended to be since his instruments not only
> > said they appeared human, but appeared as "textbook humans".
>
> Since when do we base "research" on Star Trek episodes?
I don't. However, as I'm sure most readers are aware, it illustrates my
point (as does the snipped part about radioactive atoms) that one does
NOT expect ALL specific predictions (like multiple amplitudes) to be
"right on the nose". Rather, some variance is expected. A perfect,
fair coin has a 50-50 heads-tails probability, but I doubt that if you
toss it 40 times it will come up 20 and 20.
> > This might be a case of "the exception proves the rule".
>
> Since when do we base "research" on social platitudes? Exceptions never
> prove the rule in the scientific method.
In this case, I think that this proverb, admittedly normally used in
another context, is appropriate.
> > See the "Was WMAP wrong?" thread for a possible explanation.
>
> Perhaps you'd care to be a bit more specific?
Why? Should I quote other posts in that thread in their entirety?
> > What is YOUR explanation?
>
> I don't need one, to point out a contradiction to the standard theory.
Initially, perhaps. However, science normally progresses by explaining
more as time goes by.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec4-04, 03:12 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <25Nrd.1530\\$fi2.471@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > > > It\'s hard to decide\n> > > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n> > >\n> > > This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> > > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n> >\n> > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many\n> > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error\n> > bars, it might just be nothing.\n>\n> But it\'s not "nothing". That\'s the whole point. It\'s a very statistically\n> significant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.\n>\n> In other words, it\'s not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by\n> "inherent".\n\nAgain, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not\ndirections. It appears that the low amplitudes are not that mysterious.\nThe alignment IS mysterious.\n\nA few years ago, there was a paper published which claimed that a planet\naround a pulsar had been discovered, with a period of exactly one year.\nIt turns out that the motion of the Earth was not taken into account.\nPerhaps, on a higher level, there is some data-analysis problem here.\nAt least until someone comes up with a theory which explains the\nalignment AND everything else "standard theory" can explain (i.e. is on\nthe whole better than standard theory and not ad-hoc), this appears to\nme to be the most likely explanation.\n\nI think this whole episode gives another reason for the existence of the\nPlanck Surveyor, even if WMAP will measure "everything good enough".\nConfirmation of results---especially strange, unexpected results---by\nindependent experiments is essential.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <25Nrd.1530$fi2.471@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > > > It's hard to decide
> > > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
> > >
> > > This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> > > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
> >
> > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
> > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
> > bars, it might just be nothing.
>
> But it's not "nothing". That's the whole point. It's a very statistically
> significant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.
>
> In other words, it's not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by
> "inherent".
Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not
directions. It appears that the low amplitudes are not that mysterious.
The alignment IS mysterious.
A few years ago, there was a paper published which claimed that a planet
around a pulsar had been discovered, with a period of exactly one year.
It turns out that the motion of the Earth was not taken into account.
Perhaps, on a higher level, there is some data-analysis problem here.
At least until someone comes up with a theory which explains the
alignment AND everything else "standard theory" can explain (i.e. is on
the whole better than standard theory and not ad-hoc), this appears to
me to be the most likely explanation.
I think this whole episode gives another reason for the existence of the
Planck Surveyor, even if WMAP will measure "everything good enough".
Confirmation of results---especially strange, unexpected results---by
independent experiments is essential.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec4-04, 03:12 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <u5Nrd.1537\\$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com> , "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> news:col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n> > In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \n> > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> >\n> > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n> >\n> > The short answer is "Why not?"\n>\n> Well, the "why not" is because it wasn\'t predicted by the current theory.\n\nOf course it was. Haven\'t you been reading CMB papers? Years before\nthey were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for\nvarious assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that\none can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.\n\n> If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously\n> unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go\n> looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.\n\nAgain, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,\nthough of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the\nliterature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",\n"small universe" etc).\n\n> > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations\n> > in density and temperature.\n>\n> Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.\n\nConfusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good\nidea.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <u5Nrd.1537$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> news:col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> > In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
> > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> >
> > The short answer is "Why not?"
>
> Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current theory.
Of course it was. Haven't you been reading CMB papers? Years before
they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for
various assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that
one can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.
> If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
> unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
> looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.
Again, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,
though of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the
literature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",
"small universe" etc).
> > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> > in density and temperature.
>
> Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by observation.
Confusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good
idea.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec4-04, 03:12 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <S4Nrd.1525\\$fi2.182@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it\'s a few times lower in\n> > >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.\n> > >\n> > >That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.\n> >\n> > False.\n> >\n> > To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction\n> > y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but\n> > also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large\n> > (because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"),\n>\n> Actually, "cosmic variance" is simply an escape clause that can be used to\n> claim that any observation is not at variance with theory.\n\nFalse. As I pointed out in another post, it seems that you don\'t\nunderstand the term.\n\n> > so it\'s\n> > not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.\n>\n> But it\'s quite clear. It is a highly ordered, statistically significant\n> observation that there is something physical going on, that is aligned with\n> the ecliptic.\n\nAgain, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not\ndirections.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <S4Nrd.1525$fi2.182@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > >> The cosmic quadrupole is there, but it's a few times lower in
> > >> amplitude than is predicted in standard theories.
> > >
> > >That translates as not in accordance with standard predictions.
> >
> > False.
> >
> > To decide whether a measurement x agrees with a theoretical prediction
> > y, you need to know not just the difference between x and y, but
> > also the uncertainty. In this case, the uncertainty is large
> > (because of a phenomenon called "cosmic variance"),
>
> Actually, "cosmic variance" is simply an escape clause that can be used to
> claim that any observation is not at variance with theory.
False. As I pointed out in another post, it seems that you don't
understand the term.
> > so it's
> > not clear whether the discrepancy is significant.
>
> But it's quite clear. It is a highly ordered, statistically significant
> observation that there is something physical going on, that is aligned with
> the ecliptic.
Again, at this point the discussion was confined to amplitudes, not
directions.
Aaron Bergman
Dec4-04, 03:14 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <25Nrd.1530\\$fi2.471@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\n "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n\n> Aaron Bergman <abergman@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in message\n> news:abergman-AF95CE.11190501122004@localhost...\n> > In article <4W8rd.58\\$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\n> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n> > > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> > > news:cofhoo\\$s6u\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n> >\n> > > > It\'s hard to decide\n> > > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no\n> > > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.\n> > >\n> > > This translates to "we\'re going to ignore it, until we come up with an\n> > > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.\n> >\n> > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many\n> > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error\n> > bars, it might just be nothing.\n>\n> But it\'s not "nothing". That\'s the whole point. It\'s a very statistically\n> significant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.\n>\n> In other words, it\'s not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by\n> "inherent".\n\nPrior to the analysis, it was. Now that it\'s been analyzed further, it\nappears to be systematic (most likely) or new physics (less likely but\nnot impossible).\n\nBy inherent, I mean that there is a natural error associated to the low\nmultipoles called cosmic variance.\n\nAaron\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <25Nrd.1530$fi2.471@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> Aaron Bergman <abergman@physics.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:abergman-AF95CE.11190501122004@localhost...
> > In article <4W8rd.58$fi2.54@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> > "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:cofhoo$s6u$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> >
> > > > It's hard to decide
> > > > how to assign a statistical significance to this discrepancy, so no
> > > > one knows whether or not to be worried about this.
> > >
> > > This translates to "we're going to ignore it, until we come up with an
> > > explanation". i.e. A new epicycle.
> >
> > No. It translates as people are interested it and have proposed many
> > possible explanations, but because the value is within inherent error
> > bars, it might just be nothing.
>
> But it's not "nothing". That's the whole point. It's a very statistically
> significant and ordered measurement that is aligned with the ecliptic.
>
> In other words, it's not "within error bars" -- whatever you mean by
> "inherent".
Prior to the analysis, it was. Now that it's been analyzed further, it
appears to be systematic (most likely) or new physics (less likely but
not impossible).
By inherent, I mean that there is a natural error associated to the low
multipoles called cosmic variance.
Aaron
Aaron Bergman
Dec4-04, 03:14 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <u5Nrd.1537\\$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\ n"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:\n\n> > The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave\n> > background is called the quadrupole.\n>\n> Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can\'t\n> be observed?\n\nOctopoles are smaller than quadrupole.\n\nIt might be helpful to get things like that straight before making\nsweeping pronouncements about the viability of inflation.\n\nAaron\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <u5Nrd.1537$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
"greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote:
> > The very largest-scale ripple we can observe in the microwave
> > background is called the quadrupole.
>
> Odd. Others claim observing an octupole. Why do you claim that this can't
> be observed?
Octopoles are smaller than quadrupole.
It might be helpful to get things like that straight before making
sweeping pronouncements about the viability of inflation.
Aaron
alistair
Dec6-04, 07:16 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...\ n> Look at the article\n>\n> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496\n>\n> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the\n> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like\n> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots\n> at top and bottom.\n>\n> -Ted\n\nThe authors mentioned close to the end of the paper that a universe\nwhich had one spatial dimension suppressed would account for the\nunexpected features of the quadrupole.The gravity of a second universe\nof missing antimatter, to one side of our universe, would flatten one\nspatial dimension in our universe,by stretching it in one direction.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu wrote in message news:<col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu>...
> Look at the article
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302496
>
> The top left panel of Figure 15 shows the cosmic quadrupole. In the
> same coordinate system, the Galactic quadrupole would look like
> hot band running horizontally across the middle, with cold spots
> at top and bottom.
>
> -Ted
The authors mentioned close to the end of the paper that a universe
which had one spatial dimension suppressed would account for the
unexpected features of the quadrupole.The gravity of a second universe
of missing antimatter, to one side of our universe, would flatten one
spatial dimension in our universe,by stretching it in one direction.
greywolf42
Dec7-04, 08:06 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\nPhillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>\nwrote in message news:coqs8g\\$51n\\$4@online.de...\n> In article <u5Nrd.1537\\$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com> , "greywolf42"\n> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message\n> > news:col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...\n> > > In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \n> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> > >\n> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n> > >\n> > > The short answer is "Why not?"\n> >\n> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn\'t predicted by the current\n> > theory.\n>\n> Of course it was.\n\nNot according to Smoot\'s paper.\n\n> Haven\'t you been reading CMB papers?\n\nI\'ve been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that is under\ndiscussion. If you want credit for something else, you\'ll have to be\nspecific.\n\n> Years before\n> they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for\n> various assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that\n> one can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.\n\nHow is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation of the\nmultipole that was actually observed?\n\n> > If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously\n> > unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go\n> > looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.\n>\n> Again, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,\n\nA completely self-serving special plead. The Smoot paper identified a 99.9%\nCL that inflation was disproved. That *IS* statistics. Simply waving your\nhands and saying "if you understand statistics" that you can ignore the\nresults, is worthless.\n\n> though of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the\n> literature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",\n> "small universe" etc).\n\nGo right ahead with a citation that disproves Smoot\'s claim.\n\n> > > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations\n> > > in density and temperature.\n> >\n> > Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by\n> > observation.\n>\n> Confusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good\n> idea.\n\nThe latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By\ndefinition.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de>
wrote in message news:coqs8g$51n$4@online.de...
> In article <u5Nrd.1537$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
> <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
> > news:col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu...
> > > In article <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> > >
> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
> >
> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
> > theory.
>
> Of course it was.
Not according to Smoot's paper.
> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?
I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that is under
discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll have to be
specific.
> Years before
> they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples was predicted for
> various assumptions about cosmological parameters etc. The fact that
> one can predict these is the whole reason to do an experiment like WMAP.
How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation of the
multipole that was actually observed?
> > If the BB is good for anything, it must be for predicting previously
> > unobserved phenomena. However, once again, the BB theorists now must go
> > looking for another ad hoc explanation of yet another surprise.
>
> Again, no surprise in the low multipoles if you understand statistics,
A completely self-serving special plead. The Smoot paper identified a 99.9%
CL that inflation was disproved. That *IS* statistics. Simply waving your
hands and saying "if you understand statistics" that you can ignore the
results, is worthless.
> though of course there can be other explanations (which were also in the
> literature before the observations: look for "non-trivial topology",
> "small universe" etc).
Go right ahead with a citation that disproves Smoot's claim.
> > > Some process in the early Universe appears to have produced variations
> > > in density and temperature.
> >
> > Or the BB theory (latest inflation model) is contradicted by
> > observation.
>
> Confusing the BB theory with the latest inflation model is not a good
> idea.
The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By
definition.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec8-04, 06:53 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <2cKsd.1081\\$jk7.758@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By\n> definition.\n\nWhose definition? Yours? Reference, please.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <2cKsd.1081$jk7.758@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> The latest BB theory by definition includes the latest inflation model. By
> definition.
Whose definition? Yours? Reference, please.
Joseph Lazio
Dec8-04, 06:55 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>>>>>> "g" == greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\ng> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply\ng> <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message\ng> news:coqs8g\\$51n\\$4@online.de...\n>> In article <u5Nrd.1537\\$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\ n>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>>\n>> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message >\n>> news:col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu... > > In article\n>> <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \n>> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n>> > >\n>> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n>> > >\n>> > > The short answer is "Why not?"\n>> >\n>> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn\'t predicted by the current\n>> > theory.\n>>\n>> Of course it was.\n\ng> Not according to Smoot\'s paper.\n\nI think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot\'s popular\nscience book.\n\n>> Haven\'t you been reading CMB papers?\n\ng> I\'ve been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that\ng> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you\'ll\ng> have to be specific.\n\nUh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn\'t what\'s taught in middle\nschools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will\nfall on the basis of one experiment. One simple reason is that one\nwants to double check any experiment with such significance. Smoot\nmay have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the\nobservations since then is to double check those original experiments\nand probe the models further.\n\n>> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples\n>> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters\n>> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do\n>> an experiment like WMAP.\n\ng> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation\ng> of the multipole that was actually observed?\n\nUmm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test\npredictions arising out of the COBE observations?\n\n--\nLt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jlazio@patriot.net\nNo means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/\nsci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>>>>>> "g" == greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
g> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
g> <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message
g> news:coqs8g$51n$4@online.de...
>> In article <u5Nrd.1537$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>>
>> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message >
>> news:col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu... > > In article
>> <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
>> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
>> > >
>> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
>> >
>> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
>> > theory.
>>
>> Of course it was.
g> Not according to Smoot's paper.
I think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot's popular
science book.
>> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?
g> I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that
g> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll
g> have to be specific.
Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn't what's taught in middle
schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will
fall on the basis of one experiment. One simple reason is that one
wants to double check any experiment with such significance. Smoot
may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the
observations since then is to double check those original experiments
and probe the models further.
>> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples
>> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters
>> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do
>> an experiment like WMAP.
g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation
g> of the multipole that was actually observed?
Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test
predictions arising out of the COBE observations?
--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: jlazio@patriot.net
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html
greywolf42
Dec9-04, 02:03 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Joseph Lazio <jlazio@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message\nnews:ll8y89391e.fsf@adams.patriot.net...\ n> >>>>> "g" == greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n>\n> g> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply\n> g> <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message\n> g> news:coqs8g\\$51n\\$4@online.de...\n> >> In article <u5Nrd.1537\\$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,\ n> >> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n> >>\n> >> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message >\n> >> news:col898\\$ufu\\$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu... > > In article\n> >> <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>, \n> >> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:\n> >> > >\n> >> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?\n> >> > >\n> >> > > The short answer is "Why not?"\n> >> >\n> >> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn\'t predicted by the current\n> >> > theory.\n> >>\n> >> Of course it was.\n>\n> g> Not according to Smoot\'s paper.\n>\n> I think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot\'s popular\n> science book.\n\nCorrection noted.\n\n> >> Haven\'t you been reading CMB papers?\n>\n> g> I\'ve been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that\n> g> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you\'ll\n> g> have to be specific.\n>\n> Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn\'t what\'s taught in middle\n> schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will\n> fall on the basis of one experiment.\n\nYou mean that most professional academics will hang onto a theory after a\ntheory has been contradicted by one experiment. Unless they think they have\na better theory. (As descrived in Kuhn\'s "The Structure of Scientific\nRevolutions").\n\n> One simple reason is that one\n> wants to double check any experiment with such significance.\n\nAccording to the scientific method, one must double-check all experiments.\nNot just those that seem to disprove popular theories. But this is not done\nby academics today.\n\n> Smoot\n> may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the\n> observations since then is to double check those original experiments\n> and probe the models further.\n>\n> >> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples\n> >> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters\n> >> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do\n> >> an experiment like WMAP.\n>\n> g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation\n> g> of the multipole that was actually observed?\n>\n> Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test\n> predictions arising out of the COBE observations?\n\nI think you responded to a question other than what I asked. I did not ask\nwhy the experiments or calculations were done (I agree with you). I asked\nwhy Phillip made a statement that had nothing to do with the observed value\nand orientation of the observed multipole.\n\n--\ngreywolf42\nubi dubium ibi libertas\n{remove planet for return e-mail}\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Joseph Lazio <jlazio@adams.patriot.net> wrote in message
news:ll8y89391e.fsf@adams.patriot.net...
> >>>>> "g" == greywolf42 <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
>
> g> Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
> g> <helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message
> g> news:coqs8g$51n$4@online.de...
> >> In article <u5Nrd.1537$fi2.1194@news.flashnewsgroups.com>,
> >> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > <ebunn@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message >
> >> news:col898$ufu$1@lfa222122.richmond.edu... > > In article
> >> <9511688f.0411302009.735829cb@posting.google.com>,
> >> > > Patrick Powers <frisbieinstein@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Why is there a cosmic quadrupole at all?
