Redshift z

[Southtown]

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.

Thanks, that's good advice. I might have to do that.

 

But not bad. You certainly are prolific, as far as copy-pasting.

Hahaha yeah, that's about it. I just read what I can find on the net. That's why I'm cross referencing here, cuz I'm not a guru and you seemed to be more factual than most.

 

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

You mean it's debated? I didn't know that... hafta check that out too.

 

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

 

coldcreation

I just barely grasp it, frankly. I'm just learning relativity, so it's a bit of a stretch for me at the moment. LOL Very interesting, though since it brings to mind some of the problems with current popular interpretations of data.

[coldcreation]

[quote name=Southtown

I just barely grasp it, frankly. I'm just learning relativity, so it's a bit of a stretch for me at the moment. Very interesting, though, since it brings to mind some of the problems with current popular interpretations of data.[/quote]

 

Well, simply put, the Cold Creation redshift interpretation is as logical and reasonable as it is plausible:

 

Features in the spectra of distant astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths (toward the red end of the spectrum) by a fractional amount due to curved spacetime The idea is a direct consequence of general relativity. It was developed, albeit not very deeply, by Ellis G.F.R. He shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary.

 

Meaning; redshift z can easily be mistakenly interpretaed as a Doppler effect. Meaning too that light 'traveling' through a curved spacetime continuum suffers a degradations in energy with distance. Or form our point of view, there appears a spatiotemporal dilation with increasing distance. Redshift z is then interpreted not as a Doppler effect but as a global curvature effect.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

In Einstein’s words, “By reason of the relativistic equations of gravitation…there must be a departure from Euclidean relations, with spaces of cosmic order of magnitude, if there exists a positive mean density, no matter how small, of the matter in the universe” The smallest possible density of matter produces constant positive curvature of space. He continues, “the metric quantities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration.” (1920, see Kerszberg 1989, p.214).

 

If the cosmological redshift is indeed due to a curved spacetime effect, to important conclusions can be drawn: The observed part of our universe is extremely small relative to its actual extent: It follows that the universe is much older than believed. There is much more mass-energy (in the form of atoms, stars, galaxies and clusters) beyond our visual horizon than previously suspected; the density of which participates in the overall distortion of light rays emitted from within our horizon. There is enough gravitational potential in the cosmos to sustain the redshift/curvature affirmation.

 

Something has only just begun

 

coldcreation

[Southtown]

Features in the spectra of distant astronomical objects are shifted to longer wavelengths (toward the red end of the spectrum) by a fractional amount due to curved spacetime The idea is a direct consequence of general relativity. It was developed, albeit not very deeply, by Ellis G.F.R. He shows that “spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes.” In this case the systematic redshifts are interpreted as “cosmological gravitational red shifts” and the assumption of spatial homogeneity is replaced by the assumption that the universe is stationary.

So it's general relativity I don't quite understand yet. Is displacement of space by matter said to cause gravitation? I thought it was electromagnetic and that matter and energy were different phases of the same thing. Well, looks like another trip to Wiki. LOL

 

Setterfield says expansion would blur quantization (which I still have to verify.) I don't think redshift is caused by expansion, because that would imply acceleration which is unreasonable and causes strange theories to appear (dark energy) that would otherwise not be called for. Theories created to patch theories created to patch theories... Where does it end? When does common sense kick in and curiosity overwhelm the desire to be a know-it-all? That kind of attitude "taints" further discoveries with predetermined purpose and "shifts" interpretations further into the "red".

 

If the cosmological redshift is indeed due to a curved spacetime effect, to important conclusions can be drawn: The observed part of our universe is extremely small relative to its actual extent: It follows that the universe is much older than believed. There is much more mass-energy (in the form of atoms, stars, galaxies and clusters) beyond our visual horizon than previously suspected; the density of which participates in the overall distortion of light rays emitted from within our horizon. There is enough gravitational potential in the cosmos to sustain the redshift/curvature affirmation.

Personally, I think it's laughable to assume that "all we see is all that exists," but I can understand a tendency not to accept data that disputes popular theories, especially in corporate America and Eurasia (think "Emperor's Clothes" LOL).

[Erasmus00]

Setterfield says expansion would blur quantization (which I still have to verify.)

 

Setterfield's mechanism for quantization is unverifiable and totally adhoc.

-Will

[Southtown]

Setterfield's mechanism for quantization is unverifiable and totally adhoc.

-Will

And so is your statement.

[coldcreation]

And so is your statement.

 

This is not a personal issue, it is a question of observation, corroboration, interpretation, more corroboration, more observational evidence, and still more interpretations...etc. Right now we are apparently not yet well poised to decide exactly what is happening out there. It's a big universe.

 

In an other way, the Doppler interpretation is not yet a proven fact. It is one of the three classical pillars, though, of modern cosmology (the big bang expansion). If it falls, so too do the other two pillars (premordial creation of light elements, origin of the CMB).

 

The situation portrayed by Cold Creation theory corresponds to the spacetime description brought about by the general postulate of relativity—according to which we treat the geometrical relationships of the non-Euclidean continua with respect to standard measuring techniques of both distance and time relative to the constancy of the velocity of light, and with respect to our relative rest-frame.

 

Thus, the phenomenon of spacetime dilation (redshift z) differs markedly from the ‘tired light’ concept in that light does not ‘slow-down’ as it loses energy. However the spatial and time-like increments dilate to such an extreme that the distances appear to become enormous, and the wavelength all across the spectrum are elongated to such a point that no longer do we detect any signals (this is the horizon, beyond which the sky is dark; this is where in the expanding universe concept galaxies surpass the speed of light from our restframe), and redshift increases with distance and time in the four-dimensional manifold.

 

The Gaussian curvature of the geometrical spacetime continuum can be established by measurements at the telescope, obtained from data of both the metric properties and the time intervals. The redshift is a departure from linearity (from flatness)—a lengthening of the wave between two epochs that increase with distance in a true four-dimensional curved manifold.

 

Coldcreation

[BlameTheEx]

Coldcreation

 

Your post echoes posts I wrote in "Science Forums - Distant Galaxies. How far, How big?" look at posts numbers 5 and 8 in particular.

 

Frankly I consider the BB theory more or less proved if the age of the universe's contents comply and the effective distortion in observed size of very distant galaxies can be confirmed. The jury is still out on both, but not perhaps for very much longer. Confirmation one way or the other will probably happen in our lifetimes.

[coldcreation]

Coldcreation

 

Your post echoes posts I wrote in "Science Forums - Distant Galaxies. How far, How big?" look at posts numbers 5 and 8 in particular.

 

Frankly I consider the BB theory more or less proved if the age of the universe's contents comply and the effective distortion in observed size of very distant galaxies can be confirmed. The jury is still out on both, but not perhaps for very much longer. Confirmation one way or the other will probably happen in our lifetimes.

 

The theory you seem to adhere to is very far from being proved. In fact the big bang (like inflation, string, brane, M-theory) cannot be proved: ever.

 

It is an unfortunate fact that the event called big bang has no rules, no laws, no physics, no natural concept that can help explain it. By definition it is outside of physics.

 

I would hope that eventually a standard model will be adopted (I could care less whose theory it is, as long as it's not another priest; recall Lemaìtre) that does not need new physics to fix its defects.

 

Gotta run...

 

CC

[BlameTheEx]

Coldcreation

 

Nothing can ever be proved if you define proof as absolute proof. However I specified "more or less proved". To that extent the BB theory might one day be proved. The reason is simple. It is a theory based on evidence, and is descriptive in nature. It is a description of what happened. If the evidence continues to support the description conviction will grow. The (apparently) unprovable bit (what led up to the big bang?) is just defined as outside the theory. Nor is a provable explanation necessary (why no antimatter? for instance). What the BB theory does is set ground rules on theories that do explain these whys and whats (An expanding universe about 14 billion years old).

 

I also would hope that a standard model will be adopted, but only when sufficient evidence comes in to justify one. At the moment I consider it premature for the BB or any other cosmology theory. Certainly not any of mine.

 

The circumstances that led up to the creation of the universe are not necessarily outside physics because we HAVE observational evidence - the universe itself. It is just possible that a time will come when we find a single theory that explains creation far more convincingly that any other. Because their is a shortage of evidence now doesn't mean there always will be. What if we discover communication or interaction with other universes? What if the BB was not a sudden release of pure energy but rather (perhaps partially) of matter? Maybe one day a meteorite will land that is older than the universe, and thus originating from outside. How much could we deduce from a single lump of matter from outside the universe? Probably quite a lot.

 

If the priest Lemaitre turns you off, how about the monk Mendal? http://alin-gregor.tripod.com/

[coldcreation]

Coldcreation

 

Nothing can ever be proved if you define proof as absolute proof. However I specified "more or less proved". To that extent the BB theory might one day be proved. The reason is simple. It is a theory based on evidence, and is descriptive in nature. It is a description of what happened. If the evidence continues to support the description conviction will grow. The (apparently) unprovable bit (what led up to the big bang?) is just defined as outside the theory. Nor is a provable explanation necessary (why no antimatter? for instance). What the BB theory does is set ground rules on theories that do explain these whys and whats (An expanding universe about 14 billion years old).

 

I also would hope that a standard model will be adopted, but only when sufficient evidence comes in to justify one. At the moment I consider it premature for the BB or any other cosmology theory. Certainly not any of mine.

