Large-scale spatial geometry of the universe

[AWA]

There is heated debate about the large scale geometry of the universe as with the data gathered so far none of the three cases considered (Elliptical, euclidian and hyperbolic) can be discarded. Even if there are also those that somewhat dishonestly give the flat case as a proven fact.
There is a scientist that gives an alternative interpretation of the cosmological redshift to the official one in this link (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=63) with the assumption of a large scale hyperbolic geometry.
Anyone cares to tell me if there is any logical inconsistency in this view regardless of whether one takes seriously the implications.
Thanks

 

[bapowell]

In the conclusion, the author betrays his ignorance by misunderstanding basic principles of inflation and the present-day expansion of the universe. This happens often with crackpots. They conflate their own, often complete, misunderstanding of the concepts with a problem of the science.

That being said, onto the theory. Before I spend any real time with this, I'd like to know a couple things. Does it offer an explanation for the synthesis of the light elements? Does it offer a mechanism for the generation of the cosmic microwave background radiation, with the ability to explain its current temperature? Does it provide an origin for the primordial perturbations that seed galaxy formation? Is it consistent with present-day measurements of Type IA supernovae redshift data? Can it reproduce the doppler peaks seen in the cosmic microwave background?

These are 'must haves' before a theory can be considered competitive with standard cosmology, inflation, or LCDM.

 

[PaulS1950]

Some of your questions may be answered here:
http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier39/11.0211211.Brzeski.B.pdf

 

[bapowell]

Really? Which ones. The only contact with cosmology this theory seems to make is that it can explain a uniform CMB -- not its origin. The standard big bang (and inflation) both provide explanations for its origin. Also, the CMB isn't precisely uniform -- and it's the tiny inhomogeneities that are so interesting and important to understanding structure formation. Inflation successfully explains the origin and properties of these inhomogeneities.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The paper is made by a crank, pushing his own pet theory, and the notion of a uniform CMB was not EXPECTED, and lo and behold, not was has been found! This is ad hoc, including PaulS1950's post. Is this more of the "time is shrinking" crowd from Physorg, and their pet quasars? I read a bit of that and it was like drinking water from a peat-bog. :grumpy:

 

[PaulS1950]

Frame dragger,
I do admit to ignorance but please do not place me into any group of one kind or another. The link I posted was listed on the same page as the first and I read it (like I do with most links) and thought it contained more information than the original link. I offered no claims to its relevance other than that it might answer some questions.
By tagging people as "cranks" just because they are trying to understand this complex system you tend to remove the desire to search further.
If I can't make mistakes then I am in the wrong place to learn anything.
Thank you for your explanation of why this is so absurd and for not resorting to name calling and dehumanization.
Paul

 

[Frame Dragger]

Frame dragger,
I do admit to ignorance but please do not place me into any group of one kind or another. The link I posted was listed on the same page as the first and I read it (like I do with most links) and thought it contained more information than the original link. I offered no claims to its relevance other than that it might answer some questions.
By tagging people as "cranks" just because they are trying to understand this complex system you tend to remove the desire to search further.
If I can't make mistakes then I am in the wrong place to learn anything.
Thank you for your explanation of why this is so absurd and for not resorting to name calling and dehumanization.
Paul

I am NOT, and was not tagging you as a crank. What you posted does nothing to clarify matters, and you stated that "some of [bapowell's] questioned could be answered [there]". As for what I said about the people at physorg, I am utterly unapologetic.

Finally, "crank", while insulting, is not "name calling". A crank, is a real thing, a real type of person and one that shows up often in many fields. I am not dehumanizing anything, but I am making a judgement about the motivation of the source.

EDIT: Are you the author of the paper? I believe the only person I called a crank was the author of the paper, and if that discourages him from further work... good.

 

[PaulS1950]

I am NOT, and was not tagging you as a crank. What you posted does nothing to clarify matters, and you stated that "some of [bapowell's] questioned could be answered [there]". As for what I said about the people at physorg, I am utterly unapologetic.

Finally, "crank", while insulting, is not "name calling". A crank, is a real thing, a real type of person and one that shows up often in many fields. I am not dehumanizing anything, but I am making a judgement about the motivation of the source.

I stated the it MAY answer some questions - not could - may as in might.
An idiot is a real thing too - but it is still name calling.
By dismissing people as "cranks" you are completely dismissing them without regard for their desire to understand. That is my motivation - a desire to understand. I believe that an intelligent person can learn from everyone - even idiots and cranks.

What is physorg?

 

[bapowell]

By dismissing people as "cranks" you are completely dismissing them without regard for their desire to understand.

I think you'll find that cranks do not desire to understand anything. They are obstinate to a fault and more interested in pushing personal, conflated views about subject matter they lack any understanding of.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I stated the it MAY answer some questions - not could - may as in might.
An idiot is a real thing too - but it is still name calling.
By dismissing people as "cranks" you are completely dismissing them without regard for their desire to understand. That is my motivation - a desire to understand. I believe that an intelligent person can learn from everyone - even idiots and cranks.

What is physorg?

This seems to be a tough one for you, but I wasn't really adressing most of my comment to you, and don't really want to get into a humanitarian debate on the Cosmology section of PF. As bapowell said, cranks are what they are, and I'm guessing based on your reaction that the word strikes a nerve. That you went into "defense mode" when very little of what I said was directed at you is telling. Beyond that, if you have nothing of substance to add...

 

[PaulS1950]

enough said.
As much as I would like an explanation of the inequities between the two systems, I can see that you are not the one to provide it.
Thanks anyway,
Paul

 

[Frame Dragger]

enough said.
As much as I would like an explanation of the inequities between the two systems, I can see that you are not the one to provide it.
Thanks anyway,
Paul

So sorry that I couldn't provide fodder for you preconcieved narrative!

 

[bapowell]

enough said.
As much as I would like an explanation of the inequities between the two systems, I can see that you are not the one to provide it.
Thanks anyway,
Paul

I listed several.

 

[Ich]

I skimmed through the paper. It's definitely cranky.
I have no idea by what reasoning the author believes to have shown redshift in a static hyperbolic space.
Concerning experimental validation: the angular size distance in this universe must be ridiculously wrong.

 

[AWA]

Oh my! I didn't expect that little paper was going to awake the rage of the Defenders of the sacred Truth. Talk about a preconceived narrative and obstination framedragger... :D
Anyway rather than a sour argument and since the link had some geometrical ideas I was expecting some geometry in the answers and not just more of the same "preconceived narrative".

 

[bapowell]

Oh my! I didn't expect that little paper was going to awake the rage of the Defenders of the sacred Truth. Talk about a preconceived narrative and obstination framedragger... :D
Anyway rather than a sour argument and since the link had some geometrical ideas I was expecting some geometry in the answers and not just more of the same "preconceived narrative".

Well, had you read the paper that you linked to, you'd have realized that the main characteristic of the proposed cosmology is not so much that it's hyperbolic (nothing wrong with that per se) buy that it's static! The authors purport to recover the redshift in a static universe. What I pointed out in the beginning of the post, was that a static model will also need to account for the other consequences of an expanding universe (of which, the redshift is but one consequence, but is typically the only one that uninformed crackpots know about).

My objections probably do seem like "preconceived narrative" to those that hear them all the time. But if people weren't tirelessly advocating garbage theories they wouldn't need to.

 

[AWA]

But this is funny because no-one here is advocating any theories. I just asked a simple question not about expansion, but just to see if thre is any concrete flaw mathematically about redshift arising from a specific geometry and i asked to ignore the implications since we are dealing with hypothesis. I'm not debunking expansion, god forbid. Don't fight with ghosts.

 

[bapowell]

OK. The paper might successfully explain redshift using hyperbolic geometry (I say might because I've not gone through it in detail). But they do not make contact with any other important cosmological observations. They cherry pick the pieces of observational cosmology that they believe their theory agrees with (redshift, and by claiming that their model is consistent with a uniform CMB), and omit reference to other phenomena. The authors are either dishonest or ignorant: dishonest if they know about all these other things and simply don't address them for fear that their theory will have difficulty addressing them, ignorant if they don't know about these other things in the first place.

So, to answer your original question, the paper is crap.

 

[AWA]

[/B]OK. The paper might successfully explain redshift using hyperbolic geometry (I say might because I've not gone through it in detail).

Thanks, THAT was my original question.

the paper is crap.

Really, I think is unnecesary to denigrate others to make a point.

 

[Chalnoth]

Really, I think is unnecesary to denigrate others to make a point.

I wasn't aware that the paper was sentient.

 

[Ich]

Oh my! I didn't expect that little paper was going to awake the rage of the Defenders of the sacred Truth.

This kind of comment is exactly what I'm trying to avoid by posting at PF with its strict guidelines.

Anyway rather than a sour argument and since the link had some geometrical ideas I was expecting some geometry in the answers and not just more of the same "preconceived narrative".

I gave you geometry. The paper isn't worth the effort, but here's my reasoning in some detail:

I have no idea by what reasoning the author believes to have shown redshift in a static hyperbolic space.

That means: the author wildly identifies lengths, distances, and angles with what he thinks are wavelengths. He completely fails to show in a coherent way how his calculations pertain to physics.
Further, as the author doesn't explicitly deny homogeneity and isotropy of space, his universe must be expressible as a FRW metric. As he claims that there is no expansion, we're free to set a(t)=const. and end up with
$$ds^2=dt^2+dH^2$$
where H is the line element in hyperbolic 3-space.
There is a remarkably simple Killing vector field, which immediately shows that photon energy (as seen by "comoving" observers) is conserved. Definitely no redshift, and the author completely fails to address this point.

Concerning experimental validation: the angular size distance in this universe must be ridiculously wrong.

Even if we adopt, for the sake of argument, the author's stance that there is redshift propotional to distance, we still have nonexpanding hyperbolic geometry. Which means that the angular size of objects scales as $e^{-d/R}$, which means an angular size distance that grows exponentially with redhift.
What is actually observed is an angular size distance that reaches a maximum at z~1.7 and then decreases. That's exactly the opposite behaviour.

 

[cristo]

The paper discussed in this thread does not appear to be published in a mainstream journal and, as such, is not open for discussion here.