Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE

I think the issue is that there is the Hubble relationship, so that object which are measured to be further away show a higher redshift.

OK, the Hubble relationship is a given mathematical relationship between redshift and distance.

So for gravitational red shift to do this we would need to have the effect of gravitation increase with distance.

How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.

Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation. This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point. It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift. DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.* Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue for or against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.

*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Could some one point me to a paper that describes the observational method of detecting the different types of redshift, or is the distinction between for example gravitational redshift and space expansion, calculated or is it a completely different observation.

What I am thinking is that if the wavelength inreases by x amount or y amount, how does that tell you what the cause of the redshift is?
Redshift is redshift is redshift ... observationally, you can't distinguish between the causes of the (observed) redshift from the spectrum alone*.

Gravitational redshift - of the Pound-Rebka kind - is extremely small, unless you have a huge mass in a small volume -> white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes. An astronomical object (outside our solar system) that appears extended (= not a point source), and whose spectrum is redshifted by a constant amount, cannot have such a high mass and density*; can you see why?

If an object is within the Local Group (of galaxies), its redshift will not have a cosmological component (unless you get extremely pedantic); can you see why? So once you have estimated the distance to your target object, and found that it is within the Local Group, ...

For all other objects (for practical purposes, galaxies, globular clusters, and some blobs of gas*), the observed redshift will have both a cosmological (expanding universe) and Dopper ('peculiar velocity') component. Are you interested in how you can estimate how much of each?

* caveats apply.
 
[...]

How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.
You don't ... unless you have something rather special you want to consider, or model.

It might help if you narrowed your scope a bit ("between the emitter and the observer"). If the observer is an astronomical instrument on or near the Earth, then the local gravitational field (Earth, Sun, etc) is easy to calculate, and easily shown to be trivial (=undetectable) wrt any observed redshift. Of course, the motion of the instrument through these fields is far from trivial, and 'backing it out' from the observation is a standard part of data reduction (in astronomy); can you see why (if not how)?

By your reference to CDM may I infer that your "emitter" is an extra-galactic object? If so, then ...

Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?
The 1919 eclipse expedition is widely regarded as being the experiment that 'proved' GR, in that the results were that the deflection of the light from some stars 'near' the Sun was what GR predicts, and not what Newtonian gravity predicts*. With the right kind of alignment, mass can act as a lens, hence the term 'gravitational lensing'. Where deflection occurs that is not 'lensing', astronomers call it 'gravitational shear', or, more confusingly, 'weak lensing'; with the term 'strong lensing' being used for what we mere mortals would call 'lensing'.

In extragalactic astronomy, mass often betrays its presence by lensing, especially in rich clusters.

Baryonic mass betrays its presence by either emission or absorption (or both), though the wavebands in which either can be detected may be very inconvenient (and, sadly, for extragalactic astronomy between ~10 and 100 nm the universe is opaque (caveats apply)).

Of course, this is an extreme summary, with many important details left out ... but then your questions are rather sweeping too! :p

* the facts are rather more complicated; holler if you're interested
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation. This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point.
These were only discovered last October! Such papers probably wouldn't have been published yet. And, afaik, its only one set of observations by one group of people. It really needs to be be verified before we even contemplate throwing our tried and tested theories out the window.

It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift. DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.*
*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
Well yes. When there was no evidence for a lambda term it was assumed it was zero. Now there is it isn't (if you get what I mean). I don't see how a free parameter that is changed as observations improve is a patch. Newton couldn't even measure G. Then others did and we got a value. Then experimental techniques improved and we got a new value. That's hardly a patch is it?

Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.
Give 'em a chance, its been less than half a year.
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation.
I'm sure some people are doing exactly that ... keep your eye out for a paper or three on this, in arXiv, in the next few months.

However, I think you'll find rather more people are sceptical of these 'dark flows', and are digging into the methods, observations, etc (to see if they can find any flaws), or going about independently confirming the results, ... or just waiting until someone else does.

For an idea of what usually happens when something rather dramatic like this comes along, from just one team, check out the flurry of activity that followed the initial 'giant void' finding ...

This is a criticism made by MM on that other thread. I don't believe I have seen a good defense of his point.
May I infer, then, that 'let's wait and see if someone can independently verify these results' is not "a good defense"?

It does have the appearance of ad hoc stuff being used to justify an entrenched viewpoint. Similarly, observations of cosmic acceleration have not resulted in any questioning of the prevailing view of the cause of the cosmological red shift.
Why should they?

I mean, what is it about the SNe Ia, CMB, and BAO observations that you think should trigger such a re-examination?

And in any case, how do you know if such questioning was not, and is not, being done?

DE appears to be thrown in as another patch.* Now, I have said that I am not in a position to argue against these views nor do I have any alternative theories. However, I can ask, has any cosmologist really studied these anomalous observations with a critical eye, or have they all simply searched for patches to sustain the current prevailing viewpoint? I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.

*Theorists will happily tell me that DE has a wonderful consistency with the lambda of GR. The problem I have with this explanation is that lambda has a sad history of being zero or not, to fit the prevailing viewpoint.
(bold added)

If you want to get a scientist angry*, say the words "prevailing dogma" about the consensus models, theories etc of the field she has been working in for a decade or three! :mad:

Do you have a particular reason for choosing to use this inflammatory (and, very likely, defamatory) term?

* unless, of course, a Kuhnian revolution is under way in that field (perhaps)
 
Last edited:
These were only discovered last October! Such papers probably wouldn't have been published yet. And, afaik, its only one set of observations by one group of people. It really needs to be be verified before we even contemplate throwing our tried and tested theories out the window.

Fair enough.

Well yes. When there was no evidence for a lambda term it was assumed it was zero. Now there is it isn't (if you get what I mean). I don't see how a free parameter that is changed as observations improve is a patch. Newton couldn't even measure G. Then others did and we got a value. Then experimental techniques improved and we got a new value. That's hardly a patch is it?

Good point.

Give 'em a chance, its been less than half a year.

OK, but DE has been around for a decade.
This is taken from the Wikipedia article on dark energy:

"Alternative ideas
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarification needed] negating the need for the existence of Dark Energy.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says [Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California]. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.[11]

Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[11]

In a rather radical departure, an article in the open access journal, Entropy, by Professor Paul Gough, put forward the suggestion that information energy must make a significant contribution to dark energy and that this can be shown by referencing the equation of the state of information in the universe. [16]

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities [17][18] or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe."


I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Hi DRD,
Yes please I want more. A link to a good paper would be nice .

PS. It's late at night here in Cape Town and very hot so I won't attempt any answers to your "Can you see why's" On the weekend perhaps.

PPS. According to Feyerabend dogma is actually beneficial to science.
If you were dyslexic the perhaps dogma would be "godam" and thats inflammatory:D
 
OK, but DE has been around for a decade.
This is taken from the Wikipedia article on dark energy:

"Alternative ideas
Some theorists think that dark energy and cosmic acceleration are a failure of general relativity on very large scales, larger than superclusters. It is a tremendous extrapolation to think that our law of gravity, which works so well in the solar system, should work without correction on the scale of the universe. Most attempts at modifying general relativity, however, have turned out to be either equivalent to theories of quintessence, or inconsistent with observations. It is of interest to note that if the equation for gravity were to approach r instead of r2 at large, intergalactic distances, then the acceleration of the expansion of the universe becomes a mathematical artifact,[clarification needed] negating the need for the existence of Dark Energy.

Alternative ideas for dark energy have come from string theory, brane cosmology and the holographic principle, but have not yet proved as compelling as quintessence and the cosmological constant. On string theory, an article in the journal Nature described:

String theories, popular with many particle physicists, make it possible, even desirable, to think that the observable universe is just one of 10500 universes in a grander multiverse, says [Leonard Susskind, a cosmologist at Stanford University in California]. The vacuum energy will have different values in different universes, and in many or most it might indeed be vast. But it must be small in ours because it is only in such a universe that observers such as ourselves can evolve.[11]

Paul Steinhardt in the same article criticizes string theory's explanation of dark energy stating "...Anthropics and randomness don't explain anything... I am disappointed with what most theorists are willing to accept".[11]

In a rather radical departure, an article in the open access journal, Entropy, by Professor Paul Gough, put forward the suggestion that information energy must make a significant contribution to dark energy and that this can be shown by referencing the equation of the state of information in the universe. [16]

Yet another, "radically conservative" class of proposals aims to explain the observational data by a more refined use of established theories rather than through the introduction of dark energy, focusing, for example, on the gravitational effects of density inhomogeneities [17][18] or on consequences of electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe."


I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?) :p

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.

If you're interested in getting a feel for this, I suggest that you read just the abstracts in an appropriate part of arXiv, over just one week. Two to start with might be gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology) and astro-ph.CO (astrophysics, Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics); prepare to have your mind blown ...
 
Hi DRD,
Yes please I want more. A link to a good paper would be nice .
Happy to oblige ...

... but I'd like for you to be a bit more specific about what you're looking for, if you don't mind (otherwise I could easily spend half a dozen hours, come up with LOTS of material, none of which is relevant to what you're interested in).

PS. It's late at night here in Cape Town and very hot so I won't attempt any answers to your "Can you see why's" On the weekend perhaps.

PPS. According to Feyerabend dogma is actually beneficial to science.
If you were dyslexic the perhaps dogma would be "godam" and thats inflammatory:D
Indeed.

And so I guess it would come as no surprise, then, to learn that an awful lot of scientists have a rather ... unambiguous (shall we say) ... feeling about Feyerabend (and most philosophers of science, but he seems to attract particularly unambiguous responses), wouldn't it.

I think the intro to the Wikipedia entry on this word may help to understand why scientists often get angry when the word is applied to them, by those who are not themselves scientists:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. [...]

Due to a stereotypical zeal associated with ideologicial adherents and their claims of doctrinal indisputability, the term "dogma" has come to be used in a pejorative sense to refer to concepts which are claimed by adherents to be "true" and "infallible," but are typically not infallible, and quite often not even true.
 
I don't get a sense from the sources I read that these ideas (other than string theory) are paid much attention. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I'm not all that versed in this area of science (can you tell?) so I'm not in much of a position to comment. Assuming you're correct, and they're all more or less ignored, would you be in a position to assess whether the ignorance was caused by negligence, dogma or just simply cos the theories themselves are inconsistent/wrong/not even wrong?
 
I'm not all that versed in this area of science (can you tell?) so I'm not in much of a position to comment. Assuming you're correct, and they're all more or less ignored, would you be in a position to assess whether the ignorance was caused by negligence, dogma or just simply cos the theories themselves are inconsistent/wrong/not even wrong?

I am not, which is the reason why I have raised the question here and indicated my doubt.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?) :p

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.

I missed si's comment and I have not been aware of that "dramatic difference."
If you're interested in getting a feel for this, I suggest that you read just the abstracts in an appropriate part of arXiv, over just one week. Two to start with might be gr-qc (General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology) and astro-ph.CO (astrophysics, Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics); prepare to have your mind blown ...

I just took a look. I'm already amazed! Thanks for this; tuning in to arXiv from time to time will now become part of my regular routine. It certainly does cast serious doubt on MM's claims of a monolithic unmoving world of cosmologists.
 
Last edited:
I am not, which is the reason why I have raised the question here and indicated my doubt.

Ok. Put it another way...
I have no idea, but I have no basis to believe they have been open to questioning the prevailing dogma.
seems rather like a guilty until proved innocent kind of approach. Especially given that you seemingly have no basis to think they have not been open to questioning the "prevailing dogma" either.
 
OK, the Hubble relationship is a given mathematical relationship between redshift and distance.



How do we calculate what the gravitational fields are between the emitter and the observer, given the amount of dark matter there is.
dark matter is drawn to gravitational masses so it tends to like to hang out with galaxies. i do not believe that it is evenly distributed in the universe. So it's effect on redshift would be more pronounced near galaxies, so i don't thinkit would provide cosmological redshift.
Do we know where all the dark matter is?
Not but it is not evenly distributed.
Do we know where and how much ordinary matter there is between emitter and observer.?

We have some good guesses.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Yeah, you're wrong (happy now?)

I think is was si, in another thread, who commented on the rather dramatic difference between what is presented in popsci material and what those working in the relevant field of science see, and know, in respect of the work that goes on exploring new ideas.
I missed si's comment and I have not been aware of that "dramatic difference."
Here it is; in full (bold added):

sol invictus said:
Your posts are great examples of the classic physics crank pattern. You think the Establishment is suppressing brilliant ideas (yours and Alfven's, in this instance) because it has to protect itself. If only it wouldn't suppress you - as those bad, bad drones at the BAUT forum apparently did - the truth of your ideas would be recognized and you'd be lauded as a great thinker.

The irony is that the physics "establishment" couldn't be further from monolithic. It's more like a collection of desperately hungry ants swarming in all directions. Sure, when one finds some honey many of the rest follow until it's used up - but meanwhile there are always scouts sniffing around in other directions, and the moment one of them finds something promising, it's jumped on by many others.

That doesn't mean they always find the most rapid path to the truth, but it does mean that bad ideas get very, very quickly exposed, and good ideas very, very quickly followed up and exploited.

I just took a look. I'm already amazed! Thanks for this; tuning in to arXiv from time to time will now become part of my regular routine. It certainly does cast serious doubt on MM's claims of a monolithic unmoving world of cosmologists.
Odd, then, as MM has apparently been tilting at windmills for several years now, that he seems unaware of this ...
 
OK, here's a question:

Inflation was presented by Guth to explain the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and more. When the anomalous observations called dark flows were made there was no effort to go back and question inflation.

Those observations first appeared on the web in Sept. 08, and the papers were published in 09. There are already more than 15 papers referencing them.

Moreover, the dark flow observations do not rule out inflation (although they are certainly in tension with most simple versions of it).

Finally, as I said repeatedly earlier, for very good reasons there is a lot of skepticism that the effect is really there. But if it is confirmed, there will be an incredible rush of people madly writing down models to try to explain it.

As for DE, you'll find literally thousands (4,270 to one of the first reports from 1999, to be precise) of papers exploring every conceivable possibility - which is a perfect example of the above effect. More than 4,000 papers in less than ten years (that's more than 1 paper/day!), on something that took the "mainstream" totally by surprise and didn't fit into the models well at all. The dust hasn't settled - far from it. But to argue these things are "ignored" or that there's a set dogma is delusional.
 
Last edited:
Those observations first appeared on the web in Sept. 08, and the papers were published in 09. There are already more than 15 papers referencing them.

Moreover, the dark flow observations do not rule out inflation (although they are certainly in tension with most simple versions of it).

Finally, as I said repeatedly earlier, for very good reasons there is a lot of skepticism that the effect is really there. But if it is confirmed, there will be an incredible rush of people madly writing down models to try to explain it.

As for DE, you'll find literally thousands (4,270 to one of the first reports from 1999, to be precise) of papers exploring every conceivable possibility - which is a perfect example of the above effect. More than 4,000 papers in less than ten years (that's more than 1 paper/day!), on something that took the "mainstream" totally by surprise and didn't fit into the models well at all. The dust hasn't settled - far from it. But to argue these things are "ignored" or that there's a set dogma is delusional.

These recent comments by you and DeiRenDopa have been an eye opener for me. Thanks.
 
These recent comments by you and DeiRenDopa have been an eye opener for me. Thanks.
DRD's and Sol's posts have always been an eye opener for me. They have never shied away from obtuse "layperson" questions and sometimes ridiculous comments.

Thanks for putting the education in JREF.:)

They are not the only ones though, there are others.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom