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

[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!