 

The circumstances that led up to the creation of the universe are not necessarily outside physics because we HAVE observational evidence - the universe itself. It is just possible that a time will come when we find a single theory that explains creation far more convincingly that any other. Because their is a shortage of evidence now doesn't mean there always will be. What if we discover communication or interaction with other universes? What if the BB was not a sudden release of pure energy but rather (perhaps partially) of matter? Maybe one day a meteorite will land that is older than the universe, and thus originating from outside. How much could we deduce from a single lump of matter from outside the universe? Probably quite a lot.

 

If the priest Lemaitre turns you off, how about the monk Mendal? http://alin-gregor.tripod.com/

 

 

There is no 'outside' the universe. If a meteorite came knocking on your front door that was older than the universe it would meen that your creation theory was lacking.

 

Proof (almost) of the big bang is based on redshift as a Doppler effect, CMB as a relic soup, and abundance of light isotopes. None of these constitute a morsel of proof (or evidence) in favor of bb cosmology.

 

Credible evidence would have been, say, predicting in advance of observational discoveries that the universe would be accelerating (see 1998 supernovae data), or that distant galaxies would have high metallicity and have formed early on, right after the high gigaton yeald at t = 0, and that those early galaxies shouyld be well formed despite pre-HSTUDF images, or that the universe should not appear flat as inflationists had thought.

 

How many of you think that the universe is flat?

 

It would be pleasing to see just one prediction of bb cosmology turn out to be correct, just one. I still await its arrival.

 

As far as the Abbe Lemaitre...tell any layperson that knows little or nothing about cosmology that a priest invented the big bang and see what knid of response you get...

 

The universe itself is not proof that a creation event occurred. That sounds like creationism to me. It sounds like you read to much Hawking.

 

Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see...

 

coldcreation

[Erasmus00]

Credible evidence would have been, say, predicting in advance of observational discoveries that the universe would be accelerating (see 1998 supernovae data),

 

Friedman did. His paper on cosmology predates Hubble.

 

It would be pleasing to see just one prediction of bb cosmology turn out to be correct, just one. I still await its arrival.

 

Why doesn't the prediction followed by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background hold?

 

As far as the Abbe Lemaitre...tell any layperson that knows little or nothing about cosmology that a priest invented the big bang and see what knid of response you get...

 

It doesn't matter who proposed it, what matters is that the evidence bears it out. Also, you say that the redshift could be caused by gravity in a De-Sitter spacetime. But De-Sitter spacetime describes an exponentially growing universe, which is what you oppose.

-Will

[coldcreation]

Friedman did. His paper on cosmology predates Hubble.

 

Why doesn't the prediction followed by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background hold?

 

It doesn't matter who proposed it, what matters is that the evidence bears it out. Also, you say that the redshift could be caused by gravity in a De-Sitter spacetime. But De-Sitter spacetime describes an exponentially growing universe, which is what you oppose.

-Will

 

Not one Friedmann model predicts accelerated expansion. You must be reading different literature than I. Since when are there four Friedmann models?

 

The temperature predicted by Gamow was 20 K for the CMB not 2.7 K. That is a huge difference. Plus, all theories predict a CMB. What kind of universe would have zero temperature? The CMB is not proof of a unique creation event, nor is it evidence of a canonical hot gang bang (or multiverse). The CMB is proof, evidence that the universe is bathed in a very low temperature blackbody radiation.

 

There are several de Sitter models. I wrote about the early models, 1918. His models were subsequently highjacked. For examples, the so-called Einstein-de Sitter model is an expanding universe where the rate of expansion exactly balances the tendency to collapse. The fine tunning problem stems from it.

[Tormod]

I would hope that eventually a standard model will be adopted (I could care less whose theory it is, as long as it's not another priest; recall Lemaìtre) that does not need new physics to fix its defects.

 

The day we run out of the need for new physics to explain predictions will be a sad day, indeed.

[Tormod]

ColdC, what are your opinions of Joao Magueijo's VSL theories? In his theories, especially the later work with Lee Smolin, a flat universe with the possiblity for varying speeds of expansion is the natural outcome of inflation (if I have read it correctly).

[Erasmus00]

There are several de Sitter models. I wrote about the early models, 1918. His models were subsequently highjacked. For examples, the so-called Einstein-de Sitter model is an expanding universe where the rate of expansion exactly balances the tendency to collapse. The fine tunning problem stems from it.

 

All de Sitter models have a constant curvature greater then 0. I don't see how this could model anything other then an exponentially growing universe.

-Will

[coldcreation]

The day we run out of the need for new physics to explain predictions will be a sad day, indeed.

 

The day new physics will no longer be needed will be when an ultimate theory is found that explains all observations and experiments without the need of fudge factors. What's so sad about that. Recall Tormod, 'new physics' is a term use for artificially introduced things such as dark matter, dark energy, false vacuums, extra dimensions etc. Are you saying that real physics would not function properly without such artifice, and that we should continue to pursue wacked-out ideas in the hopes of perpetuating some creative drive that might one day, hundreds of years from now, lead to a theory of everything that really explains nothing? That is precisely where string theory is headed.

cc