> >> > >
> >> > > The short answer is "Why not?"
> >> >
> >> > Well, the "why not" is because it wasn't predicted by the current
> >> > theory.
> >>
> >> Of course it was.
>
> g> Not according to Smoot's paper.
>
> I think the original poster asked a question based on Smoot's popular
> science book.
Correction noted.
> >> Haven't you been reading CMB papers?
>
> g> I've been reading some CMB papers. But it is *Smoots* paper that
> g> is under discussion. If you want credit for something else, you'll
> g> have to be specific.
>
> Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn't what's taught in middle
> schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will
> fall on the basis of one experiment.
You mean that most professional academics will hang onto a theory after a
theory has been contradicted by one experiment. Unless they think they have
a better theory. (As descrived in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions").
> One simple reason is that one
> wants to double check any experiment with such significance.
According to the scientific method, one must double-check all experiments.
Not just those that seem to disprove popular theories. But this is not done
by academics today.
> Smoot
> may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the
> observations since then is to double check those original experiments
> and probe the models further.
>
> >> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples
> >> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters
> >> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do
> >> an experiment like WMAP.
>
> g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation
> g> of the multipole that was actually observed?
>
> Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test
> predictions arising out of the COBE observations?
I think you responded to a question other than what I asked. I did not ask
why the experiments or calculations were done (I agree with you). I asked
why Phillip made a statement that had nothing to do with the observed value
and orientation of the observed multipole.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec9-04, 11:33 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIn article <q7Ktd.1315\\$6N2.307@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"\n<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:\n\n> > Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn\'t what\'s taught in middle\n> > schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will\n> > fall on the basis of one experiment.\n>\n> You mean that most professional academics will hang onto a theory after a\n> theory has been contradicted by one experiment. Unless they think they have\n> a better theory.\n\nIf theory and experiment disagree, then at least one of them is wrong.\nExperiments ARE sometimes wrong. Thus, you seem to be rather naive in\ntrusting experiments if you believe that one experiment can disprove a\ntheory. If a theory is contradicted by experiment, the first thing to\ndo is to repeat the experiment, especially if the theory is otherwise\nsupported by other experiments.\n\n> (As descrived in Kuhn\'s "The Structure of Scientific\n> Revolutions").\n\nNot a very good reference. Either Kuhn\'s ideas about how science\nprogresses are wrong or they are right. If they are wrong, then this is\nnot a very good reference. If they are right, then according to his own\nideas they are only temporary and will be replaced by another paradigm.\n\nOn top of that, Kuhn got it wrong. Science just doesn\'t work that way,\nnot since Galileo. The Copernican Revolution is not typical of the way\nscience works, and this pre-Galileo revolution overthrew old ideas which\nwere held in place by the Church and tradition, not by science.\n\n> > One simple reason is that one\n> > wants to double check any experiment with such significance.\n>\n> According to the scientific method, one must double-check all experiments.\n> Not just those that seem to disprove popular theories. But this is not done\n> by academics today.\n\nSimply not true. As an example, think of the overlap in coverage of\nboth frequency and multipoles in CMB experiments.\n\n> > Smoot\n> > may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the\n> > observations since then is to double check those original experiments\n> > and probe the models further.\n> >\n> > >> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples\n> > >> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters\n> > >> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do\n> > >> an experiment like WMAP.\n> >\n> > g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation\n> > g> of the multipole that was actually observed?\n\nIt\'s not relevant to the orientation. As anyone can verify by looking\nat archived posts, at this point the discussion was confined to the\namplitude of multipoles; the discussion of the orientation came later in\nthe thread.\n\n> > Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test\n> > predictions arising out of the COBE observations?\n>\n> I think you responded to a question other than what I asked. I did not ask\n> why the experiments or calculations were done (I agree with you). I asked\n> why Phillip made a statement that had nothing to do with the observed value\n> and orientation of the observed multipole.\n\nI responded directly to previous arguments in the same thread.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <q7Ktd.1315$6N2.307@news.flashnewsgroups.com>, "greywolf42"
<mingstb@marssim-ss.com> writes:
> > Uh-oh, here we go again. Although this isn't what's taught in middle
> > schools, the simple fact is that few (if any) theories or models will
> > fall on the basis of one experiment.
>
> You mean that most professional academics will hang onto a theory after a
> theory has been contradicted by one experiment. Unless they think they have
> a better theory.
If theory and experiment disagree, then at least one of them is wrong.
Experiments ARE sometimes wrong. Thus, you seem to be rather naive in
trusting experiments if you believe that one experiment can disprove a
theory. If a theory is contradicted by experiment, the first thing to
do is to repeat the experiment, especially if the theory is otherwise
supported by other experiments.
> (As descrived in Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
> Revolutions").
Not a very good reference. Either Kuhn's ideas about how science
progresses are wrong or they are right. If they are wrong, then this is
not a very good reference. If they are right, then according to his own
ideas they are only temporary and will be replaced by another paradigm.
On top of that, Kuhn got it wrong. Science just doesn't work that way,
not since Galileo. The Copernican Revolution is not typical of the way
science works, and this pre-Galileo revolution overthrew old ideas which
were held in place by the Church and tradition, not by science.
> > One simple reason is that one
> > wants to double check any experiment with such significance.
>
> According to the scientific method, one must double-check all experiments.
> Not just those that seem to disprove popular theories. But this is not done
> by academics today.
Simply not true. As an example, think of the overlap in coverage of
both frequency and multipoles in CMB experiments.
> > Smoot
> > may have claimed something in 1992. The point of all of the
> > observations since then is to double check those original experiments
> > and probe the models further.
> >
> > >> Years before they were observed, the amplitude of various multiples
> > >> was predicted for various assumptions about cosmological parameters
> > >> etc. The fact that one can predict these is the whole reason to do
> > >> an experiment like WMAP.
> >
> > g> How is this relevant to the question of the value and orientation
> > g> of the multipole that was actually observed?
It's not relevant to the orientation. As anyone can verify by looking
at archived posts, at this point the discussion was confined to the
amplitude of multipoles; the discussion of the orientation came later in
the thread.
> > Umm, maybe to verify that COBE got it right? Maybe to test
> > predictions arising out of the COBE observations?
>
> I think you responded to a question other than what I asked. I did not ask
> why the experiments or calculations were done (I agree with you). I asked
> why Phillip made a statement that had nothing to do with the observed value
> and orientation of the observed multipole.
I responded directly to previous arguments in the same thread.
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Dec14-04, 12:09 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>he identifies himself.\n\n20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists\nprotest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke\npolice or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be\neffective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but\nbecause they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist\ntrait.\n\n21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion\nor by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the\nleftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle\ncannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too\nprominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.\nMoreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of\nbenefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.\nFor example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black\npeople, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or\ndogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a\ndiplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal\nand symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative\naction discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take\nsuch an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.\nHelping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems\nserve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and\nfrustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black\npeople, because the activists\' hostile attitude toward the white\nmajority tends to intensify race hatred.\n\n22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would\nhave to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse\nfor making a fuss.\n\n23. We emphasize that\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"What is your explanation?" - for the weak quadrupole signal, and\nincidentally for the deficit in other large angle fluctuations –\nAns. The universe is closed and finite. There was not enough room for\nthese fluctuations to form.\n\nHow then that the WMAP data are concordant with a flat universe? –\nAns. The WMAP data is essentially angular in nature, conformal\ntransformations preserve angles, so the WMAP data is also concordant\nwith a conformally flat universe.\nA conformally flat closed universe could be cylindrical, conical or\ntoroidal. (I think I have exhausted the possibilities.\n\nIs there a gravitational/cosmological theory that predicts such a\nuniverse?\nAns. Yes - The conformal gravitational theory of Self Creation\nCosmology predicts a universe that is cylindrical in its Jordan frame\nand conical in its Einstein frame.\n\nGarth\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\nThis post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com\nTo view this post with LaTeX images:\nhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51515#post403573\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"What is your explanation?" - for the weak quadrupole signal, and
incidentally for the deficit in other large angle fluctuations –
Ans. The universe is closed and finite. There was not enough room for
these fluctuations to form.
How then that the WMAP data are concordant with a flat universe? –
Ans. The WMAP data is essentially angular in nature, conformal
transformations preserve angles, so the WMAP data is also concordant
with a conformally flat universe.
A conformally flat closed universe could be cylindrical, conical or
toroidal. (I think I have exhausted the possibilities.
Is there a gravitational/cosmological theory that predicts such a
universe?
Ans. Yes - The conformal gravitational theory of Self Creation
Cosmology predicts a universe that is cylindrical in its Jordan frame
and conical in its Einstein frame.
Garth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post submitted through the LaTeX-enabled physicsforums.com
To view this post with LaTeX images:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=51515#post403573
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.