1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \usepackage{rotating}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{$\Lambda$CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence,
5: and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?}
6:
7: \author{Richard Lieu$\,^{1}$}
8:
9: \affil{\(^{\scriptstyle 1} \){Department of Physics, University of Alabama,
10: Huntsville, AL 35899.}\\}
11:
12: \begin{abstract}
13: Astronomy can never be a hard core
14: physics discipline, because the Universe offers no
15: control experiment, i.e. with no
16: independent checks it is
17: bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g.
18: while superluminal
19: motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former
20: can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why
21: traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and
22: proud of) their ability
23: to use
24: known physical laws and
25: processes established in the laboratory to explain
26: celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all
27: the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable)
28: in the laboratory, and
29: researchers are quite comfortable with
30: inventing unknowns
31: to explain the unknown.
32: How then
33: could, after
34: fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the
35: fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such
36: lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches
37: of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based
38: upon truth, at least just as much of $\Lambda$CDM
39: cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of
40: propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models.
41: The recent WMAP3 paper of Spergel et al (2007) will be used as case in
42: point on selective citation.
43: I also show that when all evidence are taken into account,
44: two of the competing models that abolish dark energy and/or
45: dark matter do not trail behind $\Lambda$CDM by much.
46: Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer
47: heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think
48: their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping
49: in the dark.
50:
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \noindent
54: {\bf 1. Introduction: on the shoulder of giants}
55:
56:
57: The history of science is full of examples of
58: major breakthroughs being made by radical thinkers, those
59: who tend to ask silly questions and `chain their
60: coffee mugs to radiator pipes'. No doubt, the rise
61: and fall of great scientific hypotheses are always brought about by the
62: availability of crucial new data, and if credit is truly given to
63: every source where credit is due, then the engineer who serviced one's
64: departmental Xerox machine should also be included as part of the
65: `team' which made a miracle possible. But what provides
66: the shoulder upon which a theoretical giant stands, is usually
67: the ideas behind the
68: design of an
69: important experiment, or new and revealing
70: ways of approaching an old dataset.
71: These invariably come from a small number of highly creative minds.
72: I therefore begin this essay by voicing my unreserved support to
73: the courageous gesture of Simon White in his recent article
74: `On why dark energy is bad for astronomy'
75: (White 2007), and by expressing open disagreement with the comments
76: of my great and long time Imperial College friend
77: Matt Mountain, who said (Nature 2007, 447, 122) that cosmology in the
78: present era may no longer be driven by the chosen few. Matt's
79: implication here, it would seem, is that this field
80: is now so special and priviledged
81: that whatever we learned from the history of {\it any}
82: branch of science has no bearing on it, and can be disrespected.
83:
84:
85:
86: \noindent
87: {\bf 2. Contemporary cosmology: rising above the shoulder of giants}
88:
89: \noindent
90: It is not my intention to go through the past reminiscences of
91: $\Lambda$CDM - not even the near-term past. I
92: wish to make just one point, viz. that the version of the model
93: as we often hear about it today has not been around for much longer
94: than a decade. It was only in the early 90's, when I invited
95: the late Prof. David Schramm (Chicago) to deliver a lecture at
96: UC Berkeley on the age of the Universe, that he showed
97: a plot of the
98: time evolution of the `most
99: favored' value of the cosmological
100: constant. His graph looked like a sine curve with an average of zero.
101: Thus there is not so much scope for arguing that cosmologists
102: expected $\Lambda$CDM, less so predicting it.
103: %comparison with the amount of effort to justify the model as
104: %{\it a posteriori} self-evident - I shall return to this point.
105:
106:
107: Has $\Lambda$CDM cosmology `transcended' the scientific method?
108: Before we seek to answer the
109: question, I first wish to emphasize that
110: I believe in astronomy we should be
111: particularly proud of our own tradition, and should from time
112: to time ask this same question without feeling
113: insulted and irrespective of our own sub-field
114: of interest, {\it because} it was the astronomers who brought
115: the world into the era of `modern' or `enlightenment' science, i.e.
116: we should set a {\it stricter} standard for ourselves.
117: It all began with what happens
118: up there - the heavenly motion - which could suddenly be
119: explained in terms of what
120: happens down here - what keeps our feet on the ground.
121: Newton acquired the
122: status of the `Father of modern science'
123: by his ability to use the `known' to demystify the
124: `unknown' (hence to dispel the `fear of the unknown' that
125: haunted the dark ages with myths and superstition).
126: The history of astronomy since Newton is filled with glorious
127: stories of how the unfamimliar phenomena found in `remote' corners
128: of the Universe could be reduced to something directly
129: or closely related to experiences in
130: our daily environment.
131: In Table 1 I provided a few recent examples of such
132: revelations which most of us feel
133: at home with. These are to be contrasted with recent developments
134: in cosmology, in which {\it every} key observational result was
135: `explained' (and rewarded with some of the most prestigious
136: prizes of our times)
137: by postulating completely new physics which
138: received no laboratory verification. Are we effectively endorsing
139: the critics of astronomy funding (our {\it real}
140: enemies), who advocate that we can
141: afford to play such games because `so little is at stake' in
142: cosmology?
143:
144: Perhaps one should nevertheless pause and ponder. Charging
145: under the banner of Einstein's extreme eminence and his
146: forbidding theory of General Relativity,
147: have cosmologists been
148: over-exercising our priviledges? Should all of us
149: succumb to Matt Mountain's Nature testimony
150: that `times are changing, abandon traditions and get used to
151: it'? Indeed, even among the examples of Table 1 there are cases
152: in which astronomers helped to bolster (strengthen) the claims
153: and assumptions of physicists, i.e. they serve more than the purpose
154: of merely dispelling ignorant
155: superstitions about unsual celestial manifestations.
156: Thus e.g. a white dwarf star
157: provided the unique battleground, unachievable in the laboratory,
158: in which
159: two separately well tested laboratory phenomena of electron
160: quantum degeneracy and proton classical gravity compete with
161: each other. Given that none of the other elementary particle
162: interactions have been unified with gravity, it is very important
163: and re-assuring to know from this piece of astrophysics that at
164: the average inter-particle distance of white dwarf matter quantum
165: and classical effects live their own existences and can even
166: play tug-of-war. Another example (not in Table 1) which pushes
167: the argument even further
168: concerns solar neutrinos. Here, the discrepancy in numbers between
169: Bahcall's prediction and observations was at least in part responsible
170: for the eventual discovery of neutrino oscillations in the physics
171: community.
172:
173: Yet the above interesting cases of `feedback'
174: from astronomy to physics means the only good news for astronomers (including
175: cosmologists) is that we could occasionally be employable to help do some
176: real
177: physics. There is no further room for loftiness:
178: we have {\it not} seen
179: or heard a single story in which a drastic shift in our understanding
180: of the physical world was initiated and confirmed using
181: astronomical data {\it alone}, and the reason (which has nothing to do
182: with tradition) is as follows.
183: Whether the subject matter is as fundamental
184: as time and space, or something more mundane, astronomical observations
185: can never by themselves be used prove `beyond
186: reasonable doubt' a physical theory. This
187: is because we live in only one Universe - the indispensable `control
188: experiment' is not available. There is no possibility of `flipping this
189: switch' or `turning that knob'. Using SN1a data alone, one
190: will never clinch $\Lambda$CDM to the level of rigor of Maxwell's
191: equations, because there will always be the niggling doubt, however
192: little, of whether SN1a are standard candles. Large samples of data
193: always help, e.g. to probe foreground matter using weak lensing shear
194: distortions, one needs to observe no more than a few background
195: quasars if the intrinsic shape of each is known; but without this
196: `control' we can only rely on the statistical behavior of many quasars.
197: Alternatively, `cross checks' by merging together many diverse and
198: independently acquired datasets, a favorite approach of P.J.E, Peebles,
199: will also serve the purpose. Yet in cosmology both such efforts
200: inevitably lead to a exponential proliferation of costs, and in the end
201: neither will ever replace the simple action of `flipping the switch'.
202: Hence the promise of using the Universe as a physics laboratory from
203: which new incorruptible physical laws may be
204: established without the support of
205: laboratory experiments is preposterous (Matt, perhaps
206: you should get used
207: to {\it this}?).
