Is this a misleading representation of boomerang results

[Ibrahim64]

Hello Mark M

Ibrahim64 and Jerusalem:

If you're debating whether it not the universe has a perfectly flat global topology (though I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about), the universe is only FLRW on average over very large distances. Taking into account the fact that the cosmological constant implies that the matter density would need to be fine tuned, and that inflation would make any curvature absolutely negligible in our observable universe, it is highly unlikely the universe is exactly flat.

I actually mentioned that exactly to him several months ago...
I hope, we are not debating that the universe is exactly flat...
What happened is, I am a member of Arab Atheist group and Mr Jerusalem, is member of Islamic Religious group, and they asked if we can discuss the existence of god, since I am physicists, I asked to have scientific discussion, using published papers only...
Mr Jerusalem agreed, and I presented that:
1. The existence of the universe can be explained using science, as spontaneous,
2. The hypotheses that god created the universe add a new constraint...
3. Atheism then is more parsimonious, and more probable...
so this led to discussion that the universe does not require energy or interference to form... I presented Boomrang result, that, in classical approximation, without quantum mechanics, the universe is flat, which according to Einstein theory of general relativity, means that the total energy equals zero...

so \Omega = 1 is just classical approximation and I told mr Jerusalem exactly that it needs un-realistic fine tuning of the distribution of matter to have \Omega = 1 exactly in my 17th post on: 02-08-2012...
I told him as well that, in physics, there is no integer number that represents physical quantities...
He modified a graph shown WMAP to this way:

and I objected, because I see he misrepresented the results...
so the question is that figure correct or misrepresent the actual experimental results?
In essence, if WMAP results says: \Omega = 1.02 \pm 0.02, do you agree with this figure? Taking a value in the middle and placing it next to other graph that has 8 zeroes? May be, I am a bit pedantic, but I am experimental physicists, and to me placing so many zeroes with an experimental results gives wrong message, do you agree?
Kind Regards...

 

[Chalnoth]

so this led to discussion that the universe does not require energy or interference to form... I presented Boomrang result, that, in classical approximation, without quantum mechanics, the universe is flat, which according to Einstein theory of general relativity, means that the total energy equals zero...

This last point isn't entirely accurate and doesn't actually matter.

The total energy is zero for a closed universe (\Omega > 1), not a flat universe. Even there, that's not an absolute statement, but one speaking of a very specific way of writing down your terms. The problem is that energy is never an absolute concept, and as a result is just not something that is conserved in General Relativity. So even if a new universe required some amount of energy, it really wouldn't matter, because total energy isn't conserved, and locally energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings.

He modified a graph shown WMAP to this way:

and I objected, because I see he misrepresented the results...
so the question is that figure correct or misrepresent the actual experimental results?
In essence, if WMAP results says: \Omega = 1.02 \pm 0.02, do you agree with this figure? Taking a value in the middle and placing it next to other graph that has 8 zeroes? May be, I am a bit pedantic, but I am experimental physicists, and to me placing so many zeroes with an experimental results gives wrong message, do you agree?
Kind Regards...

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

 

[Ibrahim64]

This last point isn't entirely accurate and doesn't actually matter.

The total energy is zero for a closed universe (\Omega > 1), not a flat universe. Even there, that's not an absolute statement, but one speaking of a very specific way of writing down your terms. The problem is that energy is never an absolute concept, and as a result is just not something that is conserved in General Relativity. So even if a new universe required some amount of energy, it really wouldn't matter, because total energy isn't conserved, and locally energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings.

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...
My knowledge does not go beyond relativistic quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity, my specialisation is in plasma physics... But I understand what Alan Guth said about inflationary universe, with (\Omega > 1) total energy equal zero, but I did not want to go this way, I thought I can use general theory of relativity, which makes a claim that the curvature of the space-time equals constant times the energy - momentum tensor...

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

Actually, the original figure from Boomrang, presents experimental result at the top...

Regards...

 

[Chalnoth]

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...

It's sometimes labeled as a misconception, but the effect is the same in the end. Even a vacuum is not stationary, and has random fluctuations. It is entirely possible for some rare fluctuations in a vacuum state to produce new inflating regions of space-time, very much like our early universe.

My knowledge does not go beyond relativistic quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity, my specialisation is in plasma physics... But I understand what Alan Guth said about inflationary universe, with (\Omega > 1) total energy equal zero, but I did not want to go this way, I thought I can use general theory of relativity, which makes a claim that the curvature of the space-time equals constant times the energy - momentum tensor...

The curvature of space-time most definitely is not a constant times the energy-momentum tensor. The two are related, but not simply by a constant proportionality. More importantly, the curvature we are talking about is not space-time curvature, but only spatial curvature. The space-time of our universe is most definitely curved. The question is whether or not we can take a particular time-slicing which has zero spatial curvature or not.

Actually, the original figure from Boomrang, presents experimental result at the top...

Regards...

Yes, the results are on top, while simulations with different amounts of curvature are on bottom. What's your point?

 

[jerusalem]

Mr. ibrahim we agreed to ask a Science Advisor and stop arguing

That's just a visual representation of what happens with different curvature settings. No statement about the value measured is made.

I am afraid that Mr.ibrahim won't get that answer.

Mr jerusalem, claims that "borrow" energy is a misconception used by atheist...

I never said that,
it doesn't matter what you are when you said:
"energy can be borrow from NOTHING" that called misconception
the space is not "NOTHING"
the vacuum energy is not "NOTHING"
the surroundings is not "NOTHING"

energy can be "borrowed" from the surroundings"

...

Yes, the results are on top, while simulations with different amounts of curvature are on bottom. What's your point?

he said that this figure is misleading because "it claims an accuracy that can never be reach by experiment"
I told him 100s of time that the panel in the bottom has nothing to do with experiment.

 

[sea100]

though I'm having trouble telling what you're talking about

well I was following this topic without any trouble, until Ibrahim64 came and no one understand what he is trying to say. its clear that he is trying hard to look or for any mistake for personal reason. the forum is not made for this.

 

[George Jones]

I have closed this thread.

What happened is, I am a member of Arab Atheist group and Mr Jerusalem, is member of Islamic Religious group, and they asked if we can discuss the existence of god, since I am physicists, I asked to have scientific discussion, using published papers only...
Mr Jerusalem agreed, and I presented that:
1. The existence of the universe can be explained using science, as spontaneous,
2. The hypotheses that god created the universe add a new constraint...
3. Atheism then is more parsimonious, and more probable...

Physics Forums Rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

to which everyone agrees when they register, state

Religious Discussion: Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what is not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.