Redshift z

[Erasmus00]

Coldcreation, you said the metric for the curvature you have been describing hasn't actually been found yet. How then do you know that your theory is even possible? That a static universe with positive curvature and a cosmological constant of 0 can solve the Einstein quations? Untill you have a metric, this is all pure speculation.

-Will

[CraigD]

However, I'm not sure how any of the links you [Harry Costas]'ve attached necessarily negate the implications of what we call "Hubble's Law." Can you elaborate your thought?

You have to look past some fringy material on the linked-to sites, but there are a couple of references to the work of Halton Arp that, while not a complete refutation of Hubble’s law, proposes that the law is significantly incomplete.

 

Arp’s work concentrates on quasars. Through a combination of statistics and absorption spectroscopy, Arp rejects the claim that these anomalous objects are as distant as indicated by their redshift and H’s law, and proposes that most of them are ejecta from galaxies with much lower redshift, and are moving at roughly the same velocity as the galaxy. He proposes that the quasars’ redshift is due to a decrease in the mass of fundamental atomic particles, and that over time, these particles increase in mass, explaining not only their “intrinsic redshift”, but suggesting that the “missing mass” problem is different than most people believe. Arp believes that H’s law is valid for most objects such as stars in mature galaxies, but not for very young objects, such as distant quasars.

 

Harry’s links were my first exposure to Arp, but so far, his science appears sound to me, although he makes the occasional strange unscientific analogy, and admits to feeling bitter at the lack of widespread attention to his work by the Astronomy and Cosmology community.

 

Thanks, Harry, for the links.

[coldcreation]

Coldcreation, you said the metric for the curvature you have been describing hasn't actually been found yet. How then do you know that your theory is even possible? That a static universe with positive curvature and a cosmological constant of 0 can solve the Einstein quations? Untill you have a metric, this is all pure speculation.

-Will

 

Not obligatorily so.

 

Stay tuned.

 

CC

[InfiniteNow]

I attended a lecture last night presented by Steven Weinberg, 1991 Nobel prize winner, who has been awarded 16 Ph.Ds from various different universities. He spoke a little about the many-worlds interpretation he and some colleagues worked on, but the thrust of the talk was something else. It was titled "Much Ado About Nothing -- How the Energy of Empty Space Became a Central Concern of Today's Physics and Cosmology."

 

 

It was really quite interesting. The key points made (as far as I was able to follow) were all done under the umbrella of "we still really don't know, and it's very controversial, but here are some basics..."

 

 

String theory has a lot going for it, but since it has somewhere between 10^100 and 10^500 interpretations, this is the reason we can't really make any predictions.

 

 

The matter and energy which we know, which makes us, only comprises about 4% of the total energy in the Universe.

 

About 25% of it is dark matter, or matter which has not coalesced to form galaxies and planets and the like.

 

70% is vacuum energy, or scaler energy. This has been confirmed by studying the background radiation and also looking at type 1A supernovae.

 

It's the vacuum energy that is counteracting the gravitational force, and causing the seperation of galaxies to speed up. With the speed at which galaxies are flying away from us EDIT = each other, their light will be so red-shifted in about 100 billion years that we won't be able to see them anymore... something similar to the infinite redshift experienced with light falling into a black hole.

 

 

Anyway... It was really cool, and I wanted to share. Sorry if some of this has already been covered here, or if I may have mis-interpreted some of the data.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

[EWright]

I attended a lecture last night presented by Steven Weinberg, 1991 Nobel prize winner, who has been awarded 16 Ph.Ds from various different universities. He spoke a little about the many-worlds interpretation he and some colleagues worked on, but the thrust of the talk was something else. It was titled "Much Ado About Nothing -- How the Energy of Empty Space Became a Central Concern of Today's Physics and Cosmology."

 

 

It was really quite interesting. The key points made (as far as I was able to follow) were all done under the umbrella of "we still really don't know, and it's very controversial, but here are some basics..."

 

 

String theory has a lot going for it, but since it has somewhere between 10^100 and 10^500 interpretations, this is the reason we can't really make any predictions.

 

 

The matter and energy which we know, which makes us, only comprises about 4% of the total energy in the Universe.

 

About 25% of it is dark matter, or matter which has not coalesced to form galaxies and planets and the like.

 

70% is vacuum energy, or scaler energy. This has been confirmed by studying the background radiation and also looking at type 1A supernovae.

 

It's the vacuum energy that is counteracting the gravitational force, and causing the seperation of galaxies to speed up. With the speed at which galaxies are flying away from us EDIT = each other, their light will be so red-shifted in about 100 billion years that we won't be able to see them anymore... something similar to the infinite redshift experienced with light falling into a black hole.

 

 

Anyway... It was really cool, and I wanted to share. Sorry if some of this has already been covered here, or if I may have mis-interpreted some of the data.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

 

Sounds like the latest issues of Scientific American rehashed to me. ;)

[InfiniteNow]

Sounds like the latest issues of Scientific American rehashed to me. ;)

Hahaha... very possible. ;)

[coldcreation]

Steven Weinberg, in Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), wrote “The final theory may be centuries away and may turn out to be totally different from anything we can now imagine” (p. 211).

 

It might be mentioned that Weinberg, in the same novel, portrays the cosmological constant as “mutilating” Einstein's equations (p. 224), but does not deny the possible existence of lambda.

 

However, he suspects that the vacuum energy (at least in the realm of quantum mechanics) would be “about a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times larger than is allowable by the observed rate of expansion of the universe. This must be the worst failure of an order-of-magnitude estimate in the history of science.” (p. 225)

 

Little has changed since 1992.

 

Cheers

 

CC

[InfiniteNow]

It might be mentioned that Weinberg, in the same novel, portrays the cosmological constant as “mutilating” Einstein's equations (p. 224), but does not deny the possible existence of lambda.

He did mention during the talk last week that it "seems that Einstein's biggest mistake was in thinking that the Cosmological Constant was a mistake." In essence, that the cosmological constant is now necessary...

[InfiniteNow]

However, he suspects that the vacuum energy (at least in the realm of quantum mechanics) would be “about a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times larger than is allowable by the observed rate of expansion of the universe. This must be the worst failure of an order-of-magnitude estimate in the history of science.” (p. 225)

He also stated that it appears very likely that it's the aggregate of all those tiny, minute calculations which we tend to truncate due to inability in our current formulae... sum into this huge number. All those itty bitty decimals... when taken together... are that huge magnitudinal failure. I admit though, I haven't yet read the book you quote.

[coldcreation]

He also stated that it appears very likely that it's the aggregate of all those tiny, minute calculations which we tend to truncate due to inability in our current formulae... sum into this huge number. All those itty bitty decimals... when taken together... are that huge magnitudinal failure. I admit though, I haven't yet read the book you quote.

 

I wouldn't bother buying the book. Get it for free at your local library if you're interested. Here is another sample:

 

“Still, with the discovery of a final theory we may regret that nature has become more ordinary, less full of wonder and mystery. Something like this has happened before. Throughout most of human history our maps of the earth have shown great unknown spaces, that the imagination could fill with dragons and golden cities and anthropophagi…But today every acre of the earth's land surface has been mapped, and the dragons are all gone.” (p. 240)

 

Today, the ghosts of dragons and golden cities have transformed themselves into supermassive devouring black holes, spacetime wormholes, false vacuum forces, cosmic strings, domain walls, magnetic monopoles, an entire zoo full of unleashed non-baryonic superheavy particles (dark matter) and a witch's brew of mysterious subterranean dark energy - all are believed to have ruled the cosmos at one time or another. But all can be defeated if we summon the wills.

 

The values of billions of years, however, reflect and glitter on the scales of one mightiest dragon: the worshipful beast of burden on whom modern cosmology has pined all its hopes renounces the explanation of its own origin. It has in quintessence fashioned its own freedom with sonorous and ecstatic affirmation.

 

Like a new-god, this creature was of human invention, issue of human madness; like all gods. They are always looking back to the light ages, when illusion and faith were a different question; raving of the reason was akin to god, and doubt was a sin. In the gruesome cosmological big bang singularity the exception has become the rule. The unattainable became reality!

 

This is what nearly everyone dreads, that cosmologists, as they invent more and more and learn less and less, will deliberately explain everything, will convert us with their creations into sterile networks of atoms and groupings of equations, and that with every new observation amassed, another flicker of light in the heavens will be eclipsed.

 

Coldcreation

[InfiniteNow]

We approach the unknown with our best and most current approximations of reality... keeping our eyes open to ensure we are armed with the most accurate possible view of the universe. Those with their eyes closed are asleep, and not all with their eyes open know how to implement what they see.

 

 

Nice post, CC. It was poetic.

 

 

:)

[coldcreation]

We approach the unknown with our best and most current approximations of reality... keeping our eyes open to ensure we are armed with the most accurate possible view of the universe. Those with their eyes closed are asleep, and not all with their eyes open know how to implement what they see.

 

 

Nice post, CC. It was poetic.

 

 

:hyper:

 

As has been suspected all throughout the development of modern cosmology, the redshift is either a Doppler effect, or a gravitational effect. The “hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown,” as Hubble so eloquently suggested may ultimately be responsible for the redshift, is in fact a known phenomenon. The following passages from The Realm of Nebulae (Hubble 1936) serves as our trampoline for a conclusion:

 

The two possible universes [static and variable radius (expanding)] were carefully studied in order to see which of them more closely corresponds to the universe we actually inhabit. One outstanding difference between the two was the fact that de Sitter's solution predicted positive displacements (red-shifts) in the spectra of distant light sources, which on the average, should increase with distance from the observer…Wirtz, the leader in the field, made the first attempt, in 1924, to express the K-term as a function of distance…The highly concentrated globular nebulae, as a class, exhibited the largest mean velocity, and the large, faint irregular nebulae and open spirals exhibited the smallest mean velocity. In between these limits, the velocities increased with the concentration. [bear in mind that according to Hubble, redshifts are expressed on a scale of velocity “as a matter of convenience”] The correlation was generally known, and had inspired unsuccessful attempts to account for the K-term as Einstein-shifts produced by strong, gravitational fields - analogous to the red-shift in the solar spectrum which has served as one of the crucial tests of general relativity…The necessary investigations are beset with difficulties and uncertainties, and conclusions from data now available are rather dubious…judgment may be suspended until it is known from observations whether or not red-shifts do actually represent motion. Milne…has developed a “Kinematical” model which appears to possess unusually significant features…it has been shown to correspond very closely to a particular case of the general relativity model - namely the hyperbolic model with negative curvature. (Edwin Hubble 1936)

 

CC

[tommy81]

Coldcreation, you said the metric for the curvature you have been describing hasn't actually been found yet. How then do you know that your theory is even possible? That a static universe with positive curvature and a cosmological constant of 0 can solve the Einstein quations? Untill you have a metric, this is all pure speculation.

-Will

 

I will venture to step in on the part of Coldcreation.

 

I am new to this forum, and I apologize if I violate any forum etiquette. I have so far only read a small part of the forum. Please forgive me if I am not aware of all previous discussion.

 

Erasmus, there is a static metric that has just the sort of gravitational redshift CC has been talking about. It is none other than the original de Sitter metric. Not its Friedmannian incarnations, and not its Einstein-de Sitter mutation, but the pure, unadulterated de Sitter metric, circa 1917.

 

The de Sitter metric was dismissed in the 1920's because of the requirement that rho + p = 0, and thus to avoid negative pressure, the de Sitter universe was assumed to be empty with rho = p = 0. Nowadays, everybody is invoking negative pressure, so why should we persist in the belief that the de Sitter universe is empty?

 

The original de Sitter metric is given by

 

ds^2 = -gamma^-1 dr^2 - [angular terms] + gamma dt^2,

 

where

 

gamma = 1 - (r/R)^2

 

with

 

R^2 = 3/(8 pi rho)

 

where the constant R is the radius of spacetime curvature and rho is the mean mass density of the universe (assuming simplified units so that G = c = 1).

 

Gravitational redshift is given by

 

z = gamma^(-1/2) - 1.

 

Thus the de Sitter redshift-distance relation is

 

r = R [1 - (z + 1)^-2]^1/2.

 

This, I believe, is the relation that CC has been searching for. This is roughly quadratic at low redshift and asymptotic at high redshift.

 

In terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2].

 

Choose a large data set such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, convert m to M(de Sitter) as given above, and you will find that the brightest objects at all redshifts are the same intrinsic brightness.

 

Of course, this could be a coincidence.

 

T-

[coldcreation]

I will venture to step in on the part of Coldcreation.

 

I am new to this forum, and I apologize if I violate any forum etiquette. I have so far only read a small part of the forum. Please forgive me if I am not aware of all previous discussion.

 

Erasmus, there is a static metric that has just the sort of gravitational redshift CC has been talking about. It is none other than the original de Sitter metric. Not its Friedmannian incarnations, and not its Einstein-de Sitter mutation, but the pure, unadulterated de Sitter metric, circa 1917.

 

The de Sitter metric was dismissed in the 1920's because of the requirement that rho + p = 0, and thus to avoid negative pressure, the de Sitter universe was assumed to be empty with rho = p = 0. Nowadays, everybody is invoking negative pressure, so why should we persist in the belief that the de Sitter universe is empty?

 

The original de Sitter metric is given by

 

ds^2 = -gamma^-1 dr^2 - [angular terms] + gamma dt^2,

 

where

 

gamma = 1 - (r/R)^2

 

with

 

R^2 = 3/(8 pi rho)

 

where the constant R is the radius of spacetime curvature and rho is the mean mass density of the universe (assuming simplified units so that G = c = 1).

 

Gravitational redshift is given by

 

z = gamma^(-1/2) - 1.

 

Thus the de Sitter redshift-distance relation is

 

r = R [1 - (z + 1)^-2]^1/2.

 

This, I believe, is the relation that CC has been searching for. This is roughly quadratic at low redshift and asymptotic at high redshift.

 

In terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2].

 

Choose a large data set such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, convert m to M(de Sitter) as given above, and you will find that the brightest objects at all redshifts are the same intrinsic brightness.

 

Of course, this could be a coincidence.

 

T-

 

Nice post Tommy81,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

I just got back from the States and read your post. I will study it this evening and try to respond intelligently tomorrow (right now I have jetlag, spacetime contraction, from the flight).

 

You sound very knowledgeable on the subject of redshift z.

 

Thanks for the metric...

 

More soon

 

CC

[infamous]

Nice post Tommy81,

 

Welcome to the forum.

 

I just got back from the States and read your post. I will study it this evening and try to respond intelligently tomorrow (right now I have jetlag, spacetime contraction, from the flight).

 

You sound very knowledgeable on the subject of redshift z.

 

Thanks for the metric...

 

More soon

 

CC

Welcome back to the forum cc, good to hear form you again. Several of we members are anxious to have you share with us any advances you may have made to your theory 'Cold Creation'. Get some rest.........Infy

[coldcreation]

Welcome back to the forum cc, good to hear form you again. Several of we members are anxious to have you share with us any advances you may have made to your theory 'Cold Creation'. Get some rest.........Infy

 

Thanks Infy, good to hear from you too.

Wednesday will be much more tranquil to get back into the swing of redshift z and its implications for the future of cosmology. Indeed it is a subject that is not going away. Recall, the Doppler (change in scale factor to the metric) interpretation is not the only viable interpretation. There is (at least) one other that agrees with observations throughout the 19 octaves of the spectrum, and out to the greatest visible distance.

 

Food for thought: Part Two

 

CC

[coldcreation]

I will venture to step in on the part of Coldcreation.

 

I am new to this forum, and I apologize if I violate any forum etiquette. I have so far only read a small part of the forum. Please forgive me if I am not aware of all previous discussion.

 

Erasmus, there is a static metric that has just the sort of gravitational redshift CC has been talking about. It is none other than the original de Sitter metric. Not its Friedmannian incarnations, and not its Einstein-de Sitter mutation, but the pure, unadulterated de Sitter metric, circa 1917.

 

The de Sitter metric was dismissed in the 1920's because of the requirement that rho + p = 0, and thus to avoid negative pressure, the de Sitter universe was assumed to be empty with rho = p = 0. Nowadays, everybody is invoking negative pressure, so why should we persist in the belief that the de Sitter universe is empty?

 

The original de Sitter metric is given by

 

ds^2 = -gamma^-1 dr^2 - [angular terms] + gamma dt^2,

 

where

 

gamma = 1 - (r/R)^2

 

with

 

R^2 = 3/(8 pi rho)

 

where the constant R is the radius of spacetime curvature and rho is the mean mass density of the universe (assuming simplified units so that G = c = 1).

 

Gravitational redshift is given by

 

z = gamma^(-1/2) - 1.

 

Thus the de Sitter redshift-distance relation is

 

r = R [1 - (z + 1)^-2]^1/2.

 

This, I believe, is the relation that CC has been searching for. This is roughly quadratic at low redshift and asymptotic at high redshift.

 

In terms of absolute magnitude (M) and apparent magnitude (m),

 

M(de Sitter) + constant = m - 2.5 log(10)[1 - (z + 1)^-2].

 

Choose a large data set such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, convert m to M(de Sitter) as given above, and you will find that the brightest objects at all redshifts are the same intrinsic brightness.

 

Of course, this could be a coincidence.

 

T-

 

Yes, indeed, Tommy 81,

 

It should be restated that even in a completely empty world model, whether it be de Sitter's or the Milne model, the global geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, as related by the standard Lorenz transformation (Longair, 1993, p. 384). Certainly when that hyperbolicity is included into the calculation of redshift (in addition to the curvature caused by the mass-density of the universe) the missing mass problem is diminished, if not gone for good.

 

In the present discussion, the global redshift is produced by a relatively homogeneous nonnegative nonzero hyperbolic curvature of the manifold - where the distance traveled by the wave packet is large - causing the same effect as a local “strong gravitational field.” The 'dragging' effect on the wave propagation affects both the timeline frequency modulations causing a latency of the tempo current on light signals (called time dilation), and the apparent change of spatial increments, which appear larger at greater distances. The result is an increase in spacetime dilation with distance from the observer.

 

Redshifts from galactic spectra can easily be misinterpreted as a first-order Doppler effect - in a flat three-dimensional space where corrections are made for the special relativistic effect of time dilation. It is also easy to see how non-intuitive the large-scale nature of spacetime curvature has led us to conclude prematurely that the universe is expanding. Hubble's obvious dilemma, as exemplified by his writings of 1936 (and 1953), was no different than the dilemma that cosmology faces today.

 

CC