Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another nail in the coffin of alternative redshift theories

  1. Oct 25, 2012 #1

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2012 #2

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I can't say I understand it, but I'm glad someone wrote it lol.
     
  4. Oct 28, 2012 #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.
     
  5. Oct 28, 2012 #4

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  6. Oct 28, 2012 #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.
     
  7. Oct 29, 2012 #6

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  8. Oct 29, 2012 #7

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I believe it's cosmological expansion not cosmological redshift that is often targeted by crackpots.

    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.
     
  9. Oct 29, 2012 #8

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I believe you are correct, it is an effort to quantify expansion history and attempts to minimize the influence of 'a priori' assumptions.
     
  10. Oct 29, 2012 #9
    Thanks Chronos.

    Regards,

    Noel.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Another nail in the coffin of alternative redshift theories
Loading...