Offshoot from 'Theoretically how far can one see in the universe'

[Rymer]

It's as I said above, it depends upon the contents, as the contents of the universe effect the expansion rate.

Now, I am aware that you've got some radically different idea of what is going on there, but you're going to have to show how your model explains the CMB if you want to make any headway. And then there's of course all the other cosmological data, such as BAO, weak lensing surveys, etc. etc.

This is the fundamental problem to proposing completely different ideas of how the universe works: the current model explains a very wide array of data. Any competing model also has to explain all of these same data, to as good or better accuracy, if it is to even be given a glance by the scientific community. There's no point in bothering with a model that only explains one tiny fraction of the data, and appears to be completely contradicted by other pieces of evidence, or fails to explain them altogether. It's hard work, then, to produce a completely new idea for how the world works.

The way that new scientific theories almost always do this is that the people working on said theories demonstrate that for most of the experiments done to date, the new theory predicts the same thing as the old theory (thus they don't have to go back and recalculate what their theory does in each and every experiment). Once that is accomplished, they show where the theory diverges from the old one, and how this accords better with experiment (or at least they propose where it could accord better if the experiments were done).

As you have indicated, there are several problems with this model and CMB.

1) Model ONLY addresses redshift AFTER CMB and not the CMB value.

2) The model is specific to an expanding universe of matter at a constant velocity
that is NOT the speed of light.

3) The distance reference used is derived from a concept of gravity that indicates
it does NOT exist (as we define it today) at or prior to the time of last scattering.

4) The model redshift is specific to atomic emission/absorption lines -- not blackbody
displacement peaks.

5) Redshift is assumed to be related to a specific 'piece of matter' -- in the past --
NOT including the entire observable universe at the time (as is CMB).

6) The photons in this model are assumed NOT to be effected in any way -- redshift
being due to a Doppler recession -- no other redshift mechanisms are included.

As you have implied the 'CMB redshift' is more related to a 'time' -- than a 'distance'.

Also, my 'fitted' Chi^2 is 335 (not 400) to compare with the fitted standard model 328.
(again a meaningless difference)

Since the model specifically EXCLUDES the CMB data as being within the range of computable data, there is indeed a problem in reconciling the differences. As I have stated before this is 'A' solution to the problem and was never intended to be 'THE' solution.

Until there is a proper quantum gravity model I do not see how this 'bridge' can be crossed.
In fact, the entire point of this work was intended to identify a possible starting point for a quantum gravity model. (The expanded version still being worked on gives 6 matter states and no singularities even in this very basic approach.)

 

[Chalnoth]

As you have indicated, there are several problems with this model and CMB.

1) Model ONLY addresses redshift AFTER CMB and not the CMB value.

I know. But your reasons for this are completely arbitrary and irrelevant. This is cherry-picking.

2) The model is specific to an expanding universe of matter at a constant velocity
that is NOT the speed of light.

Expansion isn't a velocity, though. It's a rate.

3) The distance reference used is derived from a concept of gravity that indicates
it does NOT exist (as we define it today) at or prior to the time of last scattering.

It's not derived. It's completely ad-hoc.

4) The model redshift is specific to atomic emission/absorption lines -- not blackbody
displacement peaks.

The way in which the redshift is measured is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

5) Redshift is assumed to be related to a specific 'piece of matter' -- in the past --
NOT including the entire observable universe at the time (as is CMB).

Except the CMB was emitted by lots of pieces of matter. So this reasoning flawed. If redshift in your model applies to pieces of matter in the past, then it also applies to the CMB.

Also, my 'fitted' Chi^2 is 335 (not 400) to compare with the fitted standard model 328.
(again a meaningless difference)

Why not? You can always compare the Chi^2 between different models used to explain the same data.

Since the model specifically EXCLUDES the CMB data as being within the range of computable data, there is indeed a problem in reconciling the differences. As I have stated before this is 'A' solution to the problem and was never intended to be 'THE' solution.

Until there is a proper quantum gravity model I do not see how this 'bridge' can be crossed.
In fact, the entire point of this work was intended to identify a possible starting point for a quantum gravity model. (The expanded version still being worked on gives 6 matter states and no singularities even in this very basic approach.)

It's a solution to a non-existent problem, though. Just using standard General Relativity (in combination with other known laws of physics) not only explains the redshift-distance relationship for supernovae, but it also explains the CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing surveys, the primordial abundances of light elements, etc.

 

[Rymer]

Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

As you have indicated, there are several problems with this model and CMB.

1) Model ONLY addresses redshift AFTER CMB and not the CMB value.

I know. But your reasons for this are completely arbitrary and irrelevant. This is cherry-picking.

Depends on your point of view -- including CMB is 'cherry-picking' from mine.Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

2) The model is specific to an expanding universe of matter at a constant velocity
that is NOT the speed of light.

Expansion isn't a velocity, though. It's a rate.

That is the point of the statement -- in THIS model its a velocity.Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

3) The distance reference used is derived from a concept of gravity that indicates
it does NOT exist (as we define it today) at or prior to the time of last scattering.

It's not derived. It's completely ad-hoc.

Again a viewpoint thing -- the distance reference was first derived 35 years ago -- as a simple 'first stab' in an anticipated development. The Simple Geometic Model is recent with the present supernovae data.
Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

4) The model redshift is specific to atomic emission/absorption lines -- not blackbody
displacement peaks.

The way in which the redshift is measured is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

No it isn't. YOU are the one making the assertion that they are the same. Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

5) Redshift is assumed to be related to a specific 'piece of matter' -- in the past --
NOT including the entire observable universe at the time (as is CMB).

Except the CMB was emitted by lots of pieces of matter. So this reasoning flawed. If redshift in your model applies to pieces of matter in the past, then it also applies to the CMB.

Not necessarily. I believe your assumption of the equivalence of these redshifts (emission verses blackbody peak) may be flawed. Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

Also, my 'fitted' Chi^2 is 335 (not 400) to compare with the fitted standard model 328.
(again a meaningless difference)

Why not? You can always compare the Chi^2 between different models used to explain the same data.

No not really in this case. If there is a systematic shift in the data, then this needs to be 'removed' when comparing to a completely derived relation. You can't fit one model to the data and not the other -- and expect anything like a valid comparison. This was one of my original concerns about even attempting this Chi^2
Originally Posted by Rymer View Post

Since the model specifically EXCLUDES the CMB data as being within the range of computable data, there is indeed a problem in reconciling the differences. As I have stated before this is 'A' solution to the problem and was never intended to be 'THE' solution.

Until there is a proper quantum gravity model I do not see how this 'bridge' can be crossed.
In fact, the entire point of this work was intended to identify a possible starting point for a quantum gravity model. (The expanded version still being worked on gives 6 matter states and no singularities even in this very basic approach.)

It's a solution to a non-existent problem, though. Just using standard General Relativity (in combination with other known laws of physics) not only explains the redshift-distance relationship for supernovae, but it also explains the CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing surveys, the primordial abundances of light elements, etc.

I've asked before -- I have have not seen -- exactly HOW General Relativity has anything to do with 'the CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing surveys, the primordial abundances of light elements, etc. ' CMB shows a 'flat' universe -- so no need for GR.

AND in my model, a proper derivation of the 'distance reference' would seem to require a quantum gravity model. In fact, I believe that a proper quantum gravity model should include a new redshift relation that hopefully is APPROXIMATED by the Simple Geometric Model. That was the intent of developing SGM. It is a 'stepping-stone' model -- not 'THE' solution.

 

[Chalnoth]

Depends on your point of view -- including CMB is 'cherry-picking' from mine.

Including additional data is never cherry picking. You should read the definition of the word before pulling it out.

I've asked before -- I have have not seen -- exactly HOW General Relativity has anything to do with 'the CMB, baryon acoustic oscillations, weak lensing surveys, the primordial abundances of light elements, etc. ' CMB shows a 'flat' universe -- so no need for GR.

Look, if you're going to try to overturn current cosmology, you should at least seek to understand current cosmology first. The things you are asking here are part of one of the most basic fundamentals of modern cosmology: linear structure formation.

Your statement that the "CMB shows a 'flat' universe" is particularly revealing of your abject ignorance of the field of cosmology, because:
1. The measurement of flatness assumes General Relativity.
2. The measurement is that the universe is nearly spatially flat, but that there is quite a lot of space-time curvature. So General Relativity is very much required.

AND in my model, a proper derivation of the 'distance reference' would seem to require a quantum gravity model. In fact, I believe that a proper quantum gravity model should include a new redshift relation that hopefully is APPROXIMATED by the Simple Geometric Model. That was the intent of developing SGM. It is a 'stepping-stone' model -- not 'THE' solution.

Cosmological redshifts are entirely within the regime of classical gravity, and it is obscenely unlikely that quantum gravity has anything whatsoever to say here.

 

[Rymer]

You seem to be insisting that any model be an 'everything' model. This one never was and never was intended to be.

The 'Distance Reference' and the concept of the approach is from a simple 'particle in a box' approach for gravity. The actual quantum gravity model is not expected to be quite this simple. This is only a first attempt -- a concept checker. So of course it will have shortcomings -- that is no reason to reject it out of hand for something it cannot address.

In fact, the currently being worked version does not allow redshift greater than about 25.6 -- this is due to a slightly lower expansion velocity of 0.8660254c. The view is that the simple classically derived value for 'Distance Reference' is likely not really a constant but has some redshift dependence due to these high relative velocities. Could be wrong -- don't know yet. And that is the point. With the current data and the current level of development the model -- or an enhanced version -- this cannot be ruled out. (Remember that the blackbody radiation curve was the origin of quantum physics, I do not see how CMB can be incorporated into this gravity-mechanism based model without using a quantum model for gravity.)


This approach -- whether these values are correct or not -- does seem to indicate that a quantum theory of gravity has the possibility of predicting a new redshift relation -- one that includes DERIVED values (or much tighter ranges) of parameter values. The current Standard Model does NOT. From my viewpoint this is a MAJOR failing of Standard Model.


Note: I am not saying the current General Relativity is 'wrong' -- just not needed for what is currently being done in large scale cosmology. A Quantum Model of Gravity is required in order to proper integrate the various concepts in the proposed 'everything' Standard Models.

Your insisted upon CMB requirement is the same as having to produce a Quantum Theory of Gravity -- for THIS model. Just can't be done at this time.

 

[Chalnoth]

Your insisted upon CMB requirement is the same as having to produce a Quantum Theory of Gravity -- for THIS model. Just can't be done at this time.

Then there's no point in bothering with it, because the current model does explain the CMB, and a whole lot of other data as well. All without any need for quantum gravity.

 

[Rymer]

Then there's no point in bothering with it, because the current model does explain the CMB, and a whole lot of other data as well. All without any need for quantum gravity.

As far as 'a whole lot of other data' I have yet to see any difference in the two models.

As far as CMB, using the basic gravity model I have at the moment -- and doing some 'cherry-picking' to correct for the fact that CMB is effectively an expanding universe of photons (moving at the speed of light) -- while the universe we inhabit is the matter expanding portion (moving at 0.8660254c according to this basic approach), yields a totally DERIVED angular distance of 13,969 Mpc as compared to your provided 14,279 Mpc
(This value is found by scaling up the matter universe to the speed of light -- and making an appropriate scaling factor correction.)

As stated previously this is very provisional and the needed quantum theory of gravity is not currently developed to the point to directly address this.

So can General Relativity and Standard Model do this? Derive the values -- no data fitting?

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry, Rymer, I'm done with this game of "whack-a-mole" with you. Apparently you can use your mistaken notions of gravity to "derive" any result you want. Your model has no description of gravity. It has no physical processes. The only parameters in your model which you claim to "derive" have no physical meaning at all.

 

[Rymer]

Sorry, Rymer, I'm done with this game of "whack-a-mole" with you. Apparently you can use your mistaken notions of gravity to "derive" any result you want. Your model has no description of gravity. It has no physical processes. The only parameters in your model which you claim to "derive" have no physical meaning at all.

Hummm ... the two parameters are:

1) Expansion velocity
2) Distance Reference -- interpreted to be the radial expansion distance.

The Simple Geometric Model is simply that -- the geometry. The gravity model is in development and has been presented to you before. The values presented are simply ones easiest to estimate at the moment -- more than Standard Model can do.

To me that seems at least as well defined as the Hubble constant and Omega matter.
In fact, when fitting the behavior between the Hubble constant and the Distance Reference effect the offset in a similar (but inverted) way. The expansion velocity effects the slope of the fit in a similar way to Omega matter.

You keep making that statement -- but I see no justification for it.

The 'physical process' is simply expansion at a constant velocity -- no forces involved so it can't have much in the way of 'processes'. The original reason for developing the model was to use as a baseline for comparison of proposed acceleration and deceleration effects. But so far NONE have been seen -- at least not as yet with the poor accuracy of the data.

That has been my point from the beginning -- current data accuracy is far too poor to be able to claim 'proof' of the Standard Model -- as seems to be assumed on this blog.
Standard Model may indeed be right -- its just not proved yet.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Sorry, Rymer, I'm done with this game of "whack-a-mole" with you. Apparently you can use your mistaken notions of gravity to "derive" any result you want. Your model has no description of gravity. It has no physical processes. The only parameters in your model which you claim to "derive" have no physical meaning at all.

Touché! Chalnoth, bravo! You are one of the best of the best. I'm adding a few items from NASA to back up your discussion with Rymer. Of course, people will have to be able to read.

1. Universe 101 - Big Bang Theory
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Page Updated: Tuesday, 10-14-08
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

2. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Pages Updated: April 2008
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/WMAP_Universe.pdf

3. Tests of Big Bang: Expansion
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Page Updated: Tuesday, 10-14-2008

The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.

The Hubble Constant

The specific form of Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is proportional to distance. The expanding raisin bread model at left illustrates why this is important. [Please view the "expanding raisin bread model" by clinking on the link below.] If every portion of the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time, then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 +/-3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 +/- 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

Chalnoth, thanks for making it a beautiful day for me. May your life be filled with sparks of sunshine even on a cloudy day.

 

[Rymer]

Touché! Chalnoth, bravo! You are one of the best of the best. I'm adding a few items from NASA to back up your discussion with Rymer. Of course, people will have to be able to read.

1. Universe 101 - Big Bang Theory
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Page Updated: Tuesday, 10-14-08
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/

2. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
Cosmology: The Study of the Universe
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Pages Updated: April 2008
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/WMAP_Universe.pdf

3. Tests of Big Bang: Expansion
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Page Updated: Tuesday, 10-14-2008



Chalnoth, thanks for making it a beautiful day for me. May your life be filled with sparks of sunshine even on a cloudy day.

I fully agree.

 

[ViewsofMars]

How far can one see in the universe

I encourage everyone to read the entire WAMP - Five Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe (WMAP 5-year Results Released - March 7, 2008) It continues to support The Big Bang Theory.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/

I’ll take a snippet from the link above ,which was updated on 4-24-2009 by NASA Offical, Dr. Gary F. Hinsha.

"We are living in an extraordinary time," said Gary Hinshaw of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Ours is the first generation in human history to make such detailed and far-reaching measurements of our universe."

WMAP measures a remnant of the early universe - its oldest light. The conditions of the early times are imprinted on this light. It is the result of what happened earlier, and a backlight for the later development of the universe. This light lost energy as the universe expanded over 13.7 billion years, so WMAP now sees the light as microwaves. By making accurate measurements of microwave patterns, WMAP has answered many longstanding questions about the universe's age, composition and development.

The universe is awash in a sea of cosmic neutrinos. These almost weightless sub-atomic particles zip around at nearly the speed of light. Millions of cosmic neutrinos pass through you every second.

"A block of lead the size of our entire solar system wouldn’t even come close to stopping a cosmic neutrino,” said science team member Eiichiro Komatsu of the University of Texas at Austin.

WMAP has found evidence for this so-called "cosmic neutrino background" from the early universe. Neutrinos made up a much larger part of the early universe than they do today.

Microwave light seen by WMAP from when the universe was only 380,000 years old, shows that, at the time, neutrinos made up 10% of the universe, atoms 12%, dark matter 63%, photons 15%, and dark energy was negligible. In contrast, estimates from WMAP data show the current universe consists of 4.6% percent atoms, 23% dark matter, 72% dark energy and less than 1 percent neutrinos.

Cosmic neutrinos existed in such huge numbers they affected the universe’s early development. That, in turn, influenced the microwaves that WMAP observes. WMAP data suggest, with greater than 99.5% confidence, the existence of the cosmic neutrino background - the first time this evidence has been gleaned from the cosmic microwaves.

Much of what WMAP reveals about the universe is because of the patterns in its sky maps. The patterns arise from sound waves in the early universe. As with the sound from a plucked guitar string, there is a primary note and a series of harmonics, or overtones. The third overtone, now clearly captured by WMAP, helps to provide the evidence for the neutrinos.

The hot and dense young universe was a nuclear reactor that produced helium. Theories based on the amount of helium seen today predict a sea of neutrinos should have been present when helium was made. The new WMAP data agree with that prediction, along with precise measurements of neutrino properties made by Earth-bound particle colliders.

Another breakthrough derived from WMAP data is clear evidence the first stars took more than a half-billion years to create a cosmic fog. The data provide crucial new insights into the end of the "dark ages," when the first generation of stars began to shine. The glow from these stars created a thin fog of electrons in the surrounding gas that scatters microwaves, in much the same way fog scatters the beams from a car’s headlights.

"We now have evidence that the creation of this fog was a drawn-out process, starting when the universe was about 400 million years old and lasting for half a billion years," said WMAP team member Joanna Dunkley of the University of Oxford in the U.K. and Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "These measurements are currently possible only with WMAP."

A third major finding arising from the new WMAP data places tight constraints on the astonishing burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”, when ripples in the very fabric of space may have been created. Some versions of the inflation theory now are eliminated. Others have picked up new support.

"The new WMAP data rule out many mainstream ideas that seek to describe the growth burst in the early universe," said WMAP principal investigator, Charles Bennett, of The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Md. "It is astonishing that bold predictions of events in the first moments of the universe now can be confronted with solid measurements."

Loving it!