Is the Redshift of Distant Objects Due to Expansion or Gravitational Effects?

[Mike2]

I hate the dark matter explanation. But, I have looked and not found a better explanation as to why it must exist. The only alternative appears to be that both the theory of gravity and GR are fundamentally wrong. Inasmuch we have no shred of evidence that either theory is [beyond a quantum fluctuation of doubt] the least bit flawed, what are the alternatives? [and i want to see the math. pseudo-logical arguments will not suffice].

What's wrong with my previous argument: "If space itself is expanding, then the increase in potential energy due to distance is not accompanied by a equal decrease in kinetic energy. For such formula apply only with respect to a coordinate system that does not change from initial to final states. So in order for energy to be conserved, I supose the rest mass of particles must decrease as space itself expands. What do you think?" Honestly, that argument seems infallible. GR supports expanding spacetime and a gobal conservation of energy. So why would rest mass decreasing with expansion not be included in GR? Is this equal to a change in the gravitation constant of the universe?

If it is, then the question remains. Could the extra mass we see be due to heaver particles in the past?

 

[Nereid]

Nereid - "DM is a very troublesome thing to deal with in any alternative cosmology"; is it not also troublesome in GR? If not what is it?
All observations of DM are theory dependent, that theory being GR; change the theory and those observations change too.

To be sure.

Then the critical question becomes: how do these alternative (GR, cosmology) theories account for the observations which, in the concordance model, are accounted for by DM? To paraphrase Chronos, hand-waving about it being different and no long a problem (trust me), just will not do.

Take a specific example: in Abell 1689, analysis of the lensed images (of more distant galaxies) implies far more mass in the lens than can be accounted for with tried-and-true astrophysics (stellar, gas, dust components of ellipticals; stellar luminosity functions; optical/X-ray/IR absorption spectra; far-IR emission; etc, etc, etc). Even taking all inputs at values most favourable to more mass (and still - barely - consistent with observational data), you're left with a 'mass gap' or 'missing mass' of truly galactic proportions. In SCC (or any other alternative), how to account for this missing mass? If SCC (or other alternative) produces different gravitational lensing ('bending of light') properties than in GR, then a) show that the Abell 1689 lens mass is consistent with the mass expected from optical/X-ray/etc observations (you may have to re-write large chunks of 'textbook astrophysics' to do this!), and b) show consistency with all high-quality lensing/bending experiments and data (e.g. Pound-Rebka, Cassini).

 

[Nereid]

What's wrong with my previous argument: "If space itself is expanding, then the increase in potential energy due to distance is not accompanied by a equal decrease in kinetic energy. For such formula apply only with respect to a coordinate system that does not change from initial to final states. So in order for energy to be conserved, I supose the rest mass of particles must decrease as space itself expands. What do you think?"

To quote Chronos: "I want to see the math. pseudo-logical arguments will not suffice."

Honestly, that argument seems infallible. GR supports expanding spacetime and a gobal conservation of energy. So why would rest mass decreasing with expansion not be included in GR? Is this equal to a change in the gravitation constant of the universe?

It might, or it might not be (depends on the math that you're going to give us ). However, it certainly won't remove the need for DM!

For example, here is the inferred distribution of DM in a distant (z = 0.4) rich cluster, located at RA 00h26m35s, Dec 17d09m38s. Some kind of global, universal change in the properties of matter of the kind you're proposing would surely result in ALL matter at z = 0.4 changing, not just that in a rich cluster. Further, how would your proposed change account for the observed DM mass/density profile in Cl0024+1654?

If it is, then the question remains. Could the extra mass we see be due to heaver particles in the past?

Show us how (be sure to clearly demonstrate the vastly different inferred DM profiles in near and far galaxies, clusters, lenses, etc.

 

[Mike2]

For example, here is the inferred distribution of DM in a distant (z = 0.4) rich cluster, located at RA 00h26m35s, Dec 17d09m38s. Some kind of global, universal change in the properties of matter of the kind you're proposing would surely result in ALL matter at z = 0.4 changing, not just that in a rich cluster. Further, how would your proposed change account for the observed DM mass/density profile in Cl0024+1654?Show us how (be sure to clearly demonstrate the vastly different inferred DM profiles in near and far galaxies, clusters, lenses, etc.

I'm not sure my proposal would negate the evidence for DM. At this point I'm only curious. And I suppose that if matter was heavier in the past, then you would have more of a gravitational lensing effect for farther objects than for nearer. I also wonder if heavier matter would account for the otherwise strange orbital characteristics of the spiral arms of galaxies. If Andromida has this same strange orbital characteristic to the same extent as far away galaxies, then my proposal is shot down.

The math would be the same as for photons being redshift due to gravitation. I have doubts at this point though. My argument here may be negated if the velocity due to the expansion of space itself can be added to the total velocity of distant galaxies. Then the increase in kenitic energy due to velocity increase IS matched by the increase in potential energy due to distance. So the question is: Does the expansion of space itself add to the overall kenitic energy of distant object?

 

[Mike2]

My argument here may be negated if the velocity due to the expansion of space itself can be added to the total velocity of distant galaxies. Then the increase in kenitic energy due to velocity increase IS matched by the increase in potential energy due to distance. So the question is: Does the expansion of space itself add to the overall kenitic energy of distant object?

Some have said that the rate of expansion can be faster than the speed of light. If that were so, then the relativistic mass of receeding galaxies would go to infinity and the gobal conservation of energy would be shot. So it must be that the rate of expansion does not contribute to the momentum and kinetic energy, if the expansion rate can be faster than light.

 

[Mike2]

"Then the increase in kenitic energy due to velocity increase IS matched by the increase in potential energy due to distance. So the question is: Does the expansion of space itself add to the overall kenitic energy of distant object?"

That was dumb! I suppose I meant that if the rate of expansion can contribute to kenitic energy, then there is not a sufficient DECREASE in kenitic energy corresponding to an increase of potential energy due to greater distance.

That's what I get for trying to think about this stuff while I'm working.

 

[Garth]

Chronos read my papers, the entire theory is on the physis archive - Self Creation cosmology does not need inflation, dark matter or dark energy to meet the observed cosmological constraints. I started a thread on the subject that was rubbished by others but my post is still there!
go to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32713)

 

[turbo]

Garth, I'm glad that there are still people like yourself working on non-Big Bang cosmology. Conventional cosmologists keep striving to explain the first nanosecond of the expanding universe, but in the process, they have woven a Gordian knot of constants, assumptions, etc that boggle the mind. By the way, do you know how many Higgs Bosons can dance on the head of a pin?

Philosophically, we can look around us and say "the Universe exists". Why are conventional cosmologists so eager to find a point of emergence (or negation, depending on your point of view) aside from a primal human tendency to want to define a beginning and an end to everything we see? Is it so unsatisfying to contemplate a universe that "just is" and may eternally continue to be?

The Hubble constant is a rule of thumb developed by a skilled observer - not an inviolate law of nature. Heck, young high-mass stars in our own galaxy disobey it with regularity (the K-effect) and that has been known for almost 100 years now. Why should distant galaxies seen over a distance of billions of light years have to toe the line?

Keep up the good work.

 

[Nereid]

Chronos read my papers, the entire theory is on the physis archive - Self Creation cosmology does not need inflation, dark matter or dark energy to meet the observed cosmological constraints.

SCC may not need DM to account for things like the WMAP etc CMBR observations, but as SCC rules out DM, SCC has a big hole if it can't account for (non-cosmological) observations which are consistent with DM (see post 28, and 32 and 33 in this very thread)

I started a thread on the subject that was rubbished by others but my post is still there!
go to https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=32713)

My impression is that it wasn't so much rubbished as not discussed at all

 

[Chronos]

Observation is the building block of science. A few predictions that match a few observations mean nothing. GR made many testable predictions and virtually none of them have been proven wrong. Quantum phyics has, likewise, met every test imaginable. Find better theories [and be sure to include the math].

 

[Garth]

Neried - Yes I would like it discussed, especialy the questions of GR and the EEP made at the beginning of my thread. As far as DM is concerned SCC predicts Omega (matter)= 0.22, ordinary baryonic hydrogen and helium with high metallicity as indeed is observed in the intergalactic medium. So it does predict the observations of DM as you point out, but it is not 'dark' in the sense that it is some unknown substance, just that it is not luminous.
Chronos - I agree, however SCC makes all the same observations as GR in the standard tests to the present,so "GR made many testable predictions and virtually none of them have been proven wrong" applies to SCC too. The first divergence in the predictions of the two theories will be the Gravity Probe B satellite; SCC predicts a geodetic precession of 5/6 of GR value or 5.5120 arcsec/yr. We shall know shortly.

 

[Nereid]

Neried - Yes I would like it discussed, especialy the questions of GR and the EEP made at the beginning of my thread. As far as DM is concerned SCC predicts Omega (matter)= 0.22, ordinary baryonic hydrogen and helium with high metallicity as indeed is observed in the intergalactic medium. So it does predict the observations of DM as you point out, but it is not 'dark' in the sense that it is some unknown substance, just that it is not luminous.

Perhaps I'm in the slow class today, or just pretending to be from Missouri ... lensing observations, cluster member motions, X-ray from cluster IGM (goodness, even rotational curves of spirals!) all point to lots of non-luminous (and non-absorbing) matter. To be clear, quite insufficient amounts of H (atomic, ionised, molecular) and He (atomic, ionised) are detected; quite^>2 insufficient amounts of any other form of baryonic matter is observed (the list of papers reporting negative results is really quite voluminous). So, if you claim "Omega (matter)= 0.22" you have to say what form it's in.

Maybe you could stengthen your case by showing that the matter density of a few million Mpc³, per your SCC, is consistent with the observed matter density of a similar local volume, as determined by specific observations of matter in this volume. Just an OOM would do for a start ... what's the observed matter density of the Virgo cluster?

Finally, just out of curiosity, what do you think Kneib et al painstakingly mapped out in Cl0024+1654 (that they thought was DM)?

 

[Garth]

Nereid - The point is this. Dark matter is indeed observed all over the place, I am not disputing that. It has an average density of around 0.2 or 0.3 the critical density. However standard BB nucleosynthesis only allows a baryonic density of about 0.04, so the rest is 'unknown'. It is the hypothesis of all this unknown mysterious substance that I am questioning.
SSC produces a 'freely coasting', or linearly expanding universe, which has been shown by others (See papers by Gehaut, Lohiya et al.) to require a baryonic density of around 0.2. Therefore the mystery is solved; the unknown substance is actually just ordinary cold baryonic gas, hydrogen and helium AND a high amount of 'metals', other elements. This high metallicity is actually observed and as only about 20% of it can be explained from galactic outflow it is normally attributed to the product of Population III stars. These have not been observed and therefore comprise yet another 'epicycle' to add to the mysterious Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Inflation which have to be invented to make the standard model work properly.

 

[Chronos]

Recent spectral images of ancient galaxies show emission lines of elements that could not possibly have existed at the time indicated by BBT. How the heck could iron lines exist in a star, or galaxy, that is almost 13 billion years old? Confusing.

 

[Nereid]

Recent spectral images of ancient galaxies show emission lines of elements that could not possibly have existed at the time indicated by BBT. How the heck could iron lines exist in a star, or galaxy, that is almost 13 billion years old? Confusing.

Two recently announced examples of these observations: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-17-04.html .

IMHO, these are much more interesting than the earlier results, because those earlier ones had selection effects whose relevance could not be properly assessed (without further work).

 

[Garth]

Do you not think these results might indicate that the paradigm might have to change? Consider 'A Concordant “Freely Coasting” Cosmology'; Savita Gehlaut, Pranav Kumar Geetanjali and Daksh Lohiya, Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi,v1 23 Jun 2003;to be found on the arXiv:astro-ph/0306448. They are describing heuristically the theory predicted by self creation. In a linearly expanding model high metallicity comes out of the Big Bang.

 

[turbo]

Two recently announced examples of these observations: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-17-04.html .

IMHO, these are much more interesting than the earlier results, because those earlier ones had selection effects whose relevance could not be properly assessed (without further work).

Thank you for the links. Here is the Gemini press release with images and links to background resources, including techniques for taking out IR skyglow.

http://www.gemini.edu/project/announcements/press/2004-1.html

Astronomers trying to understand this issue might have to put everything on the table. "It is unclear if we need to tweak the existing models or develop a new one in order to understand this finding," said the survey's third Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Patrick McCarthy (Observatories of the Carnegie Institution). "It is quite obvious from the Gemini spectra that these are indeed very mature galaxies, and we are not seeing the effects of obscuring dust. Obviously there are some major aspects about the early lives of galaxies that we just don't understand. It is even possible that black holes might have been much more ubiquitous than we thought in the early Universe and played a larger role in seeding early galaxy formation."

What is arguably the dominant galactic evolution theory postulates that the population of galaxies at this early stage should have been dominated by evolutionary building blocks. Aptly called the Hierarchical Model, it predicts that normal to large galaxies, like those studied in this work, would not yet exist and would instead be forming from local beehives of activity where big galaxies grew. The GDDS reveals that this might not be the case.

To Garth: we are overdue for a paradigm shift. Big Bang cosmologists are claiming some very high levels of accuracy for their currently accepted age of the universe (13.7Gy), but there are some flies in the ointment. A few are:
1) VERY old stars in globular clusters - maybe as old as the BB universe.
2) recent LUNA CNO-burning experiment suggesting that the GC stars may actually be significantly older than 14Gy
3) QSOs that are VERY old as judged by their redshifts (and older ones are discovered with every advance in telescopes and sensors). They are radiating more energy than 100s or even 1000s of galaxies. That is a HUGE amount of organization to expect to see in the infancy of the universe, according to existing models.

One thing the early, old, massive galaxies might prompt is a re-examination of mass-ejection in galactic formation. It is very frustrating when astronomers publish images of objects that seem to be clear-cut cases of mass ejection and caption them as "mergers" or "collisions". This is a very prevalent practice, and it overlooks the very real possibility that fission of galactic nuclei could be responsible for many of the interactions we see. Some mainstream scientists caption such images as "interactions", yet rarely do they suggest ejection as the mechanism for the interaction. With the discovery of very massive mature galaxies at such an early epoch, we may yet see a re-examination and modification of the heirachical model that encompasses fission and mass ejection as viable mechanisms in producing some of the interactions that we see.

Mass ejection is in good accordance with entropy (moving from highly-ordered massive galaxy to less well ordered host-companion systems), but seems quite unpopular in conventional astronomy these days. This is probably because folks like Hoyle and Arp, et al have proposed ejection as method of emergence of matter into a steady-state universe - a VERY unpopular idea to orthodox astronomers.

I think the next few years could be very exciting. :surprise: