Ned Wright's TBBNH Page (C)

This post continues the discussion of 'Ned' Wright's website "Errors in The
Big Bang Never Happened."

Several people have independently pointed me to Ned Wright's website "Errors
in The Big Bang Never Happened."  One of those was the sci.physics.research
moderator -- who used this website as justification for refusing any mention
of TBBNH -- or any references contained therein.  The crank.dot.net site
lists "Ed (sic) Wright's invaluable page detailing the errors in ... Eric
Lerner's arguments from The Big Bang Never Happened."  So I guess it's time
to discuss "Ned Wright's TBBNH Page. Last modified 4-May-2000, © 1997-2000"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html


Ned separated his site into three sections:

A: Errors in Lerner's Criticism of the Big Bang
B: Errors in Lerner's Alternative to the Big Bang
C: Miscellaneous Errors

This post deals only with 'Big Bang' item C, above (miscellaneous errors).

================================================>
1)  Lerner claims that the neutrinos from SN 1987A in the LMC rule out an
interesting neutrino mass, but the light water detectors used can
essentially only detect electron antineutrinos, so the mu and tau neutrinos
can have plenty of mass. And Lerner's math is wrong (again): A neutrino with
an interesting mass of 5 eV and an energy of 10 MeV travels at a speed that
is

    v = (1 - 0.5*(m/E)2+...)*c = 0.999999999999875*c

and after traveling for 160,000 years lags by less than 1 second. The
observed burst was 6-10 seconds long, so even the electron neutrino could
have enough mass to be the hot component in a mixed dark matter model.
<================================================

Since Lerner did not identify what value he used for 'interesting mass,' the
claim that his math was wrong is spurious.  This appears to be a
disagreement about what constitutes 'interesting' mass.

Lerner's statement on this issue is on page 160:
"Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because particle theorists had
provided an entire zoo of particles to make up the missing mass.  First came
heavy neutrinos. Neutrinos are real particles, observed in laboratory
experimentss, but they are quite hard to detect because they interact so
little iwth matter.  They appear to travel at the speed of light, so must
have no mass.  However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do have
mass, and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos could be
the missing mass."

"A supernova blew away this idea.  Supernovas produce large quantities of
neutrinos when they explode.  In 1987, when a supernova occurred in the
Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our own Milky Way, scientists
were able to detect the neutrinos released, using the same arrays that had
been patiently waiting for a decaying proton.  The neutrinos all arrived in
a single bunch, showing that they all travel at the speed of light and have
either no mass or so little that they couldn't fill up the universe."

The Kamiokande detector has a threshold of about 9 MeV, (p385, Neutrino
Astrophysics, Bahcall) and the expected initial energy of neutrinos is about
10 MeV (ibid, p.439).  Hence, the detector cannot detect neutrinos
significantly below the initial energy.

That Ned Wright disagrees with Lerner about what constitutes 'interesting
mass' is not an "error" on the part of Lerner.  However, Lerner's passage,
above, is unsatisfyingly vague.   Then again, so is Ned's bald assertion
that 5 eV neutrinos are 'cosmologically interesting'.

What Lerner is discussing is the progression of the focus of the Big Bang
theorists.  And while his description matches my recollection of the ferment
of the time, I would have preferred to see some references here.  Ned, for
his part, does not dispute the history being described.  He simply disagrees
with the general consensus (and Lerner) that 'heavy' neutrinos are not good
candidates for the missing mass.

However, this disagreement is not in any way an 'error' on Lerner's part.

================================================>
2) Lerner shows *cross-sections* of plasma simulations that look like a
spiral galaxy (Figure 1.13 and Figure 6.7). But these are sections of
twisting columns as shown in Figure 6.8f, and look nothing like a spiral
galaxy in 3 dimensions.
<================================================

Ned is simply incorrect here.  Figure 1.13 and Figure 6.7 are cross-sections
of THREE-dimensional simulations.  They are not just twisting columns.
Peratt "started with the simplest case of two filaments side-by-side, each
with an electrical current and magnetic fields running up it's axis."
(TBBNH, p. 231).  However, Peratt did not stop with that first simple
case -- as Ned claimed.

The 'twisting columns' in Figure 6.8f *do* describe the *initial*
simulations quite well.  However, Figures 6.9a through c (on the very next
page) demonstrate the results of the later simulations -- done from
"galactic sized plasma clouds of the simulation" used in the Figures 1.13
and 6.7. Also in figures 6.9, 6.10 and -- most importantly -- Figure 6.11.
Which duplicates the spiral disk gas rotation curves observed in the real
world, that result from the interaction of the initially spherical
plasmoids.


================================================>
3) The Sun is very massive, and we know the acceleration of the Sun as it
goes around the Milky Way. Therefore we can compute the force needed to keep
it in orbit and compare this to the electromagnetic forces. Thus it was easy
for Ted Bunn to show that electromagnetic forces are 100 million billion
times too small to effect the orbit of the Sun in the Milky Way.
<================================================

Ned either misrepresents or misunderstands Lerner's models.  Apparently, he
used a newsgroup post by Emory F. (Ted) Bunn as a source, instead of TBBNH.
Ted Bunn's post begins as follows:

"(Lerner's) book advocates 'plasma cosmology' as an alternative to the big
bang.  This cosmological model is enormously inconsistent with vast heaps of
observational data, a fact which its proponents conveniently ignore. The
central tenet of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces, rather
than gravity, are responsible for holding together large objects like
galaxies."

The above quote is a textbook example of not comprehending the material one
has read (presuming it's not outright misrepresentation).  Lerner NEVER
claimed that the Solar system was held in galactic orbit by electromagnetic
forces! (Nor does any other proponent of 'plasma cosmology.')  There is no
part of 'plasma cosmology' that says that EM forces are responsible for
holding stars in galaxies!

'Ted' missed or avoided the fact that the motions of GAS in a galaxy may be
determined more by EM forces than by gravity.  Planetary and stellar objects
are not.  This is apparently a difficult concept for standard cosmologists,
but a trivial one for plasma cosmology.  Astronomers almost always measure
the motions of GAS in galactic rotation observations -- NOT stars.  And when
standard cosmologists model the rotation of GAS -- using gravity only --
they get results that do not match observation.  Hence they propose 'dark
matter' in arbitrary distributions to match theory to observation.

Physicists who ignore the possibilities of the effect of magnetic fields on
GAS *assume* that gas and stars move in lockstep.  This is a very bad
assumption, and contradicted by several different published studies.
(i.e. Bottema, R.; van der Kruit, P. C.; Valentijn, E. A.; 'The stellar
velocity dispersion of the edge-on spiral galaxy NGC 891')


'Ted' goes on to state:
"Here's a little calculation I did a while ago showing why that's definitely
wrong.  If any plasma-cosmology advocates can tell me why my argument is
incorrect, I'm all ears.  Let's assess the possibility that our Galaxy is
held together electromagnetically.  In particular, let's see whether it's
possible that the Sun is held in its orbit by electromagnetic forces, rather
than gravity.  {snip the details of the EM calculation} In short, the idea
that electromagnetic forces are responsible for the dynamics of stars in
galaxies is not just a little bit implausible; it's ruled out by many, many
orders of magnitude."

Of course it is.  That's why no one has ever proposed it (at least among
'plasma cosmologists'). 'Ted's' error came before he ever started.  NO ONE
proposes EM forces force the Sun to orbit the galaxy!  Ned Wright apparently
relied upon hearsay (Ted Bunn) instead of reading TBBNH to come to his
conclusion.


================================================>
4a) Lerner says about Peebles' calculation of the helium abundance that "as
the number of photons per nucleus increases, so does the production of
helium."  This is just backwards.
<================================================

The words inside the Ned Wright's quotation marks above ARE backwards.  But
what Lerner actually wrote on page 151 of TBBNH is the following: "... as
the number of photons per PROTON DECREASES, the production of helium
increases." (emphasis added)

In short, Ned simply blew the quote, didn't check it, and blamed Lerner for
Ned's misquote.


================================================>
4b) And the difference between the 30 K predicted by Peebles and the 2.73 K
observed now is primarily due to the assumption that the Universe had the
critical density in ordinary matter. So this discrepancy is not a failure of
the Big Bang, but rather more evidence for non-baryonic dark matter.
<================================================

While there is now a new model for the calculation of the CMBR from the big
bang, Peebles' 'prediction' was still a year late and a factor of 10,000 in
energy (T^4) off.

This is in no way an 'error' on the part of Lerner.  However, it would be
appropriate here for Ned Wright to provide a reference or some backup to his
claim that dark matter (and specifically, what amount) was 'primarily due'
to the difference between ordinary and dark matter.


================================================>
4c) And of course Peebles did not build the radiometer: Roll and Wilkinson
did that.
<================================================

I was not able to find any statement in TBBNH that implied that Peebles had
invented the radiometer.  Per the index in TBBNH, Peebles is mentioned on
pages 16-17 (supercomputer plot of 'cosmic tapestry'), 33 (calculation of
primordial fluctuations), 53 (Peebles calling Alfven 'Just silly'), 151-152
(calculation of CMBR), and 247 (Peebles' 'cosmic tapestry' poster).  There
is a reference to Peebles building a radio TELESCOPE on p151, but not a
radiometer.  This claim by Ned appears to be the result of another misquote
on his part.


A courtesy copy of this post is provided to Ned Wright.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas