An Ageless Debate, with Professor Gupta [Part II]
An Open Memorandum; Insights from Dr. Gupta’s community; A point of contention from Avi Loeb; the dangers of clickbait publications
“We all have a quest to increase the scope of our knowledge… It does not mean what was done in the past was wrong or a mistake. It only means that every theory has its limitations. Extrapolating this, we could say that no theory or model is good for everything or forever. “
— Rajendra Gupta
A few months have passed since I had published an article detailing Professor Gupta’s hypothesis regarding an alternate cosmological model to determining the age of our universe.
Contained within said article had been something of a criticism against the rigid self-preservation of academia and the craven reluctance to engage in any open-forum debate on this issue by certain proponents who are otherwise extremely vocal on such matters.
As one commentator expressed to me (after having had their criticisms of Dr. Gupta published on Big Think without allowing any rebuttal from Gupta himself):
“I have negative interest in what you’re trying to do, as it obscures the truth by posing science as some form of debate…
I urge you to please reconsider your project, and not to involve me in any way.”
I had expressed, in said piece, that it’s not necessarily surprising to see such desperate efforts to maintain a status quo by discouraging new insight, especially given the vested interests of those with reputations and tenures to lose.
What’s surprising — and to be real, quite comical — is that this is happening within the context of a discussion on something that is fundamentally unknowable: the age of our universe.
It’s all too Southpark.
That we have such a reluctance to debate something as abstract and grand as the lifespan of a cosmos — something that we only [think we] know a sliver of a fraction about — is curious to me.
And to go as far as to proclaim any opposing opinion as an obfuscation of truth — as if it were carrying some dangerous public policy repercussions — is as telling as it is absurd.
As broken as I had thought the academic-reporting system to be (given the refusal to acknowledge and debate any counter-opinion by the mainstream perspectives), I hadn’t realized how effectively censorship is used amongst those sitting atop the status quo. Refusing to publish, allow, or even acknowledge a response from someone whose theory had been ripped apart on a mass stage (in this case, the way Big Think had handled Gupta’s retort), that’s one thing; it had been the censorship of commentary (both directed at, and emanating from) the publication itself that seemed not only nefarious, but just downright odd.
Comments posted by those who supported Siegel had been deleted in due course and, likely, in retrospect; I’d wager that it had been after the fog of emotion lifted itself from the commentary to reveal a disturbing lack of reason behind certain posts that I feel it ill-advisable to share (nor can I, as many have been deleted). I’ve learned that Medium affords some pretty generous censorship (via deletion of commentary) practices to its authors.
I suppose it’s a nice thing to allow authors the right to be selective with the commentary that’s left behind on certain pieces, but it also tends to skew feedback and prevent some good opportunity for further discourse. All things considered, it’s kind of a cowardly function to hide behind, but that’s just my opinion.
In any event, I figured to publish something of an update on this whole episode (or saga, as it’s shaping up to be), as the thought of letting this go is simply too distasteful for me to accept.
Below is a summary of Dr. Gupta’s memorandum with some notable excerpts (the entirety of it can be found here); below the memorandum is some further commentary from peers within Dr. Gupta’s circle and, below that, are some points of contention from Professor Avi Loeb, one of the initial critics to Gupta’s thesis.
Professor Gupta’s memorandum, shared with me last fall, details his theory and the problems associated with the analysis published to Big Think by Ethan Siegel.
It encapsulates his response to critics that seem to pick apart his argument at surface levels, refuting claims that he either cherry-picked data to fit his model or that his reliance on concepts like Tired Light Theory somehow proves erroneous through a number of applications.
Beyond the content itself, most of which is verifiable only by minds steeped in the relative subject matter, it is the method of engaging in discourse that should be noted, as Professor Gupta categorically addresses each and every criticism that has been affixed to his hypothesis, including tired light, baryon acoustic oscillation, CMB thermal anisotropy power spectrums, coupling constants and the age of observable globular clusters.
A few excerpts:
I have come to know of many criticisms of my recently published paper in media. Most appear to be due to the critics not finding time to study the paper properly. I’ll attempt to respond to them here.
