SNe Ia, Implications, Interpretations, Lambda-CDM...

[bigsam1965]

The mistake isn't the adiabatic relation, merely identifying [imath]gamma[/imath] with the ratio of specific heats, which isn't necessary.

 

Consider for an adiabatic process all change in energy is due to PdV work. Combine this with the relation for a photon gas U = 3PV. Hence

 

[math]

-PdV = dU = 3VdP +3PdV

[/math]

[math]

-left(frac{3+1}{3}right)frac{1}{V}dV = frac{1}{P}dP

[/math]

[math]

ln left(frac{V}{V_0}right)^{-frac{4}{3}} = lnleft(frac{P}{P_0}right)

[/math]

[math]

PV^{-frac{4}{3}} = Const.

[/math]

 

We can do the same thing with the other adiabatic relationships. [imath] gamam = frac{4}{3} [/imath] for a photon gas, with no ambiguity. Hence, Modest's point still stands. For an adiabatic expansion, photon temperature drops like one over the scale factor, which is exactly what is observed in FLRW.

-Will

 

I have no problem with the photon temperature dropping like one over the scale factor. I use it in my model.

[Erasmus00]

I have no problem with the photon temperature dropping like one over the scale factor. I use it in my model.

 

Your problem was, as far as I understood, in thinking of this as an adiabatic expansion of the photon gas. As Modest and I have shown, this is exactly what happens with an adiabatic expansion of a photon gas.

-Will

[bigsam1965]

Your problem was, as far as I understood, in thinking of this as an adiabatic expansion of the photon gas. As Modest and I have shown, this is exactly what happens with an adiabatic expansion of a photon gas.

-Will

 

I should has remained silent on the issue. I have not looked at those equations in years. Before I spoke I should have done my homework. My careless statement has led the conversation in a direction that I had not intended.

[modest]

modest, I wish you well and get well soon.

PS. I hope everything went well modest.

Thanks guys, went very well - much better than I thought it would.

 

Before I spoke I should have done my homework. My careless statement has led the conversation in a direction that I had not intended.

 

I think you should start a thread on your freely-coasting model. It probably would be best situated in the alternative theories section - but I wasn't kidding when I said I found that kind of thing fascinating. In particular - the concordance with observation.

 

As far as supporting the link I provided in post 152 on deriving the luminosity distance - If I were thinking I probably would have just put Planck's equation in the redshift equation setting z > 0 and showing e(emitted) > e(observed). That would have been an on-point and simple way of supporting that... if I had thought to do it.

 

peace

-modest

[coldcreation]

Hello All,

 

Welcome back modest.

 

 

I should has remained silent on the issue. I have not looked at those equations in years. Before I spoke I should have done my homework. My careless statement has led the conversation in a direction that I had not intended.

 

 

"Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute."

Josh Billings (American Humorist, 1818-1885)

 

 

Ok bigsam1965, where does that leave us?

 

Has your model been falsified, or not?

 

It seems to me that at least one of your arguments against the standard model has been shown not to be justified (i.e., there is a mechanism to explain the photon energy loss and conservation in the FLRW/LCDM model). I'm not sure how devastating this is to your model.

 

I would think that this issue is important considering your idea that "fewer photons per second are crossing over the source-centered spherical boundary at an observer than the original number of photons per second that were emitted from the source."

 

You were implying that this is not accounted for in the LCDM model. Thus your subsequent statement: 'The luminosity distance has a component due to the effective luminosity being reduced because of the expansion of space; therefore, the luminosity distance is larger than the actual distance."

 

So you set out to account for it. That is why in your initial post you set out to demonstrate that the LCDM model "is not a viable cosmological model through examination of the energy flux equation at an observer."

 

And so, if in fact what modest and Will have demonstrated is correct, the entire premise on which your argument against LCDM was based, and the entire premise for which you derived a new alternative model (FLS), seems to be invalidated. Is that correct?

 

 

 

CC

[bigsam1965]

Ok bigsam1965, where does that leave us?

 

Has your model been falsified, or not?

 

It seems to me that at least one of your arguments against the standard model has been shown not to be justified (i.e., there is a mechanism to explain the photon energy loss and conservation in the FLRW/LCDM model). I'm not sure how devastating this is to your model.

 

I would think that this issue is important considering your idea that "fewer photons per second are crossing over the source-centered spherical boundary at an observer than the original number of photons per second that were emitted from the source."

 

You were implying that this is not accounted for in the LCDM model. Thus your subsequent statement: 'The luminosity distance has a component due to the effective luminosity being reduced because of the expansion of space; therefore, the luminosity distance is larger than the actual distance."

 

So you set out to account for it. That is why in your initial post you set out to demonstrate that the LCDM model "is not a viable cosmological model through examination of the energy flux equation at an observer."

 

And so, if in fact what modest and Will have demonstrated is correct, the entire premise on which your argument against LCDM was based, and the entire premise for which you derived a new alternative model (FLS), seems to be invalidated. Is that correct?

 

 

 

CC

 

The posts that I posted on dilation of the Stephan-Boltzmann constant and on the Sandage test for perfect Tolman surface brightness keeps me in the game.

 

Without the inferred difference between the test and Tolman surface brightness being attributed to lookback luminosity evolution, the test appears to suport conservation of photon energy. The test should be repeated for a standard candle such as SNE Ia to determine if photon energy is conserved or not conserved. I need to study the galaxy lookback luminosity evolution model used to in the research.

 

General relativity is base on what we see and what we see is a source image that is dilated and we see the image in dilated time. Relative to It's dilated size the image is moving slower than it's original motion. I can demonstrate that based on the dilated image of the source and time dilation that the Stephan-Boltzmann constant is dilated by [math](1+z)[/math], which cancels one of the negative powers of [math](1+z)^{-4}[/math] in the [math]T^4[/math] term of the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. Through the dilated image, time dilation and the Schrodinger equation, this can also be demonstrated for sources that are not blackbodies. I can describe these two concepts in words. To post the full derivation would be tedious. I could possibly attach the derivation.

 

I still have not receive an explanation of where the radiant energy loss goes if the local static-space equation [math]E=h\nu[/math] actually means an energy loss in expanding space.

[modest]

I still have not receive an explanation of where the radiant energy loss goes if the local static-space equation [math]E=hnu[/math] actually means an energy loss in expanding space.

 

This is a good question (except for the static-space assumption), but in our context it’s a straw-man.

 

It is easier to prove conclusively that photons loose energy when redshifted (regardless of cause) than it is to prove an expanding GR model conserves energy. The former does not need the latter in order to be true or proven. So, let’s examine your position before we get to pseudo-tensors and energy-momentum tensors and pressure-volume work and all that good stuff.

 

This is essentially what you are saying:

 

A photon of some wavelength can have variable energy depending on the history of that photon. Let’s say the wavelength is 570 nm. It is yellow light.

 

You seem to say that if this photon came from earth (let’s say a mercury lamp) then its energy is proven to fit e=h/l. Thus it will not knock an electron out of a sodium plate. However, if the 570 nm photon originated at a supernova as ultraviolet (230 nm) light and is subsequently redshifted cosmically to match our yellow light - it now will knock an electron out of a sodium plate.

 

This is the effect your description has. There would be microwaves carrying around the energy of infrared rays. This position is untenable through observation that is independent of any model. There certainly is no need to get into conservation of energy in GR for the proof of such a long-standing principle of light.

 

“Where the energy goes” is not an argument against the validity of cosmic expansion lowering the energy of EMR. If it is such an argument - it's a straw-man.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

Lambda is conceptually the same as it has always been.

 

How does the same term in the same equation turn into a "perversion"?

 

-modest

 

The general postulate of relativity was simple, “beautiful beyond comparison” as its maker had evoked. The underlying symmetry came from the logical thought that all reference frames should be equal. The laws of nature are the same everywhere—no matter the speed or direction of the observer—and at all times. And, too, regardless of whether there is an observer or not. There was beauty in symmetry; between gravity and 'empty' space: lambda, whatever that was.

 

The new dark fudge factor in its insidious afterlife is nonsense. Insidious because the mysterious form of energy prevents the fundamental forces of nature from doing their job of stabilizing the real universe, as had done the general theory correctly in 1917, and results in a relatively short-term destruction of the universe: Nonsense, because there is no direct evidence to support these claims (only indirect evidence: viz the SNe Ia data).

 

Physicists have simply failed to identify the true mechanism behind the fudge factor. Yes, it’s a kind of Creature from the Black Lagoon, ugly (repulsive even), stealth, and otherworldly. The outdated but visibly still widely attractive gravitational force and the repulsive lambda's image of liquidity akin to a tube of toothpaste—keep squeezing the tube in one place, it swells in another until it explodes—does not stand up empirically.

 

 

That’s the magic of modern cosmology:

It shifts from the unknown to the unknowable.

 

 

 

There is divergence between the old and the new cosmological constants, though they are not categorical oppositions. They are, rather, propositions on which we might meditate and with which we should experiment. The two ideas are compatible, but not identical. Einstein’s conception involves the search for qualities that relate apparently divers phenomena, comparing and indeed identifying one aspect with something else—for example, the competition between gravitating massive objects and their spatial environment. It was empty space that seemed somehow to counter gravitational attraction, to regulate the stability of massive bodies in a curved spacetime environment.

 

The question is: Does Einstein’s cosmological constant exist, and if so in what form?

 

For some influential splinter groups and other top-dog astronomers, the answer is a resounding yes (in the form of dark energy associate with the original term).

 

But for some standard big bang watchdog groups (including bigsam1965) the answer is an equally resounding no.

 

There is a fundamentally synthetic notion that shuns the unity or compatibility of things. Ironically, it is an idea that had approached equivalencies never pushed and pulled to the extent of current penetrations and disequilibrium. It was the intercourse of action that Einstein enunciated that permitted, to a degree never realized before, the potential of reading so many analogous meanings in the same forms. In consequence, modern cosmology carried from Einstein a technique that immensely enriched the inspirations already operating in the works of de Sitter and Eddington, inspirations, however, that had already yielded several different but related methods designed to release the multi-layered content of geometric experience.

 

Looking back at the sequence of written explanations to account for the new physical property, one sees the emphasis shifting from one side to the other of the question—from regarding lambda as a process, even a system, to permitting it to be a state of mind—an inspired attitude that would develop a new firm symbolic structure in the course of creating influences of immense, incessantly radiating significance. Translation: the cosmological term then, and the cosmological term now, are almost polar opposites. Its most basic purpose, then, of protecting the physical security and balance of the universe has vanished. Result: Lambda ends up, now, being hated, and it gets handed over to the most anti-modern forces.

 

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

 

 

CC

[PhysBang]

So, essentially your position is that the new cosmological constant keeps all the mathematics of the old one, and even has actual measurements to back it up, but it lacks the value of symmetry that is part of your theology?

[coldcreation]

So, essentially your position is that the new cosmological constant keeps all the mathematics of the old one, and even has actual measurements to back it up, but it lacks the value of symmetry that is part of your theology?

 

 

No, not quite.

 

 

I am saying that yes the new propulsive cosmological constant keeps all the mathematics of the original version, that measurements are made indirectly to back up the new standard model, since without lambda the three pre-1998 Friedmann models showed to be untenable post-1998. The bases were loaded and modern cosmology struck out: Yes, thanks to measurements at the telescope.

 

I am saying, too, that we lack a physical mechanism responsible for lambda, so no one knows what the hell it is, and contrarily to gravity (the physical mechanism of which is also not known, lambda cannot be experienced, felt, detected experimentally, and so its physical properties (if it has any) remain dubious. In my opinion, once the physical mechanism is found (for gravity) it will emerge the true physical definition of Einstein's cosmological term.

 

 

And finally, as far as symmetry, LCDM and theology are concerned:

 

There is observed locally, at least as far as bounded self-graviting systems are concerned, such as the solar system, a symmetry inherent in nature, the physics of which certainly operates by means of a physical mechanism (whatever that is). My contention is that local physics is global physics. In other words the same physical mechanism responsible for maintaining stability locally is responsible for maintaining stability globally.

 

This phenomenon cannot be not based on the competition between an attractive force and an outward centrifugal force, which requires some form of initial finely tuned miracle where the outward tendency somehow exactly cancels with the inward pull of gravity and stays tuned for timescale at least compatible with the longevity of the solar system. The observed symmetry, or equilibrium, has to do with curved spacetime (gravity) and lambda (empty space, or the standard zero condition, to use the phrase of Eddington). That is all I will say on that for now.

 

That symmetry no longer exists in modern cosmology without a "dark" component (DE and CDM) equal to at least 96% of the mass-energy density. That, to me, is a perversion.

 

 

Think about it for a minute. Is this LCDM scenario plausible? For it to be so, a few huge nontrivial things need to occur: First, almost the entire universe needs to be filled with dark energy that dwarfs gravity (a nontrivial thing for sure). Second, nature cannot be the same everywhere, i.e., local physics would be different operationally than global physics. Third, there must be a paranormal gateway between the physical world and the virtual world of modern cosmology (something without which nothing in the universe could be tied together).

 

That is exactly how it is not.

 

 

We knew the laws all broke down at t = 0 in the modern cosmology view. Now, it looks as if the laws pack up at the end of the universe too. So, the big bang, big crunch, big jerk and Big Rip are really just in for a Big Chill (for that we will have to wait for the JWST). The vacation of all natural laws, mechanical and dynamical theories (QM and GR), at the beginning and end of the universe only accentuates the vacuum in the scientific category we stubbornly insist on calling modern cosmology.

 

Total freedom inevitably ends in destruction.

 

 

Although the cosmological term, particularly in its renewed messianic form, does create some cause for concerned (an understatement) about the potential brawl with gravity—in particular because it appears lambda may be overpowering gravity—it is most certainly a blooper to foresee lambda as a force operational in a way capable of producing large-scale asymmetric volatility and assured universal self-destruction: the Last Supper.

 

This is the system of belief (similar to theology) I am fighting against.

 

 

 

CC

[PhysBang]

There is observed locally, at least as far as bounded self-graviting systems are concerned, such as the solar system, a symmetry inherent in nature, the physics of which certainly operates by means of a physical mechanism (whatever that is). My contention is that local physics is global physics. In other words the same physical mechanism responsible for maintaining stability locally is responsible for maintaining stability globally.

So this is your theological point. Excellent.

[modest]

The new dark fudge factor in its insidious afterlife is nonsense. Insidious because the mysterious form of energy prevents the fundamental forces of nature from doing their job of stabilizing the real universe, as had done the general theory correctly in 1917, and results in a relatively short-term destruction of the universe: Nonsense, because there is no direct evidence to support these claims (only indirect evidence: viz the SNe Ia data).

 

Physicists have simply failed to identify the true mechanism behind the fudge factor. Yes, it’s a kind of Creature from the Black Lagoon, ugly (repulsive even), stealth, and otherworldly. The outdated but visibly still widely attractive gravitational force and the repulsive lambda's image of liquidity akin to a tube of toothpaste—keep squeezing the tube in one place, it swells in another until it explodes—does not stand up empirically.

 

There is a nice Java applet on this page:

 

Solving the Friedman Equation

 

It allows you to set the parameters of omega-m and omega-lambda and watch what happens to the sale factor over time. The theory behind Einstein's original cosmological constant is represented here as much as any current model. It all depends on the value of the omegas you choose. You will, however, find it impossible to model Einstein's original static universe. As the page points out:

 

At the Einstein point the repulsive negative pressure from the cosmological constant exactly balances the gravitational attraction of density:

 

rho_m = 2 rho_Lambda

 

This is a delicate and unstable balance. If the density is slightly too high, the universe will collapse from the Einstein point, following the green line down to a big crunch at the Einstein-de Sitter point. If the density is too low, the expansion takes off and the universe follows the red line to the de Sitter point of total domination by the Cosmological constant.

 

This is the same conclusion Einstein came to about his own model without the help of a java applet. Lambda can be set just right to reach a balance at any given time, but, the balance can't be sustained as time rolls on. The end result is either collapse or expansion - with or without a cosmological constant.

 

The difference between Einstein's original cosmological constant and the current cosmological constant is therefore its value and the value of density. That's all. If you play around with this applet you should be convinced of that.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

This is the same conclusion Einstein came to about his own model without the help of a java applet. Lambda can be set just right to reach a balance at any given time, but, the balance can't be sustained as time rolls on. The end result is either collapse or expansion - with or without a cosmological constant.

 

The difference between Einstein's original cosmological constant and the current cosmological constant is therefore its value and the value of density. That's all. If you play around with this applet you should be convinced of that.

 

 

If Einstein's original cosmological-term had an elegant get-up-and-go about it, in its incisive performance against the old Newtonian warhorse—not dissimilar to the spats of everyday couplehood—the new lambda seems to have got-up-and-went. The gravitational warhorse was no match against this perpetrators haunting ferocity.

 

Einstein, with his masterful touch, created a beautiful symmetry (however stable or unstable it was) between lambda and gravity, where lambda was a kind of antigravity, a mirror image, a reflection in the well of gravity with a different sign, in balance, exact opposites yet somehow equal, somehow one, like a man and a woman locked in an eternal embrace, dancing in unison. There was no splitting-off to dance alone (or with someone else).

 

And yet the history of lambda throughout the 20th century was like that of a woman who would mysteriously come and go. Now, the prima maestra absoluta has returned, and is here to stay (for now), full of disgusting freedom, with a liberal application of new physics, decidedly unrestrained, dressed in modern camouflage and ready for the big kill (the Big Rip).

 

Ouch.

 

 

Essentially, the high-z SNe survey was designed to test the standard model—the result of which was a failure—rather than designed to measure the value of a dubiously obscure mass-energy density—the ultimate outcome.

 

One does not require profound personal vision—after all—to see that free parameters of this nature are not the solution to the cosmological crisis exposed by the SNe Ia data—where the requirement for accurate pre-observation predictions was basically vacated—but part of the problem.

 

Maybe next time.

 

 

Lambda-CDM is a modest yet impressive example of deploying visual inventiveness, playing games with spacetime curvature, negative absolute pressure, unknown forms of matter—something made not of electrons, protons or neutrons—successfully towards an end in themselves rather than towards an identified goal: the understanding of the essence of the physical universe and its evolution in time.

 

 

 

So this is your theological point. Excellent.

 

 

A final note on theology:

 

The point should been made that when the theological or scientific laws show themselves so fragile, it is difficult to accept without question the fallacious elevation of a single ideal. In addition, the individual creed of personality and invention is in itself a demonstration of how significant and imperative it is that specifically individualistic ideals remain freed from academicism. The emphasis is on individual sovereignty to follow the dictates of his own sensibility, as an alternative to its contrary—it was accordingly that inspiration was asphyxiated in olden times: things might have been otherwise in an era when mathematicians represented their models inscribed on the pediment of the Academia. Only the heterodox liberation from such a body can transform man from a slave to creator, from dependent to autonomous, subservient to courageous, from a machine to an organism capable of hyperbolic expression (naïve as it still seems at present).

 

The long nurtured, the self-edification of primeval-atom-cosmology and the dedication to similar inflationary genre was greatly instilled through the teachings of a religious Monk; Abbé George-Henri Lemaître (the Godfather of the big bang). He contributed extensively to the modern cosmology movement and became the most celebrated theologian (after the Pope) as a result. His masterful rendition of extracting scientifico-religious detail with technical prowess bedazzled his audience. One can easily discern each crease in the fabric of cosmology, follow the complex latticework of the universo-architectural structure, or distinguish the individual unphysical characteristics of the theoretical models and their gradations in flesh tones. The compositions are infused with powerful illumination, engendering an overall glowing aura to the works vivifying the already bright palette of the anachronistic regime—Lemaître at its’ healm.

 

Here is a follow-up from a highly recommendable book, Cosmology and Controversy, by Helge Kragh; in what is possibly the most illustrious historical account of two persistent cosmological themes, specifically, the stationary and the expanding universe models:

 

“As a Catholic priest' date=' Lemaître was, of course, aware that discussions about the beginning of the world could not, in the minds of most people, be separated from the question of God’s creation of the world.” He was the first inclined to include this aspect in his discussion, but then decided not to. In the typescript of the note of March 1931, there is a paragraph reading: “I think that everyone who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation.” Lemaître crossed out the paragraph, not because it did not represent his conviction, but because he found it unwise to introduce God in his purportedly scientific sketch. (Kragh, H. 1996, Cosmology and Controversy, The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, p. 48) [/quote']

 

 

There’s just one snag. The house of delusions has not yet been illuminated. Huge questions reverberate at the outset: t = 0. No amount of theoretical or theological ingenuity will make the fury of such a mise-en-scène look natural in the sharp critical light of the contemporary world. This has been one of the main dilemmas facing cosmology over the past 80 years. And now, the problem is compounded by a mysterious dark force and a mysterious form of dark nonbaryonic matter (CDM) that has come unwittingly to stick its nose into the business of astronomy, astrophysics, astroparticle physics and observational cosmology. Artistic vision (or theology) is not enough to make physics work. Though it had for Lemaître, in retrospect, so it seems, showcased his own forthcoming expansion into the world of cosmology.

 

Theological considerations aside, the inability to reconcile the concepts—local stability/global instability, QM/GR, gravity/the other forces of nature, baryonic matter/nonbaryonic matter—are intrinsically related to our actual perception of both gravitation (spacetime curvature) and empty space (lambda). It can be shown that by placing tangible constraints on the geometrical structure of physical space (the four-dimensional general relativistic spatiotemporal vacuum manifold continuum), the underlying meaning and mechanism of gravitation emerges—so too emerges a complete change in the way the universe is seen.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

The possibility that the universe is static must exist because I can't prove with 100% certainty that it doesn't. A sharpened pencil can be balanced on it's point for some small amount of time, but never for a thousand years. If I, as an innocent bystander, need to pick one way or the other to carry on with research that requires one or the other be chosen I am going to choose expanding space.

[coldcreation]

The possibility that the universe is static must exist because I can't prove with 100% certainty that it doesn't. A sharpened pencil can be balanced on it's point for some small amount of time, but never for a thousand years. If I, as an innocent bystander, need to pick one way or the other to carry on with research that requires one or the other be chosen I am going to choose expanding space.

 

Isn't it ironic that without a finely tuned balance between expansion and catastrophic collapse, you, as an innocent bystander, wouldn't even have a pencil to balance on its point (neither would anyone else). Indeed, the solar system has remained in balance like a pencil standing on its point for several billion years (plus or minus a few seconds).

 

(I would like to here, in your own words, using whatever theory of gravity you please, i.e., GR, Newtonian mechanics, variable G etc., how that fine tuning, like a pencil balancing on its point, is possible, while remaining on-topic if you can).

 

So too has the Local Group and the Virgo Supercluster (or Local Supercluster), the galactic supercluster that contains the Local Group, the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, remained in a quasi-stable self-gravitating equilibrium configuration for several Gyr. If anything, several clusters are moving toward the center of the Virgo cluster. In all probability, the entire Virgo Supercluster is being lured toward a gravitational anomaly dubbed the Great Attractor, near the Norma cluster, but the pencil still stands, and it will do so for many Gyr to come.

 

My point (:shrug:) is that, though the universe may in fact be expanding, there are still observed systems and subsystems where stable equilibrium configurations are observed (and have in all likely-hood remained that way for at least 10 Gyrs), whereas, according to your argument those systems should be categorically unstable, since your pencil goes bang after a fraction of a second, at best.

 

 

Go figure...

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

To say that the solar system and the local group have remained static over the past 5 billion is a ludicrous piece of logic. There have been continuous changes over that time. My own words.

[PhysBang]

Indeed, the idea that there is some sort of finely tuned stability or balance in the solar system or the galaxy is pure fantasy. You can find this idea in much of coldcreation's writings, if you care to look. It is an integral part in his fantasy about the cosmological constant and Lagrange points.

 

But it honestly is not worthwhile taking the time.