Chronometric Cosmology: Segal's Quest

[coldcreation]

Chronometric Cosmology: Segal’s Quest

 

The widespread acceptance of the expanding universe as a bona fide physical phenomenon is rooted in part due to the lack of an alternative explication of the redshift. Notwithstanding, three quarters of a century of new observations that have contradicted the simple linear proportionality between spectral shift and apparent magnitude (Hubble's Law), few attempts to amend the foundation of cosmology that would economically tie in the entirety of discrepant phenomenon in a scientifically efficient way have emerged. Segal blamed this more on the momentum of the theoretical studies related to expansion models than on its concord with observation.

 

In his book Mathematical Cosmology and Extragalactic Astronomy (1976), Irving Ezra Segal (formerly Massachusetts Institute of Technology) presented a theory that is very different from the expansion model. Based on the ideas of Einstein’s relativity, Segal solves the redshift problem with what he calls a “law of conservation of the new, essentially curved, energy.” The “chronometric” theory (or chronogeometric cosmology) proposed by Segal asserts that the universe is curved. Here are some of the postulations of the chronometric cosmology:

 

1) Light is redshifted because it is traveling through a globally curved, four dimensional spacetime continuum. In the vicinity of an observer (locally) spacetime events have a linear temporal order. This eliminates hypothetical singularities and their idealistic nature.

 

2) Spacetime cannot turn back on itself. At each point in the cosmos there is a convex future direction, meaning, “the future can never merge into the past,” i.e., no spacetime curvature can close or loop.

 

3) The cosmos admits a stationary observer. “Without temporal invariance there is no conservation of energy—indeed, the very concept of energy becomes ambiguous.” (p. 55)

 

4) Segal accepts the assumption that space is homogenous and isotropic, as the concept of a spatially homogenous nonexpanding model resolves observational discrepancies that are inherent in the expanding universe models.

 

5) The cosmos is stationary and observationally looks curved. The relative motion, accessible via redshift-apparent magnitude observations and their theoretical interpretation, is entirely ‘virtual.’ In Segal’s words, “the true driving physics is cosmologically stationary, but the cosmos may appear in motion due in part to the theoretical analysis employed and in part to inherent restrictions on the mode of observation”…(Segal 1976, p. 82)

 

I bring this theory to the attention of viewers simply because it merits another look, on observations grounds. Chronometric cosmology had been ruled out prematurely because it predicted a quadratic redshift - magnitude relation.

 

Coldcreation

[Jay-qu]

I dont like number 3. Also if you say red shift is due to spacetime curvature what is blueshift from?

[Eclogite]

In the standard cosmology the blue shift of astronomically nearby objects is, as I understand it, a Doppler effect caused by the relative motion of the bodies. The cosmological red shift, in contrast, is not a Doppler effect, but is dependent upon the expansion of space.

It appears that Segal's interpretation only relates to the cosmological red shift, and so blue shift, of approaching objects can remain as a Doppler effect.

[Jay-qu]

so then does what happens to the doppler effect of receding objects?

[coldcreation]

so then does what happens to the doppler effect of receding objects?

 

I agree with you about number three.

 

Eclogite answered your blueshift question.

 

In any world model (expanding or stable) both redshift and blueshift will occur in the spectrum of celestial objects when they are moving toward or away from our reference point. This redshift is superimposed onto the cosmological redshift z.

 

The lengthening of wavelengths is in fact the opposite to the effect of ‘blueshift’ that occurs in the gravitational field of the Earth when the receiver is at a lower height than the emitter. In these experiments the received signal is shifted to higher frequencies as a function of altitude—whereas, when the receiver is placed at a higher altitude the signal is redshifted towards longer wavelengths (to lower frequencies), called ‘gravitational redshift.’

 

Redshifts from galactic spectra can easily be misinterpreted as a first-order Doppler effect—in a flat three-dimensional space where corrections are made for the special relativistic effect of time dilation. It is also easy to see how non-intuitive the large-scale nature of spacetime curvature has led us to conclude prematurely that the universe is expanding.

 

CC

[Eclogite]

so then does what happens to the doppler effect of receding objects?

Receding objects are redshifted. This redshift is a Doppler effect. The cosmological redshift is a different matter. It is not a Doppler effect.

 

Part of the problem, I suspect, is that popular works on cosmology have perpetuated the analogy between the cosmological redshift and the Doppler effect to the point where they are thought to be the same.

 

But what do I know? :thumbs_up I am just a simple Earth scientist.:girl_hug:

[HydrogenBond]

If we look at the red shifts of phenomena in distant space, the most red shifted are typically the farthest away from us. If something is 14B light years away it is assumed to have formed very close to the beginning of the universe, because the light we see is from 14B years ago. Based on the position of this light, which originated 14B years ago, the universe was already at the visual perimeter 14B years ago, because this light is not real time data but time delayed data.

 

If we look 180 degrees in the opposite direction of the sky we will also see similar phenomena. If the universe formed from a BB how did the original matter get so far away us and each other, i.e., 14B and 28B lights years, in only the first 1B years of a 15B year old universe?

 

All the most distance objects should be tightly grouped at 1B years after the BB instead they have the largest spread at that time. This may be part of an optical illusion affect suggested by this post.

 

If we look at the BB logically, wherever it orginated the oldest stuff should have been tightly grouped and expanding early in the expansion. Light from such phenomena should have already pass by our expanding position, since our position is part of the entire expanding mass of the universe. What we may be seeing at the perimeter may be a reflection of light that already passed us once and has bounced back. This large concave mirror reflection of the BB would explain the apparent acceleration of the universe expansion.

[HydrogenBond]

I case I vague let me say the same thing from a different angle. If we look at BB at 1B years, the universe is say 1B light years across. The 1B year old galaxies beginning to form are giving off light which can be seen anywhere in the 1B light year size universe in 1B years or less. After 5 billions years, the light from these ancient galaxies is long gone into space. The matter is expanding but light moves faster.

 

For these 1B years old baby galaxies to be seen again after 14B years will require the original light passing by us again. To also be able to explain how these baby galaxies, which were physically so close the first time we saw them, back in the old days, would now appear to be so spread apart in space, could be explain with a reflection from the space/time perimeter of the spherical shell perimeter of the universe.

 

This does not take away from a red shift since not all light has to be reflected. Only those things that are equated to the early years of the BB.

[Jay-qu]

ok, well I thought that would have been taken into account. Is there no way to calculate how much the light will be redshifted due to gravity and this cosmological redshift, and see the objects true motion?

[HydrogenBond]

If the light from the BB and early expansion is just bouncing back, so the baby galaxies can appear at the perimeter, than light from later in the expansion won't bounce and return for years to come. The majority of the sky data should be coming directly from objects. This analysis assumes the BB and the interpretation of the perimeter data as being part of BB.

[HydrogenBond]

I was out doing some grocery shopping and an interesting idea popped into my head. If the light from the BB was bouncing back, this implies that there is a reflective boundry of sorts at the perimeter of the universe.

 

If we go back to BB, space/time is assumed highly contacted in the very begining. Maybe the boundry is where space/time is still contracted. Maybe our universe is sort of a space/time bubble in a denser space/time continuum. The bounce back is off the wall of the bubble.