Redshift z

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at enegy it has wavelength and frequency. Most redshift models forus only on the affects connected to the wavelength aspect, with frequency being passively pulled along. What would happen if light was also being reshifted, but begininng at the frequency aspect, with the frequency change pulling the wavelength along?

 

For example, during a red shift where is the energy going? In other words, if we start with blue photons and red shift them to red photons there is a drop in energy value, since blue photons contain more beef than red photons. The energy of a photon is Planck's constant time frequency. What is absorbing the energy or frequency times Planck's constant? One very likely suspect is entropy. An entropy expansion is endothermic and might suck the life force from photons to create an aspect of the red shift.

 

What entropy brings to the table is that a lot of entropy can occur in a small zone of space. What is assummed to take a billion light years to red shift, using only a wavelength approach, could also happen in a small distance during extremely high entropy conditions, which can absorb at lot of frequency times Planck's constant.

 

If anyone has ever used spray paint, a lot of energy can be asborbed if one evacuates the entire spray can. It can sometimes form frost. If we were to do an IR profile on the evacuation, and give then present this data as a telescope snap shot, then trick an expert to interpret the data using only wavelength considerations, they would say that this may be a new heavenly orb, red shifted toward longer IR, traveling near light speeds. That would be amazing, since that heavenly orb never left the tiny space around your hand.

 

One possbile source of universal scale entropy is contained within the theory of "dark matter". It is dark because it is not giving off energy. It is probably dark because its (entropy) expansion is causing it to absorb energy. This could cause a background red shift that begins at the frequency aspect of energy. Dark energy may energy that has or is in the process of having its life force suck out of it.

[coldcreation]

If we look at enegy it has wavelength and frequency. Most redshift models forus only on the affects connected to the wavelength aspect, <<<snip<<<

 

What is to follow was originally written in post 102, by myself. I hope this clears things up for HBond. Plus this is the post I was looking for earlier with a little bit of history repeating for HCosta: What led to the expansion hypothesis...

 

"Our conception of the structure of the universe bears all the marks of a transitory structure. Our theories are decidedly in a state of continuous, and just now very rapid, evolution. It is not possible to predict how long our present views and interpretations will remain unaltered and how soon they will have to be replaced by perhaps very different ones, based on new observational data and new critical insight in their connection with other data." Willem de Sitter, 1932

 

Everything is in transit...

 

There is a world-view called the Einstein-de Sitter model: galaxies separate at a critical rate that prevents gravitational attraction from over-powering the expansion. This representation is also referred to as the critical model. As the radius of the universe tends to infinity the velocity of expansion tends to zero. This model is the source of the classic fine-tuning problem. The balance is perfect; why? (Of course this concept is neither Einstein’s nor de Sitter’s, it is a posthumous interpretation of Friedmann’s). Touch E = mc2 with your magic wand and you can go anywhere!

 

In 1929, the historically correct year that Hubble’s official discovery was made, he published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this seminal work he writes: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.”

 

Hovering on the brink of complete surrealism, himself, Hubble seemed to have gotten cold feet. Philosophically he found the expanding universe concept “unsatisfactory” and preferred to highlight the “difficulties” and “uncertainties” involved with the observational groundwork. In a 1931 letter to the Dutchman de Sitter, Hubble wrote; “The interpretation, we feel [Hubble and Humason], should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority”

 

Coldcreation

 

PS: added Jan 2007. The de Sitter model is static, nonexpanding, and based 100% on Einstein's general postulate of relativity.

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation

 

You said

The main problem stems from a descision (by Hubble) that had to be made (and never was, not by Hubble anyway) between the de Sitter effect in a static universe and the Doppler effect in an expanding manifold. The latter was adopted erroneously, I suspect, judging from recent findings (SNe Ia data) on observational fronts.

 

Another main problem was the instability associated with general relativity. That is what led to the three Friedmann models, and ultimately to the 1931 Father George Henri Lemaître paper.

 

Yes I have known that for decades and agree.

 

Do you know that after talking to hundreds of people only a few understand what you are saying.

[coldcreation]

Hello coldcreation

 

You said

 

The main problem stems from a descision (by Hubble) that had to be made (and never was, not by Hubble anyway) between the de Sitter effect in a static universe and the Doppler effect in an expanding manifold. The latter was adopted erroneously, I suspect, judging from recent findings (SNe Ia data) on observational fronts.

 

Another main problem was the instability associated with general relativity. That is what led to the three Friedmann models, and ultimately to the 1931 Father George Henri Lemaître paper.

 

Yes I have known that for decades and agree.

 

Do you know that after talking to hundreds of people only a few understand what you are saying.

 

Yes, the problem that the de Sitter effect posed was an interesting one, an d still is. It is apparent that Hubble chose the Doppler (or change in the scale factor) interpretation for convenience.

 

It is interesting to speculate what turn history would have taken had the de Sitter effect in a non-Euclidean static universe been attributed the reshift z from the outset.

 

Would the big bang theory have entered the arena as an alternative model, by the opposition to the mainstream, a small group of radicals with an agenda? Don't forget, the Friedmann equations were already on the table well before 1929.

 

 

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello coldcreation, you are right.

 

I bet in due time the Big Bang will be named the "crank theory of the 21 century"

 

Like I said before its sad that religion and politics got a hold of it and made it the standard model. History repeats itself more than once.

 

I just hope we decide on a theory based on science.

[coldcreation]

Hello coldcreation, you are right.

 

I bet in due time the Big Bang will be named the "crank theory of the 21 century"

 

Like I said before its sad that religion and politics got a hold of it and made it the standard model. History repeats itself more than once.

 

I just hope we decide on a theory based on science.

 

I would use 20th century, not 21st century. I'll assume you made a 'typo.'

 

It was in 1931, basing his ideas on quanum theory, that the Father of modern cosmology, Abbé George-Henri Lemaître confirmed the results of the nonstationary aspects of the 1921-22 Friedmann equations, and saw redshifts of extra-galactic nebulae as observational evidence. Shortly thereafter the theory won general recognition amongst scientists.

 

As a catholic priest, Lemaître, perhaps more than anyone else, was aware that discussions about the origin of the universe could not, in the minds of most, be separated from the question of god's creation.

 

Initially he had actually been inclined to include the concept of "God." In a typescript written March 1931 (that he decided to remove before publication), Lemaître wrote:

 

"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. (See Kragh, 1996, Cosmology and Controversy)

 

 

So, by what was said and what was not said, the origin of the big bang theory was religious explicitly and implicitly from the outset. It was then that science entered a new era at the crossroads flanked by the elegant beauty of paradise and the bloody brutality and horror of events asscociated with the suddeness of a hell-like superdetonation.

 

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

.

 

 

 

Since this discussion has deviated way off-topic, I have moved it to this thread, Redshift z, where the discussion is on-topic.

 

-----------

 

 

... What I have said is "any change in an infinite universe over infinite years would become infinite change" ...

 

Either no cosmological value changes over time or the ones that do approach zero or infinity. What we are saying is how can your SSU be timeless and evolve - that doesn't work. You have to have either no-change or a starting point.

 

Do you see why an infinite time-scale doesn't work with a universe that has changing cosmological values?

 

 

The idea that there is either a starting point (a beginning) or no change (evolution) is an interesting one. Though I must say that I disagree. Generally when confronted with two options there is also a third that manages to infiltrate, and often a four (e.g., light is a wave, or a particle, neither, or both).

 

I disagree with the no-change or a starting point concept. Hitherto, I argue that the universe can remain stationary (its radius not changing as a function of time) and contain properties or constituents that do change (evolve or transform) with time, and without the break-down of physics at some time t.

 

In a general statement, we could write, then:

 

The universe is dynamic, evolving and stationary in accordance with the natural laws?as guiding principles in the treatment of cosmology.

 

What emerges is that we live in a highly stable, non-expanding dynamic universe, one in which evolution is vastly different than generally assumed.

 

The constituents are perceived as embedded in a stationary four-dimensional continuous manifold where there is no spatiotemporal boundary condition (the extent of the vacuum is infinite, it does not end or begin, spacetime is a continuum).

 

The two possible models [static (non-expanding) and variable radius (expanding)] can be carefully studied in order to determine which more closely corresponds to the universe in which we live.

 

 

A note on terms:

 

A static universe is not expanding or contracting, but fluctuating about equilibrium. The term static is often erroneously perceived as the opposite of dynamic. Obviously, planets, stars and galaxies are moving in systems where gravitational interactions are inevitable. Cosmologists often compare dynamic world models with static models in a way that makes the latter a boring place. It is a fact that a static universe is also a dynamic universe. ‘Dynamic’ in modern cosmology refers to the changing radius, or size, of the universe.

 

In a stationary universe 'dynamic' refers to motion, transformations or change in the properties and constituents contained in the universe.

 

It is not because a model is static that it is not evolving (changing in time). Very often cosmologists, astronomers and physicists speak of a static universe as opposed to an evolutionary universe, meaning that an evolving model is expanding (nonstationary) and that a static universe is not changing in time (stationary).

 

In other words, if the radius or size (scale factor) of the cosmos does not grow or contract with time the universe is said to be static and non-evolving. Note that a static universe does also evolve with time, according to the laws of nature (particularly the second law of thermodynamics).

 

CC

 

 

-----------

 

In this case the word 'static' refers to the scale factor (or size) of the universe. In an infinite spatiotemporal steady state universe there is no size, no boundary, no change in the scale factor: it remains the same (infinite, never ending), thus 'static,' stationary, non-expanding.

 

Static does not in this case refer to the dynamics, evolutionary changes and transformation of properties and constituents of the universe, as is commonly and erroneously attributed to the work 'static' (unchanging). Again, it is the scale factor to the metric, in standard cosmology, that is dynamic.

 

A static universe does not violate the physical laws, irreversibility, etc. (More on that aspect later).

 

 

CC

 

-----------

 

 

The first thing that comes to mind is GR. Why is / isn't your space-time curved? There is matter and energy in your universe today - shouldn't that matter and energy curve your space-time? If this is the case and it is infinite in age (and not expanding) then matter should have all clumped together into one (or an infinite number of) curvature point(s). Or is your space-time not curved but was perhaps curved in the past before matter showed up to flatten it out? Or does matter not curve your space-time?

 

None of these options seems too promising. Have you considered / explored this?

 

A quick note to keep this a little on topic - do the laws of thermodynamics apply in your model? :( Then again, I think in the alternative theories section there is perhaps some leeway as far as staying on topic. I don't know - I haven't been a member here too long - it seems like that would be the case.

 

-modest

 

If you look at a thread entitled Redshift z you will see the Coldcreation explanation for redshift z. That will provide an affirmative answer to the question you pose regarding the global curvature of spacetime in a non-expanding regime. Be sure to check out the posts leading up to, say, post #197.

 

The reason matter does not all fall into one deep potential well is because the global curvature is isotropic to a large extent. There is no preferred location, no center in the manifold. The curvature look the same to all observers and from all locations at this time.

 

In other word, as opposed to locally curved gravitational wells in the vicinity surrounding massive objects, where curvature diminishes according the the inverse square law, global spacetime curvature can be seen as a relative deviation from linearity that obeys Lorenz invariance.

 

 

It's funny you should mention curvature at this point, because I just finished writing down an idea about how thermodynamics - redshift z - cosmology can all be tied in under the same theoretical and empirical framework. I just haven't decided where to post it: here in this thread of in the thread called Redshift z. It really should be in both places.

 

If you will, it is an interpretation of redshift z that is based on the laws of thermodynamics (particularly the second law), rather than due to a change in the scale factor to the metric in an expanding frame, where space is continually being created. I'm not sure yet whether this effect would override the de Sitter effect interpretation or whether they would both be operational simultaneously providing a redshift factor of (1 + z) each.

 

 

More to come on the possible relation thermodynamics-redshhift z very soon.

 

 

 

CC

 

Huh?

You describe an infinite universe then point to posts talking about the de Sitter model which is closed. There is a static de Sitter model - but it looks nothing like your model. At the bottom of this page you can see a comparison between some different models including de Sitter's. Are you suggesting that as the mass of your universe changes there is no corresponding global curvature because de Sitter found a static solution to the field equations. I really don't see any similarity between the two.

 

In fact de Sitter's static solution depends on the universe being about twice the size of the observable universe because the temporal component is variable and vanishes at the "equator" of an arbitrary coordinate. Also, there is a difference between a GR cosmological model that has static coordinates and one that is static in terms of expansion. Oddly enough de Sitter had them all. In terms of expansion he had a static model and an expanding model, and in terms of coordinates his "static expansion" model he wrote in static Euclidean space coordinates (like einstein) and with non-static hyper-hyperboloid Minkowski space-time coordinates. But, the only reason his static-static model was static was because of a cosmological constant - just like Einstein's.

 

In any case, I see your model as having nothing substantial in common with any of these.

 

I believe the combination of increasing mass + GR + no expansion would lead to a gravity well where all the matter has settled. Given enough time this is the solution gravity finds because it is only attractive and all matter responds to it. Everything (eventually) would swirl down the gravity drain.

 

-modest

 

 

-------------

 

 

 

You describe an infinite universe then point to posts talking about the de Sitter model which is closed.

 

Without going into great detail, the de Sitter models (one of which is empty and the other with matter) are NOT closed. They are open, hyperbolic geometrically.

 

 

There is a static de Sitter model - but it looks nothing like your model. At the bottom of this page you can see a comparison between some different models including de Sitter's.

 

The models shown in your link are all expanding models, if I am not mistaken. Indeed the is an expanding model called the Einstein de Sitter model but ironically it is neither Einstein's of de Sitter's. Recall, in 1917, when the infamous static models by Einstein and de Sitter emerged, the universe was not yet expanding. The expanding version came much later.

 

 

Are you suggesting that as the mass of your universe changes there is no corresponding global curvature because de Sitter found a static solution to the field equations.

 

No. You introduce an important point that I did not elaborate on in my previous post. How does a change in global mass density affect the global curvature. The simple answer is that is does, but the deviation from an isotropic curved spacetime is small, as evolution is very slow in the look-back time. The deviation will only manifest itself at great distances, compatible with distant supernovae type Ia observed in the deep universe.

 

 

In fact de Sitter's static solution depends on the universe being about twice the size of the observable universe because the temporal component is variable and vanishes at the "equator" of an arbitrary coordinate.

 

Where did you get this from?

 

 

Also, there is a difference between a GR cosmological model that has static coordinates and one that is static in terms of expansion. Oddly enough de Sitter had them all. In terms of expansion he had a static model and an expanding model, and in terms of coordinates his "static expansion" model he wrote in static Euclidean space coordinates (like einstein) and with non-static hyper-hyperboloid Minkowski space-time coordinates. But, the only reason his static-static model was static was because of a cosmological constant - just like Einstein's.

 

 

What do you mean by "static in terms of expansion," by "static expansion"?

 

True, the cosmological constant was present (and nonzero) in at least one de Sitter model.

 

 

The interesting point is that there are static solutions to the field equations: three of them to be precise. One has a spherical geometry, one has a Minkowski metric, and the other, de Sitter's, a hyperbolic geometry. The latter is the only one that is tenable; based on observational evidence

 

 

 

In any case, I see your model as having nothing substantial in common with any of these.

 

It does actually. There is only a minor difference between the CC interpretation and the hyperbolic de Sitter model, with respect to the value of lambda.

 

 

I believe the combination of increasing mass + GR + no expansion would lead to a gravity well where all the matter has settled. Given enough time this is the solution gravity finds because it is only attractive and all matter responds to it. Everything (eventually) would swirl down the gravity drain.

 

Absolutely not. That happens only when gravity is considered an attractive force, not when gravity is correctly taken as a curved spacetime phenomenon (not to mention the physical role of lambda). In the case of global curvature there is no central gravitational well. There is very little observable difference between a cosmological Doppler redshift (a change in the scale factor to the metric), and redshift due to propagation through a curved spacetime continuum: a general relativistic redshift. This is not a gravitational redshift of a photon departing from a compact source, it is a global effect due to the nonzero mass-energy density of the manifold.

 

Whether one chooses to describe a redshifts as curved spacetime phenomenon (global gravitational shifts, if you will) or as a Doppler effect depends on which coordinate system is chosen: a non-Euclidean metric?a hyperbolic spacetime in accord with GR preferably?or a flat, Euclidean, special relativistic space with a changing scale factor to the metric, respectively.

 

All all spectral shifts can be understood as gravitational or Doppler. As far as I know, these are the only interpretations possible for cosmological redshift z since they are both wavelength independent over the entire range of the spectrum (over 19 octaves). Any other result would not be allowed by observation.

 

CC

 

 

 

-----------

 

De Sitter's model IS a minkowski metric. I think you should research de Sitter's model before you compare it to your own. Firstly - de Sitter had one model that continued to evolve but kept the same basic structure. Secondly - his model cannot be said to be Euclidean or Minkowski as he worked it out both ways. Do you know what this means? Different coordinate systems describing the same model. One description has static coordinates and the other is more cartesian-like. His first description is thus:

 

a hypersphere of 4 dimensions embedded in 5 dimension Euclidean space with imaginary time coordinates. This would be called the static solution as the coordinates are "static". This is not the static solution because it does not expand. In fact Einstein's main objection to this model was that it is not globally static. This same model was originally described like this:

 

a 4-hyper-hyperboloid embedded in a 4+1 Minkowski spacetime with a space-time like time coordinate. This is the non-static coordinate system. It has the Cartesian-like coordinate system. And yes - it is a Minkowski metric.

 

So, do you see how strange it sounds for you to say there are three solutions to the field equations that can be static:

• spherical geometry

• Minkowski Metric and

• hyperbolic geometry

and your model best fits the hyperbolic one which is de Sitter's? Because de Sitter's single model can be any and is all of these? The Friedman-Robertson-Walker Model can certainly be hyperbolic geometry and I know how much you hate that model! So - is that really the basis that you're building your model on? :lol:

 

If you do not understand the difference between de Sitter's static model and Einstein's globally static model or even the difference between spherical or hyperbolic space-time then you need to go back to the CC model-o-universe drawing board.

 

I don't know what turned you on to de Sitter's model (I personally find it very insightful) but I think you have been misled about the basics. The very best mathematicians have a hard time extrapolating GR into a cosmological model. I don't think Einstein really understood de Sitter's model - at least not until Klein explained it to him. So, I don't understand why it works the way it does. But, I would suggest studying the basics behind these geometries and metrics before trying to equate them to your model.

 

-modest

 

 

You may not have known that in 1929, the historically correct year that his official discovery was made, Edwin Hubble published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this seminal work he writes: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.” (1929 was also the year of black Thursday at the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning of a long recession).

 

Hubble continues: “In the de Sitter cosmology, displacements of the spectra arise from two sources, an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter. The latter involves an acceleration and hence introduces the element of time.” (Hubble 1929). Hubble seems to have somewhat misinterpreted the de Sitter effect, since the slowing down of clocks with distance is the element of time.

 

Indeed, the time-like interval is dependent on distance; meaning that clocks would appear to run slower with increasing distance (time dilation). In a static universe this would manifest itself as a redshift that increases with distance: This is the so-called de Sitter effect.

 

It was shown in 1929 by Tolman that three (and only three) static solutions could satisfy Einstein's field equations. One is the famous Einstein model, 1917, with a fixed static scale factor. The next solution is that of Minkowski spacetime, where the metric tensor have four coordinates, 1, 1, 1, -1. The third solution was found by de Sitter, c. 1917, described inaccurately above by Hubble. In this model redshift manifests itself increasingly with distance from the observer. A clock placed at the observer will keep a different time than an identical clock placed at a large distance in the manifold. The timelike interval depends on distance, becoming smaller with greater distance. Consequently, clocks appear to slow down as a function of distance. This is the de Sitter effect, the de Sitter redshift in a static universe.

 

 

Here is one version of the de Sitter metric for a static universe.

 

 

There are other similar interpretation: The chronometric redshift resembles Weyl’s transitory suggestion of 1921, in which time variation in the non-static case is interpreted as spatial variations in the static case. An analogous situation arises when comparing the spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological spacetimes of Ellis (1977-78), with Segal’s four-dimensional globally hyperbolic (curved), pseudo Riemannian temporal evolution of the spacetime manifold. There is also the Milne model, where the global geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, as related by the standard Lorenz transformation.

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

You may not have known that in 1929, the historically correct year that his official discovery was made, Edwin Hubble published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this seminal work he writes: “The outstanding feature, however, is the possibility that the velocity-distance relation may represent the de Sitter effect, and hence that numerical data may be introduced into discussions of the general curvature of space.” (1929 was also the year of black Thursday at the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning of a long recession).

 

Hubble continues: “In the de Sitter cosmology, displacements of the spectra arise from two sources, an apparent slowing down of atomic vibrations and a general tendency of material particles to scatter. The latter involves an acceleration and hence introduces the element of time.” (Hubble 1929). Hubble seems to have somewhat misinterpreted the de Sitter effect, since the slowing down of clocks with distance is the element of time.

CC

 

Isn't that so telling. You cut the quote off one sentence before its completion. The next sentence in the quote is this:

"The relative importance of these two effects should determine the form of the relation between distances and observed velocities; and in this connection it may be emphasized that the linear relation found in the present discussion is a first approximation representing a restricted range in distance"

Regarding Hubble's comparison of the data to the de Sitter effect, this last sentence is the most important. Here is what it means:

De Sitter's effect is quadratic. Redshift to distance relations in the de Sitter model would not be linear. However, the data that Hubble collected was linear. It certainly was not quadratic. This is the first thing that would jump out at anyone comparing the Hubble data to the de Sitter effect. So, Hubble writes that this might be the case because of the "restricted range" in his data. He is postulating that perhaps as the survey is expanded in range the nature of the quadratic relationship will be shown. And, the nature of Hubble's data is a "first approximation" mimicking the start of a quadratic relationship as a linear one.

 

We now have established that the relationship is linear and not quadratic. It cannot be the de Sitter effect. Hubble was on to this before he got the paper out the door.

 

I like the de Sitter solution - it is very creative. To think that he developed it so quickly and naturally and that it had no inherent and internal contradictions mathematically is just amazing. He obviously was a brilliant mathematician. Unfortunately, his solution isn't representative of certain aspects of our space-time; but fascinating none-the-less. We can rule out de Sitter's solution for the above reason just like we can rule out Einstein's because it has no redshift. But, they both are worth studying I think.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

You cut the quote off one sentence before its completion.

 

There has never been total acceptance that the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe. In the American mythic pantheon Edwin Hubble stands right near the top. Hubble’s name and reputation have reached the status of ‘scientific immortality’ for having discovered the first observational evidence of an expanding universe, despite his reticence that continued into the 1950’s. Evidence that Hubble was still questioning whether the expansion was real, or not, can be seen in one of his 1953 diagrams (Darwin Lecture) where he noted in uppercase, “NO RECESSION FACTOR” (Sandage 1993, p. 107).

 

 

Regarding Hubble's comparison of the data to the de Sitter effect, this last sentence is the most important. Here is what it means: De Sitter's effect is quadratic. Redshift to distance relations in the de Sitter model would not be linear. However, the data that Hubble collected was linear. It certainly was not quadratic. This is the first thing that would jump out at anyone comparing the Hubble data to the de Sitter effect. So, Hubble writes that this might be the case because of the "restricted range" in his data. He is postulating that perhaps as the survey is expanded in range the nature of the quadratic relationship will be shown. And, the nature of Hubble's data is a "first approximation" mimicking the start of a quadratic relationship as a linear one.

 

The fact is, Hubble's program failed. There were systematic errors in his magnitude scale in all the selected areas tested. In addition, it is well known that he made errors in the K correction, he neglected non-selective band-width term. He also was incorrect in his assumption of a black body spectrum for the selected energy distribution, SED, of temperature 6000 K through the filter response shift: (a) The sprectra of galaxies are not black body, (;) he was off by more than 2000 K for the temperature of M31 (Sandage, 1993).

 

Seven years after his 1929 paper, Hubble released another decisive work entitled The Realm of the Nebula, where he carefully and clearly exposes the uncertainties regarding the interpretation of the observed redshifts of galactic nebulae:

 

“Any plausible interpretation of red-shifts must account for the loss of energy. The loss must occur either in the nebulae themselves or in the immensely long paths over which the light travels on its journey to the observer.” [He goes on to say] “The necessary investigations are beset with difficulties and uncertainties' date=' and conclusions from data now available are rather dubious. They are mentioned here in order to emphasize the fact that interpretation of red-shifts is at least partially within the range of empirical investigation. For this reason the attitude of the observer is somewhat different from that of the theoretical investigator. Because the telescopic resources are not yet exhausted, judgment may be suspended until it is known from observations whether or not red-shifts do actually represent motion.” [interestingly, he proceeds and cautions the reader'] ”Meanwhile, red-shifts may be expressed on a scale of velocities as a matter of convenience. They behave as velocity-shifts behave and they are very simply represented on the same familiar scale, regardless of the ultimate interpretation. The term “apparent velocity” may be used very carefully…” [And, as a finishing touch, he adds] “The crucial data are surrounded by uncertainties. By pressing the data to the limit of their tolerance, always in one direction, we might force the velocity-shifts into the framework of the surveys. The universe would then be small, and filled to the very threshold of perception. On the other hand, if the interpretation as velocity-shifts is abandoned, we find in the red-shifts a hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown.” (Hubble 1936)

 

His use of the Doppler formula for calculating “apparent velocities” was strictly for “convenience” and simplicity. He very shrewdly left open the possibility that at some time in the future, when observational data would yield less “dubious” results, that an “ultimate interpretation” might be equally compelling, if not more so.

 

The claim that Hubble discovered the expanding universe in 1929 is found in almost all of the pertinent literature. The fact is that Hubble tended to attribute the redshift to a “de Sitter effect” meaning that that the redshift is not essentially caused by the recession or radial velocities of galaxies but by variations in time-like intervals; clocks would appear to slow down with increasing distance.

 

 

 

We now have established that the relationship is linear and not quadratic. It cannot be the de Sitter effect. Hubble was on to this before he got the paper out the door.

 

At the time Hubble was active, it was simply impossible to measure the degree of curvature, nonlinearity, between the redshift-distance (and light curve) relation. And so was it impossible, then, do differentiate between the de Sitter redshift in a hyperbolically curved static universe, from a Doppler shift in an expanding Euclidean regime. To state otherwise would be to neglect decisive historical facts (some of which are mentioned above).

 

Not until the 1990s, with observations of distant supernovae type Ia, would it be possible to study analytically with any degree of certainty the global geometric structure of the cosmos. That data would be interpreted as an acceleration of expansion, as everyone knows.

 

The explanation of the data rests on the fact that remote highly redshifted SNe Ia appear further away than expected in a flat Euclidean expanding universe—when these supernovae reach maximum brightness they are approximately 25 percent fainter than the peak brightness they would have attained in a universe where lambda equals zero. Adequately large values of dark energy, or omega (vacuum), “would imply that no big bang had ever occurred—quite a conundrum for cosmology”…(Goldsmith 2000).

 

 

 

I like the de Sitter solution - it is very creative. To think that he developed it so quickly and naturally and that it had no inherent and internal contradictions mathematically is just amazing. He obviously was a brilliant mathematician. Unfortunately, his solution isn't representative of certain aspects of our space-time; but fascinating none-the-less. We can rule out de Sitter's solution for the above reason just like we can rule out Einstein's because it has no redshift. But, they both are worth studying I think.

 

I like the de Sitter solutions too. I'm not sure how creative they are though. After all he was solving problems posed by the field equations: Her Einstein's general postulate of relativity. I suppose Einstein and de Sitter are like Picasso and Braque: They both contributed extensively to furthering our understanding of the relation geometry-nature, but only one of the two is considered a genius.

 

Your contention that de Sitter's solution "isn't representative of certain aspects of our space-time" sounds like it is based more on philosophy (or worse, belief) than it is on cold, hard, quantitative observational data. You still cling to the old linear distance-velocity relation (Hubble's law) as if something could be salvaged from it even after the earthquake that represented the SNe Ia observations, which clearly show a large deviation from linearity.

 

I understand you obviously feel comfortable with the introduction of Aristotle's “sublime substance,” invisible ‘matter,’ and profuse quantities of elusive dark energy to save the BBT, but it is time, high time, that all the evidence be looked at with the open eyes of both Einstein (for his GR and his cosmological term) and de Sitter (for his curved spacetime metric).

 

 

In the 1930’s, modern science had not yet unchained itself from the faith that was concealed from the senses, inaccessible to experiment or observation and implicit in Newtonian gravitation. By limiting its field of action to a highly dubious interpretation of observable quantities and simple calculations, the Doppler effect was erroneously attributed to the galactic redshifts. In the place of non-Euclidean spatial variations, which were nothing but words, in the place of global hyperbolicity and gravitational time variations, which were nothing but mathematical constructions, cosmology erected its own edifice. Bearing in mind the experience of the last century, it is today as inadmissible to maintain that the large-scale structure of spacetime is Euclidean, as to assert that the Earth is flat.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

CC I don't understand. You are a steady state guy and de Sitter's universe expands into nothingness? Or at least approaches nothingness.

[coldcreation]

CC I don't understand. You are a steady state guy and de Sitter's universe expands into nothingness? Or at least approaches nothingness.

 

Hi Little Bang,

 

What do you mean by "nothingness"?

 

 

 

CC

[Little Bang]

The density of matter per cubic meter approaches zero.

[coldcreation]

CC I don't understand. You are a steady state guy and de Sitter's universe expands into nothingness? Or at least approaches nothingness.

 

Which de Sitter model are you referring to, the 1917 model?

 

When you write steady state, do you mean the steady state theory (Hoyle, Bondi, Gold) or QSSC, other?

 

 

CC

[modest]

CC-

It's nice to see you arguing for a model that is not your own :)

 

In 1930 de Sitter admitted that neither solution (his or Einstein's) could represent our universe.

In 1931 de Sitter discovered Lemaître's solution and found it to be the "true solution"

 

Einstein came to the same conclusion. In fact, Einstein came to the conclusion that no static solution was valid because "the general structure of the Universe is not static"

[modest]

CC I don't understand. You are a steady state guy and de Sitter's universe expands into nothingness? Or at least approaches nothingness.

 

Yes Little Bang, de Sitter's universe expands into nothingness. It expands to the point where 2 observers standing next to each other standing still would never see each other. However, it is a vacuum solution - if you add matter and fine tune the cosmological constant (like Einstein's) you can balance it out. His original model was just a vacuum he later added inertial and gravitational elements and a cosmological constant to see if it could in fact represent something 'real'. He came to the conclusion that it did not.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

CC-

It's nice to see you arguing for a model that is not your own :eek:

 

The metric is only part of a model.

 

In 1930 de Sitter admitted that neither solution (his or Einstein's) could represent our universe.

In 1931 de Sitter discovered Lemaître's solution and found it to be the "true solution"

 

As I mentioned earlier, observations back in the 1930s (and in fact up to early 1990s) were simply insufficient to conclude which model or metric would best fit the real world. Even now (with the SNe Ia observations) it may be too early, but curvature has been observed, or at least a large deviation from linearity (whatever the interpretation or cause).

 

 

Einstein came to the same conclusion. In fact, Einstein came to the conclusion that no static solution was valid because "the general structure of the Universe is not static"

 

Tolman proved him wrong.

 

There are three static solutions (see above) as you now know.

 

Einstein also abandoned the idea of a flat, Euclidean universe with the advent of his general postulate of relativity.

 

 

 

cc

[modest]

Tolman proved him wrong.

 

There are three static solutions (see above) as you now know.

 

Einstein also abandoned the idea of a flat, Euclidean universe with the advent of his general postulate of relativity.

cc

 

'Tolman proved Einstein wrong', that's funny! Einstein said that ALL static solutions are WRONG - including Tolman's list of 3. If Tolman is right and there are only 3 static solutions then they are ALL wrong according to Einstein. :)

'Tolman proved Einstein wrong'... :eek:

 

-modest