208: \begin{table}
209: \begin{center}
210: \small
211: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
212: \hline
213: \textbf{Phenomenon} & \textbf{Explanation} & \textbf{Seminal Paper} & \textbf{Based on Laboratory} \\
214: & & & \textbf{Established Physics?} \\
215: \hline
216: \hline
217: Planetary orbits & Universal gravitation & Newton & Yes\\
218: \hline
219: Tides & Universal gravitation & Newton & Yes\\
220: \hline
221: X-ray Bursts & Thermonuclear Flashes & Woosley, Taam & Yes\\
222: \hline
223: Her X-1 & Accretion & Hayakawa, Matsuoka, & Yes/Maybe\\
224: & & Prendergast, Burbidge & \\
225: \hline
226: Superluminal Motion & Special Relativity & Martin, Rees, & Yes\\
227: & & Albert Einstein & \\
228: \hline
229: White Dwarf Star & Quantum Physics meets & Chandrasekhar & Known physics\\
230: & Gravity & & individually verified\\
231: \hline
232: \end{tabular}
233: \caption{Examples of recent achievements of astrophysicists in re-assuring
234: mankind that unusual phenomena in the sky do not have to mean bad omen:
235: they can be explained in terms of the physical laws here on earth that
236: we are familiar with.}
237: \end{center}
238: \end{table}
239:
240: \vspace{1cm}
241:
242: \begin{table}
243: \begin{center}
244: \small
245: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
246: \hline
247: \textbf{Phenomenon} & \textbf{Explanation} & \textbf{Based on laboratory} & \textbf{Verifiable in}\\
248: & & \textbf{establised physics?} & \textbf{future experiments?}\\
249: \hline
250: \hline
251: Redhsift & Expansion of Space & No & Unverifiable \\
252: & & & $\big($ Chodorowski 2007 $\big)$ \\
253: \hline
254: CMB & Big Bang & No & Far Future \\
255: \hline
256: Rotation Curves & Dark Matter & No & Near Future \\
257: & & & $\big($ As always $\big)$ \\
258: \hline
259: Distant Supernovae & Dark Energy & No & Far Future \\
260: \hline
261: Flatness and Isotropy & Inflation & No & Remote Future\\
262: \hline
263: \end{tabular}
264: \caption{Cosmologists {\it only know how to use}
265: `unknowns' to explain `unknowns' (and
266: hence are not really astrophysicists). In mainstream physics
267: new postulates are sometimes made to help account for unexpected
268: phenomena found in the laboratory, but the Universe is not
269: a laboratory because one crucial fundamental criterion:
270: the need for control experiments, cannot be met.}
271: \end{center}
272: \end{table}
273: %\vspace{3mm}
274:
275: \noindent
276: {\bf 3. Cosmic microwave background (CMB):
277: a clean and direct test of its origin?}
278:
279: I now venture the `how dare you' question, on the origin of the CMB
280: (and always bearing in mind that Feynman must find his own way of
281: convincing himself). How do we know that it is the afterglow of the
282: Big Bang? Here are some of the ususal responses I heard of, since
283: I was a school boy some 30 years ago.
284:
285: \noindent
286: $\bullet$ {\it It comes from a redshift of} 1,000. How do you know
287: the redshift of the CMB? We do not have any characteristic emission
288: or absorption line - there is not even a straw to clutch.
289:
290: \noindent
291: $\bullet$ {\it It comes from every direction in the sky, and is extremely
292: uniform}. Well? I recall the days when BATSE aboard CGRO discovered
293: that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are isotropically distributed. Yet, unlike
294: the cosmologists, the GRB community seems to be more careful in going
295: about the conjecture. There was a Great Debate at the Shapley-Curtis
296: level, between Paczynski and Lamb, on how much can one make of the
297: distance scale of GRBs from the isotropy of the source distribution.
298: Cosmologists took a shortcut - the conclusion was drawn without a
299: Great Debate. Since the CMB is more fundamental than GRBs,
300: as I expect my colleagues in the GRB community would probably agree,
301: why a Great Debate never took place on this subject?
302:
303: \noindent
304: $\bullet$ {\it The CMB spectrum is a perfect black body, pointing clearly
305: and unequivocally back to the era of strong coupling between matter
306: and radiation}. Yet how much does this constitute a {\it proof}, as opposed
307: to mother nature laughing at us having completely
308: missed some physical process that takes place in e.g. empty space?
309:
310: \noindent
311: $\bullet$ {\it The CMB temperature was predicted by Big Bang theoreticians.}
312: Well, the prediction by Gamov was off by an order of magnitude.
313: Where do you draw the line? How would you like the temperature of
314: your room be increased ten-fold?
315:
316: \noindent
317: $\bullet$ {\it There are tiny temperature anisotropies in the CMB that can
318: beautifully be explained in terms of Big Bang cosmology}. This is
319: provided one assumes the anisotropies are also cosmological in origin,
320: and that the early Universe comprised dark matter, dark energy, and
321: underwent a mysterious epoch of `inflation' to secure a delicate
322: balance of proportions between the two `dark' components. Can
323: we frankly say that this is a {\it clean and straightforward} proof,
324: when so many other strings and loose ends are attached?
325:
326: \noindent
327: $\bullet$ {\it How about all of the above? Do you have a better
328: interpretation of the CMB?} In no reasonable court of law will a
329: suspect be convicted of murder simply because there have been no other
330: arrests or suspects.
331:
332: It is clear that all of the aforementioned arguments, even taken
333: together, only constistute an incoherent collection of circumstantial
334: evidence. To make cosmologists worthy of the billions of governmental
335: support, we actually need to do {\it much} better than convicting
336: a suspect of murder. At best it would seem that we achieved what a
337: Scottish jury would return as verdict: not proven.
338:
339: I must then turn to a different question. Is there any direct way
340: of clinching the origin of the CMB at all that we can
341: pursue? Well, it turns out there {\it is} one good starting
342: point. Traditionally, just about the only clean and
343: indisputable way of charting the
344: scale height of any diffuse radiation in the absence of
345: redshift information is to look for `shadow' effects on the radiation
346: cast by gas clouds at known distances away from us: if
347: a shadow is found, the radiation must have come from {\it behind} the
348: cloud. Can I provide n example to dramatize this point? The
349: answer is also yes, except the outcome did present a major surprise to the
350: researchers in the field of concern. It has for
351: a long time been generally accepted that the soft X-ray sky background (SXRB)
352: is principally Galactic in origin; moreover it is emitted by a thin hot
353: plasma that fills a void of $\sim$ 100 pc radius centered at the sun - the
354: so-called `local bubble' model. Thus, when the first shadow of the
355: SXRB was discovered by
356: Burrows \& Mendenhall 1991, who reported
357: that 60 \% of the SXRB was silhouetted by a dense cloud - the Draco Nebula
358: located some 600 pc away in a direction of high Galactic latitude - the
359: `local bubble' model was under serious threat. Today, this great discovery
360: still stands, and completely destroyed any simple way of understanding
361: the SXRB origin. Could there be a lesson here for the unerring community
362: of $\Lambda$ CDMcosmologists?
363:
364: For the CMB an equivalent `silhouette' cloud would be a cluster of galaxies,
365: which Thomson scatters CMB photons on the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the
366: CMB spectrum - the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE).
367: A recent study of $\sim$ 100 rich clusters, using WMAP
368: W band data (Bielby \& Shanks 2007) confirmed our earlier findings from
369: a smaller sample of 31 rich clusters (Lieu et al
370: 2007) that WMAP detected almost no SZE
371: at all from these clusters, i.e. the CMB appears to have failed the
372: `shadow test'. In particular the analysis by Bielby \& Shanks of 38
373: clusters at a mean redshift of $z \approx$ 0,3 revealed a level of SZE
374: statistically consistent with a null effect and completely inconsistent
375: with the expectation (they also truncated the predicted SZE profile at
376: a ridiculously small cluster radius, yet the inconsistency remains, so that
377: its origin {\it cannot} be WMAP's spatial resolution).
378: When the same sample of 38 clusters was observed
379: by radio interferometric techniques rather than WMAP, a different verdict
380: was delivered. This method did lead to the discovery of SZE at the
381: expected level (Bonamente et al 2006).
382:
383: Who is right? It is usual to
384: settle such discrepancies by appealing to the community at large for
385: independent analysis of the same datasets. For WMAP this is possible,
386: because the data are all in the public domain, which is how Bielby \& Shanks
387: were able to cross-check Lieu et al (2006). The observations of
388: Bonamente et al (2006) are however not public: it is apparently
389: quite normal for SZE data taken by ground-based telescopes
390: to remain inaccessible by the rest of us for a long time. It is fair
391: to say that the release of data (in as primitive (or unprocessed) a form
392: as possible) of
393: important experiments for
394: everyone to check helps bolster the claims of the original researchers
395: who `creamed the crop', especially if others who did the necessary tests
396: are able to corroborate these claims.
397:
398: Let us give $\Lambda$CDM proponents the full benefit of the doubt.
399: by assuming that the interferometers got it right, viz. the SZE
400: at the fully expected level as reported by Bonamente et al (2006)
401: is correct. This then would mean, unless both Bielby \& Shanks
402: and Lieu et al erred, that WMAP got it wrong. For the
403: clusters analyzed by Bielby \& Shanks (2006) and Lieu et al (2007),
404: their SZE profiles
405: have typical angular sizes between those of the first and second
406: acoustic peaks, except of course the amplitude of the SZE is deeper
407: than that of the acoustic oscillations. If WMAP could not properly
408: fathom those deeper modulations in the CMB temperature that occur
409: at $\sim$ 0.5 degree angular scales, how shall we satisfy ourselves
410: that it has correctly measured the acoustic peaks?
411:
412:
413: \vspace{3mm}
414:
415: \noindent
416: {\bf 4. $\Lambda$CDM cosmology: some of
417: the long list of counter evidence and how they have been treated}
418:
419: In Table 3 I listed some of the counter evidence of
420: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, all of which
421: were published (or about to be published) in the topmost
422: astronomy journals. The table entries are referred to as `neglected
423: evidence' because I used the latest WMAP3 cosmology paper of
424: Spergel et al (2007) as benchmark concerning the citations of relevant
425: previous work. Not only is this the most important cosmology paper in the
426: contemporary literature (it already received more than 1,300 ADS citations
427: even though it is not yet published), but also it included many sections
428: on CMB external correlations, viz. how the standard $\Lambda$CDM model
429: fares against other non-CMB observations, and whether these can help
430: to further constrain the model parameters. Thus the paper {\it is} meant
431: to cross-compare all the vital evidence, yet with the exception of
432: the `Axis of evil', none of those listed in Table 3 were mentioned.
433: In the last section Spergel et al concluded `the standard
434: model of cosmology has survived another rigorous set of tests'.
435: Here I elaborate upon most of items of Table 3 (though not necessarily in
436: the right order) so that each reader
437: can judge if Spergel's
438: claim is tenable.
439:
440: \clearpage
441:
442: \begin{sidewaystable}
443: \scriptsize
444: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
445: \hline
446: & &\\
447: \textbf{$\Lambda$CDM : the neglected evidence} & \textbf{Why it is important} & \textbf{`Reason' for neglect}\\
448: & &\\
449: \hline
450: \hline
451: Evolution of cluster counts & Curve matches Einstein de Sitter Universe & Cluster `detailed physics' not \\
452: $\big($Vauclair et al.$\big)$ &
453: and excludes $\Lambda$CDM at 7 $\sigma$ & known $\big($but we understand the \\
454: & & Universe$\big)$\\
455: \hline
456: Missing baryons at low redshift & Still not found today as & Who cares about a few percent of the \\
457: $\big($Cen and Ostriker$\big)$ & cluster OVII lines remain undetected & Universe $\big($except this is the only bit \\
458: & & we directly measure, and we are \\
459: & & made of it$\big)$\\
460: \hline
461: Too little Sunyaev - Zel$'$dovich effect & `Shadowing' techniques
462: still the only direct & Cluster physics `details'. WMAP \\
463: in WMAP $\big($Bielby and Shanks, Lieu et al.$\big)$ & way of
464: charting the CMB scale height & cannot measure SZE anyway\\
465: & & $\big($but can probe the shallower acoustic \\
466: & & peaks at similar angular scales$\big)$\\
467: \hline
468: Matter Budget of galaxy groups & Many groups $\big($like our own Local Group$\big)$ & Groups of galaxies are not properly \\
469: $\big($Ramella et al.$\big)$ & could easily hold altogether $\Omega$
470: $\sim$ 1 & weighed and counted\\
471: & worth of matter &\\
472: \hline
473: Axis of evil, correlation with HI clouds & Significant foreground issues remain & Statistics unclear $\big($and the same \\
474: $\big($Land, Verschuur$\big)$ & down to acoustic peak scales & `Bayesian prior' that \\
475: & &established $\Lambda$CDM can be used \\
476: & & to marginalize these$\big)$ \\
477: \hline
478: Hubble constant of Sandage et al & Significantly different from Freedman's &
479: Systematic problems\\
480: & value even though both used HST data &\\
481: \hline
482: Soft X-ray excess in clusters (Bonamente, & See Fig. 1 $\big($can $\Lambda$CDM explain this ?$\big)$ & Minor obscenity. Phenomenon doesn't \\
483: Nevalainen, Kaastra, Fabian, Lieu) & & really exist\\
484: \hline
485: Dwarf elliptical rotation curves & Data give constant density cores whereas &
486: Poor spatial resolution of data, and no \\
487: & $\Lambda$CDM halo profiles have central cusps & independent M/L ratio
488: for disc \\
489: \hline
490: \end{tabular}
491: \begin{center}
492: \caption{A list of key, independent and respectable evidence not cited in the
493: WMAP3 paper of
494: Spergel et al (2007), where the authors included an extensive
495: section on CMB external correlations
496: to bolster their claim of the standard
497: $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model. Their
498: ability to `bolster' is because the
499: external evidence employed were carefully pre-selected.}
500: \end{center}
501: \end{sidewaystable}
502:
503: \noindent
504: $\bullet$ Spergel et al cited the gas fraction analysis by Steve Allen of
505: X-ray (Chandra) observations of rich clusters, which led Allen to
506: conclude upon the correctness of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. Yet it is
507: well known at least within the clusters community that the number
508: density evolution curve of clusters as derived by the XMM
509: Newton Key Project (Vauclair et al 2003)
510: rejected the $\Lambda$CDM prediction with
511: 7 $\sigma$ statistical significance, but is consistent with an
512: Einstein de Sitter Universe. This result was not cited by
513: Spergel et al (2007). I understand that there has been a lot of
514: questions about the validity of the conclusion of Vauclair et al (2003),
515: but just as many similar questions have also been directed at the
516: work of Allen. It is for the moment not for any individual to pass
517: ultimate judgements. Even if the WMAP team has their own noble
518: rationale to favor Allen's work, they should still have cited Vauclair
519: because the claim is so drastic. Quoting the paper in negative light
520: might still be acceptable if at least some reasons are given. Ignoring
521: the paper altogether is unacceptable and unscientific.
522:
523: \noindent
524: $\bullet$ The fact that only $\approx$ 50 \% of the baryons predicted
525: by the $\Lambda$CDM model to exist at low
526: redshifts has been observed was first noted by Cen \& Ostriker (1999).
527: To date this same problem persisted, with the latest paper on the
528: subject being Takei et al (2007). In Figure 2 we show the upper
529: limits to-date on
530: the detection of these missing baryons (graph is courtesy Yoh Takei),
531: resulting partly from the non-detection of the O VII line in clusters
532: with soft X-ray excess, i.e. this excess cannot then be attributed to
533: a massive component of warm baryons at the outskirts of clusters.
534: This to me is a very serious discrepancy, much more so than the
535: debate on dark matter and dark energy, because {\it baryons are real}
536: and they are still (however one may get fancy) the only thing we
537: can directly measure.
538:
539: \noindent
540: $\bullet$ The soft X-ray excess of clusters has over the past twelve
541: years since its discovery been detected by EUVE, ROSAT, BeppoSAX, XMM,
542: and Suzaku, with the latest paper (on Suzaku's signal) being Werner
543: et al (2007). There is still no explanation of this excess, which is
544: seen in both the core and outskirts of clusters, in the context of
545: $\Lambda$CDM or for that matter any other cosmologies. For those
546: who prefer to sideline this as yet another minor detail, I invite them
547: to take a look at the strength of the soft X-ray signal in the
548: central (but avoiding the complicated innermost) region of Abell 3112,
549: Figure 2.
550:
551: \begin{figure}[!h]
552: \begin{center}
553: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=4in]{takei_summary.pdf}
554: %\vspace{-4mm}
555: \end{center}
556: \caption{Mass fraction of baryons (to total matter) as a function
557: of clump overdensity, with various upper limits and one
558: 3 $\sigma$ detection from Coma cluster. Courtesy of Yoh Takei.}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561:
562:
563:
564:
565: \noindent
566: $\bullet$ On the Hubble constant, Spergel et al (2007) cited the Hubble
567: Key Project paper of Freedman et al (2001) and the X-ray/SZE result
568: of Bonamente et al (2006), but the equally comprehensive treatise of
569: Sandage et al (2006) was ignored. This could simply be due to the
570: very recent appearance of the Sandage, but since
571: in principle there is definitely enough time for
572: Spergel et al to cite Sandage there may be other reasons.
573: While Freedman and Bonamente reported a Hubble constant of $h \approx$ 0.7,
574: very close to the value advocated by the WMAP team, Sandage found
575: $h \approx$ 0.62, considerably lower perhaps than any team member's
576: liking. Besides, how could two independent analyses of the
577: HST data (Freedman versus Sandage) could lead to such a difference
578: in the final answer, especially since I have been hearing so
579: much talk about `$H_0$ in the era of precision cosmology is
580: nailed to 5 \% accuracy' ?
581:
582: \noindent
583: $\bullet$ A not-too-often mentioned
584: but no less important problem for $\Lambda$CDM
585: is the potential for groups of galaxies like our own Local Group to
586: be harbors of much more matter than expected. Thus e.g. from the ESO survey
587: of 1,168 nearby groups (Ramella et al 2002) the mean virial mass per
588: group is $M \approx$ 1.15 $\times$ 10$^{14}$ M$_\odot$ and the number
589: density of groups is $n \approx$ 1.56 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$ Mpc$^{-3}$.
590: This already yields a mean mass density $nM$ equivalent to
591: $\Omega_{{\rm groups}} \approx \Omega_m/2$, assuming the
592: $\Lambda$CDM value of $\Omega_m =$ 0.3. However, there is a selection
593: bias, due to many groups having evaded detection. After correcting
594: for this bias in the best possible way, Ramella et al (2002) estimated
595: a number density of $n \approx$ 4 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-3}$ for
596: groups. The product $nM$ now corresponds to
597: $\Omega_{{\rm groups}} \approx$ 3.4, which far exceeds the total
598: mass density of matter in the $\Lambda$CDM model.
599: The same pointers to groups of galaxies weighing much more
600: massively than `expectation' (i.e. $\Omega_m \approx$ 1) was also
601: found by Myers et al (2003, 2005).
602:
603: \begin{figure}[!h]
604: \begin{center}
605: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=4in]{fig1.pdf}
606: %\vspace{-4mm}
607: \end{center}
608: \caption{Isothermal free-free emission model for the hot virialized
609: plasma in the rich cluster Abell 3112 as fitted to the X-ray
610: spectra of the central
611: 0.5 -1.5 arcmin region of the cluster (the innermost 0.5 arcmin
612: was avoided due to possible complication from a `cooling core' and
613: point source contamination). The graph shown plots the ratio between
614: observed data and the best-fit model, where the different colors
615: correspond to observations by the various X-ray missions: Chandra
616: in black and red, XMM in green and blue, and ROSAT PSPC in Cyan.
617: Note the strong soft X-ray excess at low energies, indicative of
618: a completely new emission component in clusters of galaxies.
619: This `cluster soft excess' phenomenon has been known and ridiculed
620: for twelve years, i.e. it lived a time span as long as $\Lambda$CDM.}
621: \end{figure}
622:
623: \begin{figure}[!h]
624: \begin{center}
625: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=4in]{competitionbetweenmodels.pdf}
626: %\vspace{-4mm}
627: \end{center}
628: \caption{How the standard $\Lambda$CDM model fares against two
629: competing models, those of Shanks (2007) and Blanchard-Sarkar et al
630: (2003), when all the evidence known to the author are taken into account.
631: Note the slight vertical misalignment of the crosses should be ignored -
632: the verdict from each bullet of evidence is for simplicity
633: only expressed as a binary yes or no.}
634: \end{figure}
635:
636:
637: \noindent
638: $\bullet$ The very feeble SZE detected by WMAP was already discussed
639: in the previous section, and here I simply mention that David Spergel is
640: fully aware of at least Lieu et al (2007). It was not cited in
641: Spergel et al (2007).
642:
643:
644: \noindent
645: $\bullet$ There has recently been the claim by Verschuur et al (2007)
646: that a significant fraction of the degree-scale acoustic peak hot
647: spots in the ILC map of WMAP1 spatially correlates with anomalous
648: velocity HI clouds in the Milky Way - a finding which prompted this
649: author to conclude that a significant fraction of the WMAP
650: anisotropy at the primary acoustic peak is not cosmological.
651: This paper was submitted to ApJ, and I was told that two reasonably
652: disposed
653: referee reports were received. Readers should therefore keep an eye on
654: the development of this front. No complaint is made in the present
655: article of Spergel's failure to cite Verschuur, as the latter is
656: a very new result.
657:
658: \vspace{3mm}
659:
660: \noindent
661: {\bf 5. Alternative models: are they really so inferior to
662: $\Lambda$CDM?}
663:
664: Given that there are so many bullets of evidence (with varying
665: weights) against $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, the question is naturally
666: raised as to how competing models may fare, when the whole body of
667: evidence is taken into account. I show in Figure 3 just such a metric.
668: The two alternative models I chose are Shanks (2007) and Blanchard et al
669: (2003). Both involve the Einstein de Sitter Universe, with
670: $\Omega_m =$ 1. The latter does away with dark energy altogether,
671: and relies on a primordial matter spectrum that is not purely power-law
672: (the level of extra contrivance here is not as severe as postulating
673: dark energy when dark matter has still not be found). The former does
674: away with dark matter as well as dark energy, and uses the gravitational
675: lensing by foreground galaxy groups (see above) to secure agreement
676: between model prediction of the first acoustic peak and WMAP data.
677: Although the 2nd peak is not yet accounted for, the remarkable
678: feature of this Shanks model lies obviously with its economy in extra
679: new postulates, by getting rid of all darknesses.
680:
681: It can be seen that when all the evidence are placed on the
682: `scale pan' no model is really classifiable as a `winner' or
683: `loser'. Perhaps all models are equally poor:
684: the two competitors certainly do not come across as much
685: more inferior than the standard model. What cannot be quantified
686: in terms of figure-of-merit, however, is how much more credibility
687: should one assign to a model that relies on less bizarre postulates.
688:
689: %\vspace{3mm}
690: \newpage
691:
692: \noindent
693: {\bf 6. Conclusion}
694:
695: Cosmologists should not pretend to be mainstream physicists,
696: because there is only one irreproducible Universe and control
697: experiments are impossible. The claim to overwhelming evidence
698: in support of dark energy and dark matter is an act of exaggeration
699: which involves heavy selection of evidence and an inconsiderate attitude
700: towards alternative models with fewer (or no) dark components.
701: When all evidence are taken into account, it is by no means clear
702: that $\Lambda$CDM wins by such leaps and bounds.
703:
704: Thus I do not see the wisdom of funding agencies in planning
705: such ambitious and expensive programs to perform dark energy research,
706: to the detriment of other fields of astronomy, as though cosmology
707: has now become a branch of physics, which it will never be.
708: These programs all have the common starting point that dark energy
709: is really out there - no question about it. I hope the present
710: article demonstrated the contrary.
711:
712: The irony of today's times is that while dark matter is still
713: unidentified despite half a century of search, taxpayers are asked
714: to invest in yet another potential fiasco. Furthermore, the
715: situation as it evolves in time is that the more we do not find
716: dark matter, the less (in relative funding) do we invest in
717: alternative approaches - to the point of totally choking these
718: approaches.
719: Thus we are putting more and more eggs in a less and less likely
720: basket. Could this be the sign of a person (or a
721: camp of people in prestigious institutes) who became angry because
722: they are embarrassed? Even if one were to avoid taking such a view,
723: one should still ask the question `is this the scientific method' ?
724:
725: I recommend that major funding agencies serious consider enlisting
726: to decision making panels a higher (than zero) fraction of
727: those individuals who published equally respectable papers in
728: top journals on the body of counter evidence listed in Table 3.
729: The reason why we are heading in such wrong directions is because
730: while panels rotate they invariably comprise the same camp of
731: researchers, mostly from elite establishments with vested interests.
732: The ultimate selection effect, therefore, might lie with those
733: senior agency
734: administrators responsible for the composition of these panels.
735:
736: \noindent
737: {\bf 7. References}
738:
739: \noindent
740: Bielby, R.M., \& Shanks, T. 2007, MNRAS submitted (astro-ph/0703470).
741:
742: \noindent
743: Blanchard, A. et al 2003, A \& A, 412, 35.
744:
745: \noindent
746: Bonamente, M. et al 2007, ApJ, 647, 25.
747:
748: \noindent
749: Burrows , D.N. \& Mendenhall, J.A., 1991, Nature, 351, 629.
750:
751: \noindent
752: Cen, R., \& Ostriker 1999, ApJ, 514, 1.
753:
754: \noindent
755: Chodorowski, M. 2007, MNRAS in press (astro-ph/0610590).
756:
757: \noindent
758: Freedman, W.L. et al 2001, ApJ, 553, 47.
759:
760: \noindent
761: Lieu, R. et al 2006, ApJ, 648, 176.
762:
763: \noindent
764: Myers, A.D. et al 2003, MNRAS, 342, 467.
765:
766: \noindent
767: Myers, A.D. et al 2005, MNRAS, 359, 741.
768:
769: \noindent
770: Ramella, M. et al 2002, AJ, 123, 2976.
771:
772: \noindent
773: Sandage, A. et al 2006, ApJ, 653, 843.
774:
775: \noindent
776: Shanks, T. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 173.
777:
778: \noindent
779: Spergel, D. et al 2007, ApJ in press (astro-ph/0603449).
780:
781:
782: \noindent
783: Takei, Y. et al 2007, ApJ, 655, 831.
784:
785: \noindent
786: Vauclair et al 2003, A \& A, 412, L37.
787:
788: \noindent
789: Verschuur, G. et al 2007, MNRAS submitted (arXiv:0704.1125)
790:
791: \noindent
792: Werner, N. et al 2007, A \& A in press (arXiv:0704.0475).
793:
794: \noindent
795: White, S.D.M. 2007, Rep Prog Phys, in press (arXiv:0704.2291).
796:
797: \end{document}
798:
799:
800:
801: