New survey hints at exotic origin for the Cold Spot

April 25, 2017
Figure 1. The map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky produced by the Planck satellite. Red represents slightly warmer regions, and blue slightly cooler regions. The Cold Spot is shown in the inset, with coordinates on the x- and y-axes, and the temperature difference in millionths of a degree in the scale at the bottom. Credit: ESA and Durham University

A supervoid is unlikely to explain a 'Cold Spot' in the cosmic microwave background, according to the results of a new survey, leaving room for exotic explanations like a collision between universes. The researchers, led by postgraduate student Ruari Mackenzie and Professor Tom Shanks in Durham University's Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, publish their results in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The (CMB), a relic of the Big Bang, covers the whole sky. At a temperature of 2.73 degrees above absolute zero (or -270.43 degrees Celsius), the CMB has some anomalies, including the Cold Spot. This feature, about 0.00015 degrees colder than its surroundings, was previously claimed to be caused by a huge void, billions of light years across, containing relatively few galaxies.

The accelerating expansion of the universe causes voids to leave subtle redshifts on light as it passes through via the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. In the case of the CMB this is observed as cold imprints. It was proposed that a very large foreground void could, in part, imprint the CMB Cold Spot which has been a source of tension in models of standard cosmology.

Previously, most searches for a supervoid connected with the Cold Spot have estimated distances to galaxies using their colours. With the expansion of the universe more distant galaxies have their light shifted to longer wavelengths, an effect known as a cosmological redshift.

The more distant the galaxy is, the higher its observed redshift. By measuring the colours of galaxies, their redshifts, and thus their distances, can be estimated. These measurements though have a high degree of uncertainty.

In their new work, the Durham team presented the results of a comprehensive survey of the redshifts of 7,000 galaxies, harvested 300 at a time using a spectrograph deployed on the Anglo-Australian Telescope. From this higher fidelity dataset, Mackenzie and Shanks see no evidence of a supervoid capable of explaining the Cold Spot within the standard theory.

Figure 2. The 3-D galaxy distribution in the foreground of the CMB Cold Spot, where each point is a cluster of galaxies. The galaxy distribution in the Cold Spot (black points, at right) is compared to the same in an area with no background Cold Spot (red points, at left). The number and size of low galaxy density regions in both areas are similar, making it hard to explain the existence of the CMB Cold Spot by the presence of 'voids'. Credit: Durham University

The researchers instead found that the Cold Spot region, before now thought to be underpopulated with galaxies, is split into smaller voids, surrounded by clusters of . This 'soap bubble' structure is much like the rest of the universe, illustrated in Figure 2 by the visual similarity between the galaxy distributions in the Cold Spot area and a control field elsewhere.

Mackenzie commented: "The voids we have detected cannot explain the Cold Spot under standard cosmology. There is the possibility that some non-standard model could be proposed to link the two in the future but our data place powerful constraints on any attempt to do that."

If there really is no supervoid that can explain the Cold Spot, simulations of the standard model of the universe give odds of 1 in 50 that the Cold Spot arose by chance.

Shanks added: "This means we can't entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard model. But if that isn't the answer, then there are more exotic explanations.

'Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble . If further, more detailed, analysis of CMB data proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse - and billions of other universes may exist like our own."

For the moment, all that can be said is that the lack of a supervoid to explain the Cold Spot has tilted the balance towards these more unusual explanations, ideas that will need to be further tested by more detailed observations of the CMB.

Explore further: Cosmological mystery solved by largest ever map of voids and superclusters

More information: "Evidence against a supervoid causing the CMB Cold Spot", arxiv.org/abs/1704.03814

Related Stories

Enormous hole in the universe may not be the only one

April 22, 2015

Astronomers have found evidence of a giant void that could be the largest known structure in the universe. The "supervoid" solves a controversial cosmic puzzle: it explains the origin of a large and anomalously cold region ...

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

Recommended for you

Dawn mission extended at Ceres

October 20, 2017

NASA has authorized a second extension of the Dawn mission at Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. During this extension, the spacecraft will descend to lower altitudes than ever before ...

106 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SkyAbove
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
This is an exciting discovery. But it's not clear from the article how a colliding galaxy could produce a Cold Spot. Wouldn't a colliding galaxy add energy to our galaxy—making it warmer than surrounding areas?
SkyAbove
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
Oops, I meant universe, not galaxy.
Hat1208
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2017
@SkyAbove

Not if the other universe is colder.
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
Perhaps a advanced technology is harvesting the energy. Pretty far fetched but intelligent people know nothing is impossible.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2017
'Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe.

More nonsense speculation from the math fairies.
Chris_Reeve
2 / 5 (12) Apr 25, 2017
It's rather remarkable that such wild unfalsifiable speculation passes peer review, in light of the difficulty that CalTech astronomer -- and Edwin Hubble's former assistant -- ran into repeatedly over his 30+ years trying to get evidence for non-cosmological redshift published.

For those who have not stopped thinking, this press release will surely serve as a symptom of big trouble in the peer review process. It's plainly science's version of junk food.

Even the notion that galaxies collide -- rather than split -- is of course a form of conjecture.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2017
If you're going to merely describe the low quality of your post rather than posting facts, math or logic then just skip it entirely.

Tuxford:
More nonsense speculation from the math fairies.

EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2017
The peer-reviewed paper published by the Royal Astronomical Society does not conjecture the cause of the Cold Spot beyond its final conclusion:
--------------------------------
"Our 2CSz results therefore argue against a supervoid explaining a significant fraction of the Cold Spot via the ISW effect. This suggests a primordial origin for the Cold Spot, either from an unlikely fluctuation in the standard cosmology or as a feature produced by non-Gaussian
conditions in the early Universe."
--------------------------------

The paper of course just scientifically disproves earlier conjectures (not published, but discussed collegially) about the Cold Spot and briefly mentions a logical inference remaining to be disproved.

The "multiverse" comments were made casually in this university press release. You are unable to distinguish between reviewed science and press releases. Because you have some crank agenda chip on your shoulder.

Chris_Reeve:
It's rather remarkable

EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2017
What are you talking about? This article and the paper it's reporting on say nothing about colliding galaxies. And colliding galaxies are well documented in photographic evidence. What kind of a crank are you?

Chris_Reeve:
Even the notion that galaxies collide

EnsignFlandry
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2017
So the odds are 1 in 50 that the cold spot arose by chance? Events with odds lower than that happen all the time. I'd take the odds rather than speculate about more exotic and weird explanations.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2017
The paper:
---------------------------
The presence of the detected voids only slightly relaxes the significance of the primordial residual of the CMB Cold Spot in standard cosmology to approximately 1 in 50, tilting the balance towards a primordial and also possibly non-Gaussian origin. But at this level of significance clearly any exotic explanation will have to look for further evidence
beyond the Cold Spot temperature profile.
---------------------------

I'm not sure that means the odds of it arising by chance are 2%. Does it? Because without further evidence of exotic explanations 2% is "astronomically" higher than them being the case.

EnsignFlandry:
So the odds are 1 in 50

krzychu01230
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
There is some problem with hypothetical mechanism of CMB generation, from laboratory experiments with plasma we know that plasma ions don't couple together in simple way; especially when plasma is fully ionized. Behaviors such as charge separation, cellular / filamentous geometry, double layers are not included in mechanism of CMB generation, this is why CMB hypothesis is inconsistent. CMB maps are obtained by data processing but what is the repeatability of CMB maps and what trick was used to obtain signal with is 1000 weaker than noise without knowledge about signal characteristic or possibility of signal source control?

Universe - "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things" so how we can have 'another' universe? - extremely exotic explanation.
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "Our 2CSz results therefore argue against a supervoid explaining a significant fraction of the Cold Spot via the ISW effect. This suggests a primordial origin for the Cold Spot"

Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

"Cosmology is ... is not a science. It ... has a lot of scientific aspects. We can know many things with the science. We can know how the galaxies are distributed; we can measure them with observations; we can know how many matters are in the interstellar medium or in the galaxies, and all of these aspects are scientific.

But, with regards and considerations about the beginning of the universe, this is in some way crossing the boundary of the science, and going to something between the science and metaphysics aspects, in my opinion."

(https://youtu.be/...?t=2681)
Chris_Reeve
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2017
PEOPLE, THIS IS PSEUDOSCIENCE:

"Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe."
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Holy Sh*t, @krzychu01230 is thinking. I see an actual, real thought happening here.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "The presence of the detected voids only slightly relaxes the significance of the primordial residual of the CMB Cold Spot in standard cosmology to approximately 1 in 50"

Spoken like a specialist who took the bait to go all in on a particular faddish framework, only to find themselves in the hot seat having to save the theory.

What would you do?

Well, you play with what you got. And since we weed them out by their mathematics skills, his trump card is going to be math.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "The "multiverse" comments were made casually in this university press release. You are unable to distinguish between reviewed science and press releases. Because you have some crank agenda chip on your shoulder."

No, your preferred framework is completely rooted in the notion that nothing suddenly became something.

That's fine, people have let this slide.

But, the real problem is when we see something which does not fit with the bigger -- scientific -- picture, the something-from-nothing becomes used as an argumentative tool.

Yet, none of the adherents admit that they are no longer talking about falsifiable or empirical science. They continue on as if nothing as changed.

Basically, what you're showing us is that observations no longer really mean anything. You've already made up your mind, and you will ignore their meaning as necessary.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "And colliding galaxies are well documented in photographic evidence."

How exactly does one photograph evidence of a galactic collision? Realize that it is happening so slowly that -- as Arp shows plenty of evidence for -- it can just as likely be in the process of splitting. Or, alternatively, its axial ejection can run horizontally along the plane and disrupt the entire galaxy, leaving us with some very confusing situation.

How does one differentiate -- in photograph -- all of these possible cases?
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2017
So the odds are 1 in 50 that the cold spot arose by chance? Events with odds lower than that happen all the time. I'd take the odds rather than speculate about more exotic and weird explanations.


They make this point in the paper that the Cold Spot isn't extreme enough to really justify any of these ideas without additional tests. I suspect however that the press officer who wrote this release didn't respect that subtlety.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2017

Behaviors such as charge separation..


The CMB probes huge scales. If you can show these small scale effects matter on scales above 20 kpc in the highly uniform early universe then please do so.

CMB maps are obtained by data processing but what is the repeatability of CMB maps and what trick was used to obtain signal with is 1000 weaker than noise


A false claim. The Planck 100 GHz map has a noise level of of about 2.5 microkelvin per pixel. The CMB is 2.7 K, well above the noise as is the primary anisotropy at 10's-100's of uK. The fact that you can see the same features in two adjacent Planck frequency bands (say 100 and 70 GHz, done by different instruments) shows it is not noise dominated. That also shows the maps are repeatable.
EmceeSquared
3.6 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2017
No, you confused a press release for the scientific paper. And when I called you on that you merely quoted me doing so and appended a non sequitur. Which at least gives some indication of the crankery you favor - although inadvertently.

Chris_Reeve:
No, your preferred framework is completely rooted in the notion that nothing suddenly became something.

EmceeSquared
3.6 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2017
One takes a sequence of photographs, that show the trajectories of the stars, and extrapolate within highly tested relativistic models. The results show galaxies colliding. This is a well known and easily understood (if difficult to execute) technique. Also, gravity pulls things together, not splits things apart.

I will note that this tangent is another of your non sequiturs. This article and the paper it describes says nothing about splitting galaxies, or nothing about galaxies at all. Just as you seem unable to distinguish between a press release and a peer reviewed scientific paper, you seem unable to distinguish between colliding universes and colliding galaxies.

Chris_Reeve:
How exactly does one photograph

EmceeSquared
3.6 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2017
Merely shouting is not science. It's pseudowhatever.

Chris_Reeve:
PEOPLE, THIS IS PSEUDOSCIENCE

bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
gravity pulls things together, not splits things apart.

Unless you need it to remain in a "halo" so that the other portion of
highly tested relativistic models

can be maintained...artificially...by adding 5 X more mass in the form of invisible gravity generating cloud particles. Or, in the instance of the BB theory, it is overshadowed by ahem "inflation" caused by forces hitherto unproven to exist.

So not believing in theoretical invisible matter, impossible physics, and states of matter that cannot be proven to exist while attempting to apply known physics is pseudoscience....
Lead us into the future oh wise one.....
EmceeSquared
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2017
The relativistic models used to extrapolate trajectories of matter photographed in colliding galaxies are highly tested. Including inflation clearly and consistently observed in various ways, including the CMB surveys. The causes of inflation are not as highly tested, but they're not necessary to apply the relativistic models (tested by observation) to the photographs.

That is all science: observations explained by hypothesis; testing the hypothetical model with more observation; changing the hypothetical model when new observations disprove it (or parts of it).

The model need not be 100.0% complete, including further causes, to be reliable. If it did need perfection we'd never have anything useful, because the real world is complex and knowledge building is iterative.

I know that causes anxiety in people who need absolute authority on any statement. But that's not what grownups get in the real world, and what we get is good enough.

bschott:
Unless you need
bschott
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Gotcha, you believe it is correct and don't see an adder of 6 x more invisible mass to make it work as a problem, you see it as a solution... and hope things still work as you believe. Bye Bye science, hello religion. Nice speech about what you think science is...kinda missed out on experimental verification but hey...beliefs do not require that. On absolute authority, you seem to think that is what you are on this topic...you're not. Just because you don't want to acknowledge the multitude of problems with the gravity model doesn't make them go away....it does expose your own anxieties quite clearly....just like it does to all supporters of said model when it is pointed out that most of it doesn't officially exist as of yet from a scientifically defined perspective.

Believe us because we think we're smart like the people who came up with our beliefs...
Nah.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "Including inflation clearly and consistently observed in various ways"

The Burbidges, Karlsson, the Bamothy's, Depaquit, Peeker and Vigier all agreed with Arp that the data indicates that there are preferred values for redshift. In total, hundreds of papers were published on this subject. By 1984, Arp was confident enough to state that

"Periodicities in quasar redshifts have been found in all samples except one where the person who analyzed it truncated the sample in a particular way that removed the periodicities."

A partial list of these papers -- aggregated, btw, by an amateur (since academics have aggressively convinced themselves that there is nothing to see here) -- is at:

https://arijmaki....-papers/
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Barry Setterfield writes on this topic:

"It is usual that such insights attract much criticism. This was also the case after 1976, when Tifft published his first results. Many investigations have been executed with the express intent to disprove Tifft. Remarkably, many ended in confirming his research results. Is the cosmological community now convinced we deal with facts here? Which means that the Big Bang model has come into big trouble. Must we think about new ideas? Let us look at recent reactions.

1. Since 1998 we met mainly silence: If we do not mention it, it will probably and hopefully go away.

2. Nobody tries to deny the clear results any more.

3. If comments are being given, fear for the status of the Big Bang model is being expressed. How would an alternative look like?

4. For the rest most ignorant or agnostic reactions (we don't know yet, more research is necessary, maybe other explanations, etcetera)..."
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
There is significant information online with regards to the history of the first quasar lensing claims.

What becomes immediately apparent, once read, is that the astronomers jumped at the lensing claim with the observation of two identical redshifts close in space.

An example of a defense ...

"All that can be said in rebuttal is that it would be even more remarkable if the 4 images, all with the same redshift, existed for some other reason, in a configuration which can be so well modelled by the lensing hypothesis."

In other words, the theorists were not actually comparing the lensing claim to anything when they formulated it.

If you go through the various quasar lensing texts -- which btw will oftentimes not even mention Arp at all -- you will observe that a lens can be constructed to explain away ANY uncomfortable observation which might have an alternative ejection inference.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2017
What I described is experimental verification:
"observations explained by hypothesis; testing the hypothetical model with more observation; changing the hypothetical model when new observations disprove it (or parts of it)."

You don't recognize it because you've got your own dogma.

I didn't say I accept the dark matter/energy explanation for observed inflation, but that's the best hypothesis we've got so far. We're testing it, though that's hard, and as new observations may disprove parts of the hypothesis we'll change the hypothesis. Science.

I also didn't claim to be an authority. I just explained the simple matter of the scientific method and the technique used to identify colliding galaxies.

I have no anxieties about science. You are projecting. And you're offering nothing but fallacies, in a baselessly condescending obnoxious tone. Goodbye.

bschott:
Gotcha

Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "No, you confused a press release for the scientific paper."

I don't give the science journalists a pass on this. They are a huge part of the problem here. The public ASSUMES that the science journalists are reporting on the science in an independent manner, but all they are doing is calling up a couple of scientists and asking for their opinion. What they are specifically NOT doing is studying the history of controversy within the sciences, identifying controversies within the scientific domains, and reporting on new press releases from that larger context.

The science journalists are taking a big gamble by adopting this approach; there is growing awareness throughout all journalism today that narratives are being actively applied to news. Many established news organizations are no longer trusted. The science journalists assume that this can never happen to them.

It's quite risky behavior, but they're blinded by their own peers' uncritical reporting.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
There is an example of real science journalism on the Arp controversy here:

http://www.covast...issue-86

"Which explanation an individual chose to adopt as giving a so-called definitive refutation of Arp's investigations was merely a matter of taste. Others simply accepted what they heard; that Arp's work was spurious. What was obvious was that they never took the trouble to personally investigate his claims. He was accused of crazy theorising when in fact he was reporting observations. This remains true to this day and is something of which the present author has had experience when attempting to discuss the matter with a professional astronomer. The general consensus of opinion is that Arp's work has been 'refuted' − the misuse of this word is rife − when the simple truth is that Arp's observations have been summarily rejected"
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2017
Why are you saying "they" about "the public" when it was *you personally* who treated a press release in a science blog for a peer reviewed journal article that the press release was about? You don't have the standing to be condescending.

For that matter, why aren't you complaining that "the public" too easily confuses galaxies with universes?

Chris_Reeve:
I don't give

Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
Watch the lensing theorists admit the flexibility of their models ...

"The small number of observables in lensing means that the observational data, no matter how accurate, can be fit by a huge variety of lens models. The space of allowed models must be narrowed by the adoption of priors which reflect our understanding of the relative astrophysical plausibility of different mass models."

That quote was intended for other astrophysicists, because it comes from a very technical text Gravitational Lensing: An Astrophysical Tool. They probably did not imagine that a critic would ever read this text.

But, for anybody who studies scientific controversies broadly, this fits into a larger pattern (and especially for dark energy) of tweaking available parameters to argue a case.

Once the public is tuned into this larger pattern, they will start to recognize all of its manifestations.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
More excellent journalism on the Arp controversy (from same author as before):

"The trap is that this picture as published by the Space Science Telescope Institute and reproduced in magazines, including Astronomy Now, March 2005, is not a deep photograph. In fact, the image as published was not even deep enough to show the spiral arms of NGC 4319. As discussed above, only such a deep photograph will reveal the 'connection'. All the investigations by Arp et al have produced pictures where the images of NGC 4319 and Mark 205 are all 'burnt out'. The current situation is akin to that in which Arp found himself in 1973 when at a meeting in Australia he showed that he was not an incompetent observer by showing that he could, like his critics, produce pictures that did not show the 'connection' but at the same time he emphasized that the images had to be deep. These crucial facts have been and continue to be blatantly ignored by his critics."
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
Re: "Including inflation clearly and consistently observed in various ways"

The CMB is not an "observation" of inflation. It is an observation that we live in a universe full of a low frequency photonic fog. Not by mere coincidence this is occurring in a universe populated with objects that have been producing full spectrum light for (at current best estimate) over 13 billion years and all of it redshifted.

Or, if you buy into math based physics it is an echo from 13.75 billion year old "event" wherein all the matter/energy of the universe simultaneously defied the laws of physics.

Hmmmm...photons travelling at light speed in all directions from all directions in a universe where, in all directions, are objects which emit them...seems like the CMB should definitely be there. Not sold on the "echo" theory.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
What I described is experimental verification:
"observations explained by hypothesis; testing the hypothetical model with more observation; changing the hypothetical model when new observations disprove it (or parts of it)."

Except you are missing the key variable...the experiment. Ya see, that is the part where confirmation of a hypothesis happens, not more observations that you just say confirm the hypothesis...the more this goes on the less you seem to know about science.
You don't recognize it because you've got your own dogma.

I am condemning dogma at every turn here...your dogma.
I also didn't claim to be an authority.

You are here implying we are stupid for not believing what you do...hmmmm
And you're offering nothing but fallacies

No scientist would ever refer to observations as fallacies...except those in denial of the observations...
You are projecting.

Yes, complete disdain for the standard model debacle and its bandages.
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
The support for Big Bang cosmology relies very heavily upon the refusal of science journalists to properly inform the public of all of the by-now numerous reasons to disbelieve.

And the real gamble of Big Bang theorists is that they can continue this charade (correct word).

But, what is (somewhat predictably) happening is that society is undergoing significant changes in how it interacts with information on controversial subjects. These changes are coming about because of the other big gamble in the sciences today -- the effort to aggressively push underperforming climate models.

There has been a very obvious public reaction to those efforts, and we can at this point say that the climate scientists are instilling an unintended skepticism within the public, which I would argue will eventually translate to other scientific disciplines ...

... because in many cases, the larger patterns for how scientists turn science into a political weapon are very similar.
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
The support for Big Bang cosmology relies very heavily upon the refusal of science journalists to properly inform the public of all of the by-now numerous reasons to disbelieve.

... because in many cases, the larger patterns for how scientists turn science into a political weapon are very similar.

The journalists here are likely employed by the NSA, who likely owns this site. They have a national security interest in maintaining the fantasy physics, and promote those who do, while slamming those who see more clearly. While I support their reason – given that I have a concept of the grave potential of electrogravitic weaponry being used against us – I object to their methods of dumbing down the scientifically naive. Rah Rah, Big Bang!
Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Jeff Schmidt -- who was an editor for Physics Today for 19 years -- explains in great detail in Disciplined Minds how dual-track research works, and he cites it as a problem very specifically in the domain of plasma physics.

What is very confusing about the situation is that not even most graduate students understand the true purpose of their own research. And so you have very mathematically talented defenders of the less political, more superficial track of the research aggressively attacking quite legitimate lines of investigation for the simple reason that they have never taken the time to look at the bigger picture of what is happening.

Let's be frank people: plasma physics is the domain of nuclear weapons, and to the extent that people here permit themselves to forget that plasma physicists like Anthony Peratt could just walk down the hallway to visit officials from the FBI, CIA, whatever, you are living in a bubble of your own making.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2017
You can buy my tinfoil hats, they're NSA-proof in the electrogravitic spectrum. They're selling like hotcakes, though I can't understand how 99 44/100 % of scientists don't use them. Maybe they're using clozapine instead.

Tuxford:
The journalists here

Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
I don't think a person need look any further than these comments to have a strong handle on how easy it is to manipulate people who have decided to place enormous faith in expertise.

And let's be clear: The public today spends more time getting second opinions on which movie they're going to see this weekend than what theories they will use to form their own personal worldviews.

It's a huge problem, and history will of course forget those who advocated for the faddish narratives about "conspiracies" over a careful identification of the problem and its ramifications.

We have a very unfortunate situation here where many big outstanding questions in the sciences go "unanswered" (at least in the media) because of the government's fear that a more widespread understanding of plasmas will lead to a global proliferation of nuclear weapons.

This is not rocket science, folks. It's pure pragmatism. Dual-purpose research is not a "conspiracy" in the sense that it is hard to believe.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
When Peratt was still talking to me over email, he was very open that he could just walk down the hallway to report script kiddies hacking his website. Those unfortunate souls were quite likely victims of their own refusal to look at the bigger picture. I wouldn't be surprised if they are former members here (or of the BAUT forum), who thought that they were picking on a "pseudoscientist". Peratt left the impression that they served federal time for their actions.
krzychu01230
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
@IMP-9

About charge separation and other plasma behavior, any ions occurring before postulated recombination event [as well as after] will undergo selforganizing plasma behavior resulting in heterogeneity.

/In my opinion hypothesis of big bang is, gently speaking, controversial, it requires some kind of creation miracle what is out of physics domain. However, on the other hand quite interesting explanation of creation myth are presented in David Talbotts 'Saturn myth' and 'Symbols of an alien sky' and some similar topic in work of Immanuel Velikovskys 'Worlds in Collision'/

About Planck capability probably You have right, but what about signals from our galaxy->noise [and local group -> noise], data processing is really capable of extract background signal; galaxy noise is quite variable – repeatability [maybe repeatability is wrong word, reproducibility]?
krzychu01230
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
And good example how some instruments are designed and resulting claims of measurements capabilities; COBE FIRAS instrument was claimed to cover the wavelength range from 0.1 to 10 mm [30 – 3 000 GHz] what is technical impossibility. Also COBE was improperly shielded what together with geocentric orbit makes all COBE detections scientifically worthless [in case of background]

Some other question about Penzias Wilson - A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s. where in their work is mentioned earth signal, how did they get rid of it; on what basis they claimed to detect background signal?

According to Pierre Marie Robitaille "Valid temperature require a known solid (no net conduction of convection) or thermal equilibrium with a rigid perfectly absorbing enclosure" in case of CMB none of this requirements are fulfilled.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
will undergo selforganizing plasma behavior resulting in heterogeneity


I asked you for evidence they occur on the huge scales relevant for the CMB, you've just restated your claim.

You have right, but what about signals from our galaxy->noise [and local group -> noise], data processing is really capable of extract background signal; galaxy noise is quite variable


Firstly foregrounds aren't noise. They can be separated. They will increase the noise but how much stronger the galaxy is (at some point on the sky) does not mean the noise is that much stronger than the primary anisotropy. The noise value I quoted accounts for the noise for all noise. The galaxy foreground doesn't seem to vary in Planck at 100 GHz, the legacy archive provides half mission maps for which the residuals seem to be consistent with Gaussian detector noise. Here are some plots I made a while ago of that.

https://imgur.com...ry/y4pIU
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2017
As for quoting Robitaille's various claims about CMB experiments they can be shown to be false quite easily with the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect. The SZ effect was first theorised that the hot intra-cluster medium of galaxy clusters would up-scatter CMB photons to higher energies. This produces a characteristic non-blackbody spectral distortion. The CMB in the direction of the cluster is brighter than the surrounding CMB at high frequencies but darker at lower frequencies. Because the cluster is darker than the surrounding sky at long frequencies it cannot just be light emitted from the cluster. No. In Robitaille's world Planck isn't detecting the CMB, the CMB doesn't exist. So how can a galaxy cluster leave a dark imprint in this non-CMB background? It can't and yet Planck discovered hundreds of new clusters which have been confirmed with optical telescopes. If Robitaille's claims about Planck were true this would not be possible, at yet it is.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2017
The SZ effect shows the CMB exists and Planck is indeed detecting it. Robitaille's convenient dismissal of all space-based CMB experiments should raise questions to anyone. Has he ever studied the data products to test any of his claims? No. But the data says very clearly he cannot be correct. A link to Planck's cluster catalog because unlike you I cite my sources.

https://heasarc.g...ksz.html
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
IMP-9: Can you respond to Chris_Reeve's cited scientific criticisms of the CMB/BB paradigm? (If not his conspiracy theories.)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "The SZ effect was first theorised that the hot intra-cluster medium of galaxy clusters would up-scatter CMB photons to higher energies."

This habit of starting in the middle of the story, when the band-aid was applied, does not help people to fully understand the history of the theory.

The correct approach -- for those who are trying to formulate their own personal opinions on these matters -- is ALWAYS to track down those original press releases where the problem was FULLY defined, before the theoretical band-aid was applied.

In this case, the search "cmb galaxy shadows" should bring them up. Now, observe all of the crucial information which IMP-9 has left out of his explanation.

IMP's style of communicating theory is designed to save the theory. You can keep it on life support in this manner indefinitely. What it does not do is empower independent thinking within the individual.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
I also keep a library of VERY OLD science books -- especially by Isaac Assimov and other good authors. When I want to understand a complex subject in the sciences, I always consult the older versions.

Theories should not be treated as snapshots in time. They are of course moving targets. Problems appear, band-aids are applied, then more problems appear, more band-aids are applied, etc.

If you only look at the patient after he has been all bandaged up, you might have no idea he was ever even in trouble to begin with. This does not service your need to understand in the least.

Part of what we are trying to understand here is the sociology and psychology of consensus science.
EmceeSquared
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
All science is a work in progress.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Yes, but realize that science journalists are not generally providing the larger context required to facilitate such changes. When all you are doing is calling up a couple of scientists who are experts in the domain at hand to vet an article, they're going to protect their own personal line of investigation.

We should all know, offhand, all of the arguments for intrinsic redshift. But, notice that very few know ANY of the arguments. In fact, pull up some random text on quasars, and there is less than a 50/50 chance you'll even see any mention of Arp at all.

This raises very deep questions about the state of science journalism: How can we understand where we are going TO if we do not even understand where we have come FROM, in the sciences?

If all of the "problems" of scientific theory are glossed over, then won't this as a consequence create an unwarranted faith in scientific consensus?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
Which cited scientific criticisms are you referring to? I'm not going to answer all his endless, irreverent spam about Arp that he fills every article with.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "I'm not going to answer all his endless, irreverent spam about Arp that he fills every article with."

Arp's OBSERVATIONS have always been treated as extraordinary CLAIMS. The pattern has always been to dismiss and seek to minimize the impact of these observations -- usually through adding additional complication, because the stakes are just too high and the number of discordant observations is growing too large to argue against.

Of those who have heard of the debate, astrophysics graduate students will tend to only know of arguments AGAINST Arp.

Meanwhile, articles like this one which feature wild speculations about alternative universes are treated as normal, since they conform to the established doctrine.

The understanding here plainly flows in this group from the top down, and that creates a vulnerable group who will not see paradigm change as it is even occurring. This is why Arp suggested that amateur non-specialists will have an important role to play in this.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
In this case, the search "cmb galaxy shadows" should bring them up. Now, observe all of the crucial information which IMP-9 has left out of his explanation.


I didn't leave anything out, if you go back and look at Lieu's paper and not the press release what you can find in the abstract is : "WMAP detected the SZE in all three bands". Even in his analysis (which was controversial) the SZ effect is detected debunking Robitaille's claims. That was WMAP with much lower resolution. Planck's higher resolution can resolve SZ clusters and detect them independently and it has detected over a thousand Clusters. The fact that Planck has detected hundreds of new clusters with the SZ effect puts these claims to bed firmly. I suggest you read your sources and not just the sensationalist headlines before making these conclusions.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "I suggest you read your sources and not just the sensationalist headlines before making these conclusions."

Quite evasive.

https://www.scien...4549.htm

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test (2006)

"The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a 'Big Bang.'

In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from 'nearby' clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background ..."
Hat1208
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven

You sir are an idiot. How would doing the exact thing that you are bit*hing about accomplish anything? You complain that by ignoring Arp that somehow we are ignoring a valuable resource of critical thinking yet in the same breath you are ignoring a valuable resource just for the sake of ignoring it to prove that you can think critically. This is absolute inane drivel.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
It's really not clear what you suggest I am ignoring. Can you elaborate?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
BTW: A press release is not "sensational" just because it reports an observation which contradicts a popular theory. That's called "history", and sometimes it turns out to be "groundbreaking". To differentiate which observations are the latter, it makes no sense to place full faith into authority, time and time again. A person has to put some effort into identifying strong critiques on topics like this, where so much is at stake, because we can of course expect that those who are heavily invested in the Big Bang are going to figure out a way to defend it. Our job is to determine for ourselves whether or not their defense is reasonable.

The best approach is to systematically track all of the challenges to a theory over time. So far, nobody is doing this, and that my friends, is extraordinarily sloppy.
Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven

RE: It's really not clear what you suggest I am ignoring. Can you elaborate?

Critical thinking indeed.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
Part of what we are trying to understand here is the sociology and psychology of consensus science
@hannes/reeve
for starters, there is no such thing as "consensus science"

for two - any consensus that is in science has nothing at all to do with some vote or belief, it has to do with the overwhelming evidence

case(s) in point:
GR/SR
Climate Change
Evolution
Newtonian Gravity
QM

none of these are accepted because a bunch of folks got together and said "hey... lets vote on this"
all of them are accepted because of the strength of the evidence supporting them
we still, today, use Newtonian gravity to launch rockets, fly aircraft, design and build cars etc.

so your argument of "top down" flow is completely stupid considering the evidence

PS- a researcher should be aware of at least the basics of the scientific method before commenting about how flawed science may be to them

epic fail on your part
Hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@Capn

Hope you are fine and dandy. I try to see what it is that the couyon lechers are saying, I go to the information they purport to have and try to understand it yet there is no evidence there. There is only conjecture, ie, "My idea is this and that is the only way". And HannesAlfven and the cabal or eu'ers piss and moan about how nobody will listen to their truth, except that they have no truth no evidence no rational for what it is they are yammering on about
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "And HannesAlfven and the cabal or eu'ers piss and moan about how nobody will listen to their truth, except that they have no truth no evidence no rational for what it is they are yammering on about"

Realize that just this week, the heliopause was definitively confirmed to be spherical. The press release immediately invited the readers to jump to the conclusion that "our sun and planets are surrounded by a giant, rounded system of magnetic field from the sun".

What is wrong with this statement?

Magnetic fields tend to be a torus morphology. A sphere indicates a radial point source as the physical cause.

In the electrical view, this sphere is not caused by a magnetic field (and perhaps we should consider it a questionable inference in ANY framework); instead, it would be caused by a weak electric field which centers at the Sun.

That inference is further supported by the failure of the solar wind to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth's orbit.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
Rewind back to October ...

https://phys.org/...ric.html

"Haimin Wang, a distinguished professor of physics at NJIT and a co-author of the paper, said the observations will prompt scientists to revisit the mechanisms of flares - and the basic physics of the Sun - in a fundamental way.

'We used to think that the surface's magnetic evolution drives solar eruptions. Our new observations suggest that disturbances created in the solar outer atmosphere can also cause direct and significant perturbations on the surface through magnetic fields, a phenomenon not envisioned by any major contemporary solar eruption models. This has immediate and far-reaching implications in understanding energy and momentum transportation in eruptions on the Sun and other stars,' Wang said."

Confirmation that events external to the Sun can have a significant impact upon events occurring internal to the Sun.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
And in November ...

http://aasnova.or...ctivity/

"Based on theoretical studies of how magnetism is generated in stars, it's thought that the fully convective interiors of ultracool dwarfs can't support large-scale magnetic field formation. This should prevent these stars from exhibiting activity cycles like the Sun. But recent radio observations of dwarf stars have led scientist Matthew Route (ITaP Research Computing, Purdue University) to question these models ...

Route conducted an investigation of the long-term magnetic behavior of all known radio-flaring ultracool dwarfs, a list of 14 stars. Using polarized radio emission measurements, he found that many of his targets exhibited similar polarity flips, which he argues is evidence that these dwarfs are undergoing magnetic field reversals on roughly decade-long timescales, analogous to those reversals that occur in the Sun."

Another confirmation for an electrical source.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
What I am advocating for is not one particular model/framework over another.

What I am advocating for is that we should stop interpreting all observations through the lens of the textbook theory -- as we are daily encouraged to do by the dominant science journalism.

What I'm suggesting is that we should create a platform to track all science claims -- even supposedly "settled" ones -- and use THAT to base our own PERSONAL opinions on what is happening.

This is what I do. It's what I'm building. It's what I practice every day. And I will teach the methodology to millions of other people, so that they can think -- critically -- for themselves.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven

What you are advocating is for people who have little to no understanding of the mechanisms of the universe to question everything that the read or hear. Questioning without a modicum of understanding ie. intelligence in any certain field of endeavor, is pointless and self defeating. You are keeping track of all science claims, that statement in and of itself is utter non-sense unless you have an understanding of all science. From what I have observed and read from you does not indicate that you have an understanding of anything but religion.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven

In the electrical view, this sphere is not caused by a magnetic field (and perhaps we should consider it a questionable inference in ANY framework); instead, it would be caused by a weak electric field which centers at the Sun.

Here is a good point as to why what you are doing is inane. My understanding of the physical world is that there is an electro-magnetic force, EMF. What is seems to me that you are stating is that you can have an electric force or a magnetic force and that they are separate. Nothing that I have read would support that.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
Quite evasive.


Not if you actually read anything I said. If you actually read the press release they admit the SZ effect was detected.

"the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted"

But not zero as Robitaille's strange claims would demand. With WMAP the issue was complicated because of the beam of the instrument had a big effect, how much SZ effect you expect isn't just cosmology it's the profiles of the clusters and the beam. Planck's greater resolution and many frequency bands have made it much easier. There are even visually obvious examples for some prominent clusters.

http://sci.esa.in...e_Xb.gif

Furthermore the analysis for Lieu et al was redone and the deficit is not confirmed in Planck data or in ground based SZ measurements.

http://adsabs.har...37..622W

But of course you present only one side of the evidence despite your false claims of being impartial.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "What you are advocating is for people who have little to no understanding of the mechanisms of the universe to question everything that the read or hear. Questioning without a modicum of understanding ie. intelligence in any certain field of endeavor, is pointless and self defeating."

There is a debate that you are having here which is discussed in Collins and Pinch's The Golem: What You Should Know About Science. There are the "science understanders" and there are those who believe that what the public needs to know, specifically, is education ABOUT science -- its methods and especially the arguments of its debates.

The gist of that book is their belief that the public need not know about science UNLESS it is controversial -- because it is only when the science has not been challenged that we can place faith in authority opinions.

I agree with them, and as I've studied controversies, I've been surprised to observe numerous patterns which are not today exposed.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Hope you are fine and dandy. I try to see what it is that the couyon lechers are saying, I go to the information they purport to have and try to understand it yet there is no evidence there. There is only conjecture
@Hat1208
doin' fine and dandy both today, thanks - hope you're doing the same

yeah, i've tried reading their pages before, but i came to the same conclusion

worse yet, the dedicated followers can't comprehend what constitutes evidence in science
[pointing to a pelican] that is obviously a duck, and we know this because it has wings, feathers and webbed feet! if you look at this picture of a duck over here, you will see...

the biggest problem comes from the cult promoters like hannes/reeve (both the same idiot)
they think that flooding a site with Gish-Gallop and nonsensical musings constitutes valid evidence in science
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "What is seems to me that you are stating is that you can have an electric force or a magnetic force and that they are separate. Nothing that I have read would support that."

A net concentration of electric charge will cause an electric field whose force will extend outwards radially from the central charge concentration. If you don't understand that, then there can be no surprise why electrical cosmology does not yet resonate with you (that's not meant to be a criticism, there are many things to know ...).
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
I agree with them, and as I've studied controversies, I've been surprised to observe numerous patterns which are not today exposed
@hannes/reeve eu pseudoscience cult promoters

problem is: if you don't take the time to comprehend the basics of science, then you don't understand WTF it is you need to know in order to differentiate between pseudoscience and real science

therefore you end up promoting the eu cult bullsh*t because you can't comprehend the basics

*and it really is that simple!!*

because you didn't take the time to take basic physics and learn even the basics of the scientific method, you choose to argue and advocate for pseudoscience because you don't know any better

how is that logical?

you have *literally* ignored science and evidence for a belief in something you don't understand because someone else said it's true and because it fits your bias or belief

and because real science is too hard for you

IOW - religion over science
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
Re: "You are keeping track of all science claims, that statement in and of itself is utter non-sense unless you have an understanding of all science. From what I have observed and read from you does not indicate that you have an understanding of anything but religion."

Well, here's a news flash: There have been no generalists in science for more than a hundred years now. And this is in fact part of the problem which we must address, because the specialist worldview is completely fragmented and oftentimes incoherent because it bases largely on specialists placing faith in the declarations of other specialists.

I believe that scientific controversies are the correct vehicle to revive the generalist tradition which was begun by the "Men of Science" in the mid-to-late 1800's. Those were the guys who initially popularized science before it became specialized (and before the first science journalists appeared).
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
There have been no generalists in science for more than a hundred years now
@hannes/reeve eu pseudoscience cult promoters
1- so what?

2- there are generalists, but other than teaching basic courses or science advocacy, what purpose would there be for them?

considering that most generalists who are capable of comprehending the data also don't advocate for pseudoscience, what exactly, would be the point of creating more generalists in your opinion?
the specialist worldview is completely fragmented and oftentimes incoherent because it bases largely on specialists placing faith in the declarations of other specialists
and again, this demonstrates your lack of knowledge WRT the scientific method

if you can't get that basic point correct, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States, John C Burnham

"Just as the editors of the American Naturalist had perceived, what had happened was that scientists had become so specialized that outside of their narrow subspecialties they functioned as lay persons. 'Almost every day,' wrote the editors of Science Conspectus in 1914, 'there are new developments in special lines of research, any one of which may lead to fundamental discoveries, but, although these matters would be of general interest if they could be understood, their significance is often obscure, even to scientific workers in not dissimilar lines.'"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
From the same source (Burnham is a science historian) ...

"One of the marks of the narrow technician was his or her unwillingness to go beyond facts ... Because of specialization, complained a biologist in 1930, too many science courses perpetuated the worst of old-fashioned teaching and were still taught at the most primitive levels, that is, emphasizing the factual and authoritarian, without the enlightenment of what investigation meant. In succeeding decades, other commentators watched the population of scientists increase and their specialization intensify and remarked that the result was not only narrowness but mediocrity. In a highly fragmented, technical system, people flourished professionally who in another day would have been handicapped by insufficiency of breadth, to say nothing of their lacking the culture and calling of Victorian scientists who argued for science because it was culture."
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (2000)
by Jeff Schmidt

"No matter what the product is, employers divide the work into many parts and assign each employee to one type of activity. Narrowly focused individuals can work in a more machine-like way and get more work done per hour. Moreover, people who exercise fewer skills or simpler skills can be paid less. Hence, employers label the division of labor 'efficient.' But it is efficient only if one ignores the social cost of organizing production in a way in which jobs tend to be monotonous and unsatisfying. Such jobs, instead of allowing individuals to develop their mental and physical faculties by exercising them freely and fully (that is, instead of being fun), numb the mind and the body and retard the personal development of those employed to do them ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"A system of production that works efficiently toward the goals of employers does not necessarily work efficiently toward the goals of employees or toward the goals of society in general.

More important to employers than the economic benefits, however, are the political benefits of the division of labor -- benefits that help management maintain its authority in the workplace. Confined to a range of activity that is limited both horizontally and vertically, employees do not gain firsthand knowledge of the overall organization, strategy or goals of the institution that employs them. Those who work within this division of labor see the consequent ignorance in themselves and in their coworkers and feel a need to be directed by people who comprehend the whole operation. Management has the broadest view of what is going on, and this helps make its supreme authority in the workplace seem natural and justified ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"By making employees easier to replace and by deflating their feeling of accomplishment in their work, the division of labor strips workers of their sense of power in the workplace, discouraging them from challenging management on the way the work is organized. And the division of work into narrow tasks (most of which are the same even when the product is different) denies workers a feeling for what they are producing, thereby discouraging them from challenging management on the nature or design of the product or service. Hence the division of labor, by making self-management seem impossible and by strengthening management's control over the workforce and over the content of the work, helps make the hierarchical system of production more secure."
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
From chapter titled "Micro-specialization and the infinite perpetuation of error" in Not Even Trying: The Corruption of Real Science (2012)

"Scientific specialization is generally supposed to benefit the precision and validity of knowledge within specializations, but at the cost of these specializations becoming narrower, and loss of integration between specializations.

In other words, as specialization proceeds, people supposedly know more and more about less and less -- the benefit being presumed to be more knowledge within each domain; the cost that no single person has a general understanding.

However, I think that there is no benefit, but instead harm, from specialization beyond a certain point -- an imprecise but long-since-passed point ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"Nowadays, people do not really know more, even within their specialization -- often they know nothing valid at all; almost everything they think they know is wrong, because [it is] undercut by fundamental errors intrinsic and yet invisible to that specialty.

The clear cut benefits of specialization apply only to the early stages such as the career differentiation in the early 20th century -- the era when there was a threefold division of university science degrees into Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

It is much less obvious that real science benefited from subdivision of each of these into two or three (e.g. Physics into Theoretical and Applied, Chemistry into Organic and Inorganic; Biology into Zoology and Botany).

But since the 1960s, scientific specialization has now gone far, far beyond this point, and the process is now almost wholly disadvantageous ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"We are now in an era of micro-specialization, with dozens of subdivisions within sciences. Biology, for example, fragmented into biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, neuroscience, anatomy, physiology, pharmacology, cell biology, marine biology, ecology, ...

Part of this is simply the low average and peak level of ability, motivation and honesty in most branches of modern science. The number of scientists has increased by more than an order of magnitude -- clearly this has an effect on quality.

Scientific training and conditions have become prolonged and dull and collectivist -- deterring creative and self-motivated people ...

In round numbers, it seems likely that more than ninety percent of modern 'scientists' are worse than the worst scientists of 60 years ago.

However there is a more basic and insoluble problem about micro-specialization ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"... which can neither detect nor correct gross errors in its basic suppositions ...

micro-specialists are ultimately technicians and/or bureaucrats; thus they cannot even understand fatal objections and comprehensive refutations of their standard paradigms when these originate from adjacent areas of science. So long as their own specific technique has been conducted according to prevailing micro-specialist professional practice, they equate the outcome with 'truth' and assume its validity and intrinsic value.

In a nutshell, micro-specialization allows a situation to develop where the whole of a vast area of science is bogus knowledge; and for this reality of total bogosity to be intrinsically and permanently invisible and incomprehensible to the participants in that science ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
(cont'd)

"If we then combine this situation with the prevalent professional research notion that only micro-specialists are competent to evaluate the domain of their micro-specialty -- and add [in] the continual fragmentation of research into ever-smaller micro-specialties -- then we have a recipe for permanent and intractable error ...

science was supposed to be uniquely self-correcting -- in practice, now, thanks in part to micro-specialization, it is not self-correcting at all -- except at the trivial and misleadingly reassuring level of micro-defined technical glitches and slip ups."
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven: So what qualifies someone as competent to evaluate the domain of, say, CMB mathematics like the paper reported in the article? If they haven't published anything in the "micro-specialty" of CMB mathematics, then why should we take their evaluations of it more seriously than that of the "micro-specialist" in, say, cell biology? If a "generalist" doesn't also have depth of perspective in a micro-specialty, what makes their evaluation worth hearing?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
That's an excellent question. There is no ultimate authority at the level of the clash of worldviews other than the lessons of the history of science, critique, philosophy, and a thorough systematic mapping of the debate between specialists and their best critics. This is why I have repeatedly stressed the importance of finding novel arguments. The specialists have a crucial role to play, but it is no more crucial -- at the clash-of-worldview level -- than their best critics.

But, I need to emphasize that the situation drastically changes with the context. At the level of models, the specialists are indeed the ultimate authority.

The positivist tradition which has a firm grip upon academia today has failed to understand the complexity of this situation, but the constructivists HAVE understood it.

What it means is that we must shift our approach to science when we observe that science becomes challenged: positivism for "normal" / constructivism for controversial.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
What is happening instead -- as I think you must by now realize -- is that the standards of the model level of scientific activity are being applied at the worldview level. Put another way, all observations are today viewed through the lens of the textbook theory, and many scientists today have implicitly accepted the m.o. that the universities have instilled within them -- that their purpose is to create evidence for textbook theories (Kuhn called this "normal" science).

This is what Bruce Charlton means by "bureaucrat" and "technician"; when you reduce the scientist to the role of generating proofs for answers that the scientist believes are already known (and spelled out in textbooks), you've vastly altered the meaning of what it means to be a scientist / theorist.

Science is not just a body of knowledge; it is also a way of thinking. This is more than just a pithy saying; the meaning must be evident in their approach.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@HannesAlfven: So among CMB mathematics publishers' "best critics" are people who are not "micro-specialists" in CMB mathematics, and so have little to no experience with CMB mathematics?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
It is a mistake to rigidly segment the critique/dialog by the disciplines of science at the worldview level of discourse. What the critique of over-specialization is telling us -- IMO -- is that we must separate out the worldview- and model- levels of discourse.

You guys think I don't notice that it is extremely annoying to have somebody butt into a model-level discussion with questions about assumptions and the larger framework.

I've noticed that this bugs the hell out of people for a few years now.

The solution is to separate out the dialogue at these two levels. And this leaves us with the added benefit that we can assign differing sets of values to the schemes we use to rank these contributions.

A CMB specialist should have the final say at the level of model discourse.

At the level of worldviews, anybody who can understand and critique the math should be permitted to launch a challenge.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
This structure will lead to a dramatic increase in innovation. Not only will it teach people what a worldview is -- which very few seem to understand -- but it will also prevent us, culturally, from mindlessly applying the standards of model construction to clashes of worldview (which are two completely different activities which lack a shared purpose).

Dialogue will become completely streamlined if the discourse borders are properly moderated. I am confident that it will be so effective at increasing innovative dialogue that academia will eventually copy it.

What we are talking about here is a way to bring all of these people of differing ideologies together, and refashion them as parts of a larger machine whose larger purpose is to resolve the biggest questions that scientists have ever asked.

The reason why this platform will succeed is because it will mine the long tail of collaboration to billions of people. Nobody has ever before done this for science.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
I'm looking for other React developers and especially graphic designers who understand the importance of what I'm building here. Most people had assumed that this was an unsolvable problem; people are going to be stunned when they see that it wasn't.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult promoter
I've noticed that this bugs the hell out of people for a few years now
actually, what "bugs" people is the making of ASSumptions based upon pseudoscience like your own above that require suspension of facts based reality

more to the point: you made ten straight posts of nothing but opinion (one that is repeated every generation, BTW)
then an additional 5 posts, wasting more than 15K characters saying absolutely nothing

worse still, this is called Gish Gallop http://rationalwi...h_gallop

your verbose regurgitation of data only demonstrates your absolute lack of evidence supporting your initial arguments against science anyway

science works because it doesn't advance on belief or opinion
it works because it advances on facts
things that can be validated

you've given none of that
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
Pfizer was part of the inspiration for this. They have been mining the long tail of creative collaboration on technical problems for many years now. Rob Spencer has a website dedicated to all of his presentations on this subject.

The Internet has fundamentally altered commerce because it streamlines the act of the one-off sale. This is why Amazon is now destroying Walmart.

Internet technology is what enabled that to happen.

Rob Spencer at Pfizer has shown that that same approach can also be used to solve challenges. What his demonstrations show is that participation does not occur according to some bell curve; creative collaboration occurs according to a power law: You get these one-off exchanges where one person might make one contribution.

Those who understand what a power law is will immediately understand that the name of the game here is to expand your reach. The more people you can convince to participate, the more powerful the machine becomes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult public relations spin idiot
will immediately understand that the name of the game here is to expand your reach. The more people you can convince to participate, the more powerful the machine becomes
and therein lies your entire tactic WRT the eu, promoting the eu and attempting to gain credibility for them without having to actually produce evidence that is equivalent to the scientific method

this is why creationists are failures WRT their pseudoscience
it is why your eu will always be relegated to the pseudoscience idiocy

because your arguments require faith - the belief in [x] without evidence

pushing this and bringing more people into the fold to be more "powerful" works for religion

it doesn't work for science
science still requires evidence and validation

so again - until you can actually meet the basic requirements of the scientific method, you are not science

you are a religion
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2017
Captain, you're operating at the model level. You've not yet discovered the worldview level. I would not permit you to contribute there on my social network.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2017
@idiot hannes/reeve eu cult prostitute
I would not permit you to contribute there on my social network.
what makes you think i would ever want to talk to you about your religious preferences on your "social network"?

if i wanted to talk religion with a bunch of fanatics, i would go to a church

as i keep pointing out, regardless of your choice of wording or description of "world view" or "model"... your religious cult of eu has only opinion and argument from personal belief

if you could actually provide evidence that was scientific, you would be publishing papers in peer reviewed journals with an impact in astrophysics

the simple fact that you *can't* and have to own a "social network" where you can insure you have no factual arguments from evidence is demonstrative of your problem

but i don't think you can see that
fanatics can't see reality
that is the reason you have to isolate yourself and preach
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2017
The comments box at the bottom of the press release was built to fail. No person ever said, "The comments box beneath the article changed my worldview."

If somebody is good enough, they can make it work.

But nobody ever attributed that person's success to the box beneath the press release.

It's a friggin box. You put text in it. This is 1990's technology here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2017
@idiot hannes/reeve eu cult prostitute
The comments box at the bottom of the press release was built to fail
so, what you're saying here is: you intentionally built a comment box into a website that is designed to fail to insure your own "worldview" is the only discussed option?

so it's exclusivism, isolation, forced presentation of selective data, etc... IOW - a cult
http://www.cultwa...ork.html

technically, because you teach a pseudoscience that is destructive and incapable of replication, you are promoting a destructive cult - http://people.how...cult.htm

of course, belief in your cult brings success and secret knowledge that only you and your special folk can "See", right?
https://www.psych...in-cults

perhaps you should read those links and learn a little more about how your cult works?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2017
for people willing to learn about why pseudoscience cults are dangerous: https://www.psych...in-cults

Cults insist on reprogramming the way people see the world
like this:
Captain, you're operating at the model level. You've not yet discovered the worldview level
that's not all...
Powerful and exclusive dedication/devotion to an explicit person or creed
like this
I would not permit you to contribute there on my social network
learn more:
They use of "thought-reform" programmes to integrate, socialize, persuade and therefore control members

A well thought through recruitment, selection and socialization process

Attempts to maintain psychological and physical dependency among cult members
like this
If somebody is good enough, they can make it work

I'm looking for other React developers and especially graphic designers who understand the importance of what I'm building here
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2017
Re: "so, what you're saying here is: you intentionally built a comment box into a website that is designed to fail to insure your own "worldview" is the only discussed option?"

If you really did not understand that I was talking about sites like this one, then you should be embarrassed.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2017
so, as anyone can see, the Gish-Gallop tactics of the eu cult are simple and yet subtle nefarious tactics to lead those who seek their special knowledge

who is a cult member and why would anyone fall for that bullsh*t?
people seeking what they offer: friendship, connections, identity, an opportunity to make a contribution

cults target those who are seeking a place to belong, but unlike religion they also typically don't offer you a real choice
you can see by the above that when you're part of the cult, everyone else is either blind, stupid or incapable of seeing the 'truth" promoted by the cult, so it isolates you from reality causing you to make stupid public announcements like reeve/hannes or cd, et al

how can you tell the eu is a cult?
it all boils down to evidence

if they were capable of producing science, you would be reading journal studies, not links to personal web sites, blogs or dot.com bullsh*t promotions

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2017
@idiot eu cult prostitute
If you really did not understand that I was talking about sites like this one, then you should be embarrassed
and if you didn't catch that i outed your promotional tactic and showed the world you're a cult without the ability to conform to the scientific method, you should be doubly-embarrassed

more to the point: anyone who is semi-literate can see that your entire tactic centers around this one quote from you
expand your reach. The more people you can convince to participate, the more powerful the machine becomes
like i said: if you were promoting science you would be linking evidence, not beliefs

you would be able to link studies, not blogs

but i also know that you're incapable of seeing the cult mentality you are a part of
mostly because that would mean admission of fault on your part

or are you a true believer?

.

PS
I would not permit you to contribute there on my social network
CULT
starfart
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2017
I don't see anything other than an unlikely fluctuation.
EmceeSquared
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2017
And you're not an astrophysicist. You didn't even read the paper. Why does your not seeing anything matter?

starfart:
I don't see anything other than an unlikely fluctuation.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.