Redshift z

[modest]

The CMB cannot be used to differentiate between the two models, since there is no guarantee that the CMB is redshifted.

 

What two models? Any model you manage that redshifts cosmic bodies would redshift CMB as well. Why is CMB the one cosmic observation you wish to exclude from redshift? Is it so you can carry on your objection that it’s off topic? As I understand, you want to closely study the redshift of galaxies, quasars, supernova, etc yet you arbitrarily don't want to study the redshift of the CMB. No - the CMB is a perfectly valid observation that is redshifted in standard cosmology and therefore finds a place in this discussion.

 

The CMB is, after all, a thermal spectrum that is present within our Local Supercluster (where object exhibit both redshift and blueshift). Its temperature outside of this region seems to be unattainable, at least for now.

 

The CMB has a different dipole from the local supercluster. Our supercluster moves relative to the background radiation. They are therefore separate. CMBR is generated outside our local supercluster. How redshifted does that make it?

 

The "the temperature of space and dust" does not create the CMBR. The CMBR simply gives us the temperature of space. The source of the CMBR is beyond the scope of this thread, since we do not know if it originated beyond the Local Group or not. Its source is a new discussion, just as the source of the light elements and their isotopes is a different topic.

 

The abundance of light elements has nothing to do with redshift of any cosmic observations including the CMB. Why this is the second time you’ve compared them, I have no idea. You want to look at the redshift of supernova and I want to look at the redshift of the CMB. Both are valid and your attempt to exclude will fail. Of that, I’m confident.

 

You sound very confident. :)

 

Very confident :)

 

True. But that depends to some extent on the model (on evolution)... Not necessarily. That entirely depends on the model.

 

What model again? De Sitter spacetime has never successfully described our universe - a conclusion that even de Sitter came to. Plus, you can’t just add the de Sitter effect on to any model of your choosing. It is a very specific consequence of the de Sitter metric. I therefore conclude you have no model containing an alternate theory of redshift that even tentatively agrees with observation.

 

Again, there is an assumption made about the alternative model to which you refer;

 

To be quite honest, being I haven’t yet seen this model you keep referring to - all I can do is assume things about it.

 

just as there is an assumption about the static model involved in the Tolman surface brightness test. Recall, the Tolman test assumes a static universe to be geometrically Euclidean (flat), thus making it distinguishable from an expanding model. But that is not necessarily the case.

 

I don’t have to assume the Tolman brightness test is explained by expansion. That’s a matter of record. You are the one assuming hyperbolic geometry can somehow explain it. How? Why? The papers that present the SN1a tests compare the brightness/redshift with hyperbolic geometry and it’s not a fit. That’s another assumption I don’t have to make.

 

Again, space temperature is not giving you the CMBR (nor is the de Sitter effect).

 

Again, CMBR is not excluded from any model that you are (or are not) proposing.

 

The CMBR is giving you the temperature of space. There exists alternative explanations for both the 'primary anisotropy' and the 'late time anisotropy.' For example this work by Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge & R. G. Vishwakarma

 

QSSC is incompatible with the de Sitter effect. In fact, the link you offer advocates real expansion. This does nothing to advance a position of static spacetime or some de Sitter like effect of redshift.

 

This is but one model-based interpretation of the data. There are others still.

 

Let’s hope so.

 

Your move...

 

CC

 

:naughty: This ain’t my first rodeo cowboy :naughty:

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

What two models? Any model you manage that redshifts cosmic bodies would redshift CMB as well. Why is CMB the one cosmic observation you wish to exclude from redshift?

 

The two interpretations for redshift z are the curved spacetime effect and the standard interpretation. I am not proposing here an entire model, or alternative cosmology (so I don't have to go into tedious detail about phenomena such as hydrogen creation, light element creation, source of the CMB and the involved mechanism for thermalization, etc.).

 

Whether or not the CMB is redshifted depends on when and where it originated (or originates). Only in big bang-type cosmologies is it considered a relic from the distant dense past. To discuss the CMB in the context of a curved spacetime redshift z seems irrelevant. In a static universe the CMB is local, everywhere present, its source is local (from hydrogen burning stars). At greater distances of, say, the Local Supercluster, there is also a CMB but it is not traveling towards us, or rather, we don't see it as we do light emitted from distant galaxies, where the photons propagate outwards in all directions, with spectral lines displaced toward the red end of the spectrum. It is a blackbody.

 

...As I understand, you want to closely study the redshift of galaxies, quasars, supernova, etc yet you arbitrarily don't want to study the redshift of the CMB. No - the CMB is a perfectly valid observation that is redshifted in standard cosmology and therefore finds a place in this discussion.

 

Again, of the three pillars of modern cosmology (the CMBR, premordial creation of the light isotopes and their abundance, cosmological redshift z as a Doppler-like effect), I have chosen one, the latter as the topic for this thread.

 

The CMB can be discussed here, but once more, comparison will be difficult because of the fact that there is no guarantee it is a redshifted relic, in a static universe the CMB is not redshifted, or if it is the spectrum is too faint to detect.

 

With respect to the standard model, a redshifted CMB can only be compared with itself or other models that were hot and dense in the past, where expansion also partakes in the CMB redshifting process. This is the reason I would like to stay focused on the spectral shifts of light from sources beyond the Local Supercluster. Only then is it possible to draw conclusions about redshift z.

 

 

 

The CMB has a different dipole from the local supercluster. Our supercluster moves relative to the background radiation. They are therefore separate. CMBR is generated outside our local supercluster. How redshifted does that make it?

 

Yes, the Supercluster moves relative to the background radiation. That is true for many (if not all) cosmologies. In a stationary universe (one that is non-expanding, for those of you who wonder what 'stationary' means), the CMB permeates all of space, including locally. It is not moving with us. We are moving though it. Therefore the Supercluster and the CMB are both separate and intrinsically connected.

 

Let me give you an analogy regarding taking the temperature of the CMB. Suppose you were standing in Central Park, in the heart of New York City. You goal is to determine the ambient temperature. You whip out your thermometer and wait. After a while you look at it. It reads, say, 40 degrees Celsius. But now you want to find out the temperature at the Bronx Zoo. Your thermometer is of no use. So you carefully extract from your briefcase a horn shaped antenna designed specifically for the purpose at hand. You point it towards the Bronx Zoo from the top of the Hayden Planetarium Space Theater (where you got permission to carry out this test from the American Museum of Natural History, Rose Center for Earth and Space. So far so good. You know the temperature at the Bronx Zoo is always cooler than at Central Park (CP) by 1 degree, so you make your prediction of 39 degrees and hit the power button on you horn. To your surprise the thermal spectrum reads 40 degrees. Why?

 

Because your horn was picking up the ambient temperature that permeated all of Central Park. You cannot from Central Park determine the temperature at the Bronx Zoo unless it is hotter. You could wait for the wind to blow in the right direction (south-southwest) and assume that because the temp now reads 39 and that 6 minutes has passed by, that according to the distance of the zoo from CP that the air at the zoo 6 minutes ago was 39 degrees (taking into account the blueshift from the wind and the motion of Earth's rotation). But there is no guarantee that the temperature at the zoo is still 39. It could now be 38 degrees. So your prediction is still off.

 

My point is simple. When we observe the CMB, because of the fact that the thermal spectrum bathes the local area too (we are after all moving though it), we cannot determine the thermal spectrum directly at larger distances unless it is of higher temperature at those locations. But even then your readings will show the local temperature. You will have to assume it was redshifted without compelling evidence.

 

And because there is no way, empirically, to determine its source, or when it was emitted, extrapolations have to be made based on a model. That is what determines if the spectrum is shifted towards the less refrangible end of the spectrum (towards the red), or not.

 

So if the CMB was hotter in the past, or colder in the past, we have no way of finding out directly from the CMB. Other observations need to be carried out, of the type hinted at above (By, for example, looking at the Lyman-alpha resonance line of hydrogen (at a wavelength of 1216A) to trace hydrogen gas through the absorption of light in the vicinity of quasars). But, as stated above, those experiment have proved inconclusive at best (despite fantastic claims to the contrary).

 

The idea that the CMB was hotter in the past is not based on empirical evidence.

 

 

:naughty:

 

 

 

The abundance of light elements has nothing to do with redshift of any cosmic observations including the CMB. Why this is the second time you’ve compared them, I have no idea.

 

Edit:

 

Element Abundances at High Redshifts: The N/O Ratio at Low Metallicity

 

Abundances in the High-redshift Intergalactic Medium

 

Deuterium at High Redshifts: Recent Advances and Open Issues

 

STELLAR ABUNDANCES AND MOLECULAR HYDROGEN IN HIGH-REDSHIFT GALAXIES: THE FAR-ULTRAVIOLET VIEW

 

And so on...

 

Light element abundance at high redshift.

 

 

You want to look at the redshift of supernova and I want to look at the redshift of the CMB. Both are valid and your attempt to exclude will fail. Of that, I’m confident.

 

While everyone agrees that the light emitted from SNe Ia is redshifted, not everyone agrees the the thermal spectrum (CMB) is redshifted. Rather than argue for or against something we are not sure of, let's concentrate, first, on observations for which there is a common consensus: light emitted from astronomical objects located beyond the Local Supercluster is redshifted, for whatever reason. And it appears to become more redshifted with increasing distance.

 

For now, I see two possible causes for z, both of which are wavelength independent.

 

 

What model again? De Sitter spacetime has never successfully described our universe - a conclusion that even de Sitter came to. Plus, you can’t just add the de Sitter effect on to any model of your choosing. It is a very specific consequence of the de Sitter metric. I therefore conclude you have no model containing an alternate theory of redshift that even tentatively agrees with observation.

 

In 1929, Hubble published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this work he wrote: “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.”

 

 

The de Sitter effect describes a mechanism for cosmological redshift that is not due to expansion. De Sitter was able to demonstrate that the geometrical structure of pure space (a completely empty universe, where both density and pressure are equal to zero) is a hypersphere—time is no longer independent of space, but depends on distance. The time and space that separates two points is curved, corresponding to a hyperbolic spacetime description. In other words, from the point of view of a hypothetical observer (located anywhere in the universe), the time that elapses between two events is proportional to the distance of the events.

 

I argue that there remains today a viable solution (that was discarded prematurely), to the source or cause of redshift observed in spectral lines of light emitted from distant objects, called the de Sitter effect (first hypothesized circa 1917,) that is independent of expansion. So redshift is observed in both static and expanding models. The question is: which universe do we live in?

 

The de Sitter effect, though, is not the whole story. It is not a complete cosmology. All it does is describe how redshift z might occur, that spacetime is geometrically hyperbolic. Observations, and observations alone, will determine to what extent the geometrical structure of spacetime is curved.

 

 

To be quite honest, being I haven’t yet seen this model you keep referring to - all I can do is assume things about it.

 

I am not presenting an alternative cosmological model here. I simply point out that there are two viable interpretations for cosmological redshift: one in an expanding universe, and the other not.

 

 

I don’t have to assume the Tolman brightness test is explained by expansion. That’s a matter of record. You are the one assuming hyperbolic geometry can somehow explain it. How? Why? The papers that present the SN1a tests compare the brightness/redshift with hyperbolic geometry and it’s not a fit. That’s another assumption I don’t have to make.

 

The Tolman brightness test is explained by expansion, and it is also explained by non-Euclidean spacetime. Recall, the test assumed a static universe is flat. Thus expansion prevailed. The same test should be carried out for a static universe where the spacetime manifold is curved. How curved? Observations determine the degree of curvature. General relativity provides the means by which we understand the geometrical quality of spacetime in the presence of mass and energy.

 

GR is not the whole story either. It is not a cosmology. Observations are made, and interpretations of those observations, derived from GR, will determine the cosmology.

 

 

This ain’t my first rodeo cowboy :)

~modest

 

Let's hope it wont be your last. :naughty:

 

 

 

 

Check...

 

 

CC

[modest]

Again, of the three pillars of modern cosmology (the CMBR, premordial creation of the light isotopes and their abundance, cosmological redshift z as a Doppler-like effect), I have chosen one, the latter as the topic for this thread.

 

My only point is that you’ve also somehow chosen which redshifted sources get examined. We could go back and forth with this for a week, so I won’t push it.

 

The CMB can be discussed here, but once more, comparison will be difficult because of the fact that there is no guarantee it is a redshifted relic, in a static universe the CMB is not redshifted, or if it is the spectrum is too faint to detect.

 

Comparison will be difficult as you say. In fact, it will be impossible without a model. This brings up a larger point than the CMB: Without a model (or a metric I should more accurately say) how do you propose comparing anything’s redshift? A galaxy with redshift 2 for example - in the concordance model it is predicted to have a certain brightness which it achieves by putting parameters in FLRW. What exactly are we comparing that to? Without an “or”, there’s no “either or”.

 

For now, I see two possible causes for z, both of which are wavelength independent.

 

In 1929, Hubble published a famous paper entitled A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula. In this work he wrote: “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.”

 

The de Sitter effect describes a mechanism for cosmological redshift that is not due to expansion. De Sitter was able to demonstrate that the geometrical structure of pure space (a completely empty universe, where both density and pressure are equal to zero) is a hypersphere—time is no longer independent of space, but depends on distance. The time and space that separates two points is curved, corresponding to a hyperbolic spacetime description. In other words, from the point of view of a hypothetical observer (located anywhere in the universe), the time that elapses between two events is proportional to the distance of the events.

 

An empty Friedmann universe is hyperbolic as well. Give it a cosmological constant as de Sitter did and what difference is there? I’m not saying “what are the conceptual differences”. We’ve been over that before. What are the numerical differences? If you put matter in de Sitter’s metric what happens - is it still hyperbolic? Why is there no model that satisfies these questions? Without a model, how would we know how wrong it is? Your argument is completely non-falsifiable at this point.

 

I argue that there remains today a viable solution (that was discarded prematurely), to the source or cause of redshift observed in spectral lines of light emitted from distant objects, called the de Sitter effect (first hypothesized circa 1917,) that is independent of expansion. So redshift is observed in both static and expanding models. The question is: which universe do we live in?

 

The question of which universe we live in is answered by the other pillars of the big bang. Shrugging that off we still have the vacuum of an alternate solution. I don’t mind exploring what you’re saying - it’s just difficult without something to explore. As you say:

 

The de Sitter effect, though, is not the whole story. It is not a complete cosmology.

 

You, however, fail to realize that you can’t solve for redshift without a functioning metric that defines redshift. Our universe is not a de Sitter universe, it doesn’t have enough matter. So where do we go from there? I’m honestly asking. We have all this redshift data, what are we comparing it to?

 

Check...

 

 

CC

 

Oh, I see. We’re playing chess now. I thought it was roshambo. No, no, no, you’re thinking rochambeau - I’m saying roshambo. Remember: :naughty:

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Oh, I see. We’re playing chess now. I thought it was roshambo. No, no, no, you’re thinking rochambeau - I’m saying roshambo. Remember: :(

 

~modest

 

:hyper: Hihi. I had not yet heard of roshambo.

 

My only point is that you’ve also somehow chosen which redshifted sources get examined. We could go back and forth with this for a week, so I won’t push it.

 

All sources that display redshift (even those located inside the Local Supercluster, some of which display a blueshift) are fair game: the Sun, other stars, globular clusters, galaxies of all stripes, quasars, GRB, novae, SNe, etc.).

 

The CMB is not a 'source' that displays redshift (I might be wrong, but so far I have not found one single paper about it. It is a blackbody. Even though, yes, it is estimated that its redshift aught to be z = 1089. Or, in another way, the CMB is estimated to be receding from us at 0.9999983 the speed of light c. But where's the beef?.

 

Again. There is no empirical evidence to sustain the position the the CMB is redshifted. Nor is there any substantial evidence to conclude the the CMB was hotter in the past. In another way, the prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past, even with ongoing tests of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high-z, has not been unequivocally confirmed. As far as the amplitude of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in galaxy clusters is concerned, this does not depend directly on redshift. Unfortunately the amplitude depends heavily on the properties of galaxy clusters. These properties change considerably with time, thus a precise test is impossible.

 

So unless you can provide a source which shows evidence that the CMB is redshifted (rather than just speculating), I don't see why the CMB should be included in a discussion about cosmological redshift z (for which there is plenty of empirical evidence coming from galaxies and other objects).

 

 

Comparison will be difficult as you say. In fact, it will be impossible without a model. This brings up a larger point than the CMB: Without a model (or a metric I should more accurately say) how do you propose comparing anything’s redshift? A galaxy with redshift 2 for example - in the concordance model it is predicted to have a certain brightness which it achieves by putting parameters in FLRW. What exactly are we comparing that to? Without an “or”, there’s no “either or”.

 

Let's for now compare the standard interpretation of redshift to the Lobachevskian curved spacetime redshift interpretation proposed in the links posted above, and posted here again for convenience: Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

And here:

 

TOPOLOGICAL WAVELENGTH SHIFTS [ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN LOBACHEVSKIAN GEOMETRY.

 

 

... Your argument is completely non-falsifiable at this point.

 

The curved spacetime redshift is falsifiable, just as any other interpretation of cosmological redshift z is falsifiable.

 

For example, had observations shown a linear redshift-distance relation it would have been extremely difficult to justify why there would be such a perfect relation in a curved spacetime regime. A nonlinear field (one that departs from a Euclidean manifold) will show a nonlinear redshift-distance relation.

 

Here you may wish to argue that linearity is observed, in accord with Hubble's law.. But that is not the case. It really never had been. And the SNe Ia data inarguably clinched the case against it.

 

 

The question of which universe we live in is answered by the other pillars of the big bang. Shrugging that off we still have the vacuum of an alternate solution. I don’t mind exploring what you’re saying - it’s just difficult without something to explore.

 

Ultimately you may be correct. The multitude of data coming from other sectors of physics, particle physics, astrophysics, astronomy, etc., will be need to formulate a cosmology (a theory of everything perhaps).

 

But for the time being, we have something to explore (see the links above). Again, let's start-over by analyzing the geometry first published by Lobachevsky. Gauss did not publish, until later, his findings—developed independently of Lobachevsky around the same time (independently too from János Bolyai)—for fear or ridicule: something suffered by Lobachevsky after his work was published).

 

Recall that Lobachevskian space (hyperbolic space, or hyperbolic geometry) became the Riemannian space of constant negative curvature that would subsequently find application within the framework of Einstein’s principle of general relativity

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Coldcreation, I have noted your links above and I shall read them very soon.

 

I just finished reading these links

 

People have locked their minds on expansion, not knowing that its a theory. To understand what is going on, is to read more. But! the more I read the more I find that I know very little.

 

[gr-qc/0605120] Can inhomogeneties accelerate the cosmic volume expansion?

 

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

 

Title: Can inhomogeneties accelerate the cosmic volume expansion?

 

Authors: Tomohiro Kai, Hiroshi Kozaki, Ken-ichi nakao, Yasusada Nambu, Chul-Moon Yoo

(Submitted on 22 May 2006 (v1), last revised 28 Feb 2007 (this version, v2))

 

 

 

Abstract: If expanding and contracting regions coexist in the universe, the speed of the cosmic volume expansion can be accelerated. We construct simple inhomogeneous dust-filled universe models in which the speed of the cosmic volume expansion is accelerated for finite periods. These models are constructed by removing spherical domains from the Einstein-de Sitter universe and filling each domain with a Lemaitre-Tolman-Bondi dust sphere possessing the same gravitational mass as the removed region. This represents an exact solution of the Einstein equations. We find that acceleration of the cosmic volume expansion is realized in some cases when the size of the contracting region is comparable to the horizon radius of the Einstein-de Sitter universe though this model is very different from the universe observed today. This result implies that non-linear general relativistic effects of inhomogeneities are very important to realize the acceleration of the cosmic volume expansion.

 

 

 

 

[astro-ph/0605213] The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

 

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

 

Authors: Jin He

(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

 

 

 

Abstract: The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

[gr-qc/0611127] f® actions, cosmic acceleration and local tests of gravity

 

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

 

Title: f® actions, cosmic acceleration and local tests of gravity

 

Authors: I. Navarro, K. Van Acoleyen

(Submitted on 23 Nov 2006)

 

 

 

Abstract: We study spherically symmetric solutions in f® theories and its compatibility with local tests of gravity. We start by clarifying the range of validity of the weak field expansion and show that for many models proposed to address the Dark Energy problem this expansion breaks down in realistic situations. This invalidates the conclusions of several papers that make inappropriate use of this expansion. For the stable models that modify gravity only at small curvatures we find that when the asymptotic background curvature is large we approximately recover the solutions of Einstein gravity through the so-called Chameleon mechanism, as a result of the non-linear dynamics of the extra scalar degree of freedom contained in the metric. In these models one would observe a transition from Einstein to scalar-tensor gravity as the Universe expands and the background curvature diminishes. Assuming an adiabatic evolution we estimate the redshift at which this transition would take place for a source with given mass and radius. We also show that models of dynamical Dark Energy claimed to be compatible with tests of gravity because the mass of the scalar is large in vacuum (e.g. those that also include R^2 corrections in the action), are not viable.

 

 

 

[0709.2909] A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating Universe

 

Physics > General Physics

 

Title: A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating Universe

 

Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)

(Submitted on 18 Sep 2007)

 

 

 

Abstract: We show that modelling the universe as a pre-geometric system with emergent quantum modes, and then constructing the classical limit, we obtain a new account of space and gravity that goes beyond Newtonian gravity even in the non-relativistic limit. This account does not require dark matter to explain the spiral galaxy rotation curves, and explains as well the observed systematics of black hole masses in spherical star systems, the bore hole $ anomalies, gravitational lensing and so on. As well the dynamics has a Hubble expanding universe solution that gives an excellent parameter-free account of the supernovae and gamma-ray-burst red-shift data, without dark energy or dark matter. The Friedmann-Lema^{i}tre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric is derived from this dynamics, but is shown not satisfy the General Relativity based Friedmann equations. It is noted that General Relativity dynamics only permits an expanding flat 3-space solution if the energy density in the pressure-less dust approximation is non-zero. As a consequence dark energy and dark matter are required in this cosmological model, and as well the prediction of a future exponential accelerating Hubble expansion. The FLRW $Lambda model data-based parameter values, $Omega_Lambda=0.73$, $Omega_{DM}=0.27$, are derived within the quantum cosmology model, but are shown to be merely artifacts of using the Friedmann equations in fitting the red-shift data.

 

 

 

[0712.0017] An analytic model for the bispectrum of galaxies in redshift space

Astrophysics

 

Title: An analytic model for the bispectrum of galaxies in redshift space

 

Authors: Robert E. Smith (UZurich), Ravi K. Sheth (UPenn), Roman Scoccimarro (NYU)

(Submitted on 3 Dec 2007 (v1), last revised 18 Mar 2008 (this version, v2))

 

 

 

Abstract: We develop an analytic theory for the redshift space bispectrum of dark matter, haloes and galaxies. This is done within the context of the halo model of structure formation, as this allows for the self-consistent inclusion of linear and non-linear redshift space distortions and also for the non-linearity of the halo bias. The model is applicable over a wide range of scales: on the largest scales the predictions reduce to those of the standard perturbation theory (PT); on smaller scales they are determined primarily by the nonlinear virial velocities of galaxies within haloes, and this gives rise to the U-shaped anisotropy in the reduced bispectrum -- a finger print of the Finger-Of-God distortions. We then confront the predictions with bispectrum measurements from an ensemble of numerical simulations. On very large scales, k=0.05 h/Mpc, we find reasonably good agreement between our Halo Model, PT and the data, to within the errors. On smaller scales, k=0.1 h/Mpc, the measured bispectra differ from the PT at the level of 10-20%, especially for colinear triangle configurations. The Halo Model predictions improve over PT, but are accurate to no better than 10%. On smaller scales k=0.5-1.0 h/Mpc, our model provides a significant improvement over PT, which breaks down. This implies that studies which use the lowest order PT to extract galaxy bias information are not robust on scales k>0.1 h/Mpc. The analytic and simulation results also indicate that there is no observable scale for which the configuration dependence of the reduced bispectrum is constant--hierarchical models for the higher order correlation functions in redshift space are unlikely to be useful. It is hoped that our model will facilitate extraction of information from large-scale structure surveys of the Universe.

 

 

 

[0802.0967] Acceleration and Deceleration in Curvature Induced Phantom Model of the Late and Future Universe, Cosmic Collapse as Well as its Quantum Escape

 

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

 

Title: Acceleration and Deceleration in Curvature Induced Phantom Model of the Late and Future Universe, Cosmic Collapse as Well as its Quantum Escape

 

Authors: S. K. Srivastava

(Submitted on 7 Feb 2008

 

Abstract: Here, cosmology of the late and future universe is obtained from ®$-gravity with non-linear curvature terms ^2$ and ^3$ ($ being the Ricci scalar curvature). It is different from ®$-dark enrgy models, where non-linear curvature terms are taken as gravitational alternative of dark energy. In the present model, neither linear nor no-linear curvature terms are taken as dark energy. Rather, dark energy terms are induced by curvature terms in the Friedmann equation derived from ®$-gravitational equations. It has advantage over ®$- dark energy models in the sense that the present model satisfies WMAP results and expands as $sim t^{2/3}$ during matter-dominance. So, it does not have problems due to which ®$-dark energy models are criticized. Curvature-induced dark energy, obtained here, mimics phantom. Different phases of this model, including acceleration and deceleration during phantom phase, are investigated here.It is found that expansion of the universe will stop at the age $(3.87 t_0 + 694.4 {rm kyr})$ ($ being the present age of the universe) and after this epoch, it will contract and collapse by the time $(336.87 t_0 + 694.4 {rm kyr})$. Further,it is shown that universe will escape predicted collapse (obtained using classical mechanics) on making quantum gravity corrections relevant near collapse time due to extremely high energy density and large curvature analogous to the state of very early universe. Interestingly, cosmological constant is also induced here, which is very small in classical domain, but very high in quantum domain.

 

 

 

[astro-ph/0509611] Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF

 

Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

(Submitted on 20 Sep 2005 (v1), last revised 26 Sep 2005 (this version, v2))

 

 

 

Abstract: Surface brightness data can distinguish between a Friedman-Robertson-Walker expanding universe and a non-expanding universe. For surface brightness measured in AB magnitudes per angular area, all FRW models, regardless of cosmological parameters, predict that surface brightness declines with redshift as (z+1)^-3, while any non-expanding model predicts that surface brightness is constant with distance and thus with z. High-z UV surface brightness data for galaxies from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and low-z data from GALEX are used to test the predictions of these two models up to z=6. A preliminary analysis presented here of samples observed at the same at-galaxy wavelengths in the UV shows that surface brightness is constant, mu=kz^0.026+-0.15, consistent with the non-expanding model. This relationship holds if distance is linearly proportional to z at all redshifts, but seems insensitive to the particular choice of d-z relationship. Attempts to reconcile the data with FRW predictions by assuming that high-z galaxies have intrinsically higher surface brightness than low-z galaxies appear to face insurmountable problems. The intrinsic FUV surface brightness required by the FRW models for high-z galaxies exceeds the maximum FUV surface brightness of any low-z galaxy by as much as a factor of 40. Dust absorption appears to make such extremely high intrinsic FUV surface brightness physically impossible. If confirmed by further analysis, the impossibility of such high-surface-brightness galaxies would rule out all FRW expanding universe (big bang) models.

[modest]

Let's for now compare the standard interpretation of redshift to the Lobachevskian curved spacetime redshift interpretation proposed in the links posted above, and posted here again for convenience: Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

And here:

 

TOPOLOGICAL WAVELENGTH SHIFTS [ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD IN LOBACHEVSKIAN GEOMETRY.

 

Very nice Sr. Frío. When I have time (very soon I think) I'm going to go after these links enthusiastically.

 

I am excited. If there is a redshift to brightness relationship that is properly derived from hyperbolic geometry to be found - there's certainly data enough to compare it to. I wonder though, what if nothing can be found in these links that agrees with such observations? Would that kill the hyperbolic redshift idea? I only say this because you often come across like LCDM kills the big bang for needing dark matter. If we apply that standard to these papers will the results be the same?

 

Then again, probably no point in setting ground rules as we'd probably end up spending three pages of posts debating them before we ended up roshamboing for them as well. I'll just get straight to the links. It may take some time, but I am on it.

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Here is the pdf version of a link above (where the equations are easier to read): Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

And here is an earlier article (2003) by J. G. von Brzeski and V. von Brezeski, on the same topic: Topological Wavelength Shifts, Elecromagnetic Field in Lobachevskian Geometry

 

 

Very nice Sr. Frío. When I have time (very soon I think) I'm going to go after these links enthusiastically.

 

I look forward to our subsequent discussion.

 

 

I am excited. If there is a redshift to brightness relationship that is properly derived from hyperbolic geometry to be found - there's certainly data enough to compare it to. I wonder though, what if nothing can be found in these links that agrees with such observations? Would that kill the hyperbolic redshift idea?

 

You will find that there is a redshift to brightness relationship that is properly derived from hyperbolic geometry. You will find, too, that there is concordance between the hyperbolically curved spacetime redshift and observations.

 

Obviously, any theory that is in disaccord with observations would have to be abandoned ("killed") or modified. In this case, the modification would not be an addition of DE or CDM, it would simply be a modification of the degree of curvature (a change in the gradient of the manifold) to agree with what is observed. The observations themselves determine the metric structure of spacetime.

 

 

I only say this because you often come across like LCDM kills the big bang for needing dark matter. If we apply that standard to these papers will the results be the same?

 

Yes, CDM kills big bang cosmology, and DE signs its epitaph. :)

 

The downfall of any theory will come from empirical data. So yes again, the same standard should be held for the Lobachevskian spacetime curvature approach.

 

 

...I'll just get straight to the links. It may take some time' date=' but I am on it.

~modest[/quote']

 

 

“Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.”

(Andrew Jackson quoting Napoleon Bonaparte)

 

“You may delay, but time will not.”

(Benjamin Franklin)

 

“Time discovers truth.”

(Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)

 

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

Obviously, any theory that is in disaccord with observations would have to be abandoned ("killed") or modified. In this case, the modification would not be an addition of DE or CDM, it would simply be a modification of the degree of curvature (a change in the gradient of the manifold) to agree with what is observed. The observations themselves determine the metric structure of spacetime.

 

Interesting. You say curvature doesn't have to depend on density. In a Friedmann model there are all those particulars about having to agree with general relativity where geometry and scale factor are determined by density hence the need for dark matter and the cosmological constant.

 

Maybe we should set some ground rules before we get too deep into this. I kind of just assumed any solution would have to agree with GR. Not the case?

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Interesting. You say curvature doesn't have to depend on density.

 

I would suspect that curvature does depend on density. However, it had been shown (notably by de Sitter) that spacetime could be curved even in an empty world model.

 

So you bring up a very good point. What is the geometry of a universe (a vacuum) devoid of all matter and energy? This state is unattainable, but nevertheless, the question is a good one. I would assume such a space would be perfectly Euclidean geometrically, or Minkowskian, where special relativity is operational. But that may not be the case.

 

In the real universe, where all the laws of physics are operational, the vacuum is filled with ground-state energy, ZPE and fluctuations thereof. So even if all material components were to be removed, the vacuum would be non-Euclidean, since ground energy, ZPE, gravitate.

 

So the question remains open for debate.

 

 

In a Friedmann model there are all those particulars about having to agree with general relativity where geometry and scale factor are determined by density hence the need for dark matter and the cosmological constant.

 

Agreeing with GR is not the problem for the Friedmann model (all cosmologies should agree with GR). The problem for the Friedmann model is agreeing with observations. That is why there is the need of CDM and DE).

 

 

Maybe we should set some ground rules before we get too deep into this. I kind of just assumed any solution would have to agree with GR. Not the case?

~modest

 

Sure. Broadly: Any solution would have to agree with GR (as you state above). I would think the laws of nature should remain intact and operational at all times. Any solution would have to agree with observations.

 

The list could go on forever.

 

If you have any more important ones to add please feel free do so, but I think we should just get right to the heart of the debate: Is the Lobachevskian hyperbolic spacetime interpretation for cosmological redshift z in agreement with what is observed in the universe?

 

Perhaps we will find the answer to that question (or at least a partial one) in the work linked above. To answer this question fully and unequivocally will require a rigorous analysis of the observational data in the context of Lobachevskian hyperbolic spacetime.

 

Perhaps, then, a comparison can be made relative to the concordance model (Lambda-CDM) to see which interpretation best fits the data. And, which one does so with the least amount of parameter tweaking. :)

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

I would suspect that curvature does depend on density. However, it had been shown (notably by de Sitter) that spacetime could be curved even in an empty world model.

 

So you bring up a very good point. What is the geometry of a universe (a vacuum) devoid of all matter and energy?

 

An empty universe (vacuum solution) is the most hyperbolic according to GR. This is true of FLRW, de Sitter's solution, Einstein's original model, or any other GR based cosmology. As more mass is added to these models, the density goes up and the geometry is less hyperbolic, flat, then spherical. Like I was saying, according to GR - geometry depends on density.

 

Any solution would have to agree with GR (as you state above)

 

Very good. I'll get back to you when I've gone over the links.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

Its funny that you two were talking about curvature

 

I was reading this paper

 

[0801.0304] Cosmological Perturbation Theory to second order for curvature, density, and gravity waves on FRW background; and the WMAP results of inhomogeneity and clustering in the early universe

 

Cosmological Perturbation Theory to second order for curvature, density, and gravity waves on FRW background; and the WMAP results of inhomogeneity and clustering in the early universe

 

Authors: Ajay Patwardhan, Kartik Prabhu, M.S.R. Kumar

(Submitted on 1 Jan 2008)

 

Abstract: The second order perturbation calculations for gravity wave and Einstein equation for space time and matter are presented for the FRW metric cosmological model. While exact equations are found, suitable approximations are made to obtain definite results. In the gravity wave case the small wavelength case allows nearly locally flat background for obtaining a fit to the WMAP data. In the density and curvature case the FRW background is retained for the length scale of WMAP. Clustering and inhomogeneity are understood. The gravity wave ripples from Big Bang couple nonlinearly and redistribute the modes to higher values of 'l' giving consistency with the WMAP results. The order by order consistency of Einstein equations relate the second order perturbations in the curvature and density and the wrinkles in spacetime caused by the gravity wave modes reorganize these distributions. The radiation data of WMAP gives the picture of a FRW spacetime deformed and wrinkled consistent with matter distribution to one hundred thousandths parts variation.

 

 

Darn ,just got a visitor,,,,,,I'll be back

[modest]

Here is the pdf version of a link above (where the equations are easier to read): Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

And here is an earlier article (2003) by J. G. von Brzeski and V. von Brezeski, on the same topic: Topological Wavelength Shifts, Elecromagnetic Field in Lobachevskian Geometry

 

Very nice Sr. Frío. When I have time (very soon I think) I'm going to go after these links enthusiastically.

 

These links are really captivating, coldcreation. I gave them a quick read which has forced me to review some basics on hyperbolic geometry and spacetime metrics in GR cosmology. It's taken a while, but I don't want to respond with any kind of opinion until I fully understand how they're getting what they have and what the implications are. It still may take a while yet.

 

I just wanted to compliment you on the links because I've looked before for papers with this content, but have been unable to find any, and also to let you know I have not forgotten them or brushed them off.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

Reading the link,,,,,20 pages,,,,,,, posted by coldcreation

 

http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol39/pdf/v39p1501.pdf

EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE — MISTAKE OF

EDWIN HUBBLE? COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT AND

RELATED ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN

STATIC LOBACHEVSKIAN (HYPERBOLIC) UNIVERSE

 

7. Conclusions and remarks

On the basis of a three-dimensional real Lobachevskian geometry, we

presented a geometrical analysis from which cosmological red-shift and related

phenomena follow in natural way. The presented equations give correct

numerical values for their respective physical quantities. The new Eqs. (15)

and (16) which relate red-shift to aberration might be useful in astronomical

observations.

Our presentation of Lobachevsky–Hubble cosmological redshift (5), the

Lobachevskian–Doppler effect (7), and aberration was done in rigorous way

on a purely geometrical basis of Lobachevskian three-dimensional real geometry

with all entities clearly defined. At present, the widely adopted view

explains cosmological red-shift using the vague concept of physical space inflation.

For example, observations tell us that space within galaxies, which

are rather diffuse objects, do not expand. Thus, where is the “border line”

in space which divides expanding space from non expanding space?

Next, we are told that inflation itself is due to some rather mysterious

event, which was sarcastically named by Fred Hoyle (to ridicule the whole

concept), as the big bang.

Instead, we offer an alternative solution based on simple Lobachevskian

geometry. We believe that looking at experimental data and Eq. (5), a much

simpler solution (minimum complexity solution) is to admit that the

space between distant sources and our spectrographs is negatively curved,

i.e. it is a Lobachevskian three-dimensional space causing the recorded

shifts. In other words what we see through our telescopes is the fundamental

formula of Lobachevskian geometry: Eq. (3). Experiments confirm our

model.

From the analysis performed, the importance of the range of applicability

of some mathematical notions follows. For example, someone who

only saw a map of the Earth as in Fig. 2, and had no prior knowledge where

this map came from, and what mechanism was used in mapping process, will

in good faith believe that Greenland is as big as the USA. His or her conclusions

about geography made from the distorted image will be necessarily

false.

Similarly, making conclusions about the geography of the universe based

on the so called “relativistic” formulas in the form of RHS expression in

Eq. (7) (and Eq. (6) as well), is misleading since we did not know that we

were looking at distorted formulas of a precise Eq. (3) of non-Euclidean

geometry projected into Euclidean space–space in our vicinity! Conclusions

based on a distorted formula will inevitably lead to the inconsistencies

and/or paradoxes for projections from regions of high distances d ≃ 1 in

space or high distances ≃ 1 in velocities space. Of course, as long as we

stay “close to equator”, (which means going local, i.e. d ≪ 1, ≪ 1) distortion

will be negligible within the required range of precision. Nevertheless

we have to be aware that we are still dealing with the distorted images.

This rises the serious question of applicability of the Special Relativity in

the range d ≃ 1, ≃ 1.

One may ask a legitimate question of how the experimentally detected

cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is related to Lobachevbreak

skian geometry (Lobachevskian universe)?

The answer is that in Lobachevskian space, CMBR is identified with

the homogeneous space of horospheres which is dual [7,9] to Lobachevskian

space. In our work [3] we showed that a horosphere in Lobachevskian space,

as far as physics is concerned, is a surface of constant phase of an electromagnetic

horospherical wave. In other words, it is a horospherical wavefront.

Radiation represented by horospherical wavefronts homogeneously

fills the entire Lobachevskian universe. Therefore, assuming a hyperbolic

universe, we have to have CMBR with its properties of homogeneity and

isotropy! It follows “automatically” from Lobachevskian geometry.

Horospherical waves are solutions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator (wave

operator) in Lobachevskian space. Their properties are well known and well

understood. Thus, there is entirely no need to associate CMBR with the

big bang — an event which itself cannot be understood and deliberated in

scientific terms.

In Lobachevskian space filled only with radiation CMBR would be perfectly

isotropic. In the presence of matter however, which on local scales is

distributed rather randomly, a small anisotropy in the properties of CMBR

might be present due to local conditions. This was already recorded by

COBE. More about the space of horospheres can be found in [7, 9].

The author wishes to acknowledge Vadim von Brzeski for his invaluable

comments.

 

Most interesting.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

To add to the last link,,,,,,,,,

This link is quite interesting

The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Ho

 

The Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object (MECO) Model of Galactic Black Hole Candidates and Active Galactic Nuclei

 

Authors:

Robertson, Stanley L.; Leiter, Darryl J.

 

Publication Date:

00/2006 Origin: ADS

 

Abstract

The spectral, timing, and jet formation properties of neutron stars in low mass x-ray binary systems are influenced by the presence of central magnetic moments. Similar features shown by the galactic black hole candidates (GBHC) strongly suggest that their compact cores might be intrinsically magnetic as well. We show that the existence of intrinsically magnetic GBHC is consistent with a new class of solutions of the Einstein field equations of General Relativity. These solutions are based on a strict adherence to the Strong Principle of Equivalence (SPOE) requirement that the world lines of physical matter must remain timelike in all regions of spacetime. The new solutions emerge when the structure and radiation transfer properties of the energy momentum tensor on the right hand side of the Einstein field equations are appropriately chosen to dynamically enforce this SPOE requirement of timelike world line completeness. In this context, we find that the Einstein field equations allow the existence of highly red shifted, Magnetospheric, Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO). MECO necessarily possess intrinsic magnetic moments and they do not have trapped surfaces that lead to event horizons and curvature singularities. Their most striking features are equipartition magnetic fields, pair plasma atmospheres and extreme gravitational redshifts. Since MECO lifetimes are orders of magnitude greater than a Hubble time, they provide an elegant and unified framework for understanding a broad range of observations of GBHC and active galactic nuclei. We examine their spectral, timing and jet formation properties and discuss characteristics that might lead to their confirmation.

[modest]

Here is the pdf version of a link above (where the equations are easier to read): Big Bang as a Fatal Mistake of Edwin Hubble. Cosmological Red-shift and Related Electromagnetic Phenomena in Static Lobachevskian (Hyperbolic) Universe.

 

Ok. I give up. The physics is beyond me. I wanted to make an airtight case against this paper - but I’ve found it impossible given my understanding.

 

I’ll throw out a few thoughts and be done with the chasing of my tail.

 

• This paper in no way agrees with GR. It doesn’t try to and on occasion attacks cosmology that is purportedly based on GR for trying.
   
  
• I am not convinced at all that it demonstrates hyperbolic curvature any differently than the Robertson Walker metric. Given the same radius of curvature between RW and this paper, what different answers are expected? I tried hard to figure that out, and could not. Apparently the only difference is that RW tries to handle evolution of scale and this paper simply states that it’s impossible to do so. Looking particularly at the bottom of page 1512 and top of 1513 of the link above it says clearly that given some redshift, it is impossible to assign any value of scale or curvature. So, what prediction is it making?
   
  
• This paper makes no predictions. There is no brightness to distance formula nor any other quantitative test. It also doesn’t present a complete metric. It is at every turn vague and ambiguous and ultimately frustrating.
  

 

I'll stop there and see if anything sticks :phones:

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

 

I came across this link, if I repeat links,,,,,,,sorry

 

 

Anomalous redshifts in the spectra of extragalactic objects.

Anomalous redshifts in the spectra of extragalactic objects.

Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.309, p.335-344 (A&A Homepage)

 

Abstract

 

In this paper we show that strong statistical evidence has been available for many years showing that QSO redshifts in at least some cases are not caused by the expansion of the Universe. In a complicated world the number of unexpected associations that can be subjected to statistical test is very large and somewhere among the entire ensemble of such associations a few may seem of significance, if taken separately, which are only chance effects, however, occasioned by the profusion of cases in the ensemble. False associations of this kind show up readily as new data become available, since the original chance effects are unlikely to be repeated in the new data. An example was an algebraic formula for the sunspot number which caused a considerable stir early in the present century, the formula agreeing with sunspot numbers over many years with seemingly uncanny precision, only for the agreement to disappear as soon as new sunspot numbers came along. This well-known statistical trap cannot be claimed against the proposition that QSOs of high redshifts are sometimes physically associated with nearby galaxies. This proposition has now been exposed to statistical test for almost thirty years, and it survives in new data just as well as in old data. Additionally, a number of cases have come along with the years where actual physical connections have been detected between QSOs and nearby galaxies. Six of these cases are discussed in detail in the present paper. It is consistent with standard physics for redshifts to arise from doppler motions and also in radiation emitted by matter in a gravitational field, as well as from the cosmological expansion of the Universe. These other possibilities have been examined repeatedly over the years but have never been found to give convincing explanations for the QSO-nearby galaxy associations described above. One is therefore left with the non-standard possibility that different samples of matter can have different mass scales. No theory of how the QSO mass scale could be different from the usual galaxy mass scale has hitherto been found acceptable, with the consequence that most astrophysicists and cosmologists have felt justified in ignoring the evidence for anomalous redshifts, the thought being that what is known to be impossible remains impossible no matter how strong the evidence for it may be. The main purpose of the present paper is to question this mode of thinking. We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

 

 

You would think that with so much conflict over redshift there would be some form of scientific research to resolve issues.

 

 

Intrinsic nature of readshift makes research quite difficult.

 

How do we overcome this?

[modest]

You would think that with so much conflict over redshift there would be some form of scientific research to resolve issues...

 

How do we overcome this?

 

We could measure the brightness and redshift of millions of QSOs and galaxies in the most ambitious astronomical survey ever undertaken. Maybe that would qualify as "some form of scientific research".

 

SkyServer: About the SDSS

 

~modest