Self Creation Cosmology

Garth

The standard is at z = 0 in the laboratory 'here and now' on Earth. We out from our laboratory back in time to the limits of the universe and interpret what we see there by what we know here. The mass of that object was estimated from its luminosity:

[tex]\frac{L_E}{L_\odot} = 3.28 \times 10^4 \frac{M}{M_\odot}[/tex]
so

[tex]M_E \geq 3 \times 10^{-5} \frac{L_q}{L_\odot}M_\odot [/tex]

this is the standard theory mass, in the SCC Jordan frame we have to allow for a diminished m_H and an increased G, so the mass necessary to 'contain' the quasar's luminosity L_q is:

[tex]M_E \geq 3 \times 10^{-5} (1 + z)^2 \frac{L_q}{L_\odot}M_\odot [/tex]

This is the mass of a distant supermassive quasar seen as it crossed our light cone in the distant past. We ask what about a similar but much nearer quasar of equal amount of accreted matter, which we might observe as it crossed out light cone at a much later time and therefore much closer to us?

In the SCC Jordan frame, during the time between the events of these two quasars crossing our light cone, atomic masses increased, rulers shrank and clocks 'speeded up' all relative to the energy, wavelength and inverse frequency of a photon sampled from the CMB. The effect of that would be that the second quasar would appear to be reduced in mass by the [itex]\frac{1}{1+z}[/itex] factor.

The difference between the SCC Jordan frame and GR is that masses genuinely do increase with gravitational potential energy, it is not simply an effect of measurement in an inconvenient coordinate system.
In which case we need a merger of 10⁸ of them, or 10³ proto-halos of 10⁸M_Solar;with distances and velocities mentioned above this might take less than 10⁹ years, but my hands are going like windmills at this point!
Yes I have no expertise here except to point out that that intepretation is model dependent, I wonder what the third and other peaks look like in the conformally flat, 'cylindrical 'universe of the SCC Jordan frame?

Garth

SpaceTiger

Again, I already know that your theory makes the first statement, but I don't see how it leads to the second. We've accounted for the increase in atomic masses. Are you perhaps referring to the effective time dilation that goes into measuring a "luminosity"? Remember that, in the standard model, luminosities are inferred with a time correction and redshift correction built in, so you should make sure that this is consistent with the corrections you expect in your model. Yes, but the point is obvious, and most of the models that are significantly different from [itex]\Lambda CDM[/itex] (e.g. relativistic MOND) have been ruled out at large confidence levels. Considering that the CMB is the strongest single test of standard cosmology, I'd say this is pretty important. Even without a detailed fit, you'll need to figure out how you could produce a large third peak in the power spectrum without non-baryonic dark matter.

Garth

Of course! L_q in my post above is the luminosity uncorrected for red shift. If the mass has been derived from the corrected cosmological luminosity then that effect has already been accounted for.

The [itex](1 + z)^2[/itex] factor, which is a time dilation effect in GR and the SCC Einstein frame, is the variable mass and G effect in the SCC Jordan frame.

In the SCC Jordan frame there is no detectable time dilation caused by the curvature/expansion of space, hence no 'quasar variablity time dilation', red shift is a varying mass effect. The universe is static.

Consequently the most massive SDSS quasar has a mass of just [itex]3 \times 10^9M_\odot[/itex] as in GR, so we just require 0.3% of a galactic halo to collapse down into a black hole. [Note 0.3% is [itex]\sim \sqrt{10^{-5}}[/itex], equal to the 'overdensity' Jeans' mass factor]

I believe you may well be correct about the mass reduction effect. Comparing the BH with a solar mass both at z = 6 and then both at
z = 0 will produce such an effect, but as you rightly point out we are not doing that.

Is that the same third peak around which the power spectrum data goes "a bit 'wobbly'"?

Garth

SpaceTiger

From WMAP data alone, yes, but actually there have been several other experiments that did a better job of measuring the high-l multipoles and found a very clear peak (which is, by the way, consistent with WMAP). See the WMAP paper for the overlay with power spectra from other experiments. The third peak is detected at very high significance by several experiments.

I'll comment on the rest when I get back later. I could only think of one factor of (1+z) difference in the luminosity inference from the models. Note also that this doesn't solve the growth problem that arises from the low Eddington luminosity.

Garth

The standard cosmological luminosity takes two factors of (1 + z) into account, one for the fact that from an object at red shift z the photons are arriving less frequently by a factor of (1 + z), and the second because each photon carries less energy by a factor of (1 + z).

Your reference to "low Eddington luminosity" is where I became confused and assumed that you had not taken the (1 + z)² factor into account in the luminosity. There is no further "low Eddington luminosity" effect in the SCC Jordan frame, it is the (1 + z)² luminosity correction in GR.

Garth

SpaceTiger

Well, I should say "low" in the sense that your theory decreases the amount of matter the black hole can accrete, even if it doesn't increase the inferred mass of the black hole. I'm not 100% confident we've accounted for all of the quirks of your cosmology, but it's clear that this asymmetry between the masses of relativistic degenerate matter and non-relativistic matter still exists.

Garth

Well, I said I'm not sure I fully understand the behaviour of BHs in my theory!

It is necessary to solve the Schwarzschild solution with a SCC/BD scalar field in the strong gravity case and let the central mass collapse. I have not yet had the time to do that, and I'm not sure I would get it right even if I did without outside help.

However I do understand that in the case of high z BH accretion the amount of matter, i.e. number of atoms, a BH can accrete is the same as in GR, however the amount of mass is reduced because of the variable mass effect. There is no other red shift to worry about, so the effect of this reduced mass, and increased G, in the SCC Jordan frame is the same as the [itex](1 + z)^2[/itex] red shift effect on the luminosity in GR . The two SCC/GR scenarios are conformally equivalent.

Thank you for the discussion it has been illuminating.

Garth.

Nereid

Not to take this interesting exchange off track, but, as Garth mentioned earlier, in SCC it rests on the assumption that the variability observed/observable in the optical part of the EM spectrum of QSOs arises essentially from just one component - the accretion disk.

Don't you, Garth, also need to establish that the jet, broad line region, etc are negligible contributors to the observed variability, in all stages of the quasars' evolution? Also, whatever the SMBH is, in SCC, don't you also need to establish - in some detail - the behaviour of the accretion disk? For example, no matter which theory (or combo of theories) is used to model such disks, the integrated emission includes significant contributions from very different (physical) regimes, doesn't it?

Garth

Hi Nereid, yes a good point. It is instructive to note that of all the energy produced by matter falling into the BH of a quasar that roughly half goes into the jet and half 'falls down the plughole' into the event horizon and only a small proportion is emitted as radiation. The jet and consequent radio lobes are powerful emitters, however the time scale of variability, and the Hawkins paper was looking at between 1 week to 1 year, depends on the size of the emitter. My understanding is the jet is much larger than the disc, extending many 1000's of light years and the structure within it ~ light years across, so would not the jet vary on a longer time scale?

Of course it is claimed by Baganoff & Malkan, ApJ. 444 1995, Gravitational microlensing is not required to explain quasar variability that because wavelength is inversely proportional to temperature, which depends inversely with the radius from the BH, that the variability is not expected to show dilation. However Hawkins refutes this.

To make it clear, I do agree that you need to not only to understand the behaviour of the accretion disk, but also you first need to fully understand the black hole in the SCC theory. All I have been engaged in is some 'back of the envelope' calculations to see how the land lies.

My basic point is simply that if it can be established that distant S/N and GRB light curves show time dilation and the variability of quasars do not, then my suggestion is the significant difference between them is that the 'engines' of former class consist of non-degenerate matter and the 'engine' of the BH is degenerate. SCC offers a ready distinction in the predicted behaviour between the two classes.

Garth

Garth

Such as here? (You have to press <Page Down> once.)

Garth

SpaceTiger

Sorry Garth, I can't load it on this computer. Could you just summarize it briefly or give me a paper reference?

Garth

http://cosmologist.info/notes/Moriond2006.ppt
is a series of lecture slides by Antony Lewis of the IoA, Cambridge, England. The second slide shows the power spectrum and the WMAP3 data with Acbor, Boomerang, CBI & VSA readings superimposed.
Whereas the other experiments do trace the predicted [itex]\Lambda CDM[/itex] third and even fourth peaks and beyond fairly well, the WMAP3 data goes, as I said "a bit wobbly". In particular the errors bars at l= ~870 and beyond do not even reach the predicted curve. I know that in this region the WMAP3 data has a problem with noise, but I wondered how those error bars were determined? Either the power spectrum here is less well determined than declared or there seems to be an inconsistency between WMAP3 and the different experiments and the predicted model.

Garth

SpaceTiger

That's right, WMAP isn't the primary constraint on the third peak. They use ACBAR, CBI, etc. to fit to the high multipoles, though none of the experiments (including WMAP) are inconsistent with one another. See the WMAP parameters paper for more detail.

Garth

In their paper Cosmic Conspiracies Scott & Frolop point out:Note that in the SCC linearly expanding model
R(t) ~ t, H₀ x t₀ = 1 at all epochs.

Garth

SpaceTiger

That paper is hilarious. Check out some of the references.

(and in case you haven't already, check the date of submission)

Garth

Well of course: Douglas Scott = website
Ali Frolop = April Fool ,
They were obviously sponsored by the Church of Scientology

H₀t₀ = 1.03 ± 0.04 needs no further explanation, but nevertheless is consistent with a linearly expanding model.

Garth

hellfire

A question for my understanding. The fact that the theory contains a frame in which mass evolves and the universe is static, is this a direct consequence of conformal invariance, or is it also related to that principle of energy conservation in the preferred frame? What if you do not impose that second principle?