The new model has too many fitting parameters: No, it has precisely the same number of fitting parameters, i.e., two, as the standard model. The dark energy density parameter of the standard model has been replaced by the parameter that defines the variation of the coupling constant. No extra parameter is required to assign tired light’s contribution to the redshift. It is determined by equating the distance light travels in the expanding universe and tired light scenarios.
Tired light would add a “blurring effect” to distant galaxies: I do not suggest the tired light effect be caused by the scattering process. I believe it is due to an unknown cosmic drag on photons. There is no blurring effect as a result.
Tired light would eliminate cosmological time dilation: Indeed, tired light has no time dilation. Time dilation is only due to the expanding universe proportion of the redshift, which is dominant in the hybrid mode. I have correctly taken it into account when fitting the supernovae type 1a data and examined it in the context of high redshift quasars with no conflict. The data fit with the new model is as good as with the standard model, showing that the new model takes time dilation appropriately into account.
The new model has not been shown to reproduce the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) features in the cosmic microwave background and galaxies’ distribution: I have shown in a recent paper (under review by Astrophysical Journal) that the new model faithfully fits the observed angular sizes of these features.
Tired light would change the thermal, blackbody spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB): I have shown in the said paper that the thermal-blackbody spectrum remains blackbody in the new model.
The new model has not been shown to fit the CMB thermal anisotropy power spectrum: It is an onerous task to develop a CMB code for a new model. One of my students is working on it. However, one essential feature of CMB is BAO, and, as discussed above, I have shown the new model to be compliant with the observed BAO features.
I have cherry-picked the data to fit the new model: I considered Pantheon+ supernovae type 1a data not only to see how well each model fits the data but also to reliably estimate the two free parameters. This data fit is critical for any model to qualify for further study. I have now shown the new model’s compliance with the baryon acoustic oscillation feature observed in the microwave background and galaxies’ distribution.
It’s evident that Professor Gupta still has work to do to cement a number of pillars central to his study; at issue is not so much that his theory is not being bought hook/line/sinker, but that it is simply not being heard; that it is, by all intents and purposes, being actively disregard or censored because it would too gravely disrupt a lot of the mainstream convenience.
And while some are quick (and dramatic enough) to say that the theory is simply false and therefore not worth the attention of the public (for to present it would be to do a horrible disservice to truth itself), they categorically reject the lifework of a tenured professor without providing elaborative justification from positions that hold too much influence over the public eye.
Glorified blog writers are functioning as the gate-keepers of information on big ideas, deciding what’s true and what’s not — this is a problem.
Next to providing me with this memorandum, Professor Gupta has also shared the names of some colleagues who I had reached out to in order to gather further insights regarding his theory, one of which had been Ivo Labbe, who had this to say:
“I had a cursory look at the paper, so I will refrain from commenting on the merits of the cosmological model, except from noting that there exists a large body of measurements constraining cosmology, including CMB, which any proposed new model should reproduce first. The main issue with the primary motivation for the new cosmological model is the supposed existence of galaxies at z>10 that are too massive / old / numerous and therefore in strong tension with LCMD. This is however far from certain. Detailed observations of early galaxies have only just begun, and stellar masses and ages of these early galaxies are difficult to determine accurately.
Best wishes,
Ivo..”
Professor Gupta’s response in kind:
“I agree with Professor Labbe. I am currently working on the arduous task of developing a code to fit CMB observations using the cosmological model I have proposed.
Thanks,
- rajendra”
I‘ll continue to cultivate further opinions, though what becomes more evident with each newly submitted response is that the JWST is opening a pretty big can of worms here that, at least ostensibly, promises to fuel this debate all the more for years to come.
Lastly, to remain true to the heart of this entire journey that I’ve somehow found myself inexplicably but passionately a part of, I’ve included a back and forth between Professors Gupta and Loeb on Gupta’s hypothesis.
This is being presented in an effort to contextualize the debate and to provide an example of what healthy discourse should look like — a bilateral discussion rather than a unilateral presentation.
I’m hopeful that Big Think, a publication far more established than this lowly blogger, can take a hint.
Loeb: This cosmological model is ruled out by the current data we have on the microwave background, baryonic acoustic oscillation and Type Ia supernovae.
Gupta: I respectfully disagree with Professor Avi Loeb.
Supernovae type 1a (Pantheon+): My model provides an excellent fit to the data, as accurately as the standard model, including the cosmological time dilation. (Figure 1 and Table 1 in my paper).
Baryonic acoustic oscillation: I have just completed a paper for publishing in MNRAS (attached) that shows that it is consistent with BAO observations.
Cosmic microwave background: It keeps the blackbody radiation spectrum (Planck profile), as shown in the attached paper (Equations 36–39). Regarding the CMB anisotropy power spectrum, no one has shown that my model does not fit it. It is an onerous task to develop a CMB code for a new model. One of my students is working on it. I’d be grateful to Professor Loeb if he could refer me to the paper that shows my model does not fit the CMB power spectrum.
Loeb: Regarding the cosmic microwave background, it is not the spectrum but the age measurement provided with a precision of a few percent in Table 1 of the paper attached below.
Gupta: I very much know this paper.
The age determination in the table is model-dependent, and the model used is the standard LCDM model. Once we have developed the CMB code for our model, only then will we know what age it yields fitting Planck’s measurements. The observed parameter in the table is given in the second line from the bottom, i.e., the angular size of the sound horizon. This is consistent with the analysis I have presented in the BAO paper (https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-13-8-or-26-7-billion-years/)
Loeb: He needs to demonstrate that he can reproduce the microwave background data before the model would be viable. This is key for making his model viable. There is nopoint in hypothetical propositions unless they reproduce the data.
Gupta: I agree with Professor Loeb’s concern and recommendation: I must show that the new model fits the full CMB power spectrum, not just BAO features. Incidentally, this is precisely the suggestion of Professor David Spergel of Princeton. Fortunately, this is also our current priority, but getting the results will take significant effort and time.
Indeed, I am open to a debate. After the model’s success in fitting the BAO features, both for the CMB and matter power spectra, I feel more confident about the new model…
- rajendra
There’s one last point to be made here, and I make it at the risk of sounding overly dramatic.
We’re in a time where, in the immediate present anyway, we can’t see what the most true theory is when it comes to certain big pictures (like the age of our universe). We can only put our best guesses forward, and we mainly do this through progressive retrospection, tacking together clue after clue as they trickle in from instruments and opinions alike.
And so the way it works now, for our generation anyway, is to search for the truth via the theories that are A) most compatible with the buildup of existing data but also B) those that are loudest amidst a lot of noise. And, sadly, it’s the publications that are the most profitable that are typically the most loud.
Accordingly, if profit steers the ships of our curiosity, like is done in publications like Vice or Big think, we see what happens to truth, as it becomes increasingly forsaken in favor of stable (and exponentiating) revenue.
Clickbait.
I run a completely ad-free publication that generates zero revenue for me. There’s no motive for me to cultivate any kind of financial gain or social exposure from what I’m doing, as my writing and my publication isn’t a day job so much as it is an overly enthusiastic exercise of my unrelenting curiosity.
I bring this up because I’m happy to say that I’m not in the same boat as those who are caught up in some popularity contest, furiously Tweeting/X’ing their opinions in the name of science and truth while refusing to actually stand behind their words when it counts most.
Because of this, we end up with science publications that choose not to debate science, and it’s unfortunately these publications that end up reaching the masses. Proponents of these publications are, ironically, the most vocal and condemning when it comes to protecting ‘truth’ despite the fact that they pursue profit or exposure more than (or maybe, at best, equally as much as) as they do knowledge.
Therein lies a big problem — one that degrades the whole pursuit and contaminates worthy curiosity.
In time, as like with anything, I have faith that the truth will prevail and whenever it is that I look back on what I’ve done, I’ll be glad that I remained dedicated to the unregrettable side of it all.
To follow along Professor Gupta’s work:
https://theconversation.com/profiles/rajendra-gupta-1458063
Last point: Unlike the proponents who support Big Think/Siegel, I won’t be deleting commentary and eagerly invite any/all criticism and points of contention.
