I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

The scientific commumnity says that there is a tension between the CMB based measurement and the standard candle and other local methods. And you can't resist turning that into a claim that the CMB-based method is wrong (and that therefore we have to throw out lamda-CDM and the whole space expansion thing). It's at best a mistaken reading of what the community is saying and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation.

Not sure who you've been listening to.

Were it not for the CMB measurements, the Hubble constant would probably be considered a solved problem, and researchers would move on to other projects. But the CMB results are highly compelling despite the fact they are not direct measurements of H0. Instead, they are predictions of what H0 should be, given known conditions in the early cosmos and how the universe’s main ingredients influence cosmic expansion.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/2019/06/tension-at-the-heart-of-cosmology

The extrapolations from the early universe are based on the simplest cosmological theory — called lambda cold dark matter, or CDM — which employs just a few parameters to describe the evolution of the universe. Does the new estimate drive a stake into the heart of CDM?

“I think it pushes that stake in a bit more,” Blakeslee said. “But it (CDM) is still alive. Some people think, regarding all these local measurements, (that) the observers are wrong. But it is getting harder and harder to make that claim — it would require there to be systematic errors in the same direction for several different methods: supernovae, SBF, gravitational lensing, water masers. So, as we get more independent measurements, that stake goes a little deeper.”

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/08/how-fast-is-the-universe-expanding-galaxies-provide-one-answer/

In any case.

I'm stuck on the Feynman path integrals.

When a photon travels I add the number of nm traveled to a running total (this includes both the x and y directions). The nm traveled is always 2.997..., the speed of light divided by 10¹⁷.

I'm setting the clock dials to x=cos(total) and y=sin(-1*total), for no other reason than this starts the clocks pointing west and rotate counterclockwise like the cartoon.

When the total distance is 360 or some multiple, the clock points back where it started. So this would be for a photon with a wavelength of 360 nm.

I take all the clock hands when finished, and stick them end to end based on the direction they end up pointing.

I think that's probably wrong.

Because doing that, if I start the clocks pointing in a different direction, or spin them a different way, the final output S shape is the same, but pointing in a different direction.

And that makes sense. If the clocks in the center are pointing in a certain direction when the photon's are finished, that's the direction the red line at the end points. But that seems pretty arbitrary. Move the boundary some and the final S points in a wildly different direction.

You can see it run here, it only takes a couple seconds to finish.


https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/reflection_nm.htm

Here's the output

 

[EHocking]

I don’t think. Space is expanding.

Whenever I see this thread it read the title as above.

 

[hecd2]

Not sure who you've been listening to.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/2019/06/tension-at-the-heart-of-cosmology

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/08/how-fast-is-the-universe-expanding-galaxies-provide-one-answer/

You quote-mine two people's opinions (one of whom is a science journalist, not a cosmologist) expressed in non technical magazines, one of which explicitly acknowledges that other people don't agree with him, and you think that's a proof that it's settled (obvious in your words) that local measurements are right and the LCDM measurements are wrong?

I'll tell you what really is settled: no-one who knows anything thinks that the solution to the Hubble tension is a static Universe. And no-one ever will.

 

[hecd2]

You quote-mine two people's opinions (one of whom is a science journalist, not a cosmologist) expressed in non technical magazines, one of which explicitly acknowledges that other people don't agree with him, and you think that's a proof that it's settled (obvious in your words) that local measurements are right and the LCDM measurements are wrong?

I'll tell you what really is settled: no-one who knows anything thinks that the solution to the Hubble tension is a static Universe. And no-one ever will.

And now I have read both of those articles more closely, I find your characterisation of them even less honest. One of the co-authors in the Berkeley paper actually says he thinks the tension arises from underestimated error bars. And there is no indication that in either paper the community thinks that it is settled where the fundamental cause of the tension is. It seems that you are reading this through your biased lens and either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the current position of the community.

 

[hecd2]

I'm stuck on the Feynman path integrals.

When a photon travels I add the number of nm traveled to a running total (this includes both the x and y directions). The nm traveled is always 2.997..., the speed of light divided by 10¹⁷.

I'm setting the clock dials to x=cos(total) and y=sin(-1*total), for no other reason than this starts the clocks pointing west and rotate counterclockwise like the cartoon.

When the total distance is 360 or some multiple, the clock points back where it started. So this would be for a photon with a wavelength of 360 nm.

I take all the clock hands when finished, and stick them end to end based on the direction they end up pointing.

I think that's probably wrong.

Because doing that, if I start the clocks pointing in a different direction, or spin them a different way, the final output S shape is the same, but pointing in a different direction.

And that makes sense. If the clocks in the center are pointing in a certain direction when the photon's are finished, that's the direction the red line at the end points. But that seems pretty arbitrary. Move the boundary some and the final S points in a wildly different direction.

You can see it run here, it only takes a couple seconds to finish.


https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/reflection_nm.htm

Here's the output

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_76218604dbe42749f0.png

Your description of what you are doing is less than clear, but the output looks right, amazingly because you are working in the dark.

Mike, you have built this model, and you don't know what the arrows represent. What do you think the individual "clock thingies" arrows are showing as they spin round and then settle on a direction at the target? What do you think the resultant figure with scrolls at each end represents? What does its direction and length represent? What are you actually expecting this to tell you? See if you can figure it out for yourself by answering these questions. If you get stuck, I'll help you.

 

[Mike Helland]

Mike, you have built this model, and you don't know what the arrows represent.

Well, distance%wavelength.

What do you think the individual "clock thingies" arrows are showing as they spin round and then settle on a direction at the target? What do you think the resultant figure with scrolls at each end represents? What does its direction and length represent? What are you actually expecting this to tell you? See if you can figure it out for yourself by answering these questions. If you get stuck, I'll help you.

The scrolled ends are where paths are canceling at.

In this gif, and other explanations, it take the resulting arrow directions, and literally just puts them end to end.

The resulting line at the end points from the mirror to the source, indicating the angle.

That only works coincidentally for me.

Does the height and width need to be calibrated to the first and last photons end up pointing right and left respectively?

 

[hecd2]

Well, distance%wavelength.

Try to be more more specific about what the rotating arrows represent. It’s critical to understanding the whole thing. I’ll be back on line later. Remember, it’s a cartoon.

 

[Mike Helland]

One of the co-authors in the Berkeley paper actually says he thinks the tension arises from underestimated error bars.

She.

And the other author points out that four separate local methods must be wrong by the same amount in the same direction.

And there is no indication that in either paper the community thinks that it is settled where the fundamental cause of the tension is.

Well, yeah, it's not unanimous.

But you've got your head in your sand if you deny that a significant part of the community calls the CMB way the indirect method and local measurements the direct method, in journal articles and in wider communications.

Did you see how many solutions are listed here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01183

Take a look at what categories they fall under.

*edit* I don't see how you can look at this:

"The most statistically significant tension is the 4−6σ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant H0 by early time probes with ΛCDM model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H0 from local measurements of distances and redshifts."

which isn't a bold claim by any stretch given the other literature (this paper includes Riess as a coauthor btw)... and keep thinking the predicted values from the model are not predictions.

 

[Mike Helland]

Try to be more more specific about what the rotating arrows represent. It’s critical to understanding the whole thing. I’ll be back on line later. Remember, it’s a cartoon.

They represent any differences in the paths to their neighbors.

Sometimes the S points straight up.

Is the S and the resulting line between its endpoints not supposed to literally and visually show the angle in the underlying coordinate system?

In this image it doesn't seem to do that.

So if the clock hands show just the relative different between the paths, what's the final step to transform those differences into a line from 0,0 (top left) to an angle at the mirror?

It seems there has to be some kind reference point.

 

[Ziggurat]

They represent any differences in the paths to their neighbors.

No, they don't. The path length is related to how you find that arrow, but it isn't the arrow. That should be obvious from the fact that path length is a scalar quantity but those arrows are vectors.

 

[Reality Check]

What about a photon in a vacuum?

What about a photon in a vacuum, Mike Helland?
Snell's law (refraction) is irrelevant. Reflection is irrelevant. A photon in a vacuum will always travel at c. This is a postulate of SR which works and not shown otherwise by experiments. A photon with a frequency will have a certain wavelength. A photon with a different frequency will have a different wavelength. This is not because light is a wave in a medium as you have been citing.

 

[Mike Helland]

What about a photon in a vacuum, Mike Helland?
Snell's law (refraction) is irrelevant. Reflection is irrelevant.

I agree with, Reality Check, that does not apply.

But the others make a very convincing case.

I myself have simulated Snell's law and now Feynman path intregrals using a decelerated photon, and I see their point.

The decelerated photon hypothesis, that redshift is a fundamental phenomenon, can be right if, and only if, cosmologically redshifted photons behave differently than your standard photons.

A photon in a vacuum will always travel at c. This is a postulate of SR which works and not shown otherwise by experiments.

Ok.

Then testing that postulate with light from very distant sources seems like a good idea.

 

[Reality Check]

Why does it redshift?....

Irrelevant questions, Mike Helland. Also you cannot understand simple things about light such as it is not a wave in a medium then you will struggle to understand cosmology.
Cosmological redshift is that light has to travel a longer distance as the universe expands. Its wavelength increase. Its frequency decreases.
We do measure the expansion of the universe as you know .
We might need new physics to resolve one side of the Hubble tension.
We do no need any new type of dark energy. If dark energy is not constant then that may resolve the Hubble tension.
Hubble's law was actually discovered in 1927 by Georges Lemaître. Hubble's 1929 paper was published published in a widely read journal.
The overwhelming evidence for an expensing universe is why it is smart to look for new physic, etc. to resolve the Hubble tension. Remember that these are actual measurements of the universe expanding!

 

[Mike Helland]

Cosmological redshift is that light has to travel a longer distance as the universe expands. Its wavelength increase. Its frequency decreases.

Indeed.

I think the wavelength increase happens when the photon's energy is absorbed and re-emitted as a new photon.

The others have shown this is incompatible with Snell's law.

 

[Reality Check]

What debate, Mike Helland

67 and 74 aren't slightly different.

It's wrong.

You still do not understand the Hubble tension, Mike Helland. The tension is not that both values are known to be wrong. It is that the conflicting values say that the real value is one of them or that there is another value close to them that is correct.

The debate on this was interrupted by WWII. After the war, the debate was never really picked up.

What debate, Mike Helland?
All of the new redshifts have confirmed Hubble's law and an expanding universe.

 

[Mike Helland]

You still do not understand the Hubble tension, Mike Helland.
The tension is not that both values are known to be wrong. It is that the conflicting values say that the real value is one of them or that there is another value close to them that is correct.

"Both" values, as in back in November?

Thing have changed even since this thread started in November.

Using a relatively new and potentially more precise technique for measuring cosmic distances, which employs the average stellar brightness within giant elliptical galaxies as a rung on the distance ladder, astronomers calculate a rate — 73.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec, give or take 2.5 km/sec/Mpc — that lies in the middle of three other good estimates, including the gold standard estimate from Type Ia supernovae. This means that for every megaparsec — 3.3 million light years, or 3 billion trillion kilometers — from Earth, the universe is expanding an extra 73.3 ±2.5 kilometers per second. The average from the three other techniques is 73.5 ±1.4 km/sec/Mpc.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/03/08/how-fast-is-the-universe-expanding-galaxies-provide-one-answer/

So, it appears that there is a real and significant difference between the direct measurement of the current expansion rate of the universe and a prediction using data from billions of years ago.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/drdonlincoln/2021/01/05/crisis-in-cosmology-gets-worse/?sh=5a7d768e2826

It's not just CMB vs Supernovae now.

It's CMB vs a list of separate methods.

What debate, Mike Helland?
All of the "new redshifts" have confirmed of Hubble's law and an expanding universe.

Confirmed a non-linear expansion, contrary to Hubble's law.

 

[Reality Check]

"Both" values, as in back in November? ...

Repeating irrelevance about the Hubble tension does not show that you understand that it is still an expanding universe, Mike Helland
Citing evidence that the cosmic ladder (late universe) method is correct is you debunking your you idea ! The overwhelming physical evidence that the universe is expanding still makes your idea into a fantasy.
The early universe values do not only come from the CMB as you know.

 

[Reality Check]

....

Nothing to do with my question.
What debate, Mike Helland? You wrote "The debate on this was interrupted by WWII. After the war, the debate was never really picked up."

 

[Mike Helland]

Nothing to do with my question.
What debate, Mike Helland? You wrote "The debate on this was interrupted by WWII. After the war, the debate was never really picked up."

The debate on how to interpret the redshifts.

It was an open question in the 1930's, with Hubble declaring he had debunked it in 1941, a couple weeks after Pearl Harbor.

Scientific interests switched, and Hubble was assigned to a wind tunnel. Galaxies didn't win wars.

Later a new generation returned to the field assuming space was expanding. The big bang theory and steady state theory (where space expands but it was never smaller in the past) were the big theories in the 1950's.

In 1964, the big bang took over with the discovery of the CMB. In the 1970's it was riddled with problems culminated in the new inflation theory. In the Planck time immediately following the big bang it hyper inflated.

In 1998 the acceleration was discovered. Not long after that, the CMB anomalies showed up. Then the galaxy evolution models fell apart. Now the Hubble tension.

Armed with everything we've learned, I don't think going back to the original question is as stupid as you all think.

But I realize that's an uphill battle.

 

[hecd2]

Confirmed a non-linear expansion, contrary to Hubble's law.

Just a quick aside. A non-constant expansion rate doesn't violate Hubble's law. Hubble's constant, H(t) is not necessarily constant in time and all the furore is about H₀, the current value of the Hubble constant.