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.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom