Anti-Big Bang Open Letter

Sean Carroll has some comments about the anti-big bang petition. He also points to Ned Wright’s explanation of what is wrong with various proposed alternatives to the big bang scenario. In particular this explains in detail what the problems with Irving Segal’s “Chronometric Cosmology” are, something I’d always wondered about.

Segal was a very good mathematician, who did serious work on quantum field theory in the 50s and 60s. He’s the “Segal” in what is sometimes called the “Segal-Shale-Weil” representation. Segal is a counter-example to Carroll’s observation that, for the most part, opponents of the big bang are not very smart. Unfortunately, it seems that quite smart and otherwise reasonable people can have unshakable faith in ideas that don’t work. Segal’s student John Baez wrote up some of his memories of his advisor and his cosmological research.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Anti-Big Bang Open Letter

  1. On Jul 3, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    Everyone agrees that the laws of GR are formally covariant under
    general coordinate transformations — or under the group Diff(4)
    of point set diffeomorphisms on a 4-dim pseudo-Riemannian manifold
    (which is subtly different).

    But this is not enough to give us *actual physical relativity*
    with respect to accelerated motion.

    The reversible tetrad map LNIF(P) LIF(P) does that


    guv(LNIF at P) = Eu^a(P)(Minkowski)ab(LIF)Ev^b(P)

    After all, in classical mechanics Newton’s second law F = ma also
    holds *formally* in non-inertial frames; but this cannot amount to
    true relativity with respect to such frames, since the observed
    forces are regarded as “fictitious” — i.e., only apparent, a
    kinematical artifact.

    Bad use of language since we feel and measure fictitious forces same as gravity!

    So whether we do or do not have physical relativity depends not only
    on the formal symmetries of the theory, but also on the *physical
    interpretation* of the covariant laws.

    Einstein’s original approach was to interpret such “fictitious”
    forces as real, based on his concept of the unified gravito-inertial
    field, described by the transformable/deformable metric tensor g_uv.
    This was at the core of his original concept of general relativity, as
    I have previously argued.

    Still true today.

    Einstein himself explained this very clearly in his earlier papers
    and in several books on relativity. I have all the quotes.

    If Einstein’s math is interpreted differently — as some have
    proposed — then we lose physical general relativity, even while the
    formal general covariant character of the laws is left undisturbed.

    Again I do not think these gyrations of the informal language that leave the formal equations alone and do not change any operational procedures and gedankenexperiments are important scientifically – at best a matter of psychology and cognitive style.

    So general covariance is not the same as Einsteinian “general relativity”.

    Never said it was. It is necessary not sufficient. Puthoff seems to say in PV it is NOT necessary – an error.

    As I understand it, the current consensus in gravitational physics is
    indeed in favor of a NON-“general relativistic” interpretation of the
    formal theory.

    Show me with exact quotes.

    If I am confused on this, then so are most contemporary gravitational
    physicists. Even Wheeler writes that “‘general relativity’ is the name
    Einstein gave to his theory of gravitation”. Weinberg and Feynman,
    to name just two others, thought that Einstein equivalence is a red
    herring — a mere heuristic tool that happened to lead to the current
    theory, but not now part of the correct interpretation of that theory.

    I have not read Weinberg on this. I do not read Feynman that way. Cite specifics.

    If there is no “general relativity”, then there is in reality no physical
    relativity, except in some weak phenomenological sense (which latter,
    ironically, was Einstein’s original 1905 view of SR as a: theory of

    The “beef” of GR is the TENSOR eq (under Diff(4) globally and O(3,1) locally)

    Guv + /\zpfguv = – (8piG/c^4)Tuv(“matter”)

    Therefore, I simply do not understand what you are saying.

    Einstein pretty much implied all this himself: he viewed
    his proposed extended relativity principle as a natural development of
    his special relativity principle to encompass accelerated motion.

    Right. That’s the way I understand it.

    If you only include observers in uniform relative motion and assume invariance of c under that limited group of transformations including global translations as well as all 6 space-time rotations you get 1905 SR. SR means do NOT locally gauge the Poincare group! It means do not locally gauge any space-time symmetry group under the constraint that the speed of light in vacuum is an absolute invariant. That c is an absolute invariant does NOT imply it is an upper speed limit to anything. To get that, one must make something like an Arrow of Time additional postulate that future causes of past effects is impossible. That is an entirely different story beyond relativity as simply a symmetry theory of space-time.

    If you include COINCIDENT observers at SAME event P (i.e. in tiny ball centered at P) in arbitrary relative motion then you get GR(1916) relative to that choice of connection field that comes from ONLY locally gauging the 4-parameter translation sub-group T4 of the 10-parameter Poincare group.

    Now, Einstein did NOT historically derive GR that way because the modern understanding of the organizing idea of “local gauge invariance” did not exist until after he died.

    If further, you locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group O(1,3) you get an additional torsion field piece to the connection field for parallel transport of tensors (and spinors using Penrose-Newman) along vector fields in the base space. You now have a larger local symmetry group than GR’s 1916 Diff(4)xO(1,3). If you go even further and locally gauge the full 15-parameter conformal group, or even the 16-parameter GL(4,R) you will get even a bigger connection field with new physical consequences to be explored.

    But it now looks like this aspect of his program was not successful.

    I think it has been extraordinarily successful.

    Of course, the term “general relativity” has in the meantime been quietly
    redefined to mean something quite different: the reciprocal influence of
    gravitating matter on the vacuum, and vice versa.

    I thought Einstein always thought of it that way – I mean from at least ~ 1916 on? I am not up on the detailed history of how his thought evolved. What he may have said between 1905 – 1916 is not really relevant.

    Even Einstein abandoned “Mach’s principle” (really a hypothesis) by 1920,
    since it clearly entails instantaneous action at a distance in order to
    explain inertial phenomena — which of course leads us to a very different
    view of inertia as arising locally from a matter-vacuum interaction.

    Agreed, Mach’s principle is not a necessary part of GR even though it heuristically motivated Einstein. Also the recent discovery that 96% of the stuff of the universe is not “matter” as Mach and Einstein thought of it means that the whole idea of Mach’s Principle rests on very shaky ground and must be re-evaluated in the light of new surprising observations.

    The ghost of the departed Lorentzian ether. Quite a different kettle of


    “Ether” is back in, although not the old Galilean group version. “Ether” like “tensor”, “spinor”, “connection” are all relative terms defined relative to a choice of symmetry group G.

    P.S. I have been revisiting SR, and I think I now may have a bulletproof
    version of the clock paradox that I’d like you and Hal to take a look at.

    Would you be willing to do that?

    Depends what you mean by “clock paradox” – time dilation is a proven fact in many experiments.

    I know this must sound like a crank perpetual motion thesis — but I’m

    Jack Sarfatti wrote:

    General coordinate transformations handle all – so I do not understand what you mean.
    I think you are confused here.
    True, given any symmetry group G you can make the laws covariant under G.
    GR deals with a special choice G = Diff(4).
    Diff(4) handles LNIF –> LNIF’

    Also it includes EEP tetrads LNIF LIF

    On Jul 3, 2004, at 1:28 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    I meant physical relativity of all motion, including accelerated motion.

    The general principle of relativity was initially supposed by Einstein to
    be modeled on the special principle and was supposed to be an extension
    of it.

    That’s not the way it turned out — or at least that’s what I understand
    to be the current view of the matter.

    On Jul 3, 2004, at 9:07 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    Jack Sarfatti wrote:

    The general principle includes the special principle.

    Only if the special principle is re-interpreted *ad hoc* to bring it in line with the general principle as currently

    OK – what’s wrong with that?

    Jack, here you are disagreeing not just with me, but with most contemporary authors.

    This is all explained in Ohanian & Ruffini, “Spacetime and Gravitation”, which I believe you have.

    What pages specifically?

    Who now actually believes with Einstein 1907-1916 that physical gravitation is simply a form of variable frame
    acceleration controlled by the distribution of matter?

    I do if you change “simply” to “essentially” and if you change “matter” to “matter and exotic vacua.”

    Do you?

    Of course.

    When curvature is zero everywhere when special relativity works globally, i.e. there exist global inertial frames GIF


    When there is curvature the special principle works locally subject to the 2 restrictions I mentioned previously.

    In general, only at a spacetime point.

    More precisely in a neighborhood of space-time point P of scale L small compared to scale of local radii of curvature. Since the latter at surface of Earth is ~ 1AU that is not much of a restriction on L for terrestrial measurements.

    Also L >> Lp* which is usually taken as 10^-33 cm though it may be larger.

    What this means is that the predictions of SR in an LIF are *empirically compatible* with those of GR when the
    LIF is contracted to a point.

    No to a “ball” and here at Earth it can be a pretty big ball. You need to put this “point” thing into proper perspective with numbers.

    Where there is non-zero Riemann curvature (i.e. gravity) in any finite volume of spacetime,
    they are only approximately compatible.

    As explained in detail in MTW for example. Obviously the 4th rank curvature tensor is NOT generally zero and that includes LIFs as well as LNIFs – but its practical effects on surface of Earth are very tiny and for a majority of practical purposes are ignorable.

    Of course this does not mean that even in such a contracted LIF the predictions of SR *match* those of SR — they
    are only a subset. For example, SR makes no predictions regarding tidal forces, even if we extend SR to handle
    accelerated frames. Yet according to modern GR, tidal effects may be empirically detectable everywhere in an LIF.

    What’s your point? It is trivial that SR is a sub-theory of GR and that SR needs GR corrections if one does precise enough measurements. All covering theories transcend the theories they cover. All this confusion about “aether” for example is because people try to use SR outside of its proper domain of validity. Our universe has a Hubble flow in which absolute velocity and absolute global cosmic time are practically and usefully defined in terms of the cosmic black body radiation isotropy and temperature respectively. This is no different from fact that non-spherically symmetric ferromagnets exist even though their Hamiltonians are spherically symmetric. The particular solutions do not share the symmetries of the dynamics! Not all atomic electron states of hydrogen are S states! In particular, when the ground state of a complex system does not share all the symmetries of its dynamical action we say the symmetry is spontaneously broken. This same thing happens with the cosmology of our universe! This is common indeed ubiquitous! Read PW Anderson’s “More is different” and other papers in his “A Career in Theoretical Physics” (World Scientific) – worth buying.

    Note let a,b be LIF indices and u,v be LNIF indices both in small neighborhood of same local event P

    Ruvwl(P) = Eu^a(P)Ev^b(P)Ew^c(P)El^d(P)Rabcd(P)

    Curvature is a local field measurable in principle in the LIF.


    E’s are the tetrad components, i.e. local fields

    In globally flat space-time the E’s are Kronecker deltas &au^a, distinction between a’s and u’s disappears – degenerate limit

    e’u(P) = Eu^a(P)ea

    [e0, e1,e2,e3] is basis for a LIF at P

    [e’0,e’1,e’2,e’3] is basis for a “coincident” LNIF at P



    e’u(P) = ea&u^a + Lp*^2(Macro-Quantum Coherent Vacuum Phase),u (NEW to my theory

    ,u is ordinary partial derivative

    guv(P) = nuv(Minkowski) + (1/2)[e’u,v(P) + e’v,u(P)] = Eu^a(P)nab(Minkowski)Ev^b(P)

    So far all this is for usual torsion-free connection.

    So your “curvature field” is directly determined by the coordinate derivatives of the macroquantum
    phase of your virtual BEC?

    Yes, of course. I have been saying this over and over and it’s in my two books from late 2002.
    This is the elastic analog to Bohm’s hydrodynamic constraint of IT by quBIT in

    velocity of IT particle = (hbar/m)Gradient of phase of quBIT pilot waved)

    I replace the quantum of circulation (AKA vorticity flux) hbar/m in 3D by the “Quantum of Area” in the 4D elastic world crystal lattice picture of Hagen Kleinert from Free University of Berlin.

    The LIF ea with zero partial derivatives have dimensions of length in above formulae and guv is dimensionless.

    If so, this looks like a flat-background quantum field model with a correspondence bridge to
    “curved” Einstein g_uv.

    Only FORMALLY not PHYSICALLY – important you make that distinction!

    That is, there is no assumption of perturbation theory here.


    guv(P) = nuv(Minkowski) + (1/2)[e’u,v(P) + e’v,u(P)]

    In no sense do I assume

    nuv(Minkowski) >> (1/2)[e’u,v(P) + e’v,u(P)]

    The way Feynman does in his Lectures on Gravity using spin 2 quantum field on Poincare symmetry group background vacuum.

    I am not doing that at all! Also these are SMOOTH MACRO-QUANTUM ODLRO functions. There will be a micro-quantum normal fluid spin 2 tensor quantum field on this smooth curved space-time background of course along with all the spin 1/2 and spin 1 quantum fields ALL together contribute to /\zpf!
    But my theory is automatically BACKGROUND-INDEPENDENT and NON-PERTURBATIVE since guv(P) is a dynamical field from the beginning determined globally self-consistently in a self-organizing manner!

    I’m curious: What in your model causes mechanical inertia? And what in your model explains, or
    at least might explain, the exact proportionality of inertial and gravitational mass?

    Exactly same as John Wheeler explains “Mass without mass” in his classic book “Geometrodynamics” with new feature Lp* ~ 10^20Lp on scale of 1 fermi to make the spatially-extended quasi Kerr-Newman micro-geons of the lepto-quarks out of exotic vacuum with “charges” as quantized vortex trapped flux fields not only U(1) but also SU(2) and SU(3).

    The lepto-quark masses m ~ Vacuum Coherence consistent with Higgs mechanism – not Haisch’s & Puthoff’s random EM ZPF friction.

    ~ 1 Mev for first generation that dominates Omega(Matter) ~ 0.04 where total Omega = 1 the remaining 0.96 is ALL w = -1 ZPF exotic vacuum! Hence dark matter detectors silent in principle sans false positives.

    Then use QCD Lite bag model (Frank Wilczek) to get hadronic masses M ~ 1Gev from lepto-quarks glued together again by /\zpf in a cascade process.

    I have not proved consistency as yet. This is all heuristics based on my physical picture.



    On Jul 3, 2004, at 1:28 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    I meant physical relativity of all motion, including accelerated motion.

    The general principle of relativity was initially supposed by Einstein to
    be modeled on the special principle and was supposed to be an extension
    of it.

    That’s not the way it turned out — or at least that’s what I understand
    to be the current view of the matter.

    Jack Sarfatti wrote:

    I think the cutoff is much larger than Planck distance at scale 1 fermi in fact it is 1 fermi on scale of 1 fermi

    i.e. Lp* = 10^20Lp on scale of 1 fermi to stabilize electron as an extended micro-geon.

    On Jul 2, 2004, at 7:36 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    Jack Sarfatti wrote:

    On Jul 2, 2004, at 12:19 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

    I was under the impression that there is a class of v^3 ZPE
    density distributions that are Lorentz invariant?

    Yes, that’s what I am alluding to below. However, that does not have a finite cut-off in it, which is the problem.

    The nitpicking point I first raised here is really not relevant to the main issue,
    which is what happens to LI when the emptically confirmed v^3 ZPE spectrum
    (which I suppose is actually a v^2 density distribution) is truncated at the Planck

    Everyone here (except perhaps TS) says that this would destroy exact LI.

    Puthoff seems to be saying that such a cutoff would nevertheless not have currently
    observable consequences, while Ibison is not so sure.

    What do you think?


    I say it will have observable consequences that should be looked for in angular correlations in Lambshift radiation for example.

  2. Joe Papp says:


    You can debate theory up your yin-yang.

    Check out reality at

    If anyone wants to whine about the lack of detail

    on making “coherent electron bunches”, just try reading ALL of Adamenko’s papers.

    It’s not really that mysterious.

    Here’s the point: If you can MODEL stellar processes with an actual EXPERIMENT…then you can begin to understand them.

    Forget all this “zero point energy” stuff, let’s start with SHN’s and see where we get from there.
    (We may get to ZPE, and to large amounts of antimatter…cheaply.)

    Dr. Papp

  3. bcc

    Memorandum for the historical record on the emergence of metric engineering concepts.

    Dear Marc

    Mine is the only one of your proposals coming in which has even a ghost of a chance of working as practical metric engineering because:

    It only uses battle-tested mainstream physics, i.e. Einstein’s GR, quantum theory, condensed matter physics of macro-quantum coherent order parameters described by P.W. Anderson as “More is different” that includes Andrei Sakharov’s “metric elasticity” 1967 for emergent gravity as “generalized phase rigidity” of the local macro-quantum vacuum coherence order parameter. Also, unlike ALL of your proposals coming in, mine has a seamless connection with the major problems in physics today e.g. the dark energy/cosmological constant problem, the renormalization problem in quantum field theory (e.g. stability of electron under its self-charge), stability of galaxy, universal Regge slope of hadronic resonances, Ken Shoulders’ “charge clusters.” Dare I also mention the heretical 3 letter word “UFO”? No, I guess not. 🙂

    Hal Puthoff’s competing program to mine, i.e. the “PV” dielectric analogy approach to GR is much further out of the mainstream and so far his published results disagree with actual empirical data. Hal tries to avoid standard tensor calculus with metrics, consequently he has yet to publish a model with a rotating source, and he has yet to show how his theory based on a special action principle can give a warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre and the recent paper by Visser et-al
    Also Hal has yet to show how an applied electromagnetic Fuv field can change his vacuum K function by a large enough amount to make a practical difference for actual metric engineering. He cannot do it using orthodox QED, the effect is too small.

    Note that Visser and Lobo also make reference to dark energy in the context of a warp drive – probably first in a mainstream paper, but my two books from end of 2002 already have that idea clearly spelled out. Visser also bends over backwards to caution the reader not to get too enthusiastic about imminent technological applications since the “fact” of UFOs is denied otherwise he could not publish his paper – quite obviously.

    One important technical point on Visser’s latest paper on warp drive

    He uses only

    Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv

    Not the equation I use which is

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

    That I approximate as the pure exotic vacuum equation

    Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0

    assuming G/c^4 ~ 10^-33 cm/10^19Gev

    so that, with my subsidiary vacuum coherence equations

    /\zpfguv >> (8piG/c^4)Tuv

    Is the “metric engineering regime” of practical interest with

    /\zpf controlled by an electromagnetic Au potential in a Bohm-Aharonov- Josephson gauge covariant “weak link” in the relative phase between a control macro-quantum coherent field and the vacuum coherence of virtual electron-positron pairs.

    Ken Shoulders EVO data seem to confirm this basic idea, as well as the absence of dark matter particles after 14 years of trying with only false alarms.

    On Jun 22, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Marc G. Millis wrote:

    PS The work is published in 3 books copyrighted and in the US Library of
    Congress database.
    The titles of these books are given in the xls, which I find extremely
    difficult to understand BTW I mean what the categories even mean in some
    cases. I am not used to dealing with USG bureaucratic jargon and dotting all
    the i’s etc. I ran into this same problem with Paul Murad at STAIF.

    I appreciate the difficulty of converting one’s work to fit the formats of others. Considering that I’m expecting dozens, perhaps hundreds of submissions, I need some uniform way to compare them. After I’ve had a chance to screen the submissions, I’ll get back with you if yours needs adjustments to be considered for inclusion.


  4. On Jun 21, 2004, at 9:34 AM, michael ibison a signer to the anti-Big Bang letter wrote:

    “That I don’t embrace BB is an accurate description. I do not hold a strong view on whether or not the currently accepted view is correct. That makes me a radical. Not because I say it is wrong, but because I am an agnostic.



    That’s only because you have not kept up with advances in the field. I agree that prior to say end of 2002 the position held in that May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter was slightly plausible and defensible as a long shot – but no longer. Without applying a double standard, the Baysean probability that the standard model with chaotic inflation, dark energy/matter is essentially correct is very close to 100% and getting closer all the time as new data comes in. What we have here is a debate on how to weigh the new data that you admit you are not very up on. I have been to 2 APS meetings on this topic in 2003 and listened closely to Mike Turner and Saul Perlmutter – the experimental work is beautiful – some of the best in the history of physics. This is a real turning point. It also explains the saucers, the emergence of Einstein’s gravity from the cohering of random noise ZPF not from its friction, the stability of electrically charged elementary particles as spatially extended structures that shrink when hit hard, the stability of the galaxy, the universal Regge slope, Ken Shoulder’s charge clusters, the Arrow of Time and even the emergence of consciousness in the many worlds. What more do you want? This is grand!

    Strong prediction that can falsify my idea: Dark matter detectors cannot click, in principle, with the right stuff to explain Omega(DM) ~ 0.23 any more than the motion of the Earth through the Galilean ether can be detected with a Michelson-Morley interferometer in the domain of validity of special relativity where the scale of the relative phase measurements are small compared to the radius of curvature that the Sun makes at the position of the Earth in its orbit.

    PS How do Marshall Trevor/Haisch, Puthoff, Rueda, Cole et-al explain observed sub-Poisson statistics of photon anti-bunching in laser light which requires negative probability if you use SED?

    The emergence of gravity and dark energy/matter from the cohering of zero point energy.

    1714 Stockton Street
    Suite 100
    San Francisco, CA 94133


    Ordinary matter made from real on-mass-shell lepto-quark fermions and gauge force bosons only accounts for approximately 4% of all the large-scale stuff of our universe, which may be one of a infinity of parallel universes in hyperspace that we call “Super Cosmos.” I propose that the remaining 96% of our universe consists of two forms of partially coherent exotic vacuum dominated by a condensate of bound virtual electron-positron pairs. Einstein’s gravity emerges from the variations in the macro-quantum coherent phase field of the condensate. This condensate is the inflation field in the large-scale cosmological limit. Both dark energy and dark matter are simply residual total zero point energy densities that emerge from the vacuum condensate’s intensity variations. Approximately 73% is anti-gravitating zero point “dark energy” density with equal and opposite negative pressure that is causing our universe to accelerate in its expansion rate. The remaining gravitating 23%, called “dark matter,” is also zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive pressure found concentrated in large-scale structures like the galactic halo that prevents our solar system from escaping into inter-galactic space. Astrophysical scale geon structures of w = -1 dark matter simulate w = 0 CDM in terms of their gravity lensing. The electron, as a Bohm “hidden variable” on the micro-scale for example, is a spatially extended structure whose self-electric charge repulsion, Casimir force and repulsive spin rotation are balanced by the strong short-range zero point energy induced gravity from its exotic vacuum core. The electron, and the quarks, shrink in size, up to a certain minimum, when hit with large momentum scattering transfers from strong space warping that makes their surface areas small compared to what they would be in flat space for a given radial distance. An experimental appendix by Ken Shoulders on “exotic vacuum objects” or “EVO” charged geons made from large numbers of electrons glued together by zero point energy is included. The zero point force holding as many as one hundred billion electrons together is not the QED Casimir force, which may even be repulsive, but is the entirely different strong short-range gravity force induced by the zero point energy by the entirely different process of Einstein’s general relativity omitted from the flat space-time QED calculations. These EVOs show anomalous motions and energies that seem to be examples of Alcubierre’s “warp drive” and “cold fusion” respectively.

    A preliminary copy of the Ken Shoulders EVO experiments is at

    Ken worked for years in USG Intelligence as a gadgeteer for James Bond types. He holds patents on tiny electronic devices and is a microwave expert. Some of his devices were crucial to the microchip revolution by Intel et-al.

  6. Both Ibison and Soares are signers of the New Scientist letter. I am defending mainstream precision cosmology against this letter’s position. Herman Bondi from Cambridge, who also signed the letter, got very upset with me last night because of this.

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

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

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

    Thank you for your note Domingos.

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

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

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

    Best wishes,


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

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


    “Hello Jack,

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

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

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

    “2- Take w=-1.”

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

    “What do you do with the so-called ‘cosmological constantproblem’?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Cheers, explain that,


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

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

  7. The local pure gravity stress-energy density tensor is simply

    tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

    where Guv = Ruv – (1/2)Rguv

    For ordinary vacuum

    tuv(Gravity) = 0

    But for exotic vacuum

    tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

    where /\zpf is a local scalar field

    /\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]

  8. Some wag quipped that mathematical physicists are mathematicians who cannot do first-class pure math and that theoretical physicists are physicists who cannot do experimental physics. John Baez is a mathematician pretending to be a theoretical physicist. Indeed, most of modern theoretical physics has been taken over by mathematicians in theoretical physicist’s clothing. In this context, both string theory and loop quantum gravity are what Richard Feynman would call “Cargo Cult Pseudoscience” and what Wolfgang Pauli would call “not even wrong.” Are string theory and spin foams et-al interesting as conceptual art? Most certainly, but they are not yet real physics and it is intellectually dishonest for Brian Greene to misrepresent them as important physics on NOVA.

  9. Re: Physics Today conclusively laughable in light of May 22, 2004 New Scientist Letter

    On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:32 AM, michael ibison wrote:

    I haven’t read the Freedman paper If Domingos has, perhaps he would be good enough to offer comments on it.

    Jack Sarfatti wrote: The point here is that there is a preponderance of evidence from independent sources for the basic picture that essentially all the stuff of the universe is, at its core, exotic vacuum zero point energy density including Omega (atoms, radiation etc) ~ 0.04. Mundane explanations for anomalous dimming of Type 1a supernovae have been clearly eliminated observationally by the evidence. There will be more evidence. The ideas in the May 22, 2004 are not contenders to the objective mind without an ax to grind or a hobby horse to ride – assuming one can find such a mind? 😉

    Not only that, but this large-scale picture solves unsolved basic problems of the particle physics,

    I. Is the electron (lepto-quark) a point particle? NO.

    Hence no more need for infinite renormalizations and no more need perhaps for using distributions and the need for regularization that plays such a big role in say Ashtekar’s program of spin foams and weaves to make smooth space-time.

    II. What stabilizes the spatially extended electron (perhaps with “tight atomic states” J.P. Vigier)? Zero point energy pressure. These are the Lorentz-Abraham-Becker stresses.

    III. Why does the electron (and the quark) appear to shrink from 10^-11 cm at low energy imaging to ~ 10^-17 cm at high energy imaging? Strong space-warp from the exotic vacuum zero point energy core.

    IV. Why Regge universal slope for hadronic resonances? Kerr-Newman “micro-geon” (e.g. A. Burinskii) solution in strong short-range gravity induced in the zero point exotic vacuum core.

    Which interpretation of quantum theory is needed? Bohm’s.

    Does the quantum wave describe individual particles or only statistical ensembles? Individual particles.

    Why does our solar system not escape into inter-galactic space? For the same reason that the electric charge on a single electron does not explode! i.e. the pressure from w = -1 zero point energy cores.

    Note that the present “best fit” for dark energy is not w = -1, however, I say that more data will show w = -1. I also say that dark matter detectors will never “click” with The Right Stuff. These are two crucial tests that will falsify my theory.

    Finally, look to the skies. Heads up. What do you see “Out There” Michael? How do they fly? Dark energy that’s how.

    Therefore, I have a clear story to tell that most people can understand compared to the alternatives. Also my story is clearly falsifiable in Karl Popper’s sense.

    Michael Ibison: Personally, I have no strong opinion on the matter of dark matter, but if you feel there is ‘REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE’, perhaps you could share what you think that is – i.e. what specific data do you find so persuasive?

    Sarfatti replied to Michael who is one of the signers of the New Scientist letter: Here is the evidence. It is more than satisfactory to my mind. Not only that, it explains what Hal Puthoff has been attempting to explain for at least 30 years.

    BTW you need to distinguish “dark energy” from “dark matter” though I think they are essentially the same, i.e. net zero point energy density of negative and positive pressure respectively modulated by variable partial vacuum coherence, I am alone in that opinion. All of The Pundits think dark matter consists of real on-mass-shell particles whizzing around in space. I say that is a mistake. Dark matter, like dark energy, is a form of exotic quantum vacuum that is essentially 100% of all the stuff of the Universe. Even ordinary matter made from spatially-extended lepto-quarks (Bohm’s hidden variables) is exotic vacuum quantum pressure gluing together shells of charge as I show in a recent paper with Ken Shoulders on “charge clusters” still under construction. Note that Ken worked with Hal on this same problem for many years and has now obviously voted with his feet! The point here is that Hal has never written down the correct zero point energy/gravity relationship, which in the simplest Newtonian limit of Einstein’s GR is the static Poisson equation, sans factors of pi

    Laplacian of Gravity Potential Energy Per Unit Test Mass of Exotic Vacuum ~ c^2/\zpf

    /\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Area)^3/2|Vacuum Coherence|^2 – 1]

    Vacuum Coherence obeys a generally covariant Landau-Ginzburg equation with a Mexican Hat Potential.

  10. jason says:

    “Right, I get it. All the evidence counted in favour is “weak”, and anything that is hard to explain is “heavy counter-evidence”. It sure seems easy to be anti-big-bang.”

    WHAT EVIDENCE IN FAVOR?????? There is NO evidence that favors BBT. Only misinterpretations of data based on huge assumptions. I have only seen eveidence that says BBT must be wrong.

  11. Matthew says:

    “The CMBR is not predicted by BB, it is an assumed and tunable side-effect of nucleosynthesis and atom-building and subsequent thermalization of radiation, and also depends on a strict separation of EM and gravity. The WMAP data is open to any number of interpretations (I’ve seen some that go against BBw/I). Compared to this, the large scale “walling” and enormous filamentary structures actually *seen* are heavy counter-evidence.”

    Right, I get it. All the evidence counted in favour is “weak”, and anything that is hard to explain is “heavy counter-evidence”. It sure seems easy to be anti-big-bang.

  12. Chris Oakley says:

    This comment is made in the context of knowledge that hardly extends beyond an introductory G.R. course 23 years ago, and should be treated accordingly, but following on from Danny’s point about electromagnetism & gravity … is it possible to test the equivalence principle for charged particles? Obviously if it only applies when positive and negative charges are in exact balance then that would knock away one of the pillars supporting General Relativity.

  13. D R Lunsford says:

    Yes, I know the orthodoxy and cathechism, and how to genuflect 🙂 I prefer heresy because it is more interesting and contains a grain of hope.

  14. YHS taking a Break says:

    Quoth D R Lunsford :

    The CMBR is not predicted by BB, it is an assumed and tunable side-effect of nucleosynthesis and atom-building and subsequent thermalization of radiation, and also depends on a strict separation of EM and gravity. The WMAP data is open to any number of interpretations (I’ve seen some that go against BBw/I). Compared to this, the large scale “walling” and enormous filamentary structures actually *seen* are heavy counter-evidence.

    As a custom it must be by now, this website

    reading must be required before one open the mouth to speaketh about the Big Bang and CMBR.

    (Ok, that’s an unsuccessful attempt at Old English Yodaspeaketh.)

  15. D R Lunsford says:

    “The Big Bang model is also well confirmed, the CMBR, for one. And the elemental abundances. Plus, the clear peak in the WMAP data is a generic prediciton of inflationary models.”

    The CMBR is not predicted by BB, it is an assumed and tunable side-effect of nucleosynthesis and atom-building and subsequent thermalization of radiation, and also depends on a strict separation of EM and gravity. The WMAP data is open to any number of interpretations (I’ve seen some that go against BBw/I). Compared to this, the large scale “walling” and enormous filamentary structures actually *seen* are heavy counter-evidence.

    If somehow the long-range forces *are* related on some level then everything is in thrown into a cocked hat. Cosmology as it stands, even without the ad-hockery of inflation etc. is simply too much extrapolation from too little data, IMO. Mind you I am not a steady-stater – I’m just against religiosity in science.

  16. Matthew says:

    “GR, although well-tested in the (very) weak field case provided by the vacuum neighborhood of the Sun, is simply assumed to hold under all conditions, and is made the cornerstone for building the entire universe”

    I’m not really sure that’s true. There’s at least one “strong field” prediction of GR that’s been confirmed, the behaviour of the Husle-Taylor binary plusar.

    There are other weak field predicitons that seem to hold as well. Lensing, for example. And, as I understand it, the dark matter density inferred from lensing (a GR effect) is consistent with that inferred from rotation curves (essentially a Newtonian effect).

    The Big Bang model is also well confirmed, the CMBR, for one. And the elemental abundances. Plus, the clear peak in the WMAP data is a generic prediciton of inflationary models.

    GR and the big bang model may have issues, and it’s appropriate to point them out. But, to pretend that the observational support for them is limited to extrapolations of solar system tests is just wrong.

  17. D R Lunsford says:

    I can assure you Lerner understands GR. I think he believes that it is incomplete, and the energy problem is a symptom of that, and that it is not the only operative factor in the large scale structure of the universe.

    I find it difficult to construct the right sentences to express the heterodox opinion. GR, although well-tested in the (very) weak field case provided by the vacuum neighborhood of the Sun, is simply assumed to hold under all conditions, and is made the cornerstone for building the entire universe. Something in the soul of the the skeptic just cannot accept this extreme extrapolation, the moreso since large-scale effects of electromagnetism seem to be deliberately ignored, in spite of the existence of enormous filamentary structures which are well-explained as plasma phenomena. The skeptics do not trust the objectivity of the orthodoxoi, and adduce Markarian 205 etc. and the ostracism of Halton Arp as examples. See for example

    A scientific community that embraces string theory and anthropomorphism in particle physics, is fully capable of equal excrescence in other fields. So, it is not GR as such that is being questioned – it is the entire attitude of the scientific community that Lerner et. al are fighting against, IMO with great courage.

    I would also point out that the energy problem is resolved in Weyl’s approach, but it is nearly impossible to get anyone to pay attention to this remarkable fact.

  18. Chris W says:

    Here is another reminiscence about a talk given by Segal, written by a former research associate of his, Ray Streater.

  19. Simplex says:

    I dont quite understand your objection to Carroll’s criticism of Lerner. It seems to me that Lerner raised the issue of energy non-conservation. So your remark–that it is meaningless to even bring energy up–actually applies more to Lerner than to Carroll. Here is a quote (in which Carroll quotes Lerner):

    ” Consider this quote by Eric Lerner, petition signatory and author of The Big Bang Never Happened:

    [i]’No Conservation of Energy
    The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics–the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.'[/i]

    Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it’s called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved. Nothing fancy to do with dark energy — the same thing is true for ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved, so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been observed.”

    Maybe you can straighten me out, but though I dont always like Carroll’s style or tone of voice this seem legit on his part.

  20. D R Lunsford says:

    The argument against Lerner is specious – in fact the main problem with GR is that of defining energy – so when he says “energy is not conserved” it’s wrong both technically and philosophically. Technically, energy is not even local, so of course it’s not “conserved” as that term is usually understood – philosophically, insofar as GR is a theory of tensors, and there is no tensor for the gravitational energy, it’s meaningless in a real sense to even bring it up. This kind of dismissive comment is what annoys many people who see Bangers as a priesthood with a recevied wisdom to fall on.

Comments are closed.