Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE

INRM said:
So gravity produces these "fingers of god" and "peculiar velocities"?
Click to expand...
Can you help me please, INRM?

If the question were:

"So gravity produces the apparent motions of solar system bodies (such as the Sun, Moon, Venus, and Jupiter) across the sky?"

... would you be satisfied with the answer "Yes"?

And if it were:

"So gravity produces the observed proper motion of all stars that have been reported as having non-zero proper motion (within the observational uncertainties, in relevant publications)?"

... would you be satisfied with the answer "Yes"?

Alternatively, if you would not be satisfied with either answer, or one but not the other, would you be so kind as to say why? I would then be in a better position to help you understand why "Yes" would not be a satisfactory answer - to you - to:

"So gravity produces these "fingers of god" and "peculiar velocities"?"
 
HannonRJ said:
For a different view, see:

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. (CRS2E)
Robert J Hannon 3949 Wilshire Court Sarasota FL 34238-2571 USA
11 March 1998.

[Published in PHYSICS ESSAYS, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1998)
Click to expand...
How does a person interested in this document obtain a copy, preferably a 'soft' (electronic) copy?

May I ask if you are the "HannonRJ" who posted to this, now rather old, Physics Forums thread? Talking with Bob Hannon
 
Perpetual Student said:
I suppose the formula would be the same as the one shown above, using the sun's mass instead of the earth's. I guess the effects of the local geometry would be too small to be a factor in the calculation since any local distances between the earth and sun would be tiny compared to the huge distances to the objects being measured. Of course, if the object being measured were a local one, there might have to be a trigonometric function involved.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Sorry I wasn't more explicit; I was referring to the estimated 'gravitational redshift', due to the Sun, that a spectroscope at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth (but not on the Earth, or near it) would detect ... in the spectrum of a distant source. By 'distant source' I am considering at least 1 light-year distant.

There will certainly be some geometric component; for simplicity, assume the distant object is on a line that starts with the Sun, goes through the spectroscope, and ends on the object ... i.e. radially, with the Sun at origin.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
I don't have latex so gif of formula attached.

G=6.67e-11
MSun=1.99e30
r=7e8
c=3e8

Redshift due to sun =3e-6
Click to expand...
Good to see you had a go, Skwinty.

Your inputs are pure numbers, no units ... an oversight?

My guess is that the units for MSun are kg, for r m, for c m/s (and G m^3 kg^-1 s^-2); are they?

In any case, perhaps you didn't answer the question asked?

Here it is again (bold added): "What is the gravitational redshift due to our spectroscopes being in the gravitational field of the Sun?"

I mean, our spectroscopes are not on (or near) the surface of the Sun, are they?
 
Perpetual Student said:
The simplest explanation of the cosmological red shift is, that's what happens to light as it travels long distances through space. Would an application of Occam's razor lead us to this answer?

As I understand things, this has been ruled out because:

1. There is no theoretical basis for light behaving this way?
2. There are numerous other observations supporting the BB hypothesis? (this has been already covered amply by you and s.i.)
3. Other observations clearly rule out this possible cause of the red shift? (are there any?)
4. Physicists don't like this explanation because they have been engaging in a worldwide conspiracy to dupe us all so they can take over the world?:eek:
5. Any or all of the above?
6. Something else?
Click to expand...
Returning to this PS post, as promised ...

... and looking only at 1., 2., and 3., either on their own or in some combo.

1. There is no theoretical basis for light behaving this way?

Yep; next.

2. There are numerous other observations supporting the BB hypothesis? (this has been already covered amply by you and s.i.)

Leaving aside, for now at least, whether it ("BB") is a hypothesis or not, Yep; next.

3. Other observations clearly rule out this possible cause of the red shift? (are there any?)

This one is problematic. The idea as presented is probably not capable of being "ruled out" by any observations, if only because it is both too vague and not at all quantitative.

If it were re-stated in a more formal, testable form, maybe other observations could "rule it out".

For example, high-z SNe Ia show clear signs of time dilation, consistent with the standard model of the cause of cosmological redshifts; the 'tired light'-like idea (in PS' post) probably does not.

Combos: well, any combo with 3. (either 1. + 3., or 2. + 3., or 1. + 2. + 3.) can't be ruled out, for the same reasons that 3. can't. That leaves just one (1. + 2.), and as each is "ruled out", the combo should be also.

Finally, a note on "ruled out". Science is not like mathematics, "proof" is not possible. Perhaps the best expressions - short of something formal involving 'confidence limits' or similar - use the word 'inconsistent', as in 'internally inconsistent', or 'inconsistent with QED', or 'inconsistent with {insert relevant observations here}'. This kind of approach always leaves open the possibility that later research on the topic may resolve the inconsistency. And this is one reason why it can take several years - even decades - for a new idea to achieve full acceptance ... all apparent inconsistencies need to be checked out, and as many potential inconsistencies as one can imagine also checked out.

This last point - up to decades needed to check out a new idea - is very bad news for those who want to come up with an alternative to "the BB hypothesis" ... the heart of this idea is General Relativity (GR), and GR has been extensively tested for nearly a century now, and has passed all tests with flying colours; any alternative needs to also explain all of GR's successes in all of the tests it's been subject to; that's a pretty tall order! :p
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Good to see you had a go, Skwinty.

Your inputs are pure numbers, no units ... an oversight?

My guess is that the units for MSun are kg, for r m, for c m/s (and G m^3 kg^-1 s^-2); are they?

In any case, perhaps you didn't answer the question asked?

Here it is again (bold added): "What is the gravitational redshift due to our spectroscopes being in the gravitational field of the Sun?"

I mean, our spectroscopes are not on (or near) the surface of the Sun, are they?
Click to expand...

The tutorial I looked at didn't specify the units, and on second look, the formula calculates the redshift induced into light passing close to the sun, as in the Eddington scenario.

Here is a link to the tutorial. Now, I am a lousy mathematician, so perhaps you could recommend a good intro to astronomy that covers these issues. Unfortunately my text is quite old and not as comprehensive. I prefer to be able to read a book, rather than off the computer screen. It's my old photon receptors you know:p

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut29-1.htm

Once again thanks for your effort.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
How does a person interested in this document obtain a copy, preferably a 'soft' (electronic) copy?

May I ask if you are the "HannonRJ" who posted to this, now rather old, Physics Forums thread? Talking with Bob Hannon
Click to expand...

There is something here:
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=13

Whether its the same or not I'm not sure. I've drink so perhaps people should take what I say with a pinch of salt but he says:
Then for about 300,000 years there was a "Radiation Era", during which electron-positron pairs mutually annihilated and the resulting radiation became the dominant constituent of the Universe.2
Click to expand...
Isn't this just completely wrong? Shouldn't the e-e+ annihilation have died out as soon as kT<1.02 MeV? Which would presumably have been sometime during the first 24 hours after the Big Bang?
 
