Non-Cosmological Interpretation of Redshift

[turbo]

Look up the "dispersion measure".

Thank you for that tip, ST. I guess with the contamination of of the time-smearing of pulsar EM arrival times due to magnetic fields, they will not be very good candidates for measuring frequency-dependent effects in the IGM, unless the effect could be shown to be compressed by traveling across lots of IGM (not that we could see get good multi-frequency observations of pulsars in very distant galaxies, anyway).

 

[turbo]

Oh, please don't compare yourself to Einstein. Einstein was not a mathematician (neither am I, for that matter), but he was certainly competent in algebra and could show how his theories behaved in different regimes. I've read his thought experiments and they all gave very rigorous arguments for why certain behaviors should be true in certain circumstances. Your hand-wavy arguments don't even approach that kind of logical rigor.

It was not my intent to compare myself or my model with Einstein or his pivotal work. My intent was simply to point out that he (and others, by the way) would typically start out with a thought experiment, establish a level of logical consistency, then provide the math. I have gotten no farther than step two, and may run into a wall pretty quickly anyway because of my lack of math skills.

I have postulated that the gravitational potential of the vacuum fields AND the CC are dynamically balanced because they arise as effects of the same field. This can explain why the huge energy of the quantum vacuum hasn't crushed the universe to about the size of our planet, and also why the observed CC isn't 120 OOM too big, and caused the universe to disintegrate long ago. If this is true (gravity arises from the interaction of matter with vacuum fields AND the gravitational force of the vacuum is balanced by the pressure exerted by the virtual pairs in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle), it would eliminate a couple of nasty fine-tuning problems in the standard model. Is there absolutely no value in this concept? Are you so convinced that I am an idiot that you will not consider it at face value?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Is there absolutely no value in this concept? Are you so convinced that I am an idiot that you will not consider it at face value?

I have no problem with you posing such experiments, nor do I think you're an idiot. I simply don't like the idea that your theory, which you admit is in an extremely primitive state and conflicts with a lot of accepted physics, gets so much attention in posts on this forum. Visitors with less experience could easily mistake your ideas for a well-tested and seriously considered astrophysical theory. Until you can provide me with calculations of some kind, I'm not willing to grant it that status.

The first thing I suggest you do is pose your thought experiment on the quantum physics board and discuss it with experts in that field. I can only argue with you from the astrophysics side because I am not trained in QFT (though I expect to be by the end of next year), but those folks can likely say more about your theories regarding vacuum polarization, the exclusion principle, and a variable speed of light. Maybe their input will also help you find a starting point for potential mathematical calculations.

 

[Chronos]

I'm pretty confident that inertial and gravitational mass will prove to be identical, within experimental error limits. I think we would otherwise see some pretty weird results from particle collisions. If particle - anti-particle inertial and gravitational masses were not identical. there should be a zoo of unexpected critters to account for the missing energy [note I did not say mass]. At any rate, it would be a shocking result. It would certainly turn the particle physics world upon its head.

I think thought experiments are a useful way to conceptualize the mathematical foundations behind an idea. They are otherwise unfounded, IMO.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Wow, I just realized that I misspelled "interpretation" in the subject of this post.

I must have been really out of it. Can a mod change that for me?

 

[Spin_Network]

May I remind you that many of the critical tests of GR have failed to support GR? So far, no graviton, no Higgs boson (the expected energy level keeps getting pushed up, leading to more powerful accelerators), no dark matter detection, no dark energy...yet the believers still believe, and will not allow the falsification of the standard model under any circumstances. I do not have a monopoly on illogical beliefs.

You started this thread and threw out some challenges. I responded. You called me a crackpot and now you're telling me to shut up. Are you incapable of considering the possible validity of a concept without having it quantitatively nailed-down? If so, just wait for Athena. If I'm right, you'll be swimming in equations in mere weeks after the results are made public.

And now a challenge for you: As I mentioned above, the gravitational energy of the quantum vacuum and the pressure of the vacuum (CC) are exquisitely fine-tuned. This is possible only if both arise from the same vacuum field, as in my model. This fine-tuning is compelling evidence that both gravitation and the repulsive force of the CC (NOT Einstein's biggest mistake in my book!) arise from the vacuum field.

Can you come up with an explanation for this fine-tuning using the rules of the standard model - apart from the impossible cosmic coincidence that these forces arise from unrelated fields and yet have somehow conspired to stay in perfect balance for 13.7Gy?

There are enough problems with Interstellar Polarization PA (polarized angle), infact there have been a number of papers inquiring into this, here is a recent print: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505568

I do also contend that there may be problems with how data is analyzed and therefore, we may be on the verge of uncovering some major Cosmilogical new directions, that being said ST, is providing an overview of 'current' understandings.

The early Universe in respect with a bonafide 'reversed', timeline does not allow us the privilage of Line_of_Site confirmation of actual processes that are/have occurred. The question of QSO giving meaning interpretations to early workings, based on the Big-Bang, has to be questioned?..I am talking with respect to QSO that are at the farthest edge of our Observational Limits.

1)EXPANSION

If Expansion is the Tail-End (last remnant) process of a preceeding Inflation (as is regulary implied by slow-roll models) then there should be observational evidence that the far extremities of the 'hubble-deep-field', the same area captured by Hubble for instance, should show a vast difference in Galaxies Motions, when compared to the Local Galactic Flow rate.

The major problem of having a 'single' Hubble telescope? filter's light over long periods, with nothing to calibrate or compare images to? It would have been amazing if whilst building the Hubble someone decided to have a carbon copy Hubble telescope, if these were then calibrated at a large distance apart, I am sure the deep-field images would have an enormous amount of data, that would have been less confusing, observationally?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Thank you for that tip, ST. I guess with the contamination of of the time-smearing of pulsar EM arrival times due to magnetic fields

The time-smearing comes from the differing indeces of refraction for the different frequencies -- an effect that shows up as chromatic aberration in classical optics. In fact, this seems to be exactly the same effect you're predicting should occur in the polarized vacuum. Wouldn't your theory then predict that gravitational lensing should be frequency-dependent?

 

[turbo]

I'm pretty confident that inertial and gravitational mass will prove to be identical, within experimental error limits. I think we would otherwise see some pretty weird results from particle collisions.

Apparently the folks at CERN are not so sure of this. AFAIK, they don't expect to see "weird results" in particle collisions because the collisions depend on the speed and inertial masses of the colliding objects. Gravitational attraction is vanishingly small in comparison.

If particle - anti-particle inertial and gravitational masses were not identical. there should be a zoo of unexpected critters to account for the missing energy [note I did not say mass]. At any rate, it would be a shocking result. It would certainly turn the particle physics world upon its head.

We would not need a zoo of new particles. If the gravitational infall rate of antimatter is shown to be higher than that of matter, it will not be due to a higher rest mass of antimatter, but die to an innate attraction of antimatter toward the dominant mass of matter in its domain.

I think thought experiments are a useful way to conceptualize the mathematical foundations behind an idea. They are otherwise unfounded, IMO.

Sometimes you have to examine seemingly intractible problems in creative ways (including questioning commonly-held "givens") to see if the problem can be posed another way, or if we have perhaps not been asking the right questions. Coming up with a gravitational mechanism that can coexist with quantum theory seems to be a problem that is crying out for just such an approach. If brute-force number crunching in QFT could produce a theory of gravitation comparable to that of GR, you would think M-theory or LQG would be producing some clear progress by now. In watching lectures on M-theory, I am flabbergasted by how many extra invisible dimensions are required, and how many as-yet unseen SUSY particles. The incredible complexity may be a sign that all is not going well. Intuitively, GUT should entail a trend toward simplicity and fundamentals.

 

[ohwilleke]

Taking a step back, let's look at why non-cosmological redshift is such an item of speculation.

The current mainstream model proposed a universe that is accellerating in its expansion, composed of 70% dark energy, and was home in the very, very early universe to a huge number of stunningly large quasars. These predictions date back about thirty years, before which neither dark matter nor dark energy were predicted, the universe was known to be expanding but not accellerating in its expansion, and quasars where little known. Also, the accepted value of Hubble's constant has been revised beyond the error bars assigned to it several times since Hubble first identified the phenomena.

A less than an order of magnitude change in the Hubble constant from 70 +/- to about 50 would bring the estimated amount of dark matter in the universe from 70% of all matter-energy to zero. Similarly, slight tweaks in very high z redshifts would eliminate the current mainstream prediction that the expansion of the universe is accellerating and would have an immense effect on the predicted size of quasars. The data that give us these values are primarily redshift data.

High redshifts, by definition, involve scales well outside the range of ordinary experience, even within astronomy. Andromeda, for example, is far closer than high z objects, yet we are still making major new discoveries about Andromeda.

I also have to agree with turbo-1, that the physics community itself, by widely considering ideas like M-theory, SUSY, branes, and CNS with only a weak phenomenologial basis, has lowered the bar to consideration of new physics as a possibility. When 11 dimensions, dozens of new undiscovered particles, and countless worlds with different laws of physics are on the table, it is hard to consider new physics that would slightly tweak very large scale redshift data all that remarkable.

This doesn't mean that alternative theories are right. But, I don't think that the concern that many people are throwing stones, while few people have complete alternative solutions is a fair criticism. The default position in science is "we don't know." The person who discovers Brownian motion or the photoelectric effect need not be the same as the person who invents quantum mechanics to replace it. The claim that dark energy makes up 70% of the matter-energy in the universe is an extraordinary and recent claim that calls for extraordinary proof. The proof supports this claim within the existing model, but general relativity is less well validated at a cosmological scale than it is in other situations, and the FRW equations which are central to this prediction may have assumptions that are sufficiently wrong to make a difference as well. The developments in cosmology in the past thirty years have produced claims sufficiently extraordinary that casting about for alternative models is in order.

 

[wolram]

Dark matter is a hot topic, about 423,000 papers listed in google scholar.

 

[SpaceTiger]

A less than an order of magnitude change in the Hubble constant from 70 +/- to about 50 would bring the estimated amount of dark matter in the universe from 70% of all matter-energy to zero. Similarly, slight tweaks in very high z redshifts would eliminate the current mainstream prediction that the expansion of the universe is accellerating and would have an immense effect on the predicted size of quasars. The data that give us these values are primarily redshift data.

I'm not sure whether to call this really deceptive or just plain wrong. The standard model is not based solely upon direct measurements of Hubble's parameter and its higher moments. In order to explain a Hubble parameter that low, you would have to invoke systematic errors in multiple sets of observations (including WMAP, mass-to-light surveys, and supernovae)...and all in the same direction!

NOTE: I'm assuming you meant dark energy in the above paragraph, not dark matter.

The developments in cosmology in the past thirty years have produced claims sufficiently extraordinary that casting about for alternative models is in order.

How does this lead to the conclusion that we should cast doubt on the cosmological view of redshift.? I certainly agree that dark energy is fishy and mysterious, but that's like saying that neutrino oscillations should lead to us to cast doubt on the existence of the neutrino.

 

[wolram]

If Space tiger wants to answer, why should "dark energy", in all its manifestations
be given any credence? which of these do you predict is correct?
The multitude of theories on "dark matter", verge on the crackpot, give us one
reason why we should give credence to these theories, and which do you
predict is correct?
Other than redshift data prove that space is expanding.

 

[SpaceTiger]

If Space tiger wants to answer, why should "dark energy", in all its manifestations
be given any credence? which of these do you predict is correct?
The multitude of theories on "dark matter", verge on the crackpot, give us one
reason why we should give credence to these theories, and which do you
predict is correct?
Other than redshift data prove that space is expanding.

I'll eventually cover all of these things in my "Review of Standard Cosmology" thread. As it is, I only have so much time to work with, so it may be slow going.

 

[Chronos]

A good place to start on observational evidence favoring dark matter:
Observational evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter
Authors: David N. Spergel, Paul J. Steinhardt
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909386
Non-Baryonic Dark Matter - Observational Evidence and Detection Methods
Author: L. Bergstrom
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002126

 

[ohwilleke]

A good place to start on observational evidence favoring dark matter:
Observational evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter
Authors: David N. Spergel, Paul J. Steinhardt
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909386
Non-Baryonic Dark Matter - Observational Evidence and Detection Methods
Author: L. Bergstrom
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002126

FWIW, the title of Spergel and Steinhardt's paper is somewhat deceptive. In fact, it basically points out that a CDM model with WIMPs does not work because simulations fail to reproduce the structures seen at galactic levels. For example, contrary to theory one does not see dark matter concentrated in galactic cores. It also notes, in passing, that warm dark matter models do not work.

Spergel and Steinhardt then go on to propose that rather than WIMPs, what is required is a CDM model with self-interacting particles of a particular density. The presentation is bit coy with lots of suggestive implications which are not spelled out in the paper itself.

 

[turbo]

Observational evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter
Authors: David N. Spergel, Paul J. Steinhardt
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909386

Thank you very much for that link Chronos. "Strongly self-interacting" indeed - I can learn something about gravitational and cluster dynamics from this paper that is not generally available from papers positing weakly interacting dark matter. One thing that has always bothered me is that if the DM is weakly interacting, how can it be persuaded to assume the densities and distributions that is inferred from observation...

(4) the halos of dwarf galaxies and galaxy halos
in clusters will have radii smaller than the gravitational
tidal radius (due to collisional stripping). Intriguingly,
current observations appear to be consistent with all of
these predictions.

I'd have to agree with the perceived effect, but would posit that in a vacuum polarization model the halos (and perhaps filaments or extensions between near neighbors) would be smaller in extent because at some radius from the smaller bodies, the polarizing effects of the larger neighbors would begin to dominate. If the DM is self-attracting and self-polarizing, large bodies will be able to establish fields much larger (in relation to less massive bodies) than you might infer from mass ratios alone, since they will inhibit extended self-polarization in the neighborhoods of their near (and much smaller) neighbors.

Thanks again, Chronos. That is one HEAVILY cited paper.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Wouldn't your theory then predict that gravitational lensing should be frequency-dependent?

I never got an answer to this question, turbo. Since you're claiming different travel times for different frequencies, I think the above conclusion is hard to avoid. I can assure you that such a thing is not observed.

 

[turbo]

I never got an answer to this question, turbo. Since you're claiming different travel times for different frequencies, I think the above conclusion is hard to avoid. I can assure you that such a thing is not observed.

I'm sorry not to have replied ST. Things have been busy - here and at work. No, the frequency-dependent travel-time effect (due to friction with the vacuum field) is a very small effect that is more sensitive to column depth and density than to small variations in field density over thin domains. Optical lensing in polarized vacuum fields will result in frequency-dependent effects like chromatic aberration, but I don't think we will be able to detect arrival time smearing from such interactions. The arrival times of various frequencies will be essentially simultaneous (within our ability to detect them) but the light of shorter wavelengths will be deflected more readily than the longer wavelengths, like in classical optics.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Optical lensing in polarized vacuum fields will result in frequency-dependent effects like chromatic aberration, but I don't think we will be able to detect arrival time smearing from such interactions.

The frequency-dependent effects don't just result in arrival time smearing, they also result in smearing with respect to color. In other words, the location and magnification of lensing arcs should be dependent upon the color you're observing them. This is not observed.

 

[hellfire]

The frequency-dependent effects don't just result in arrival time smearing, they also result in smearing with respect to color. In other words, the location and magnification of lensing arcs should be dependent upon the color you're observing them. This is not observed.

Doesn’t general relativity predict different travel paths (and therefore times) for different frequencies in case of gravitational lensing? Orbits of massless particles in a Schwarzschild spacetime are dependent of the particles’ energies (if I recall correctly).

 

[Garth]

Doesn’t general relativity predict different travel paths (and therefore times) for different frequencies in case of gravitational lensing? Orbits of massless particles in a Schwarzschild spacetime are dependent of the particles’ energies (if I recall correctly).

Not pure GR - the null-geodesic is the same from the emission event A to the reception event B, although there may well be more than one null-geodesic from A to B if everything is symmetric around the lensing mass, if not the other geodesics arrive at the observer at a different time, events B', B'' etc. The question is: Do photons travel on null-geodesics? Generally the answer is they do unless you want to rewrite GR!

Garth

 

[Nereid]

[...] the frequency-dependent travel-time effect (due to friction with the vacuum field) is a very small effect that is more sensitive to column depth and density than to small variations in field density over thin domains. Optical lensing in polarized vacuum fields will result in frequency-dependent effects like chromatic aberration, but I don't think we will be able to detect arrival time smearing from such interactions. The arrival times of various frequencies will be essentially simultaneous (within our ability to detect them) but the light of shorter wavelengths will be deflected more readily than the longer wavelengths, like in classical optics.

(my emphasis) ... do you have an equation or two? How about some OOMs to quantify 'very small'? From what we already have - say, the redshift of a high-z QSO is the same (to 1%? 0.1%?) from UV (say, 200nm) to NIR (say, 2 micron) (a quick of the literature should be able to nail these OOMs more closely) - what OOM constraints can you put on 'very small' (i.e. negative results show it must be smaller than xxx)?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Not pure GR - the null-geodesic is the same from the emission event A to the reception event B, although there may well be more than one null-geodesic from A to B if everything is symmetric around the lensing mass

There can be multiple ones even if everything isn't symmetric, but yeah, I agree with the rest.

 

[hellfire]

Not pure GR - the null-geodesic is the same from the emission event A to the reception event B, although there may well be more than one null-geodesic from A to B if everything is symmetric around the lensing mass, if not the other geodesics arrive at the observer at a different time, events B', B'' etc. The question is: Do photons travel on null-geodesics? Generally the answer is they do unless you want to rewrite GR!

OK, thank you for your answer, it seams I was wrong. I have taken a short look into Schutz. The energy of a photon does actually enter the equation for a photon's orbit, but not alone: it is always the relation between angular momentum and energy (Schutz calls this impact parameter). I have to study this more seriously.

 

[Garth]

There can be multiple ones even if everything isn't symmetric

But not between the two events A & B, if non-symmetric the various null-geodesics that pass between positions A' & B' will take different times to complete their non-similar journeys. .

Garth

 

[SpaceTiger]

But not between the two events A & B, if non-symmetric the various null-geodesics that pass between positions A' & B' will take different times to complete their non-similar journeys.

Well, I see that the paths of the rays would have to be symmetric (i.e. same travel time) in that case, but it's not clear to me that you couldn't achieve a pair of symmetric null geodesics with an asymmetric mass distribution. Is there some sort of uniqueness theorem for strong lensing that would enforce this?

 

[Chronos]

My first reaction is ... get a grip. Gravitational lensing is a misnomer. Gravitational mirage is more like it. The effect is mostly a displacement of the apparent position of the lensed object.