The testability of your model

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
I know a few of you have alternate views to the standard model, so i
wondered if anyone would like to list the testable predictions of their
theory for archival purposes?
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,572
105
Let me be first with Self Creation Cosmology; note: These predictions have already posted on PF, and they will repeated at some stage on the "Comparison of the Mainstream and the Self Creation Freely Coasting models" thread.

The theory is completely equivalent to GR in vacuo, therefore all tests to date which compare the geodesics of test particles and photons with observation are concordant with both GR and SCC.

The cosmological solution requires a homogeneous density, therefore the result differs from GR.

R(t) ~ t
k =+1
A finite but conformally flat model concordant with WMAP CMB anisotropies spectrum. (Not only first peak but also lack of large angle anisotropies)

[tex]\Omega m = 2/9[/tex] (0.22)
[tex]\Omega L = 1/9[/tex] (0.11) (false vacuum)
[tex]\Omega total = 1/3[/tex] (0.33)

1. GPB Geodetic precession
SCC: 5.5120 arcsec/yr
GR: 6.6144 arcsec/yr

GPB gravitomagnetic frame dragging precession
SCC = GR = 0.0409 arcsec/yr
2. LIGO interferometer 8km light path deflected towards the Sun by
2 x 10-12 metres vertically.
Also 'Space Interferometer Experiment'.
Deviation from the EEP by solid objects; 10cm Aluminium block in vacuo violation of EEP at one part in 10-17, three orders of magnitude smaller than present experimental sensitivity .
3. Casimir force 'bottoming out' detectable somewhere in the Solar field between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.(depending on instrument sensitivity)
SCC predicts the maximum Casimir force to be a function of space-time curvature.
4. Pioneer Spacecraft anomalous Sunwards acceleration of
cH = 6.6 x 10-8 cm/sec2
5. Earth decrease in day relative ancient solar eclipses (lunar orbit) at rate
H = 6 x 10-4 secs/day/century.
NB. Last two may have been already observed.

Garth
 
Last edited:

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
Thanks Garth, any other contributions?
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
In my model, the presence of mass polarizes and densifies the virtual EM field of the quantum vacuum. The polarization arises from a differential in the gravitational infall rates of matter vs anti-matter. Here are some testable preditions.


1) Testing the Gravitational Mass of Matter vs. Antimatter

The Athena Project is designed to produce experimentally usable quantities of anti-hydrogen. One experiment in particular is of interest to the creator of this model – the measurement of the gravitational mass-equivalence of matter vs. antimatter. The Polarized ZPE model relies on a differential in the gravitational infall rates of matter vs. antimatter, and is falsifiable by this experiment.


2) Testing for the Existence of ZPE Field Polarization in Earth Orbit

I propose adding an experiment to an Earth-orbiting platform to test the strength of the Casimir effect in various orientations. Using a conventional Casimir device with parallel conducting plates, the device should be oriented with the plates parallel to an imaginary line drawn from the orbiter to earth. A second data run should be made with the conducting plates oriented perpendicular to that line. Each data run should consist of a large enough number of orbits to allow the effects of ZPE field fluxes caused by the Sun and the Moon to be extracted and compared. The Polarized ZPE field model predicts measurable differences in Casimir force as the device traverses gradients in the ZPE field caused by these massive bodies. Subject to instrument sensitivity, the Polarized ZPE model is falsifiable by this test.


3) Measuring the Speed of Light in a Casimir “Vacuum”

Casimir devices produce ZPE fields that are slightly under the local ground state by using very small gaps to physically suppress the appearance of some frequencies of the ZPE spectrum. This suppressed field is somewhat below the local ZPE ground state, although it is by no means a true quantum vacuum. I propose an experiment using interferometry to compare the speed of light across a Casimir gap to that of a beam crossing an equivalent vacuum with no ZPE suppression. The Polarized ZPE model’s concept that the speed of light is dependent on the density of the ZPE field through which is propagates is falsifiable by this test. GR’s invariable speed of light in a vacuum is also falsifiable by this test.


4) WMAP Anisotropies Resulting from Motion Relative to the Vacuum Fields

WMAP's first year data contains interesting anisotropies. The dipole anisotropy is oriented with respect to our galaxy, and there are several strong multipole anisotropies. These anisotropies are due to our motion relative to the vacuum fields. Contributory motions include the passage of the MW through the vacuum (responsible for the large dipole anisotropy), the rotation of our spiral arm, the motion of the Sun through the spiral arm, and the motion of the Earth (and the WMAP probe at L2) around the Sun. When WMAP's second year is finally released, I predict that the dipole anisotropy and larger-scale anisotropies will be consistent with the first year data. The smaller anisotropies will not overlay properly, and when studied, they will be seen as artifacts of the WMAP probe's motion relative to the reference frame of the vacuum field. An antenna oriented in the direction of the probe's motion will sense a higher temperature, and one oriented toward the rear will sense a lower temperature. Even the very smallest anisotropies cover vast areas when projected to cosmological distances, as in the CMB. These vast areas cannot have conspired to change from one year to the next. The failure of these small-scale anisotropies to map properly would have profound implications for the Standard Model. If the WMAP small-angle anisotropies overlay accurately between years 1 and 2 regardless of the motion of the probe relative to the vacuum fields, my model is falsified.


5) Frequency-dependent Effects of the ZPE Fields on Light

Light propagating through ZPE fields should exhibit effects that are frequency-dependent. High frequency, short wavelength EM will be found to interact more strongly with the ZPE fields and will be slowed more than low-frequency, long wavelength EM. Observationally, the light curve of a distant astronomical source like a supernova should exhibit a stretched light-curve, with the low frequency EM arriving sooner on average than the high frequency EM. The frequency-dependent arrival times will not be measurable in the spectra of objects of have constant luminosity. The spectra of objects that exhibit rapid changes in luminosity will be spread temporally by the interactions of the EM with the ZPE fields. Perhaps the best objects to study for confirmation of this effect are gamma-ray bursters. Their light curves should exhibit a spectral smear in which long wavelength "forerunner" EM precedes gamma rays by an amount proportional to the distance from the source to Earth and the density of the ZPE fields traversed on that path. GLAST may demonstrate this, and provide critical falsifiability to my model.

The most visible effect of this frequency-dependent redshift on distant objects of constant luminosity is that their spectra will be noticeably reddened. Shorter wavelengths get pushed into the long-wavelength domains, and the longer wavelengths will be redshifted to a lesser extent since they interact less with the vacuum field. The net result will be a hump in the longer wavelength regions of their spectra, causing them to appear redder than nearer objects of the same type, even after correction for cosmological expansion.
 
Last edited:

ohwilleke

Gold Member
1,471
375
I won't say that I have an alternate model, per se, but I do have places that I'm interested in looking for anamolous data:

(1) I'm very interested in tests of gravity at very small (sub 0.1 mm) scales, particular in light of Motl's rumor that there may be early indications of anomolous behavior there. In particular, the rumor is that gravity may be anomolously weak at smaller scales, perhaps mirroring the asymptotic freedom found in QCD which informs many quantum gravity models.

(2) Like everyone else, I'm interesting in what will come out of the Tetravon and LHC. My intuition is that they will not find a Higgs, that they will not find any supersymmetric partners, and that they might find an extremely short lived fourth generation electron. I also doubt that they will find any strong evidence of additional dimensions. I suspect that these accellerators will be most notable for how many models they rule out. In particular, I suspect that these experiments will rule out many of the most hoped for WIMP candidates.

While a long shot, I think some indications of some form of quark (especially the heavy c, s, t and b quarks) or W or Z substructure would be more likely than a WIMP candidate or SUSY particle. I would be very surprised to see the discovery of any fundamental spin 3/2 particle.

(3) I would like to see more more experiments regarding the possibility of very large masses (a la a solar eclipse) suppressing gravity. I suspect that large masses do slightly suppress gravity in their shadow. There have been some suggestive experiments along that line, but this area has not received sufficient attention. I doubt it would have any direct practical applications or astrophysical applications, but it might put some brackets around the characteristics of a proposed graviton.

(4) I would like to see greater experimentation regarding the Pioneer anomoly. Ideally, we ought to send out several very physically different probes to deep space to compare possible causes for the effect. I would also like to see a good paper comparing the data for all outstanding probes. I have doubts about whether it really represents new physics, but the prospect of solar system scale deviations in what should be purely gravitational effects is so significant that it deserves a great deal of attention. So far, it certainly seems that there is some Pioneer effect from some source which is external to the probes themselves.

(5) I expect no surprises from the frame dragging experiments now underway.

(6) I would like to see more direct parallax distance measurements of distant stellar objects to better calibrate other measurement approaches. I would like to see space telescopes at opposite ends of the outer solar system used to create arrays orders of magnitude more powerful than similar earth bound arrays. I would not be surprised to see small systemic errors in existing measurements.

(7) I would like to see more exploration of short distance quantum scale possible violations of the speed of light barrier. While I think it is clear that it is not violated at any macroscopic level, I don't think it is possible to rule out rare violations by individual quantum in some circumstances.

(8) Galactic cluster microstructure seems like a likely place to find new physics. This is the most important failure of modified gravity theories and this microstructure also significantly constrains dark matter theories by ruling out dark matter candidates that wouldn't evolve to fit those profiles. I expect to see a dark matter crisis with LHC and Tetravon ruling out many dark matter candidates, while galactic cluster microstructure data among other things further constrains what non-baryonic dark matter candidates can look like, leaving the dark matter model overconstrained. I think that "dark matter" is likely primarily a quantum gravitational effect rather than a new particles and that as a result, locating those particles and finding models that can explain their distribution will remain elusive.

(9) I think it is more likely than not that gravity waves moving at the speed of light will be discovered. But, I would be less surprised than many if they were ruled out by later stages of existing gravity wave experiments, or if a sublight speed for gravity waves was found.

(10) I think that the Hubble constant will eventually be assigned a value which is outside of the range of the current stated margin of error and is lower than the current value.
 
Last edited:

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
Thankyou, Turbo1,Ohwilleke.
Please no discusion on this thread, just your alternate models.
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
wolram said:
Thankyou, Turbo1,Ohwilleke.
Please no discusion on this thread, just your alternate models.
An extension of the above: In my Polarized ZPE model of gravitation, gravitation arises through the interaction of matter with the EM fields of the quantum vacuum. The speed at which the field can be polarized is limited by the lifetimes of the Particle-Antiparticle pairs of the ZPE. This lifetime is dependent on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is possible that the pairs can exist for longer periods in dense high-energy domains. I have not worked this out to my own satisfaction, but I expect that the vacuum polarization would cause variations in the flux of gravitational forces to propagate at FAR below light speed, and would not result in detectable gravitational waves in current experiments. I did not include this prediction above, because I have not determined how my model can be falsified by this method. Perhaps it would suffice to say that if gravitational waves travelling at light speed are detected, my model is falsified.

It is often said that the quantum vacuum contains 120 OOM too much energy - that if the vacuum contained that much energy, the universe would collapse to a diameter much smaller than the Moon's orbit. It is often noted that the repulsive force of the cosmological constant is about 120 OOM too small to be attributed to the quantum vacuum. I do not believe that this is an accident. I believe that this is absolute proof that the cosmological constant and gravitation arise from the very same vacuum field, otherwise the universe would have collapsed or exploded long, long ago. There is no way that these forces could arise from two different fields, or even the slightest imbalance in the fields would destroy the universe. The gravitational self-attraction of the quantum vacuum is precisely balanced by the Fermionic behavior of the virtual particles of the vacuum. In accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle, the virtual particles of the vacuum resist occupying the same space as similar particles. No matter how tightly they are packed by gravitation, the virtual particles of the vacuum manage to come to some sort of resistive equilibrium. I cannot think of a single experiment or observation that might provide falsification to this aspect of my model. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that if our Universe inexplicably collapses or explodes, my model is falsified. Of course, my critics won't be around to claim vindication, so the point is moot. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
Do we have anyone from the 'plasma cosmology' camp?

How about an Arpian (or do they not have any models, with cosmological significance)?

Great thread wolfram!
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
I.B. Khriplovich in http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc?0506082 predicts the value of the Immirzi parameter:
[tex]\gamma = \frac{\mu}{2\pi} = \frac{1.722}{2\pi} = 0.274[/tex]

I believe the value can be computed also from sufficiently detailed, sophisticated, and accurate analyses of black hole normal vibration modes, and concensus on that value should be available within a year or so.
 
Last edited:
The Surface Of The Sun

The only way to know if your models has value is if it can predict and explain the behaviors in question. I've offered such a model by the way, complete with explanations and observations.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
 

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
Welcome to the thread ,Michael Mozina, any testable prediction is welcome.
 

Garth

Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,572
105
Michael Mozina said:
The only way to know if your models has value is if it can predict and explain the behaviors in question. I've offered such a model by the way, complete with explanations and observations.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
In this thread we are posting actual predictions that may be subsequently falsified, or even, maybe, verified. I don't want to seem uncharitable but your suggestion
That simple revelation was the understanding that the sun is NOT simply a ball of gas; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the photosphere
would seem to be implausible to say the least. What specific testable predictions does it make?

Garth
 
Last edited:

pervect

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
9,555
831
I guess this would be the thread to re-post my "Green cheese" theory of Lunar origins?
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
738
Michael Mozina said:
The only way to know if your models has value is if it can predict and explain the behaviors in question. I've offered such a model by the way, complete with explanations and observations.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com
You should itemize what untested predictions are made by your model. It is not clear from the referenced paper.
 
Last edited:

wolram

Gold Member
4,223
551
pervect said:
I guess this would be the thread to re-post my "Green cheese" theory of Lunar origins?
Maybe NOT, I want testable predictions ONLY in this thread.
 
Last edited:

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
Chronos said:
OK, I'll bite. The iron layer must be mighty thin given that the sun has an average density of 1.4 gm/cm^3 and iron has a density of 7.87 gm/cm^3. It appears your model fails to explain how a star can meet these constraints. There is a conspicuous lack of mathematical support for your interpretations of observational evidence and few, if any testable predictions are apparent.
Chronos, wolfram wants only testable predictions in this thread ... not debunking; let's see if Michael can step up to the plate, shall we?
 
4,453
57
Okay I have that sily idea about design problems of terrestrial planets, this ultimatily led to the hypothesis of the Storegga slide killing the mammoths. The evidence to support the hypothesis has not been touched any further. But it's abundant, don't worry. I made a prediction:

We predict that narrowing down dating of "12.5–10 ka (calendar years)" will get us to 11,670 calendar years, the almost exact border of the Younger Dryas with the Preboreal
Testable, that is if we ever find trustworthy method to narrow down dating techniques. Coming to think of it, my pet idea assumed the cause of the multiple clathrate events, around the end of the ice ages, to be violent vertical tectonic movements, not related to the assumed isostatic ice sheet depressions. Hence clathrate fields become unstable due to the relief of hydrostatic pressure, due to uplift. That would mean that the sea level around the coast of Norway would have been much lower at the end of the Younger Dryas, which is directly opposite to the usual ice age explanation. Consequently, I can make a highly testable explanation, I boldly predict that that the coast line of Norway was tens of meters lower at the end of the Younger Dryas than it is currently.

Considering planet Venus, that's tough. During the investigation of the literature we made a number of "retro-dictions", each of them more or less came true, so far. Furthermore, we think that the end result of the big brake was that Venus is cold (inside) and dead tectonically.

Consequently, I predict that a possible successor of the must successful Magellan satellite, imaging Venus with radar, will not find any significant change since then, that can be attributed to tectonic activity.

This is a cheap one by the way, since it has already been established that Venus volcanism declined inversely exponential with time. However if this were a cyclic behaviour as one of the hypotheses assumes, then at some time the volcanic activity should start to increase again. But who will be there to witness that an a couple of million years?
 
Last edited:
452
0
I follow Computational Cosmology- specifically Seth Lloyd's program of Quantum Cosmology through Quantum Computation- this is sort of beyond a model in that instead of positing a model then testing it- you instead run cosmic quantum computations which automatically compute all possible quantum states/evolutions- even all possible causal sets- and then you reverse engineer the correct model/ theory[ies] by exploring the computations that match the world we live in-

this appraoch makes the bold claim that the old idea of a theory-of-everything that you can print on a T-shirt is within view! [at least the FORMALISM is in view :cool: ]- you see the correct theory of QG [or whatever the correct theory[ies] is/are] would be a quantum cellular automaton expressed as an algorithm for a 2input/2output quantum logic-gate matrix-
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: The testability of your model

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top