Tubbythin said:
There is something here:
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=13

Whether its the same or not I'm not sure. I've drink so perhaps people should take what I say with a pinch of salt but he says:
Then for about 300,000 years there was a "Radiation Era", during which electron-positron pairs mutually annihilated and the resulting radiation became the dominant constituent of the Universe.2
Click to expand...

Isn't this just completely wrong? Shouldn't the e-e+ annihilation have died out as soon as kT<1.02 MeV? Which would presumably have been sometime during the first 24 hours after the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Yes it is completely wrong.

This seems to be a total misunderstanding by Robert J. Hannon. Look at the first paragraph on the page:
In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave noise now called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). It is purported to be a proof of the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH), because it is claimed to be the remnant of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by the Big Bang, redshifted by the expansion of the universe.
Click to expand...
He seems to think that the CMB is a relic of the Big Bang itself and continues to your quote where he thinks that the CMB is the result of electron-positron annihilation.

In actual fact it is a relic of the hot temperature of the universe before recombination (about 310,000 years after the BB). The electron-positron annihilation happened at the end of the lepton epoch (about 3 minutes after the BB).
 
Two questions for DeiRenDopa:


"Leaving aside, for now at least, whether it ("BB") is a hypothesis or not, Yep; next."
Click to expand...

Would you please tell me more about this? Why do you think the word "hypothesis" does not apply here?

"Finally, a note on "ruled out". Science is not like mathematics, "proof" is not possible."
Click to expand...

This may appear to be a bit of quibbling. I'm not sure why you object to the phrase "ruled out." Would you not say that

[latex]F = G\dfrac{m_1m_2}{r^3}[/latex] as a measurement for the force of gravity has been "ruled out" by experiment and observation, if someone were to propose it today?
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Two questions for DeiRenDopa:

"Leaving aside, for now at least, whether it ("BB") is a hypothesis or not, Yep; next."
Click to expand...

Would you please tell me more about this? Why do you think the word "hypothesis" does not apply here?
Click to expand...
Sure.

The "Big Bang" was a term coined by the late Fred Hoyle, to describe cosmological models based on "expanding space" GR solutions; he meant it as a term of derision ... but it was catchy, and is now widely used as a shorthand.

The consensus GR-based models (not hypotheses) of today are called "LCDM" (the "L" stands for lambda), and they incorporate GR (duh!) as well as a differing number of extra ideas (depends upon the model), most commonly some form of "inflation".

Then there's "BBN" - Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which is (I guess) more commonly called a theory. This is primarily the application of nuclear (and particle) physics in a manner consistent with "expanding space" GR solutions.

And so on.

IOW, the "BB" is a shorthand for some theories, sets of models, extra ideas, and some hypotheses. The common thread is GR and application of contemporary particle and nuclear physics.

In science, "hypothesis" usually has a very narrow meaning - something constructed for the express purpose of testing one, and only one, idea in such a way as to yield an unambiguous answer. As such, its meaning is rather different from the everyday usages, just as in science "theory" has a quite different meaning than the everyday "synonym for guess".

This may appear to be a bit of quibbling. I'm not sure why you object to the phrase "ruled out." Would you not say that

[latex]F = G\dfrac{m_1m_2}{r^3}[/latex] as a measurement for the force of gravity has been "ruled out" by experiment and observation, if someone were to propose it today?
Click to expand...
Yes, in context "ruled out" is both clear and apt (my bad).
 
Skwinty said:
OK DRD,

My question essentially is:

If you examine a redshifted spectrum, how do you determine what amount of redshift is due to:

Doppler effect
Earths motion.
Extra galactic body motion.
Gravitational effects.
Space expansion effects.

Where would you suggest I start reading?
Click to expand...
To wrap this up.

In a series of posts, we clarified what Skwinty was really asking, and addressed the 'redshift' (it could be 'blueshifted'!) component in the spectrum of an extra-galactic object* due to the motion of the spectroscope wrt the solar system barycentre ("Earths motion"), and due to the location of said spectroscope in the gravitational field of the Earth and Sun ("Gravitational effects").

I also stated that, for our object, intrinsic "Gravitational effects" are trivial, and asked if anyone could explain why; the question is still open ...

We redefined "Extra galactic body motion" as peculiar velocity, and "Space expansion effects" as Hubble flow.

We also showed that "Earths motion" and peculiar velocity are examples of the "Doppler effect".

The key to being able to distinguish between the various causes of the observed redshift is the success of centuries of work by astronomer on first classifying 'objects in the sky', empirically, and second on developing consistent explanations for what each class of object 'really' is, by applying theories of physics that have emerged from centuries of research in labs (and elsewhere).

The last remaining question is: how can the peculiar velocity and Hubble flow components of the observed redshift (corrected for motion wrt the solar system barycentre) be estimated?

The first step is a general one: estimate the peculiar velocity of the solar system barycentre.

Doing this 'bottom up' would be (and was) difficult: what is the velocity of the solar system barycentre (I'll say "Sun" as a shorthand from now on) wrt the centre of mass of our Milky Way galaxy (I'll use "SgrA*" as a shorthand, recognising that there's a very great deal of work to show the two are sufficiently similar as to make no difference, for us for this question)? What is the velocity of SgrA* wrt the centre of mass of the Local Group? What is the velocity of that centre of mass wrt the Hubble flow? Now all these questions can be - and have been - addressed, but there's a shortcut.

The CMB is as close to a natural, perfect blackbody as we have found. Yet it contains a ~mK dipole. That dipole tells us what the Sun's motion wrt the Hubble flow is, directly ... great! :) And in case you're wondering, did astronomers check to see that the velocity implied by the CMB dipole is consistent with the 'bottom up' chain (in the previous para)? Yes, they did (it took several years of work, by hundreds of astronomers); and yes, it is.

So, we can transform the observed redshift (already transformed to a heliocentric frame) to a CMB-centric frame ... and it is from this transformed redshift that we estimate peculiar velocity and Hubble flow components.

If the distance to our object (the one whose redshift we are studying) is known - via a technique such as the Tully-Fisher relation, or SBF (surface-brightness fluctuations) - then the Hubble flow redshift can be estimated (using the Hubble constant), and the peculiar velocity is then the difference. Generally, there will be fairly big error bars on such an estimate.

If we think our object is in a particular rich cluster of galaxies, and if we have good data on the redshifts of many cluster members, then we may assume that the average redshift of the cluster galaxies is (close to) the Hubble flow redshift, and so again the peculiar velocity is the difference.

(there are, perhaps, a few other circumstances like these two).

If not, then estimating the peculiar velocity and Hubble flow components is not possible.

I have one, rather big, caveat to enter, wrt this last para; otherwise, modulo questions, we're all done! (to be continued).

* or, more precisely, an object beyond the Local Group
 
Last edited:
I am the author of the article I cited. Here is a copy of the MS:

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. Robert J Hannon 3949 Wilshire Court Sarasota FL 34238-2571 USA
11 March 1998.

[Published in PHYSICS ESSAYS, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1998)

ABSTRACT: The nature and conventional explanation of the cosmological redshift are briefly reviewed. A simple alternative explanation is offered.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: cosmological redshift, relativistic Doppler shift, classical Doppler shift, electromagnetic radiation, permittivity and permeability of empty space.

I. INTRODUCTION.

A redshift is a uniform proportional reduction in the frequency of every line in a spectrum The Cosmological redshift (CR) is the observed redshift of the spectra of distant objects that are not gravitationally bound to our galaxy. It seems to increase with the distance of those objects from Earth. All such objects appear, if the conventional explanation of the CR is true, to be receding from us; the more distant, the faster.

The conventional wisdom attributes the CR to the Doppler effect, which arises from the expansion of the universe supposedly predicted by general relativity. The “relativistic” definition of redshift, Z, used by cosmologists, is:

Z=(1-vr/c)/(1-vr2/c2)1/2 (1)

Equation (1) says Z approaches infinity as vr, the velocity of recession of the source of light relative to Earth, approaches c, the velocity of light in empty space. vr is believed to increase linearly with distance. From the observational standpoint,

Z=(c/fo-c/fe)/(c/fe)
=(fe/fo)-1, (2)

where fe is emitted frequency and fo is observed frequency. The ratio fe/fo is what is measured. This is done by comparing the frequencies of known spectral lines from local sources with the frequencies of the same spectral lines in light from the distant source. vr is calculated using (1).

Is it possible for the expansion of the universe to cause the observed CR? In order for light from a distant source to be Doppler-shifted by the expansion of the universe, the metric of space (the length of a meter) and/or the metric of time (the duration of a second) must change as the universe expands. However, according to general relativity, any such change in the space and time metrics of the universe must be uniform, everywhere and everywhen. Neither light nor anything else can have metrics that differ from those of their current location in the universe. This means that, if the spectrum of a distant source is Doppler-shifted by expansion of the universe, the spectrum of a similar source here on Earth, or anywhere else, must undergo exactly the same Doppler shift. When that light arrives at Earth, its metrics must be those of our location. Therefore, if a Doppler shift due to the expansion of the universe exists, we cannot detect it.

But we do observe a redshift in the light from all very distant objects located far outside our galaxy. If a Doppler shift due to the expansion of the universe cannot be detected, we must find an explanation for that which is observed. The observed redshift is possible if the velocity of propagation of light decreases with the distance it must travel through “empty space”. This contradicts the commonly held belief that c, the velocity of propagation of light in empty space is a universal constant. It also appears to contradict the law of conservation of energy, as it is believed that light must lose energy if its frequency is decreased.

In the accepted theory of electromagnetic (EM) waves, D, the energy-density of any such wave in empty space, is

D=eoE2/2+moH2/2 (3)
or: 2D=eoE2+moH2,
and: eoE2=D=moH2 (4)
so: eoE2=moH2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following equation is missing in the published version:

eoE2/moH2=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where eo is the permittivity of empty space, mo is the permeability of empty space, E is the electric intensity of the wave, and H is the magnetic intensity of the wave. 2 The velocity of propagation, c, of an EM wave in empty space is defined by Maxwell’s equation 3, now written as

c=1/(eomo)1/2 (5)
and: c=fl (6)

where f is the frequency of a wave and l is its wavelength. Equation (5) tells us that if eo and/or mo vary, then c will vary. Equation (6) tells us that if c varies, then f and/or l will vary.

2. AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE CR.

eo and mo are assumed to be properties of empty space, but there is no known reason why empty space should have such properties. It is possible that eo and mo are actually properties of EM energy, and that (4) may mean

eo=D/E2 (7)
and: mo=D/H2 (8)
so: eo mo=D2/(EH)2 (9)

If so,, c will depend on the vales of D, E, and H in the otherwise empty space through which EM radiation propagates.

The values of E and H at any point in otherwise empty space are the instantaneous vector sums of the electric and magnetic intensities, respectively, of all EM radiation of all frequencies, propagating in all directions, that exists at that point. D is the scalar sum of all the energy of all EM radiation that exists in a volume of space at any instant, regardless of its frequency or direction of propagation. The value of eo in any volume of empty space depends on the total amount of energy contained within that volume, and the total electric field intensity within that volume. Similarly the value of mo in that volume of empty space depends on the total amount of energy and the total magnetic field intensity. Therefore,

c=1/(eo mo)1/2=1/[D2/(EH)2]1/2=EH/D. (10)

D is a scalar quantity, while E and H are sums of many vectors. As the amount of EM radiation existing in a volume of space increases, it is therefore likely that D will increase faster than EH. Equation (1) says that c varies with D, the energy-density of radiation in the space through which EM radiation propagates.

Assume c is the local value of the speed of light and S is the average value of the speed of light over some distance R. HE, H, and D are the local values of electric intensity, magnetic intensity, and EM radiation energy-density, respectively, and E*, H*, and D* are their average values over distance R. Then

c=EH/D (11)

and: S=E*H*/D* (12)
so: S/c=(E*H*/D*)/(EH/D (13)

If E*H*=EH, then:
S/c=D/D*. (14)


What does observation tell us? A galaxy in Hydra, 3.96 billion LY away, has a redshift corresponding to vr=0.203c. So S/c=(1-0.203)/1=0.797=D/D*, and D*=1.255D. Thus the average energy-density of EM radiation along a light-path of 3.96 billion LY increased by 0.255D, or 0.0644D per billion LY. If we assume this rate of change is linear, the increase in D* over the distance to an object in Bootes, 2.50 billion LY away, is 0.161. Then D/D*=S/c=1/1.161=0.861. So, S/c =0.861, and it appears to be receding at vr=(c-S)=0.139c, which agrees with observation. 4

By the same logic, light from an object 15 billion LY away travels to us through an average energy-density D*=(1+0.966)D, so S=0.509c, and vr=0.491c.

Light from an object 1000 billion LY away *if we could see it) would seem to be receding at 0.985c. An object at 10,000 billion LY away would seem to be receding at 0.998c.

If this hypothesis is true, D*, the average energy-density of EM radiation in empty space, increases with distance, and the speed of light, S, varies as 1/D*. The illusory “velocity of recession”, vr, is actually (c-S), where c is the value of the speed of light in our locale. The variation of D*, and therefore of S, accounts for the CR, without restricting the size of the “observable” universe.

Is energy lost as the velocity of light changes? No. Each light wave contributes some of its energy to the increase of energy-density with distance along every light-path.

REFERENCES:

1. J. Silk, THE BIG BANG, WH Freeman and Co., New York, 1980, p 330.
2. P. Lorrain and D. Corson, ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WAVES, 2nd Edition, WH Freeman and Co., New York, 1970, p. 464.
3. Ibid., p. 461.
4. See reference 1, p. 49.
 
HannonRJ said:
Is it possible for the expansion of the universe to cause the observed CR? In order for light from a distant source to be Doppler-shifted by the expansion of the universe, the metric of space (the length of a meter) and/or the metric of time (the duration of a second) must change as the universe expands. However, according to general relativity, any such change in the space and time metrics of the universe must be uniform, everywhere and everywhen.
Click to expand...

That is false. Not just false - completely wrong. There is nothing in GR that says that; quite the contrary.

In an expanding homogeneous and isotropic cosmology, using the simplest coordinates, the metric of space changes while the metric of time remains fixed.

Neither light nor anything else can have metrics that differ from those of their current location in the universe.
Click to expand...

Simply gibberish. Light doesn't have a metric. Spacetime has a metric.

No point in continuing.
 
HannonRJ said:
I am the author of the article I cited. Here is a copy of the MS:

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT. Robert J Hannon 3949 Wilshire Court Sarasota FL 34238-2571 USA
11 March 1998.

[Published in PHYSICS ESSAYS, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1998)

ABSTRACT: The nature and conventional explanation of the cosmological redshift are briefly reviewed. A simple alternative explanation is offered.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: cosmological redshift, relativistic Doppler shift, classical Doppler shift, electromagnetic radiation, permittivity and permeability of empty space.

I. INTRODUCTION.

A redshift is a uniform proportional reduction in the frequency of every line in a spectrum The Cosmological redshift (CR) is the observed redshift of the spectra of distant objects that are not gravitationally bound to our galaxy. It seems to increase with the distance of those objects from Earth. All such objects appear, if the conventional explanation of the CR is true, to be receding from us; the more distant, the faster.

The conventional wisdom attributes the CR to the Doppler effect, which arises from the expansion of the universe supposedly predicted by general relativity. The “relativistic” definition of redshift, Z, used by cosmologists, is:

Z=(1-vr/c)/(1-vr2/c2)1/2 (1)

Equation (1) says Z approaches infinity as vr, the velocity of recession of the source of light relative to Earth, approaches c, the velocity of light in empty space. vr is believed to increase linearly with distance. From the observational standpoint,

Z=(c/fo-c/fe)/(c/fe)
=(fe/fo)-1, (2)

where fe is emitted frequency and fo is observed frequency. The ratio fe/fo is what is measured. This is done by comparing the frequencies of known spectral lines from local sources with the frequencies of the same spectral lines in light from the distant source. vr is calculated using (1).

Is it possible for the expansion of the universe to cause the observed CR? In order for light from a distant source to be Doppler-shifted by the expansion of the universe, the metric of space (the length of a meter) and/or the metric of time (the duration of a second) must change as the universe expands. However, according to general relativity, any such change in the space and time metrics of the universe must be uniform, everywhere and everywhen. Neither light nor anything else can have metrics that differ from those of their current location in the universe. This means that, if the spectrum of a distant source is Doppler-shifted by expansion of the universe, the spectrum of a similar source here on Earth, or anywhere else, must undergo exactly the same Doppler shift. When that light arrives at Earth, its metrics must be those of our location. Therefore, if a Doppler shift due to the expansion of the universe exists, we cannot detect it.

But we do observe a redshift in the light from all very distant objects located far outside our galaxy. If a Doppler shift due to the expansion of the universe cannot be detected, we must find an explanation for that which is observed. The observed redshift is possible if the velocity of propagation of light decreases with the distance it must travel through “empty space”. This contradicts the commonly held belief that c, the velocity of propagation of light in empty space is a universal constant. It also appears to contradict the law of conservation of energy, as it is believed that light must lose energy if its frequency is decreased.

In the accepted theory of electromagnetic (EM) waves, D, the energy-density of any such wave in empty space, is

D=eoE2/2+moH2/2 (3)
or: 2D=eoE2+moH2,
and: eoE2=D=moH2 (4)
so: eoE2=moH2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following equation is missing in the published version:

eoE2/moH2=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
where eo is the permittivity of empty space, mo is the permeability of empty space, E is the electric intensity of the wave, and H is the magnetic intensity of the wave. 2 The velocity of propagation, c, of an EM wave in empty space is defined by Maxwell’s equation 3, now written as

c=1/(eomo)1/2 (5)
and: c=fl (6)

where f is the frequency of a wave and l is its wavelength. Equation (5) tells us that if eo and/or mo vary, then c will vary. Equation (6) tells us that if c varies, then f and/or l will vary.

2. AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE CR.

eo and mo are assumed to be properties of empty space, but there is no known reason why empty space should have such properties. It is possible that eo and mo are actually properties of EM energy, and that (4) may mean

eo=D/E2 (7)
and: mo=D/H2 (8)
so: eo mo=D2/(EH)2 (9)

If so,, c will depend on the vales of D, E, and H in the otherwise empty space through which EM radiation propagates.

The values of E and H at any point in otherwise empty space are the instantaneous vector sums of the electric and magnetic intensities, respectively, of all EM radiation of all frequencies, propagating in all directions, that exists at that point. D is the scalar sum of all the energy of all EM radiation that exists in a volume of space at any instant, regardless of its frequency or direction of propagation. The value of eo in any volume of empty space depends on the total amount of energy contained within that volume, and the total electric field intensity within that volume. Similarly the value of mo in that volume of empty space depends on the total amount of energy and the total magnetic field intensity. Therefore,

c=1/(eo mo)1/2=1/[D2/(EH)2]1/2=EH/D. (10)

D is a scalar quantity, while E and H are sums of many vectors. As the amount of EM radiation existing in a volume of space increases, it is therefore likely that D will increase faster than EH. Equation (1) says that c varies with D, the energy-density of radiation in the space through which EM radiation propagates.

Assume c is the local value of the speed of light and S is the average value of the speed of light over some distance R. HE, H, and D are the local values of electric intensity, magnetic intensity, and EM radiation energy-density, respectively, and E*, H*, and D* are their average values over distance R. Then

c=EH/D (11)

and: S=E*H*/D* (12)
so: S/c=(E*H*/D*)/(EH/D (13)

If E*H*=EH, then:
S/c=D/D*. (14)


What does observation tell us? A galaxy in Hydra, 3.96 billion LY away, has a redshift corresponding to vr=0.203c. So S/c=(1-0.203)/1=0.797=D/D*, and D*=1.255D. Thus the average energy-density of EM radiation along a light-path of 3.96 billion LY increased by 0.255D, or 0.0644D per billion LY. If we assume this rate of change is linear, the increase in D* over the distance to an object in Bootes, 2.50 billion LY away, is 0.161. Then D/D*=S/c=1/1.161=0.861. So, S/c =0.861, and it appears to be receding at vr=(c-S)=0.139c, which agrees with observation. 4

By the same logic, light from an object 15 billion LY away travels to us through an average energy-density D*=(1+0.966)D, so S=0.509c, and vr=0.491c.

Light from an object 1000 billion LY away *if we could see it) would seem to be receding at 0.985c. An object at 10,000 billion LY away would seem to be receding at 0.998c.

If this hypothesis is true, D*, the average energy-density of EM radiation in empty space, increases with distance, and the speed of light, S, varies as 1/D*. The illusory “velocity of recession”, vr, is actually (c-S), where c is the value of the speed of light in our locale. The variation of D*, and therefore of S, accounts for the CR, without restricting the size of the “observable” universe.

Is energy lost as the velocity of light changes? No. Each light wave contributes some of its energy to the increase of energy-density with distance along every light-path.

REFERENCES:

1. J. Silk, THE BIG BANG, WH Freeman and Co., New York, 1980, p 330.
2. P. Lorrain and D. Corson, ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND WAVES, 2nd Edition, WH Freeman and Co., New York, 1970, p. 464.
3. Ibid., p. 461.
4. See reference 1, p. 49.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

PS, here is a proposed "alternative explanation of the [cosmological expansion] red shift".

Would you - or Skwinty, or Zeuzzz, or INRM, or ... - like to read it, and point out why it can be "ruled out"?
 
HannonRJ said:
The conventional wisdom attributes the CR to the Doppler effect, which arises from the expansion of the universe supposedly predicted by general relativity. The “relativistic” definition of redshift, Z, used by cosmologists, is:

Z=(1-vr/c)/(1-vr2/c2)1/2 (1)
Click to expand...

Wrong. It's a relativistic doppler shift, but it's not appropriate cosmologically.

It's not exactly a good start, is it?
 
"This means that, if the spectrum of a distant source is Doppler-shifted by expansion of the universe, the spectrum of a similar source here on Earth, or anywhere else, must undergo exactly the same Doppler shift."

This doesn't make sense as the earth is not expanding, only space is, and that is really a conceptual idea. So, if as Woody's mum said, "Brooklyn is not expanding, then there must be a measurable difference.:)
 
All of the description of the early universe and the conventional view of the CBR in my paper published on PHILICA on that subject is quoted from the references Any "misunderstandings" are those of their authors

Here is a copy of the MS:

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION.
Robert J. Hannon

ABSTRACT: The current explanation of the Cosmic Background Radiation, based on the Big Bang Hypothesis, is briefly examined. An alternative explanation is offered, predicated on a possible cosmologically-local situation.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: Big Bang Hypothesis, Electromagnetic Radiation, radiation era

I. In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave noise now called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). It is purported to be a proof of the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH), because it is claimed to be the remnant of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by the Big Bang, redshifted by the expansion of the universe. The CBR has a “temperature” of 2.732K. Its peak energy spectrum is at a wavelength of about 2 millimeters, and its energy spectrum is virtually that of an ideal black body.1

The belief that the Big Bang produced EMR is more an assumption than a provable fact. Supposedly, during the first microsecond of the existence of the Universe, there were hadrons, followed within a second by electrons, positrons, photons, and (maybe) neutrinos. How these were created is unknown, but their existence is postulated by the BBH. Then for about 300,000 years there was a “Radiation Era”, during which electron-positron pairs mutually annihilated and the resulting radiation became the dominant constituent of the Universe.2

While gamma radiation is produced by electron-positron rest-mass annihilation, we have no knowledge of how this takes place. Each such annihilation of rest-mass supposedly produces two identical gamma rays each having an energy of 0.818x10-6 erg, which corresponds with a frequency of 1.234x1020 Hertz or a wavelength of 2.43x10-10 meter. These values are determined only by the mass of an electron or positron. They are the same for every electron-positron annihilation. They are independent of the number of such events. The kinetic energy of the pair contributes only trivially to the total energy, so the frequency or wavelength of the gamma radiation is virtually independent of “temperature”, and therefore almost monochromatic. So it appears that the supposed source of the CBR should not have a black body spectrum.

II. Is it possible for expansion of the universe to cause an observable redshift in light, gamma radiation or other EMR? According to the Theory of General Relativity (GR), which is the predicate of the BBH, the Universe is assumed to be uniformly “expanding” relative to every point in space and time. This expansion is not limited to those points actually occupied by anything: space itself is expanding. This is why the GR Universe has no center. Except possibly in the locales of massive objects, the metrics of space and time expand in exact proportion, otherwise c, the velocity of light in empty space, would not be a “universal constant”.

How does the expansion of the Universe proceed in terms of space and time?

Does the number of invariant standard meters and seconds between any two objects increase? Do points in space measurably move apart? This would seem necessary in order for us to observe the Cosmological Redshift. If so, only the distance between points changes. The wavelength of EMR already propagating space is unaffected; it simply requires more time to reach any distant point than when it was emitted. If its velocity, c, is indeed constant then no observable redshift can arise from this kind of expansion.

Or, does the number of meters and seconds between points in space remain constant while the length of the meter (the metric of space) and the duration of a second (the metric of time) both increase? Were the meter and the second shorter in the past? This kind of “expansion” is not measurable, and would not produce the Cosmological Redshift. Changes in the metrics would not be perceptible to any observer because the uniform universality of the expansion would require the meter and second of all observers, everywhere and everywhen, to increase by exactly the same amount. Nevertheless this seems most consistent with the variable metrics of GR, and it also appears not to require kinetic energy to be imparted to every object in order to “move” it relative to every other.

Assume that it is the metrics of space and time that are continually changing in exactly the same way, uniformly and simultaneously everywhere in the Universe. It is impossible for an electromagnetic wave (or anything else) to have metrics different from those of space and time wherever it may be. So EMR emitted at any past time cannot retain the metrics which may have existed at its birth as it propagates through the expanding Universe. The metrics of EMR (or anything else) must change in exactly the same way as those of the Universe change. When such EMR reaches the earth, its metrics will be identical with those of EMR emitted from the same kind of source here and now. Thus a redshift due to this kind of expansion of the Universe would be undetectable by the usual methods.

So it seems that expansion of the Universe cannot cause an observable redshift in light, gamma radiation, or any other EMR.

Big Bang cosmologists evade this subject, and “explain” the supposed redshift of gamma radiation purportedly produced billions of years ago by applying the thermodynamic gas laws to the Universe, ignoring the fact that empty space cannot have a “temperature”. They assume that expansion of the Universe decreases its “temperature” and that of all EMR propagating within it. This decrease in “temperature” supposedly produces an increase in the wavelength (or a decrease in the frequency) of the gamma radiation produced by electron-positron annihilations billions of years ago. Thus EMR emitted billions of light-years away from us is “cooled” in transit by the expansion of the Universe, and is therefore redshifted when we receive it. No accounting is offered for the loss of energy involved.

III. Are there other possible sources of the CBR?

The conventional wisdom says there are none, primarily because of the isotropy of the CBR: it is supposedly uniform to within 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) in all directions from the earth. However, such measurements have been made only within a radius of about 500 km of the approx. 0.25 light-year long path along which our solar system has moved in the past few decades. Such observations cannot be claimed to represent the entire Universe.

Suppose the CBR is EMR emitted by a spherical shell of gaseous radiators, having an unknown radius of anywhere from ten to thousands of LY, and that the entire solar system has been moving inside this shell for many years. At distance R (inside the sphere) the energy Er from any point on the sphere is Er=Es/R2 where Es is the energy at 1 meter from the source. At distance R±D, the energy Ed of that radiation is Ed=Es/(R±D)2 so:




For Ed/Er=1.00001: at R=10LY, D=0.00005 LY=470x106 km. At R=1000 LY, D=0.005 LY=47x109 km. So if we are 10 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 470 million km from our location. If we are 1000 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation to be isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 47 billion km of our location.

The shell could be the residue of a stellar event that happened very long ago. There is no specific reason why the energy vs frequency distribution of its radiation could not be that which is observed.

REFERENCES:

1. Guth, Allen H: THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE, Chapter 4, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc, Reading MA, USA, 1997.

2. Silk, Joseph: THE BIG BANG, Chapter 6, WH Freeman and Co, New York, 1980.
 
HannonRJ said:
All of the description of the early universe and the conventional view of the CBR in my paper published on PHILICA on that subject is quoted from the references Any "misunderstandings" are those of their authors
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Assume that it is the metrics of space and time that are continually changing in exactly the same way, uniformly and simultaneously everywhere in the Universe. It is impossible for an electromagnetic wave (or anything else) to have metrics different from those of space and time wherever it may be. So EMR emitted at any past time cannot retain the metrics which may have existed at its birth as it propagates through the expanding Universe. The metrics of EMR (or anything else) must change in exactly the same way as those of the Universe change. When such EMR reaches the earth, its metrics will be identical with those of EMR emitted from the same kind of source here and now. Thus a redshift due to this kind of expansion of the Universe would be undetectable by the usual methods.
Click to expand...

One thing you've made quite clear here is that you have no idea what the term "metric" means. Like most quacks, you take technical terms and misuse them to draw false conclusions. Although in this case, the failure begins with the invalid assumption in the first sentence.
 
DeiRenDopa
In science, "hypothesis" usually has a very narrow meaning - something constructed for the express purpose of testing one, and only one, idea in such a way as to yield an unambiguous answer. As such, its meaning is rather different from the everyday usages, just as in science "theory" has a quite different meaning than the everyday "synonym for guess".
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll take more care in using the word "hypothesis" in the future.

Now, about the word "theory":
For many years now, I have noticed that "theory" is used in a very inconsistent manner.
One can say: "the theory of evolution," which is foundational to biology.
And, "the theory of special relativity," which has a similar position in physics.
It is still acceptable (although antiquated) to refer to the "heliocentric theory" or the "germ theory of disease."
In the above examples these "theories" are firmly established, yet one can refer to "string theory," which is highly speculative.
By the way, this confusing usage makes science even more difficult for those who have only a passing familiarity with science. I have a friend who lectured me recently that quantum theory is only a theory, which in his mind made it speculative. References to the "theory" of evolution cause similar problems.
 
Last edited:
HannonRJ said:
Then for about 300,000 years there was a “Radiation Era”, during which electron-positron pairs mutually annihilated and the resulting radiation became the dominant constituent of the Universe.2
Click to expand...

Silk really said this? Can you give us an exact quote please?
 
Last edited:
HannonRJ said:
The shell could be the residue of a stellar event that happened very long ago. There is no specific reason why the energy vs frequency distribution of its radiation could not be that which is observed.
Click to expand...

SZ Effect. Amongst other things. If it's a nearby shell it can't be affected by distant galaxy clusters can it?
 
PS, here is a proposed "alternative explanation of the [cosmological expansion] red shift".

Would you - or Skwinty, or Zeuzzz, or INRM, or ... - like to read it, and point out why it can be "ruled out"?
Click to expand...

I intend to do so later today.
 
sol Invictus:

Interesting opinions! Einstein claimed T=(t-vx/c^2)B, so time does have a metric... a unit of measurement of duration that depends on B. Since light propagates at constant c in "empty space", light is measured by the metrics of space and time of the space in which it propagates at any instant. c=xt=X/T.

Please tell me how space and time can be homogeneous when their metrics are not everywhere and always the same.

SR is purported to be intrinsic to GR.
 
Last edited:
HannonRJ said:
Interesting opinions!
Click to expand...

They're not opinions - they are facts.

Einstein claimed T=(t-vx/c^2)B, so time does have a metric... a unit of measurement of duration that depends on B.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to write down the metric of spacetime in special relativity (the Minkowski metric), it's [latex]$ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + d \bar x^2$[/latex].

Since light propagates at constant c in "empty space", light is measured by the metrics of space and time of the space in which it propagates at any instant.
Click to expand...

That's too incoherent to comment on.

c=xt=X/T.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any definition of "xt" which would make that a sensible equation.

Please tell me how space and time can be homogeneous when their metrics are not everywhere and always the same.
Click to expand...

OK, "homogeneous" is evidently another term you do not know the meaning of. When people refer to a "homogeneous universe", they mean homogeneous in space - not in time. Expanding cosmologies change with time, obviously. As every grammar school child knows, 13 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. Now it isn't.

SR is purported to be intrinsic to GR.
Click to expand...

It is.
 
Last edited:
HannonRJ said:
All of the description of the early universe and the conventional view of the CBR in my paper published on PHILICA on that subject is quoted from the references Any "misunderstandings" are those of their authors

Here is a copy of the MS:

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION.
Robert J. Hannon

ABSTRACT: The current explanation of the Cosmic Background Radiation, based on the Big Bang Hypothesis, is briefly examined. An alternative explanation is offered, predicated on a possible cosmologically-local situation.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: Big Bang Hypothesis, Electromagnetic Radiation, radiation era

I. In 1965 Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave noise now called the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). It is purported to be a proof of the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH), because it is claimed to be the remnant of the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by the Big Bang, redshifted by the expansion of the universe. The CBR has a “temperature” of 2.732K. Its peak energy spectrum is at a wavelength of about 2 millimeters, and its energy spectrum is virtually that of an ideal black body.1

The belief that the Big Bang produced EMR is more an assumption than a provable fact. Supposedly, during the first microsecond of the existence of the Universe, there were hadrons, followed within a second by electrons, positrons, photons, and (maybe) neutrinos. How these were created is unknown, but their existence is postulated by the BBH. Then for about 300,000 years there was a “Radiation Era”, during which electron-positron pairs mutually annihilated and the resulting radiation became the dominant constituent of the Universe.2

While gamma radiation is produced by electron-positron rest-mass annihilation, we have no knowledge of how this takes place. Each such annihilation of rest-mass supposedly produces two identical gamma rays each having an energy of 0.818x10-6 erg, which corresponds with a frequency of 1.234x1020 Hertz or a wavelength of 2.43x10-10 meter. These values are determined only by the mass of an electron or positron. They are the same for every electron-positron annihilation. They are independent of the number of such events. The kinetic energy of the pair contributes only trivially to the total energy, so the frequency or wavelength of the gamma radiation is virtually independent of “temperature”, and therefore almost monochromatic. So it appears that the supposed source of the CBR should not have a black body spectrum.

II. Is it possible for expansion of the universe to cause an observable redshift in light, gamma radiation or other EMR? According to the Theory of General Relativity (GR), which is the predicate of the BBH, the Universe is assumed to be uniformly “expanding” relative to every point in space and time. This expansion is not limited to those points actually occupied by anything: space itself is expanding. This is why the GR Universe has no center. Except possibly in the locales of massive objects, the metrics of space and time expand in exact proportion, otherwise c, the velocity of light in empty space, would not be a “universal constant”.

How does the expansion of the Universe proceed in terms of space and time?

Does the number of invariant standard meters and seconds between any two objects increase? Do points in space measurably move apart? This would seem necessary in order for us to observe the Cosmological Redshift. If so, only the distance between points changes. The wavelength of EMR already propagating space is unaffected; it simply requires more time to reach any distant point than when it was emitted. If its velocity, c, is indeed constant then no observable redshift can arise from this kind of expansion.

Or, does the number of meters and seconds between points in space remain constant while the length of the meter (the metric of space) and the duration of a second (the metric of time) both increase? Were the meter and the second shorter in the past? This kind of “expansion” is not measurable, and would not produce the Cosmological Redshift. Changes in the metrics would not be perceptible to any observer because the uniform universality of the expansion would require the meter and second of all observers, everywhere and everywhen, to increase by exactly the same amount. Nevertheless this seems most consistent with the variable metrics of GR, and it also appears not to require kinetic energy to be imparted to every object in order to “move” it relative to every other.

Assume that it is the metrics of space and time that are continually changing in exactly the same way, uniformly and simultaneously everywhere in the Universe. It is impossible for an electromagnetic wave (or anything else) to have metrics different from those of space and time wherever it may be. So EMR emitted at any past time cannot retain the metrics which may have existed at its birth as it propagates through the expanding Universe. The metrics of EMR (or anything else) must change in exactly the same way as those of the Universe change. When such EMR reaches the earth, its metrics will be identical with those of EMR emitted from the same kind of source here and now. Thus a redshift due to this kind of expansion of the Universe would be undetectable by the usual methods.

So it seems that expansion of the Universe cannot cause an observable redshift in light, gamma radiation, or any other EMR.

Big Bang cosmologists evade this subject, and “explain” the supposed redshift of gamma radiation purportedly produced billions of years ago by applying the thermodynamic gas laws to the Universe, ignoring the fact that empty space cannot have a “temperature”. They assume that expansion of the Universe decreases its “temperature” and that of all EMR propagating within it. This decrease in “temperature” supposedly produces an increase in the wavelength (or a decrease in the frequency) of the gamma radiation produced by electron-positron annihilations billions of years ago. Thus EMR emitted billions of light-years away from us is “cooled” in transit by the expansion of the Universe, and is therefore redshifted when we receive it. No accounting is offered for the loss of energy involved.

III. Are there other possible sources of the CBR?

The conventional wisdom says there are none, primarily because of the isotropy of the CBR: it is supposedly uniform to within 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) in all directions from the earth. However, such measurements have been made only within a radius of about 500 km of the approx. 0.25 light-year long path along which our solar system has moved in the past few decades. Such observations cannot be claimed to represent the entire Universe.

Suppose the CBR is EMR emitted by a spherical shell of gaseous radiators, having an unknown radius of anywhere from ten to thousands of LY, and that the entire solar system has been moving inside this shell for many years. At distance R (inside the sphere) the energy Er from any point on the sphere is Er=Es/R2 where Es is the energy at 1 meter from the source. At distance R±D, the energy Ed of that radiation is Ed=Es/(R±D)2 so:




For Ed/Er=1.00001: at R=10LY, D=0.00005 LY=470x106 km. At R=1000 LY, D=0.005 LY=47x109 km. So if we are 10 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 470 million km from our location. If we are 1000 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation to be isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 47 billion km of our location.

The shell could be the residue of a stellar event that happened very long ago. There is no specific reason why the energy vs frequency distribution of its radiation could not be that which is observed.

REFERENCES:

1. Guth, Allen H: THE INFLATIONARY UNIVERSE, Chapter 4, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, Inc, Reading MA, USA, 1997.

2. Silk, Joseph: THE BIG BANG, Chapter 6, WH Freeman and Co, New York, 1980.
Click to expand...
Looks like this idea has some fatal flaws in it too.

Skwinty, PS (Z? INRM?): can you follow the reasons why this idea can be ruled out?
 
"If its velocity, c, is indeed constant then no observable redshift can arise from this kind of expansion."

The speed of light cannot exceed 3e8m/s. There is no law law that states that the speed of light cannot be less than 3e8m/s. An example would be be light in a Bose -Einstein Condensate or the fact that a fast electron exceeds the speed of light in a boron rich liquid, otherwise known as cerenkov radiation.
 
Looks like this idea has some fatal flaws in it too.

Skwinty, PS (Z? INRM?): can you follow the reasons why this idea can be ruled out?
Click to expand...

You're asking a lot from a non-physicist. But here are some things that don't seem right:
Assume that it is the metrics of space and time that are continually changing in exactly the same way, uniformly and simultaneously everywhere in the Universe. It is impossible for an electromagnetic wave (or anything else) to have metrics different from those of space and time wherever it may be. So EMR emitted at any past time cannot retain the metrics which may have existed at its birth as it propagates through the expanding Universe. The metrics of EMR (or anything else) must change in exactly the same way as those of the Universe change. When such EMR reaches the earth, its metrics will be identical with those of EMR emitted from the same kind of source here and now. Thus a redshift due to this kind of expansion of the Universe would be undetectable by the usual methods.
Click to expand...

I believe the above is false. I have never heard of the "metric of time" changing as the universe expands. And, there is no evidence that the size of objects (particles, EM waves, and hence atoms and molecules) grow with an expanding universe, which would appear to result from this scenario. I can't see how the above could be a viable explanation if matter did not also grow in size along with time slowing down and space expanding. Such an effect would change the very behavior of matter in the universe over time. But, what do I know?
Big Bang cosmologists evade this subject, and “explain” the supposed redshift of gamma radiation purportedly produced billions of years ago by applying the thermodynamic gas laws to the Universe, ignoring the fact that empty space cannot have a “temperature”. They assume that expansion of the Universe decreases its “temperature” and that of all EMR propagating within it. This decrease in “temperature” supposedly produces an increase in the wavelength (or a decrease in the frequency) of the gamma radiation produced by electron-positron annihilations billions of years ago. Thus EMR emitted billions of light-years away from us is “cooled” in transit by the expansion of the Universe, and is therefore redshifted when we receive it. No accounting is offered for the loss of energy involved
Click to expand...

