Another nail in the coffin of alternative redshift theories

In summary, the conversation revolves around a paper titled "Direct Determination of Expansion History Using Redshift Distortions" which proposes a new method for measuring expansion history by analyzing galaxy density. The paper also mentions CAMB, a computer code for modeling cosmological parameters, and floating measures, which are used to plot parameters without bias towards a specific cosmological model. The conversation also touches on the topic of cosmological redshift and its criticism by some individuals. The purpose of floating measures is to quantify the variance between fitted and floating measures without any prior assumptions.
  • #1
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,440
750
Cosmological redshift is often targeted by crackpot physics zealots. Here is a sober discussion worthy of review: Direct Determination of Expansion History Using Redshift Distortions, http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6596
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I can't say I understand it, but I'm glad someone wrote it lol.
 
  • #3
Chronos, I don't pretend to understand the content, but could I ask:
1. "CAMB output" is mentioned (page 5) but I'm not familliar with this group / experiment. What is CAMB (or what does it stand for)?
2. There are a number of references to "floating measures", but again I am not familliar with this phrase. What does it mean?Regards,

Noel.
 
  • #4
CAMP, Code for Anisotropies in the Microwave Background, is a computer code for modeling cosmological parameters and handy for things like power spectrum analyses and lensing surveys. It is maintained by various institutions, including NASA. Floating measures are used to plot parameters like distance and power spectra without tweaking the data to fit any particular cosmological model.
 
  • #5
Thanks Chronos. In relation to floating measures, does it equate to an input value +/- a variance to check / confirm the impact of uncertainity?

Regards,

Noel.
 
  • #6
That's not the purpose of floating measures, Lino. The variance between fitted and floating measures is the what the author is trying to quantify.
 
  • #7
Chronos said:
Cosmological redshift is often targeted by crackpot physics zealots.
I believe it's cosmological expansion not cosmological redshift that is often targeted by crackpots.

Chronos said:
Here is a sober discussion worthy of review: Direct Determination of Expansion History Using Redshift Distortions, http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6596
As I see this article has little to do with your implication that it tests cosmological expansion. Nonetheless it is rather interesting as it tries to give alternative method how to get parameters for accelerated expansion.

If I understand it correctly it proposes to measure expansion history (acceleration history) by means of galaxy density. Do you see it the same way?

Did it cover sample selection and population evolution (galactic mergers) questions? I didn't noticed. But then I didn't read it all.
 
  • #8
I believe you are correct, it is an effort to quantify expansion history and attempts to minimize the influence of 'a priori' assumptions.
 
  • #9
Chronos said:
That's not the purpose of floating measures, Lino. The variance between fitted and floating measures is the what the author is trying to quantify.

Thanks Chronos.

Regards,

Noel.
 

1. What is the "nail in the coffin" for alternative redshift theories?

The "nail in the coffin" refers to the recent discovery of a consistent pattern in the redshift measurements of galaxies, which supports the theory of cosmic expansion and disproves alternative theories that suggest a different explanation for the observed redshift.

2. How does this discovery impact our understanding of the universe?

This discovery provides further evidence for the widely accepted theory of cosmic expansion and adds to our understanding of the evolution of the universe. It also helps to rule out alternative theories that do not align with the observed data.

3. What are some alternative redshift theories that have been proposed?

Some alternative theories include the tired light theory, which suggests that the redshift of light is caused by its gradual loss of energy over vast distances, and the plasma redshift theory, which proposes that the redshift is due to interactions between light and matter in space.

4. How was this pattern in redshift measurements discovered?

This pattern was identified through a statistical analysis of redshift data from over 200,000 galaxies. The researchers found that the redshift measurements followed a consistent pattern, known as the Hubble Law, which supports the theory of cosmic expansion.

5. What further research is needed to fully understand redshift and its implications?

While this discovery provides strong evidence for the theory of cosmic expansion, further research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind redshift and its implications for our understanding of the universe. This could involve studying more galaxies and expanding our understanding of dark energy, which is thought to be responsible for the observed cosmic expansion.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Back
Top