Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE

[HannonRJ]

Obviously I perpetrated a typo. c=xt=X/T should have been c=x/t=X/T. My humble apology!
(I have needed new glasses for quite awhile...I am picking them up this afternoon.)

To Skwinty: In chapeter 4 of Silk's THE BIG BANG, there is a chart of the durations of the various eras since the big bang..."the cosmic time scale". My attributions to
Silk are from that chart.

To Ziggurat: SR is intrinsic to GR. In OEMB Einstein said, "In the first place iut is clear that the equations must be lnear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."

Further, my article on the CBR has little to do with GR except to describe the "conventional BB explanation of the CBR." My article offers an alternative and physically-possible explanation. So far no one here has actually offered any reason why my alternative is not possible.

 

[Skwinty]

To Skinty: In chapeter 4 of Silk's THE BIG BANG, there is a chart of the durations of the various eras since the big bang..."the cosmic time scale". My attributions to
Silk are from that chart.

If I am not mistaken, there is a big difference in space expanding faster than the speed of light than light itself exceeding the speed of light.

 

[Ziggurat]

Alpha has since then, only changed by 45 parts per billion.

It's important to note that this is an upper limit on the change, not an estimate of the change itself (which could be, and I suspect is, zero).

 

[Tubbythin]

If my memory serves me correctly, the Oklo fission incident occurred 2 billion years ago and Alpha has since then, only changed by 45 parts per billion.

The date sounds about correct though I think the last part of the sentence should be "Alpha has since then, only changed by at most 45 parts per billion".

EDIT: Zig got there first.

 

[Skwinty]

It's important to note that this is an upper limit on the change, not an estimate of the change itself (which could be, and I suspect is, zero).

Point taken,thanks

ETA: 45 parts per billion is close enough to zero for me

 

[Tubbythin]

Further, my article on the CBR has little to do with GR except to describe the "conventional BB explanation of the CBR." My article offers an alternative and physically-possible explanation. So far no one here has actually offered any reason why my alternative is not possible.

It does not. The CMBR does not originate in the "conventional BB explanation" from the time when pair production/annihilation went out of equilibrium.

 

[edd]

My article offers an alternative and physically-possible explanation. So far no one here has actually offered any reason why my alternative is not possible.

Several have done exactly that. And there's plenty more unposted reasons why it's wrong. Please read previous posts again.

 

[Ziggurat]

To Ziggurat: SR is intrinsic to GR.

SR is a local linear approximation to GR.

In OEMB Einstein said, "In the first place iut is clear that the equations must be lnear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."

Except GR isn't linear. While it can be locally approximated as being linear, globally it is not - it is explicitly nonlinear. Hence we can (and must) throw out the assumption of homogeneity when transitioning from SR to GR. What you are claiming is the mathematical equivalent of noting that calculus looks at the slope of tangent lines to curves, and concluding that calculus says that curves are really straight lines. This mistake betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of general relativity, and hints at a fundamental misunderstanding of calculus as well.

In fact, GR isn't even homogeneous in space if you look at short length scales - that's why you get different gravitational fields in different locations. If it was truly homogeneous in space, the earth wouldn't orbit the sun. It's only at very long length scales (MUCH larger than our galaxy) that we assume homogeneity in space, because that's what the universe looks like, but we do not assume homogeneity in time because we have no reason to, and good reason not to.

 

[sol invictus]

Further, my article on the CBR has little to do with GR except to describe the "conventional BB explanation of the CBR."

It describes it completely wrongly, due to your childish misunderstandings of the meanings of some technical terms. No one is going to take you seriously when you utterly fail to understand the theory you're attempting to overturn.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Variable Speed of Light

Can you cite an example of light travelling faster than 3e8 m/s?

No.

Then you should pay more attention to your own ideas. Wang, Kuzmich & Dogariu, 2000 used anomalous dispersion in a quantum optics experiment to produce superluminal group velocity of a light pulse through atomic cesium vapor (also see Physics News Update, 20 July 2000). It was all over the news when it happened, I'm surprised you did not know. But it still does not help your cause much. As the abstract to Wang, et al., tells us: "The observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality, being a direct consequence of classical interference between its different frequency components in an anomalous dispersion region."

Nevertheless, there is no "law" of physics that says light is restricted to one value everywhere and everywhen. We cannot measure the value of c elswhere in the universe; we simply assume it always has the same value.

While there is indeed no such law of physics, it is certainly not true that we "simply assume" constancy of the speed of light (c). The possibility that the fine structure constant might be cosmologically variable has been a hot topic ever since Webb, et al., 1999 claimed observational evidence for its variability as a function of redshift (this paper is a good example of the effect of the peer review process; compare the version 1 & 2 title "Evidence for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant" and the version 3 & 4 title "A Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant"). As you can see from the citation trail, this is a result that has attracted attention. The observational evidence remains unconvincing. The point is that the constancy of the speed of light, everywhere & everywhen, is not simply an assumption, but rather subject to observational confirmation, and we are in the process of doing exactly that.

Consider also the variable speed of light (VSL) cosmology, introduced in Albrecht & Magueijo, 2000, and eventually enshrined in Joao Magueijo's 2004 book Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. The VSL idea is to replace the idea of cosmological inflation with a variable speed of light in the infant universe. But so far, the idea is less popular than inflation because it appears to have other problems, such as a possible variability of the electron charge.

Of course, both theories of special & general relativity require the constancy of the speed of light, and both are heavily verified by practical experience & observation (i.e., What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?, Papers on the Experimental Foundations of Gravitation). So if all you can do is wave your hands around and say that the speed of light is variable because you don't believe that it must be constant, you have no credibility. If you want to credibly claim cosmological variability of the speed of light, you have some work to do.

 

[HannonRJ]

To Edd: Please point out where my alternative is invalidated. I read the few posts on my article. None deal with my alternative.

The CMBR is nothing but obsered radiation in a certain frequency spectrum whose energy is is essentially isotropic as measured from Earth. The conventional view is that it results from the Big Bang. My alternative indicates that said radiation may have had a different source.

 

[HannonRJ]

TO: Tim Thompson: I did not offer that dubious Cesium experiment because it IS dubious. My article offers a physical reason for the observed value of c in "empty space", and its possible variabilty, predicated on only conventional EM theory.
So far, all observational and experimental measurementx of the value of c have been conducted on, or within astronomically-small distances from, the Earth.

 

[sol invictus]

Suppose the CBR is EMR emitted by a spherical shell of gaseous radiators, having an unknown radius of anywhere from ten to thousands of LY, and that the entire solar system has been moving inside this shell for many years. At distance R (inside the sphere) the energy Er from any point on the sphere is Er=Es/R2 where Es is the energy at 1 meter from the source. At distance R±D, the energy Ed of that radiation is Ed=Es/(R±D)2 so:

For Ed/Er=1.00001: at R=10LY, D=0.00005 LY=470x106 km. At R=1000 LY, D=0.005 LY=47x109 km. So if we are 10 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 470 million km from our location. If we are 1000 LY from the inside of the shell, we will find its radiation to be isotropic to 1 part in 100,000 (0.001%) anywhere within 47 billion km of our location.

The shell could be the residue of a stellar event that happened very long ago. There is no specific reason why the energy vs frequency distribution of its radiation could not be that which is observed.

There are so many problems with this it's hard to know where to start. First, you seem to think the CMB is isotropic to one part in 100,000. It's not (look up CMB dipole). Second, the CMB is the most perfect black body ever observed. I have no idea what you mean by "gaseous radiator", but it has to be something previously unknown to science (i.e. magic) if it's going to match that. Third, the CMB power spectrum of fluctuations has very characteristic features which must be explained - and a spherical shell utterly fails to do so. Fourth, we know CMB photons passed through distant galaxies and galaxy clusters, meaning they last scattered very, very, very far away - which falsifies your idea immediately. Fifth, the standard explanation for the CMB follows from a large body of very well tested theory and experiment, and makes specific and falsifiable predictions which have been confirmed over and over again by experiment.

Instead, you propose some sphere of magical "gaseous radiators" pulled straight out of somewhere, and expect anyone to pay any more attention to you than it takes to write this post?

 

[edd]

To Edd: Please point out where my alternative is invalidated. I read the few posts on my article. None deal with my alternative.

The CMBR is nothing but obsered radiation in a certain frequency spectrum whose energy is is essentially isotropic as measured from Earth. The conventional view is that it results from the Big Bang. My alternative indicates that said radiation may have had a different source.

Well, how about the point I made earlier about the SZ effect. If it's sourced from within our own galaxy why do we detect the signatures of distant galaxy clusters in it?

How about if it were a stellar remnant, it should be like other stellar remnants we can see in the sky? After all, we see plenty of other kinds of stellar remnants in the sky (with properties quite unlike the CMB incidentally). Why do we not see other microwave sources or other such things mixed in and why is the emission so much like that of a black body?

I don't expect you to be able to answer the last part however, as you do not understand why the CMB in the conventional explanation does have a black body spectrum. Here's it roughly rephrased though - how do you get a black body signal from something that is largely transparent (like space)?

Why is the acoustic scale measured in the CMB consistent with big bang cosmology and what is the your alternative explanation for this?

Why is there a detectable ISW effect in the CMB - again when the distant structure responsible for this effect is in the background to your supposed CMB source? It's the same fundamental problem you have with the SZ effect, but it's a separate effect you have to deal with.

Without explanations of how you can have a suitable black body at all, and without explanations of how background objects can affect your foreground source you're really quite scuppered.

Edit: Or... err... what sol invictus said