First, no one says "empty space has temperature." I believe cosmologists refer to the temperature of the matter and radiation within the universe.
Second, my understanding is that as the universe cooled, the energy remained constant but filled an ever growing universe, making the temperature lower. The same amount of energy is filling a larger space. That seems to be quite similar to what happens to a gas in an expanding chamber. But what do I know?
The conventional wisdom says there are none, primarily because of the isotropy of the CBR: it is supposedly uniform to within 0.001% (1 part in 100,000) in all directions from the earth. However, such measurements have been made only within a radius of about 500 km of the approx. 0.25 light-year long path along which our solar system has moved in the past few decades. Such observations cannot be claimed to represent the entire Universe.

Suppose the CBR is EMR emitted by a spherical shell of gaseous radiators, having an unknown radius of anywhere from ten to thousands of LY, and that the entire solar system has been moving inside this shell for many years. At distance R (inside the sphere) the energy Er from any point on the sphere is Er=Es/R2 where Es is the energy at 1 meter from the source. At distance R±D, the energy Ed of that radiation is Ed=Es/(R±D)2 so:




For Ed/Er=1.00001: at R=10LY, D=0.00005 LY=470x106 km. At R=1000 LY, D=0.005 LY=47x109 km. So if we are 10 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 470 million km from our location. If we are 1000 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation to be isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 47 billion km of our location.
Click to expand...

OK, now here I would think we would be able to find other signs of this local explosion -- what else could cause a "a spherical shell of gaseous radiators." There would also be a Doppler effect as we moved through the radiation -- blue shift ahead and red shift behind us. On the other hand, don't we observe that anyway as we move relative to the CMB? Also, how could such an event, which would have to have a center, give us the isotropic measurements we see? And, wouldn't there be particles as well as radiation from such an event? As I said, what do I know?
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
And, there is no evidence that the size of objects (particles, EM waves, and hence atoms and molecules) grow with an expanding universe, which would appear to result from this scenario.
Click to expand...
Atoms and other particles don't grow. EM waves do* - it's what redshift is.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#SS

First, no one says "empty space has temperature." I believe cosmologists refer to the temperature of the matter and radiation within the universe.
Second, my understanding is that as the universe cooled, the energy remained constant but filled an ever growing universe, making the temperature lower. The same amount of energy is filling a larger space. That seems to be quite similar to what happens to a gas in an expanding chamber. But what do I know?
Click to expand...
The radiation is what has the temperature - at least in the sense that it has a spectrum of a black body of a certain temperature, so it's a convenient way to describe what that radiation is. As for the energy conservation thing - in general relativity energy conservation is not as simple a business as you might think.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

None of the above should be taken as a defence of HannonRJ's postings, of course.

*at least on their way from distant galaxies
 
sol invictus said:
HannonRJ said:
c=xt=X/T.
Click to expand...

I can't think of any definition of "xt" which would make that a sensible equation.
Click to expand...

I might surmise that Hannon read something somewhere in Natural Units, which would be quite easy to do, and then conflated it to 1 * 1 = 1/1 = c in natural units. Of course as you indirectly note even in natural units space * time is not the same as space / time or c, even when though then might all equal 1.
 
Thread's gone a bit quiet ...

Good on you Skwinty and PS, for having a go at trying to find reasons why the HannonRJ material can be ruled out! :)

To what extent were you able to follow the others' posts on that material (si, TM, TT, RC, edd, ...)?

So what open questions are there, other than stuff to do - directly - with the HannonRJ material?

Some comments by PS on "theory".

One final comment on Skwinty's "how to tell the component causes in a redshift spectrum?".

... and a look at the third (and possible fourth?) kind of source of ideas on possible alternative explanations for cosmological redshift (PS' question, from waaaay back), and what work has been done to rule them out.

Am I missing any?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Good on you Skwinty and PS, for having a go at trying to find reasons why the HannonRJ material can be ruled out! :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I only picked out 2 based on words and not math.

DeiRenDopa said:
To what extent were you able to follow the others' posts on that material (si, TM, TT, RC, edd, ...)?
Click to expand...

I was able to follow, but don't ask me to repeat the math


DeiRenDopa said:
So what open questions are there, other than stuff to do - directly - with the HannonRJ material?
Click to expand...

I don't think that we mentioned Marmet's explanation of molecular hydrogen being the cause of redshift.
 
Tubbythin said:
From the other thread:


That man seems very confused.
Apparently dark matter doesn't exist and it is all molecular hydrogen. And yet at the same time the dark matter (which doesn't exist you'll remember) is what absorbs the visible light to solve Olbers' paradox.
Not to mention he seems to reject QM and SR/GR.
Click to expand...
I interpreted him as saying that molecular hydrogen is dark matter, not that dark matter doesn't exist.
I agree his stance on SR/GR and QM is rather odd, given all the successful tests over the last 50 years..
 
Tubbythin: See the references cited in my paper.

Skwinty: There is no "Law" that light cannot exceed any specific speed. The purported immutability of the value of c is just a postulate of SR.

The Man: c=x/t=X/T is intrinsic to Einstein's 1905 derivation of the SR transformation equations.
 
sol invictus: They're not opinions - they are facts.

RJH REPLIES: In your opinion.


SI: That's too incoherent to comment on.

RJH: Just plain English.

SI: I can't think of any definition of "xt" which would make that a sensible equation.

RJH: See Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".


SI: OK, "homogeneous" is evidently another term you do not know the meaning of. When people refer to a "homogeneous universe", they mean homogeneous in space - not in time. Expanding cosmologies change with time, obviously. As every grammar school child knows, 13 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. Now it isn't.

RJH: Homogeneous: The same everywhere and everywhen. See Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Metric: a unit of measurement.
 
HannonRJ said:
SI: OK, "homogeneous" is evidently another term you do not know the meaning of. When people refer to a "homogeneous universe", they mean homogeneous in space - not in time. Expanding cosmologies change with time, obviously. As every grammar school child knows, 13 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. Now it isn't.

RJH: Homogeneous: The same everywhere and everywhen. See Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
Click to expand...

Einstein is famous for many things. Writing dictionaries is not one of them.
 
HannonRJ said:
SI: OK, "homogeneous" is evidently another term you do not know the meaning of. When people refer to a "homogeneous universe", they mean homogeneous in space - not in time. Expanding cosmologies change with time, obviously. As every grammar school child knows, 13 billion years ago the universe was extremely hot and dense. Now it isn't.

RJH: Homogeneous: The same everywhere and everywhen. See Einstein, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
Click to expand...

Yeah, um... that paper is on special relativity. Cosmology and expanding space require general relativity. There are major differences between special and general relativity. So aside from the fact that you're still wrong about what homogeneous means in this context, the paper you cite to support your opinion is completely and utterly irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom