Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE

Dancing David

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
39,700
Location
central Illinois
Redux and ready for more...

Some people don't like the BBE theory, and they don't understand , it rests upon the Hubble relationship.

The Hubble relationship is very robust.

The BBE is named by a man who didn't like it and is vastly lischaracterised. No conclusions may be drawn about the origins of the BBE or what happened prior to the BBE. that is teh way it is.

So any who wish, try and present alternatives to cosmological redshift!

Here is one to start:

Wolf Effect

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Redshift#Wolf_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect
 
So you're saying the Wolf effect is accountable for producing all the redshift we see in the universe and there was no big bang?

It's a hell of a claim...
 
So you're saying the Wolf effect is accountable for producing all the redshift we see in the universe and there was no big bang?

It's a hell of a claim...
Dancing David is just asking for alternatives to cosmological redshift. He is not saying anything about their validity (yet).

I suspect that there will either be a deafening silience or a flood of the usual suspects.
 
I am allowing peole to give vent to thier feelings, although I doubt they will show.

For my POV it sure explains a lot of stuff. But some seem philosophivaly opposed to the Big Band Event (this week Duke Ellington) and the cosmological redshift.
 
I understand cosmological redshift to have 4 possible mechanisms.

1. Space Expansion - albeit criticized by a some (eg Milne and others)

2. Doppler effect - probably beyond dispute

3. Gravitational effect - also probably beyond dispute.

4. Tired light - severely criticized by many. However, this may, as I understand, be tested again some time in the future. I think the main criticism is that the linear dissipation of the photon energy is ascribed to unknown reasons.

I think that the important bit about redshift is:

Redshift does not only rely on the the conditions at emitter and receiver, but the distribution of matter in space between the source and observer as well.
 
Before I comment on the Wolf effect, I'll add a couple more that could do with investigation. I'm still contemplating the wolf effects relevance myself.

* Plasma Redshift: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406437
* Raman Scattering of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
* Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light (CREIL): http://jean.moretbailly.free.fr/JacquesMB/CREIL-english.html
* Lobachevsky Space theory
* Quasi-Steady State Cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory#Quasi-steady_state (Modified from the traditional QSSI model [newer modified version is banned from wikipedia, not even allowed to have a page explaining the model due to Big Bang adherants having all the admin privaleges, while pages like palm reading and clairvoyance are ok :rolleyes:])

And others that I cant be bothered to include.

These papers may be a start. Lots of them are strong evidence against expansion and hard data giving strong evidence for a static universe rather than complete alternatives explaining the anomalies.

Panel 1 - Reality of Cosmic Expansion http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-1.htm
Panel 2 - Origin of Microwave Radiation http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-2.htm
Panel 3 - Quasi-Stellar Objects http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-3.htm
Panel 4 - Large Scale Structure http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-4.htm
Panel 5 - Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-5.htm
Panel 6 - General Alternative Cosmologies http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-6.htm
Panel 7 - Hubble Relationship Alternatives http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-7.htm
Panel 8 - Dark Matter and Dark Energy Alternatives http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-8.htm

Most papers have not been published yet as they are relatively recent. But a couple have popped up in asto journals the past weeks. And many are available are arxiv.
 
Last edited:
4. Tired light - severely criticized by many. However, this may, as I understand, be tested again some time in the future. I think the main criticism is that the linear dissipation of the photon energy is ascribed to unknown reasons.

Actually, that's not the main problem. The main problem is that in order to get such dissipation, you need random scattering of some sort (anything coherent won't give you a red shift, because anything shifted woukd destructively interfere with itself). And that will cause blurring, both in angle and in energy. Such blurring is not observed.
 
I understand cosmological redshift to have 4 possible mechanisms.

1. Space Expansion - albeit criticized by a some (eg Milne and others)

2. Doppler effect - probably beyond dispute

3. Gravitational effect - also probably beyond dispute.

4. Tired light - severely criticized by many. However, this may, as I understand, be tested again some time in the future. I think the main criticism is that the linear dissipation of the photon energy is ascribed to unknown reasons.

I think that the important bit about redshift is:

Redshift does not only rely on the the conditions at emitter and receiver, but the distribution of matter in space between the source and observer as well.
Some comments about your points in reverse order:

Redshift does not depend much on the distribution of matter in space between the source and observer. There is s small compnent of gravitational redshift caused by the matter, e.g. the Sachs–Wolfe effect in the CMB. In fact cosmological redshift is used as a tool to probe the distribution of neutral hydrogen in the past (the Lyman-alhpa forest).

4. There are more problems than the unknown mechanism: Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
3. Gravitational effect: Beyond dispute and too small to account for the observed magnitude of the cosmological redshift.
2. Doppler effect: If cosmological redshift is the result of galaxies actually moving away from us in a non-expanding space then that makes us the center of the universe. This invalidates one of the postulates of modern physics - there is no special frame of reference.
1. That basically leaves space expansion.
I assume that by "Milne" you mean the Milne model proposed by Edward Arthur Milne in 1935?. That was a valid model for its day but its prediction of Ωtot ~ 0 and negative spatial curvature contradict observations which show Ωtot ~ 1 and zero spatial curvature.
 
Before I comment on the Wolf effect, I'll add a couple more that could do with investigation. I'm still contemplating the wolf effects relevance myself.

* Plasma Redshift: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406437
* Raman Scattering of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
* Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light (CREIL): http://jean.moretbailly.free.fr/JacquesMB/CREIL-english.html
* Lobachevsky Space theory
* Quasi-Steady State Cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory#Quasi-steady_state

  • Plasma Redshift: An unpublished preprint of a 2004 paper by Ari Brynjolfsson is not a good place to start. Especially when Ari Brynjolfsson is the only person listed as citing this paper in the last 5 years!
  • Raman Scattering of light: Not a source of cosmological redshift as already mentioned in this forum. I think the reasons are blurring and non-redshift changes in spectrum (e.g. spectral lines of hydrogen) but a fuller explanation of why not would be nice.
  • Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light (CREIL): Definitely not a source of cosmological redshift since it requires the redshift of quasars to be different from their host galaxies and this is not observed.
  • Lobachevsky Space theory: This seems to be a reference to Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky Space. I have no idea what relevance it has to cosmological redshift.
  • Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models is the classic "debunking" of this. Also see the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory thread on this forum.
 
A few more

That plasma universe site david linked to above lists loads more. This looks like its gonna be a looooong thread. Some are pretty ancient now though and probably disproved. I Dont have much time to comment on anything at the moment due to various reasons, but heres a few for people to ponder over/rule out.

Summary of alternative redshift theories

This is a selection of redshift theories that have been published over the years, that claim a cause that is not due to either Cosmological redshift (Friedmann), Doppler redshift, nor Gravitational redshift (Schwarzschild).

* 1909 John Evershed's "Evershed Effect"[7] in the penumbra of sunspots [8] [9].
* 1923 Compton scattering is Arthur Compton's Nobel Prize-winning theory which causes spectral shifts. However, critics note that it also causes blurring which is not seen in the redshifts of distant objects. [10] [11] [12] [13].
* 1929 Tired light is Fritz Zwicky's theory that as photons move through space, they lose energy [14]. Critics note several problems with tired light models in explaining the Hubble Law. It is not accepted by mainstream cosmologists as a mechanism. [15]
* 1955 M. A. Melvin's photon radiation density and path length [16]
* 1972 Dror Sadeh et al, "Effect of Mass on Frequency" [17]
* 1972 Daniel M. Greenberger's theory of "variable mass particles" which proposes a "decay redshift" [18]
* 1972 D.K. Ross's "New Red-Shift Mechanism for Quasars" using the variation of particle rest mass [19]
* 1972 J.C. Pecker, et al photon-photon interaction (in Pecker, J. C., Roberts, A. P., and Vigier, J. P., 1972, Non-velocity redshifts and photon-photon interactions: Nature, v. 237, p. 227-229). But see also [20]
* 1972 S. Urbanovich's "external influences" [21]
* 1974 Halton Arp suggests that the redshift of some quasars and galaxies may be non-velocity [22], and non-cosmological [23] (see also 1997 below).
* 1974 P. Merat et al, "Interaction between incident transverse photons and light neutral bosons" [24]
* 1976 Z. Maric et al, Photon-boson scattering [25]
* 1976 X.-Q. Li's photon motion in the discrete space-time under the photon's own force field [26]
* 1977 J. V. Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity [27] [28]
* 1977 Susan M. Simkin's "Simkin effect" [29] [30] which is a description of one of the effects of light pollution.
* 1979 E. Schatzman's "Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle" [31]
* 1979 E. R. Harrison and T. W. Noonan's "Interpretation of extragalactic redshifts" as ""Corrected" redshifts" [32]
* 1984 William G Tifft et al, "Global redshift quantization" [33] [34] [35]
* 1987 Emil Wolf's "Wolf effect" [36] , confirmed in the laboratory by Dean Faklis and George Morris in 1988 [37]. The frequency shift is generally not disortion free. However, in 1996, Wolf and Daniel F. V James reported that "under certain circumstances the changes in the spectrum of light scattered on random media may imitate the Doppler effect" [38] [39]
* 1990 Paul Marmet's inelastic transmission of photons in gases [40]
* 1997 Halton Arp suggests that redshift is a measure of age, rather than distance [41], based on Narlikar's variable mass version of general relativity [42] (resulting in Arp's book, Seeing Red).
* 2000 Ari Brynjolfsson's "Plasma redshift", that the interaction of photons with hot sparse electron plasma may produce a redshift [43] [44] [45]
* 2003 CREIL (Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light) has been proposed by Jacques Moret-Bailly [46] [47]
* 2004 Charles Gallo's "Neutrino redshifts" [48] (not a new theory, but a proposal to look for redshifts in neutrino spectra)

To this list may be added several theories based on scattering processes, such as Brillouin scattering, Compton scattering, Raman scattering and Rayleigh scattering.


Also Bosticks theory could be examined:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Winston_H._Bostick
His research interests included the plasma focus, plasma vortex phenomena, plasmoids, simulation of cosmical astrophysics by plasma physics experiments in the laboratory, showing that the Hubble Expansion can be produced by repulsive mutual-magnetic induction between neighboring galaxies which are acting as homopolar generators.[2]


Probably also worth noting that hubble himself hated the idea of expansion right up until his death, even though he invented it, he always pointed out the things that seemed to contradict it.
 
Last edited:
That plasma universe site david linked to above lists loads more. This looks like its gonna be a looooong thread.
It is not going to be "a looooong thread" because the theories you listed are wrong (e.g. CREIL), speculations ("Ageing of photons by collisions with a hypothetical particle") or disproved from current data (e.g. "Global redshift quantization").
All of the scattering ones can be discounted since scattering causes blurring which is not seen in the redshifts of distant objects.

It looks like I was wrong in my first post:
"I suspect that there will either be a deafening silience or a flood of the usual suspects."
There was a deafening silience and then a flood of the usual suspects.
 
Before I comment on the Wolf effect, I'll add a couple more that could do with investigation. I'm still contemplating the wolf effects relevance myself.
I thought we already covered this, in another thread; didn't we?

In any case, you can stop looking at it, cause it won't work, as a mechanism for explaining the Hubble relationship (i.e. distance vs redshift relationship, for galaxies, quasars, etc).

Why? Well, no one ever claimed it would work as an explanation for the Hubble relationship wrt galaxies - and you know why, don't you? - so that leaves quasars (and maybe some other objects). If you're looking to replace this leg of the observational basis of contemporary concordance cosmological models, then this one won't work, period.

If you just want an alternative explanation for (a significant part of) the observed redshifts of quasars, this effect won't work either ... because, as RC has pointed out, where the redshifts of quasar host galaxies have been measured, they have - every single one - been found to be the same (within the estimated errors) as that of the quasar.

Perhaps you could clarify your intent, before spending a lot more time on this?

* Plasma Redshift: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406437
* Raman Scattering of light: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering
* Coherent Raman effect on incoherent light (CREIL): http://jean.moretbailly.free.fr/JacquesMB/CREIL-english.html
* Lobachevsky Space theory
* Quasi-Steady State Cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory#Quasi-steady_state (Modified from the traditional QSSI model [newer modified version is banned from wikipedia, not even allowed to have a page explaining the model due to Big Bang adherants having all the admin privaleges, while pages like palm reading and clairvoyance are ok :rolleyes:])

And others that I cant be bothered to include.

These papers may be a start. Lots of them are strong evidence against expansion and hard data giving strong evidence for a static universe rather than complete alternatives explaining the anomalies.

Panel 1 - Reality of Cosmic Expansion http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-1.htm
Panel 2 - Origin of Microwave Radiation http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-2.htm
Panel 3 - Quasi-Stellar Objects http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-3.htm
Panel 4 - Large Scale Structure http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-4.htm
Panel 5 - Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-5.htm
Panel 6 - General Alternative Cosmologies http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-6.htm
Panel 7 - Hubble Relationship Alternatives http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-7.htm
Panel 8 - Dark Matter and Dark Energy Alternatives http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/panel-8.htm

Most papers have not been published yet as they are relatively recent. But a couple have popped up in asto journals the past weeks. And many are available are arxiv.
Pick one to start with; I suspect your claims will be relatively easy to poke holes in, and even refute comprehensively ...
 
The big bang theory is so dominant in today's mainstream cosmology, that I have wondered at times if cosmologists and physicists find reasons to dismiss alternative theories without really examining them fairly. This thread could be an interesting one for people like me, who do not have the training to truly evaluate the evidence.
I have followed the development of the BB theory for over 50 years now, but I have never been quite satisfied with its counter-intuitive aspects. Having little choice, I have accepted the BB since it appears to be supported by a preponderance of observational and theoretical evidence. So, it would be interesting to learn more about why these alternative theories don't work.
 
The big bang theory is so dominant in today's mainstream cosmology, that I have wondered at times if cosmologists and physicists find reasons to dismiss alternative theories without really examining them fairly. This thread could be an interesting one for people like me, who do not have the training to truly evaluate the evidence.
I have followed the development of the BB theory for over 50 years now, but I have never been quite satisfied with its counter-intuitive aspects. Having little choice, I have accepted the BB since it appears to be supported by a preponderance of observational and theoretical evidence. So, it would be interesting to learn more about why these alternative theories don't work.
So may I ask:

Do you understand why the specific ideas (alternatives) that Z has put forward so far - i.e. not counting the links he posts without comment - do not (or cannot) work, as alternative explanations for the Hubble relationship?

If not, then please ask!

Also, if you'd like a refresher on that relationship, including the "Dark Energy" region of the curve, you have only to ask.

And just a reminder: the Hubble relationship is but one of the sets of observational results that are very well accounted for by contemporary LCDM models; others include (this is a shorthand list):

* the CMB: its blackbody spectrum, the dipole, and the angular power spectrum (should I also mention its polarisation characteristics?)

* LSS (Large Scale Structure)

* BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations)

* primordial abundance of light nuclides (including the proton-photon ratio).
 
So may I ask:

Do you understand why the specific ideas (alternatives) that Z has put forward so far - i.e. not counting the links he posts without comment - do not (or cannot) work, as alternative explanations for the Hubble relationship?

If not, then please ask!

Thanks. I am really not familiar enough with the alternative theories listed, other than what I have learned recently from following discussions with MM, etc. All my reading on this subject for over 55 years has been limited to mainstream sources like Scientific American, books by Feynman, Greene, among other mainstream physicists and cosmologists.
Also, if you'd like a refresher on that relationship, including the "Dark Energy" region of the curve, you have only to ask.

And just a reminder: the Hubble relationship is but one of the sets of observational results that are very well accounted for by contemporary LCDM models; others include (this is a shorthand list):

* the CMB: its blackbody spectrum, the dipole, and the angular power spectrum (should I also mention its polarisation characteristics?)

* LSS (Large Scale Structure)

* BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillations)

* primordial abundance of light nuclides (including the proton-photon ratio).

I have followed these developments as they have been announced and I have a layman's understanding of these observations and their significance. As I have said, the evidence for the BB and inflation appear to be significant (perhaps overwhelming). Also, DE has gained much traction as a recent arrival on the scene of observations.
Nevertheless, for me, there is something fundamentally unsatisfying about the concept of all this coming out of a singularity. Concepts like time having a beginning and inflation appearing on the scene and then disappearing are difficult to believe. They are profoundly counter-intuitive.
I have a background in mathematics and can follow some of the technical aspects of physics but there is much that is beyond my training.
On a positive note, quantum theory is quite counter-intuitive, but I have nevertheless managed to feel more comfortable with QM over the years through sources like Greene, Feynman's QED and Scientific American. So, perhaps by continuing to read, following these threads and asking an occasional question, I will gain a bit more familiarity and conquer my sense of repugnance for some aspects of the BB theory as I eventually did with QM.
 
Last edited:
Singularities are extremely counterintuitive. They are the place where QM and GR don't mesh at all.

We can not make conclusions about the ontology of the universe at this time. The model is very accurate.

QM is counter intuitive as well, and so is GR.

I think it is cool that the universe fails to meet our expectations.
 
Thanks. I am really not familiar enough with the alternative theories listed, other than what I have learned recently from following discussions with MM, etc. All my reading on this subject for over 55 years has been limited to mainstream sources like Scientific American, books by Feynman, Greene, among other mainstream physicists and cosmologists.
Well, if at any time you'd like more details of why these alternatives* don't work, just say so.

I have followed these developments as they have been announced and I have a layman's understanding of these observations and their significance. As I have said, the evidence for the BB and inflation appear to be significant (perhaps overwhelming). Also, DE has gained much traction as a recent arrival on the scene of observations.
Nevertheless, for me, there is something fundamentally unsatisfying about the concept of all this coming out of a singularity. Concepts like time having a beginning and inflation appearing on the scene and then disappearing are difficult to believe. They are profoundly counter-intuitive.
I have a background in mathematics and can follow some of the technical aspects of physics but there is much that is beyond my training.
On a positive note, quantum theory is quite counter-intuitive, but I have nevertheless managed to feel more comfortable with QM over the years through sources like Greene, Feynman's QED and Scientific American. So, perhaps by continuing to read, following these threads and asking an occasional question, I will gain a bit more familiarity and conquer my sense of repugnance for some aspects of the BB theory as I eventually did with QM.
As has been pointed out - by several people, several times - the physics of the Planck regime are unknown ... our two most successful theories in physics (GR and QM) are so extremely inconsistent in this regime that no meaningful statements can be made. The fundamental mismatch between these two has been known for a long time, and it may be that their inconsistency is glaringly manifest (in terms of phenomenology or observables) well outside the Planck regime.

However, sadly (?), we currently have no way of studying the physics of the Planck regime ... other than by cosmology. Further, we know that parts of the universe run 'experiments' that involve energies, densities, etc far, far, far beyond what we can do here on Earth, in our labs - think of the strength of magnetic fields of magnetars, or the particle acceleration capabilities of blazars and SNR. So astrophysics may offer some glimpses into the physics of regimes more extreme than any we can create here, but still far from the Planck regime. Perhaps some numbers, to put this into a different perspective, might help?

* not all of which are sufficiently quantitative or detailed or free of rather severe internal inconsistencies to warrant being called theories
 
Last edited:
Could some one point me to a paper that describes the observational method of detecting the different types of redshift, or is the distinction between for example gravitational redshift and space expansion, calculated or is it a completely different observation.

What I am thinking is that if the wavelength inreases by x amount or y amount, how does that tell you what the cause of the redshift is?
 
I think the issue is that there is the Hubble relationship, so that object which are measured to be further away show a higher redshift.

So for gravitational red shift to do this we would need to have the effect of gravitation increase with distance.
 
I think the issue is that there is the Hubble relationship, so that object which are measured to be further away show a higher redshift.

OK, the Hubble relationship is a given mathematical relationship between redshift and distance.

So for gravitational red shift to do this we would need to have the effect of gravitation increase with distance.

How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.

Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation. This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point. It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift. DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.* Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue for or against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.

*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Could some one point me to a paper that describes the observational method of detecting the different types of redshift, or is the distinction between for example gravitational redshift and space expansion, calculated or is it a completely different observation.

What I am thinking is that if the wavelength inreases by x amount or y amount, how does that tell you what the cause of the redshift is?
Redshift is redshift is redshift ... observationally, you can't distinguish between the causes of the (observed) redshift from the spectrum alone*.

Gravitational redshift - of the Pound-Rebka kind - is extremely small, unless you have a huge mass in a small volume -> white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. An astronomical object (outside our solar system) that appears extended (= not a point source), and whose spectrum is redshifted by a constant amount, cannot have such a high mass and density*; can you see why?

If an object is within the Local Group (of galaxies), its redshift will not have a cosmological component (unless you get extremely pedantic); can you see why? So once you have estimated the distance to your target object, and found that it is within the Local Group, ...

For all other objects (for practical purposes, galaxies, globular clusters, and some blobs of gas*), the observed redshift will have both a cosmological (expanding universe) and Dopper ('peculiar velocity') component. Are you interested in how you can estimate how much of each?

* caveats apply.
 
[...]

How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.
You don't ... unless you have something rather special you want to consider, or model.

It might help if you narrowed your scope a bit ("between the emitter and the observer"). If the observer is an astronomical instrument on or near the Earth, then the local gravitational field (Earth, Sun, etc) is easy to calculate, and easily shown to be trivial (=undetectable) wrt any observed redshift. Of course, the motion of the instrument through these fields is far from trivial, and 'backing it out' from the observation is a standard part of data reduction (in astronomy); can you see why (if not how)?

By your reference to CDM may I infer that your "emitter" is an extra-galactic object? If so, then ...

Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?
The 1919 eclipse expedition is widely regarded as being the experiment that 'proved' GR, in that the results were that the deflection of the light from some stars 'near' the Sun was what GR predicts, and not what Newtonian gravity predicts*. With the right kind of alignment, mass can act as a lens, hence the term 'gravitational lensing'. Where deflection occurs that is not 'lensing', astronomers call it 'gravitational shear', or, more confusingly, 'weak lensing'; with the term 'strong lensing' being used for what we mere mortals would call 'lensing'.

In extragalactic astronomy, mass often betrays its presence by lensing, especially in rich clusters.

Baryonic mass betrays its presence by either emission or absorption (or both), though the wavebands in which either can be detected may be very inconvenient (and, sadly, for extragalactic astronomy between ~10 and 100 nm the universe is opaque (caveats apply)).

Of course, this is an extreme summary, with many important details left out ... but then your questions are rather sweeping too! :p

* the facts are rather more complicated; holler if you're interested
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation. This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point.
These were only discovered last October! Such papers probably wouldn't have been published yet. And, afaik, its only one set of observations by one group of people. It really needs to be be verified before we even contemplate throwing our tried and tested theories out the window.

It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift. DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.*
*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
Well yes. When there was no evidence for a lambda term it was assumed it was zero. Now there is it isn't (if you get what I mean). I don't see how a free parameter that is changed as observations improve is a patch. Newton couldn't even measure G. Then others did and we got a value. Then experimental techniques improved and we got a new value. That's hardly a patch is it?

Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.
Give 'em a chance, its been less than half a year.
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation.
I'm sure some people are doing exactly that ... keep your eye out for a paper or three on this, in arXiv, in the next few months.

However, I think you'll find rather more people are sceptical of these 'dark flows', and are digging into the methods, observations, etc (to see if they can find any flaws), or going about independently confirming the results, ... or just waiting until someone else does.

For an idea of what usually happens when something rather dramatic like this comes along, from just one team, check out the flurry of activity that followed the initial 'giant void' finding ...

This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point.
May I infer, then, that 'let's wait and see if someone can independently verify these results' is not "a good defense"?

It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift.
Why should they?

I mean, what is it about the SNe Ia, CMB, and BAO observations that you think should trigger such a re-examination?

And in any case, how do you know if such questioning was not, and is not, being done?

DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.* Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.

*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
(bold added)

If you want to get a scientist angry*, say the words "prevailing dogma" about the consensus models, theories etc of the field she has been working in for a decade or three! :mad:

Do you have a particular reason for choosing to use this inflammatory (and, very likely, defamatory) term?

* unless, of course, a Kuhnian revolution is under way in that field (perhaps)
 
Last edited:
These were only discovered last October! Such papers probably wouldn't have been published yet. And, afaik, its only one set of observations by one group of people. It really needs to be be verified before we even contemplate throwing our tried and tested theories out the window.

Fair enough.

Well yes. When there was no evidence for a lambda term it was assumed it was zero. Now there is it isn't (if you get what I mean). I don't see how a free parameter that is changed as observations improve is a patch. Newton couldn't even measure G. Then others did and we got a value. Then experimental techniques improved and we got a new value. That's hardly a patch is it?

Good point.

Give 'em a chance, its been less than half a year.

OK, but DE has been around for a decade.
This is taken from the Wikipedia article on dark energy:

"Alternative ideas
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarification needed] negating the need for the existence of Dark Energy.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says [Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California]. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.[11]

Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[11]

In a rather radical departure, an article in the open access journal, Entropy, by Professor Paul Gough, put forward the suggestion that information energy must make a significant contribution to dark energy and that this can be shown by referencing the equation of the state of information in the universe. [16]

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities [17][18] or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe."


I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Hi DRD,
Yes please I want more. A link to a good paper would be nice .

PS. It's late at night here in Cape Town and very hot so I won't attempt any answers to your "Can you see why's" On the weekend perhaps.

PPS. According to Feyerabend dogma is actually beneficial to science.
If you were dyslexic the perhaps dogma would be "godam" and thats inflammatory:D
 
OK, but DE has been around for a decade.
This is taken from the Wikipedia article on dark energy:

"Alternative ideas
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarification needed] negating the need for the existence of Dark Energy.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says [Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California]. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.[11]

Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[11]

In a rather radical departure, an article in the open access journal, Entropy, by Professor Paul Gough, put forward the suggestion that information energy must make a significant contribution to dark energy and that this can be shown by referencing the equation of the state of information in the universe. [16]

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities [17][18] or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe."


I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?) :p

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.

If you're interested in getting a feel for this, I suggest that you read just the abstracts in an appropriate part of arXiv, over just one week. Two to start with might be gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology) and astro-ph.CO (astrophysics, Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics); prepare to have your mind blown ...
 
Hi DRD,
Yes please I want more. A link to a good paper would be nice .
Happy to oblige ...

... but I'd like for you to be a bit more specific about what you're looking for, if you don't mind (otherwise I could easily spend half a dozen hours, come up with LOTS of material, none of which is relevant to what you're interested in).

PS. It's late at night here in Cape Town and very hot so I won't attempt any answers to your "Can you see why's" On the weekend perhaps.

PPS. According to Feyerabend dogma is actually beneficial to science.
If you were dyslexic the perhaps dogma would be "godam" and thats inflammatory:D
Indeed.

And so I guess it would come as no surprise, then, to learn that an awful lot of scientists have a rather ... unambiguous (shall we say) ... feeling about Feyerabend (and most philosophers of science, but he seems to attract particularly unambiguous responses), wouldn't it.

I think the intro to the Wikipedia entry on this word may help to understand why scientists often get angry when the word is applied to them, by those who are not themselves scientists:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. [...]

Due to a stereotypical zeal associated with ideologicial adherents and their claims of doctrinal indisputability, the term "dogma" has come to be used in a pejorative sense to refer to concepts which are claimed by adherents to be "true" and "infallible," but are typically not infallible, and quite often not even true.
 
I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm not all that versed in this area of science (can you tell?) so I'm not in much of a position to comment. Assuming you're correct, and they're all more or less ignored, would you be in a position to assess whether the ignorance was caused by negligence, dogma or just simply cos the theories themselves are inconsistent/wrong/not even wrong?
 
I'm not all that versed in this area of science (can you tell?) so I'm not in much of a position to comment. Assuming you're correct, and they're all more or less ignored, would you be in a position to assess whether the ignorance was caused by negligence, dogma or just simply cos the theories themselves are inconsistent/wrong/not even wrong?

I am not, which is the reason why I have raised the question here and indicated my doubt.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?) :p

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.

I missed si's comment and I have not been aware of that "dramatic difference."
If you're interested in getting a feel for this, I suggest that you read just the abstracts in an appropriate part of arXiv, over just one week. Two to start with might be gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology) and astro-ph.CO (astrophysics, Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics); prepare to have your mind blown ...

I just took a look. I'm already amazed! Thanks for this; tuning in to arXiv from time to time will now become part of my regular routine. It certainly does cast serious doubt on MM's claims of a monolithic unmoving world of cosmologists.
 
Last edited:
I am not, which is the reason why I have raised the question here and indicated my doubt.

Ok. Put it another way...
I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.
seems rather like a guilty until proved innocent kind of approach. Especially given that you seemingly have no basis to think they have not been open to questioning the "prevailing dogma" either.
 
OK, the Hubble relationship is a given mathematical relationship between redshift and distance.



How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.
dark matter is drawn to gravitational masses so it tends to like to hang out with galaxies. i do not believe that it is evenly distributed in the universe. So it's effect on redshift would be more pronounced near galaxies, so i don't thinkit would provide cosmological redshift.
Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Not but it is not evenly distributed.
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?

We have some good guesses.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?)

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.
I missed si's comment and I have not been aware of that "dramatic difference."
Here it is; in full (bold added):

sol invictus said:
Your posts are great examples of the classic physics crank pattern. You think the Establishment is suppressing brilliant ideas (yours and Alfven's, in this instance) because it has to protect itself. If only it wouldn't suppress you - as those bad, bad drones at the BAUT forum apparently did - the truth of your ideas would be recognized and you'd be lauded as a great thinker.

The irony is that the physics "establishment" couldn't be further from monolithic. It's more like a collection of desperately hungry ants swarming in all directions. Sure, when one finds some honey many of the rest follow until it's used up - but meanwhile there are always scouts sniffing around in other directions, and the moment one of them finds something promising, it's jumped on by many others.

That doesn't mean they always find the most rapid path to the truth, but it does mean that bad ideas get very, very quickly exposed, and good ideas very, very quickly followed up and exploited.

I just took a look. I'm already amazed! Thanks for this; tuning in to arXiv from time to time will now become part of my regular routine. It certainly does cast serious doubt on MM's claims of a monolithic unmoving world of cosmologists.
Odd, then, as MM has apparently been tilting at windmills for several years now, that he seems unaware of this ...
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation.

Those observations first appeared on the web in Sept. 08, and the papers were published in 09. There are already more than 15 papers referencing them.

Moreover, the dark flow observations do not rule out inflation (although they are certainly in tension with most simple versions of it).

Finally, as I said repeatedly earlier, for very good reasons there is a lot of skepticism that the effect is really there. But if it is confirmed, there will be an incredible rush of people madly writing down models to try to explain it.

As for DE, you'll find literally thousands (4,270 to one of the first reports from 1999, to be precise) of papers exploring every conceivable possibility - which is a perfect example of the above effect. More than 4,000 papers in less than ten years (that's more than 1 paper/day!), on something that took the "mainstream" totally by surprise and didn't fit into the models well at all. The dust hasn't settled - far from it. But to argue these things are "ignored" or that there's a set dogma is delusional.
 
Last edited:
Those observations first appeared on the web in Sept. 08, and the papers were published in 09. There are already more than 15 papers referencing them.

Moreover, the dark flow observations do not rule out inflation (although they are certainly in tension with most simple versions of it).

Finally, as I said repeatedly earlier, for very good reasons there is a lot of skepticism that the effect is really there. But if it is confirmed, there will be an incredible rush of people madly writing down models to try to explain it.

As for DE, you'll find literally thousands (4,270 to one of the first reports from 1999, to be precise) of papers exploring every conceivable possibility - which is a perfect example of the above effect. More than 4,000 papers in less than ten years (that's more than 1 paper/day!), on something that took the "mainstream" totally by surprise and didn't fit into the models well at all. The dust hasn't settled - far from it. But to argue these things are "ignored" or that there's a set dogma is delusional.

These recent comments by you and DeiRenDopa have been an eye opener for me. Thanks.
 
These recent comments by you and DeiRenDopa have been an eye opener for me. Thanks.
DRD's and Sol's posts have always been an eye opener for me. They have never shied away from obtuse "layperson" questions and sometimes ridiculous comments.

Thanks for putting the education in JREF.:)

They are not the only ones though, there are others.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom