Redshift z

[C1ay]

Hmm, so we are in agreament on a number of points. Very interesting. Question: Would the laws of physics be different in every region of expansion, as in the muliverse theroy, of chaotic inflation (as in Lynde's version). Or would all your balloon universes abide by relativity, the fundamental constants, QM and thermodynamics, etc.

I tend to think that the laws of physics would apply throughout the Universe. For me there really aren't seperate universes, just different regions of the same universe. There may even be some properties that our local region doesn't exhibit that we can't observe. I think man has done a fair job thus far at trying to analyse nature as we know it but I think man will still be learning fundemental aspects of nature eons from now with technology we can't even imagine at this point.

[infamous]

I tend to think that the laws of physics would apply throughout the Universe. For me there really aren't seperate universes, just different regions of the same universe. There may even be some properties that our local region doesn't exhibit that we can't observe. I think man has done a fair job thus far at trying to analyse nature as we know it but I think man will still be learning fundemental aspects of nature eons from now with technology we can't even imagine at this point.

I tend to agree with your fundamental point of view C1ay. I also view the universe as infinite and eternal. One question I would like to pose to everyone in this thread would be: Because science has proposed the idea of gravitational collapse, black holes, is it possible that there may be an alternative explanation for this accumulation of aggregate matter? Because we know that neutron stars exist, the possibility then confronts us that a quark star may be lurking out there somewhere. Because I haven't yet been convinced that black holes exist, it may be possible that there exists a boundry beyond which mass can accumulate. After reaching this point of compaction, some as yet not understood mechanism would allow the body to explode back into surrounding space. If this is occuring, it may only happen very seldom leaving the human experience without any evidence except what we call the big bang. Or maybe we should call it an intermediate bang???

[C1ay]

it may be possible that there exists a boundry beyond which mass can accumulate. After reaching this point of compaction, some as yet not understood mechanism would allow the body to explode back into surrounding space. If this is occuring, it may only happen very seldom leaving the human experience without any evidence except what we call the big bang. Or maybe we should call it an intermediate bang???

That is a model I've given consideration to for some time now.....

[BlameTheEx]

C1ay

 

It is difficult to get away from the Hubbell constant. Maybe the red shift is due to expansion and maybe it isn't but red shift IS clearly the product of 3 factors - distance, local velocity and gravity. There is just too much evidence for the distance component.

 

It is also difficult to view the cause of the Hubbell effect to be located at a point in space. It is too even in all directions. The only viable point would be right here and that seems implausible without a religious explanation (We are in the centre of the universe because God made it all for us).

 

All told I just can't see this Big Bang (or Little Bang) as a local event if it is associated with the Hubbell constant, and I can't see much evidence for any sort of a bang if it isn't.

 

Ignoring expansion means you have to assume that the new matter (presumably mostly hydrogen and helium) was just dumped into this universe with no particular velocity. As it is well spread out now you have to assume that it arrived spread out. Given that one bit of the sky looks much like any other the matter is more or less spread out evenly in all directions at any particular distance. That implies (but doesn't prove) that it was originally spread out throughout the universe more or less evenly.

 

Think in terms of the universe itself receiving a load of energy and dumping it as best it can.

[C1ay]

It is difficult to get away from the Hubbell constant.

Yes but the darn redshift is just all over the place to say conclusively that it means one thing or another. If there was some kind of explosion, a big bang, then it makes sense that the affected matter would be expanding.

 

Was there other matter in the vicinity though and was the imparted energy variable relative to it's distance from the event? Was there matter in the vicinity that was actually moving toward the event or tangent to it such that the imparted energy from the event slowed it down or deflected it?

 

Is there matter between us and some of the point light sources with high redshift and do we even know what that matter is? Not that I'm a dark matter supporter but we have located a dark galaxy, at least we think we have.

 

How about this one fom left field. You're likely familiar with the mirage effect that tricks people into thinking they see water in the desert. It's simply an effect of the distortion of light caused by the heat of the sun. Our planet is located relatively close to our sun will within the heliosphere of our sun. Is the light from distant light sources effected by the heliospere of our sun and does it taint our ability to observe that light? Do waves of heat and radiation cause any ripple in the light we receive from distant points and does that ripple explain any of the variablity in redshift? Mind you, I'm not saying that it does. I'm just asking if we really know the answer to these questions.

 

I expect that some of the expansion we see is just that. I don't buy the 'balloon inflation' model though since it imples everything is moving away from us when in fact we have logged over 2000 objects with blueshift. I think we have a lot to learn yet about interpreting the data we collect from observation. Man's doing pretty well so far but we haven't learned it all yet.

[coldcreation]

Yes but the darn redshift is just all over the place to say conclusively that it means one thing or another. If there was some kind of explosion, a big bang, then it makes sense that the affected matter would be expanding.

 

I expect that some of the expansion we see is just that. I don't buy the 'balloon inflation' model though since it imples everything is moving away from us when in fact we have logged over 2000 objects with blueshift. I think we have a lot to learn yet about interpreting the data we collect from observation. Man's doing pretty well so far but we haven't learned it all yet.

 

The point to make is that Friedmann was well aware of the extraneous nature of his cosmogony—in all honesty—as he wrote about this sort of intellectual speculation early on. The author, while maintaining a distance from his own text, considered, not without reason, that such a proposal offered a precious document d’époche, for both historians of science and historians of mythology. To introduce his new ‘discovery’ of world models with variable radius of curvature, Friedmann had a few words published. You’ll get a BANG out of this:

 

The variable type of universe represents a great variety of cases; there can be cases of this type when the world’s radius of curvature…is constantly increasing in time; cases are also possible when the radius of curvature changes periodically: The universe contracts into a point (into nothing) and then again increases its radius from a point up to a certain value, then again, diminishing its radius of curvature, transforms itself into a point, etc. This brings to mind what Hindu mythology has to say about cycles of existence, and it also becomes possible to speak about “ the creation of the world from nothing,” but all this should at present be considered as curious facts which cannot be reliably supported by the inadequate astronomical experimental material.” (Friedmann, 1923)

 

Coldcreation

[Southtown]

Why is it that we assume the speed of light is constant?

[Little Bang]

For the sake of discussion lets say that there is no limit on the speed of C, just an observational limit. If that where true, shouldn't there be a relationship between Planck time and/or length with the observational limit of C?

[coldcreation]

Why is it that we assume the speed of light is constant?

 

Without a constant speed of light curved spacetime has no meaning, gravity has no meaning. Ultimatey redshift would have no meaning. Light speed constancy is not only a limit set to save our concepts of gavity, it is a proven fact. We do not assume the speed of light is constant.

 

c is not an interpretaion base on SR of GR. Redshift z as a Doppler effect is an interpretaion, however, and it is against this interpretation that I argue for the general relativistic spacetime dilation with distance interpretation in a static, stationary, evolving, dynamic and visually hyperbolic metric.

 

cc

[Little Bang]

It is a proven fact that we observe the propagation of light as C. What you state does not prove that Planck's constant is not a limiting factor in our ability to measure C.

[coldcreation]

It is a proven fact that we observe the propagation of light as C. What you state does not prove that Planck's constant is not a limiting factor in our ability to measure C.

 

This is precisely the type of anthropomorphic (or anthropic) theoretical renunciation that Einstein warned against. Once againt I'll take sides with Albie.

 

I'm not convinced that anything interesting happens at the Plank era, the Plank energy, the Plank time, the Plank scale, the Plank length, or unification scale. The Plank particles, for example, are supposed to be about 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more massive than a hydrogen atom. Where are they?

 

Their unveiling represents the ultimate aspiration and key-goal of astro-particle physicists because, as believed by many, the universe began in a sea of virtuous Plank particles. Consequently, their discovery would yield valuable information concerning the nature and source of the cosmos itself.

 

These massive extrapolations of real physics would never have seen the light of day had redshift z not been interpreted as an effect due to expansion. If one were to run the clocks backwards in this type of expanding manifold, all the galaxies would find themselves in a linear ‘free-fall’ towards any observer, and all the matter in the universe would reach the same point at the same time.

 

Hmmm, that all sounds very 'alternative,' if you ask me, dubious even.

 

I think I'll stick to known physics, to the known laws of nature (incuding all the laws of thermodynamics), to Einstein's GR with lambda, to QM, QED and QSD. Anything else is pure speculation, i.e., not science.

 

coldcreation

[Little Bang]

I don’t remember anyone saying anything about a Planck particle, but I will tell you why I kind of question our ability to measure C. Lets take a look at the ground state of the hydrogen atom. The electronic wave function of the electron takes the shape of a sphere. The area of that sphere represents all possible locations for that electron (also called it’s uncertainty). If the proton at the center of the atom were the size of our sun the volume of space that the electron could inhabit would be twenty times larger than the solar system. If the electron were a point particle moving around in this volume it would make the solar system appear crowded. Now we take a position measurement on the electron and collapse the wave function to find it at position (A). Next in 5.391 X 10 ^ -44 seconds we take another position measurement and collapse the wave function to find it at position (:xx:. We can’t compute the velocity of the wave function from point (A) to point (:xx: because that would be giving us both momentum and position at the same time. Now I am definitely not a quantum Guru, so there probably is something wrong with my logic.

[Southtown]

Without a constant speed of light curved spacetime has no meaning, gravity has no meaning. Ultimatey redshift would have no meaning. Light speed constancy is not only a limit set to save our concepts of gavity, it is a proven fact. We do not assume the speed of light is constant.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to imply that the speed of light was erratic. I mean non-constant as in decaying over time. Einstein's second postulate, the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the light source, is usually interpreted as "the speed of light is constant over time". And there's evidence to show that c is decaying exponentially:

 

 

 

"T. C. Van Flandern, working at the U.S. Naval Observatory, showed that atomic clocks are probably slowing relative to orbital clocks. Orbital clocks are based on orbiting astronomical bodies, especially Earth’s one-year period about the Sun. Before 1967, one second of time was defined by international agreement as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the time it takes Earth to orbit the Sun. Atomic clocks are based on the vibrational period of the cesium-133 atom. In 1967, a second was redefined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium-133 atom. Van Flandern showed that if atomic clocks are “correct,” the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing. Consequently, the gravitational “constant” should be changing. However, he noted that if orbital clocks are “correct,” then the gravitational constant is truly constant, but atomic vibrations and the speed of light are decreasing. The drift between the two types of clocks was only several parts per billion per year. But again, the precision of the measurements is so good that the discrepancy is probably real.

 

There are four reasons orbital clocks seem to be correct and why atomic frequencies are probably slowing very slightly.

• If atomic clocks and Van Flandern’s study are correct, the gravitational “constant” should be changing. Other studies have not detected variations in the gravitational constant.
• If a planet’s orbital speed increased (and all other orbital parameters remained the same), its energy would increase. This would violate the law of conservation of mass-energy.
• If atomic time is slowing, then clocks based on the radioactive decay of atoms should also be slowing. Radiometric dating techniques would give ages that are too old. This would bring radiometric clocks more in line with most dating clocks. [link] It would also explain why no primordial isotopes have half-lives of less than 50 million years. Such isotopes simply decayed away when radioactive decay rates were much greater.
• If atomic frequencies are decreasing, then five “properties” of the atom, such as Planck’s constant, should also be changing. Statistical studies of past measurements show four of the five are changing—and in the right direction. [link]

So orbital clocks seem to be more accurate than the extremely precise atomic clocks. ... Critical Test: If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold, we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. ... Prediction: About half the stars in our galaxy are binary. That is, they and a companion star are in a tight orbit around their common center of mass. If there is a “slow-motion effect,” the apparent orbital periods of binary stars should tend to increase with increasing distance from Earth. If the speed of light has been decreasing, the Hubble Space Telescope may eventually find that binary stars at great distances have very long orbital periods, showing that they are in slow motion." — Dr. Walt Brown, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" [link]

 

 

He goes on to integrate the redshift:

 

 

"Since 1976, William Tifft, a University of Arizona astronomer, has found that the redshifts of distant stars and galaxies typically differ from each other by only a few fixed amounts. This is very strange if stars are actually moving away from us. It would be as if galaxies could travel only at specific speeds, jumping abruptly from one speed to another, without passing through intermediate speeds. If stars are not moving away from us at high speeds, the big bang theory is wrong, along with many other related beliefs in the field of cosmology. Other astronomers, not initially believing Tifft’s results, did similar work and reached the same conclusion.

 

All atoms give off tiny bundles of energy (called quanta) of fixed amounts—and nothing in between. So Setterfield believes that the “quantization of redshifts,” as many describe it, is an atomic effect, not a strange recessional velocity effect. If space slowly absorbs energy from all emitted light, it would do so in fixed increments. This would redshift starlight, with the farthest star’s light being redshifted the most. Setterfield is currently working on a theory to tie this and the decay in the speed of light together. If he is correct, the redshifts of some specific, distant galaxies will undergo abrupt decreases. This may explain why two distinct redshifts are seen in each of several well-studied galaxies." — Dr. Walt Brown, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" [link]

 

 

This would mean that the universe is of course relatively young. Sources cited by the above book:

 

 

"We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well-known cosmological puzzles." — Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo, “A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to Cosmological Puzzles,” Physical Review D, 15 February 1999, p. 043516-9. [The authors state that light may have traveled thirty orders of magnitude faster than it does today!]

 

 

"If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then decelerated sufficiently rapidly [exponential decay] early in the history of the Universe, then all three cosmological problems—the horizon, flatness and lambda problems—can be solved at once." — John D. Barrow, “Is Nothing Sacred?” New Scientist, Vol. 163, 24 July 1999, p. 28.

 

 

"Gravity can’t, over the age of the universe, amplify these irregularities enough [to form huge clusters of galaxies].”" — Margaret Geller, as quoted by John Travis, “Cosmic Structures Fill Southern Sky,” Science, Vol. 263, 25 March 1994, p. 1684.

 

 

"The biggest challenge to the standard model of galaxy formation, Labbé says, could be the number of large galaxies showing the spiral structure that he and his colleagues found in the early universe." — Ivo Labbé, as quoted by Ron Cowen, “Mature before Their Time,” Science News, Vol. 163, 1 March 2003, p. 139.

 

 

"The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much greater distances than expected—and hence at earlier times in the history of the Universe—is a challenge to our understanding of how galaxies form." — Gregory D. Wirth, “Old before Their Time,” Nature, Vol. 430, 8 July 2004, p. 149.

 

 

Further reading:

http://www.setterfield.org/recent.htm#zperedshiftandexpansion

[Erasmus00]

I honestly never expected to see Brown's hydroplate book come up in a redshift thread. You should probably start a new thread to discuss Brown's ideas of cosmology.

 

First, his points about Van Flandern's metastudy probably suggest an improvement in measurement technology, rather than a legitimate change. Even if the speed of light is changing, however, the VSL authors (such as Magueijo, Barrows, etc) have shown that a varying speed of light actually resolves the problems of the big bang, rather then getting rid of it. Brown is taking things out of context to make a point the authors that he quotes would never have agreed with.

 

As to the redshift, compton scattering of light from space would not actually cause a redshift. It would instead cause reddening. (i.e., blue light gets knocked out, while red light stays) This is different than a red shift, where all frequencies shift toward the less energetic end of the spectrum.

-Will

[Southtown]

...You should probably start a new thread to discuss Brown's ideas of cosmology...

I'm not talking about the hydroplate theory, Will. This thread is about light, and so I am talking about light... or trying to at least. o_O

 

...Van Flandern's metastudy probably suggest an improvement in measurement technology, rather than a legitimate change...

You exhibit quite the investigative zeal, Will. I see your mind is again immediately attuned to reason. Hold on, you'll convince me at any moment. Flandern ruled that out, in case you didn't get a chance to read it first. We would be talking about an improvement on atomic clocks.

 

...the VSL authors (such as Magueijo, Barrows, etc) have shown that a varying speed of light actually resolves the problems of the big bang, rather then getting rid of it...

How exactly is that?! A decaying speed of light would shorten the event horizon and shrink the possible age of remote galaxies. We need time to produce heavy elements and clusters of complex galaxies (by gravity alone).

 

...As to the redshift, compton scattering of light from space would not actually cause a redshift...

I don't know what you're referring to here. Dr. B. said:

 

"So Setterfield believes that the “quantization of redshifts,” as many describe it, is an atomic effect, not a strange recessional velocity effect. If space slowly absorbs energy from all emitted light, it would do so in fixed increments. This would redshift starlight, with the farthest star’s light being redshifted the most." — Dr. B. (in case you missed it the first time)

[coldcreation]

Southtown not bad, you really do your homework. I recommend doing research in a major university physics library. Online hunting all too often comes up shallow. But not bad. You certainly are prolific, as far as copy-pasting.

 

Quantized redshifts are very interesting, they've been around for a while, but I'm still not 100% convinced.

 

What do you think of the global spacetime curvature approach to z, outline in the early sections of this thread?

 

coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Ah, but you really don't know what my complete POV is.

 

I do not necessarily support any of the interpretations of redshift Z. It's all over the board with some objects supposedly flying away from us at more than 30,000 km/s and other objects coming at us at over 2000 km/s It just doesn't sound like expansion to me.

 

This model has some expansion of the local dispersion of matter and energy. The energy wave may actually move some of the already existing matter much like a floating item on the water is nudged by a passing wave. Some of the matter that existed in the local area would have been moving away from it's own origin and would subsequently be moving toward our own showing a negative redshift z as we see with some objects.

 

This is all speculative imagination though, not any formal claim of truth. For me it is just one model that kind of fits the data.

 

In fact, there has never been total acceptance that the redshift is due to the expansion of the universe. 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).

 

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.” (1929 was also the year of black Thursday at the New York Stock Exchange, the beginning of a long recession).

 

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.

 

Coldcreation