Why Inflation Theory Is So Great? [Archive] - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

Mosheh Thezion

26-September-2005, 06:52 AM

Inflation is based on the red shift...

and its said generally, that the rate of expansion around our body and planet, is so small it does not overcome the attractive forces that hold us together...

but that over cosmic distances.. like between stars and galaxies..

this distance is enough for an effect to be had on photons in motion.

something like 78 miles of expansion per light year, or something like that.

anyway.. when we look at the spectra of common stars, we see that from red to blue, a star like ours for example has a common signiture, of black lines in the spectrum.
these lines being obsorbtion lines... and they are placed in specifc places... naturally.
but now the stars farther away, show a shift.. not of the spectrum, but of the postion of the lines... and this shows that every photon of every frequency was effected in its journey arcoss space... this thus..

is the basis for inflation...

but it is not evidense that space is expanding... but as i have been oft proposing it is evidense that it maybe trying to.. as by moving 4 dimensionally..
which simply put is like going up and to the side at the same time, without going diagnoally.. its balloon expansion, which can be realised in simple terms by a two way spin on all of space.

thus..
space seems to be expanding... and its the red shift that says so.

other than that.. i don't think there is any reason to believe space is doing anything!

-MT

ferg.c.

26-September-2005, 09:05 AM

Hi Mosheh,
I think you might be a little confused about the terminology here. Inflation is the word cosmologists use to describe a phase in the growth of the Universe. It refers to a time about 500 million years after the big bang when the rate of expansion of the universe started to increase. some time later the rate of expansion started to decrease again but not to a stand still - the Universe is still expanding and at an accelerating rate. The cause of this inflationary period is assumed to be dark energy but we don't know what that might be. There are more questions than answers at the moment in cosmology but that's what makes it exciting!
Cheers
Ferg

Mosheh Thezion

27-September-2005, 05:50 AM

Ferg.C.

those ideas were developed after many years.. and why?
for patching up big bang..? why??

'cause it full of holes...

is not 4D, an expansion?
-MT

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 01:56 PM

Can anyone tell me what the inflation theory has done to become the top theory in explaining the origin of the universe and how it came about?

It is an epicycle that corrected another epicycle (the big bang hypothesis), but also required an epicycle itself (dark energy), ad infinitum.

The original root of the problem: the 19th century Doppler effect interpretation of the shift of absorption lines in the spectra of galaxies. What happened afterwards is analogous to what often happens in conspiracy theories: everything is forced to fit the theory.

It won't last much longer, though. Ten days ago I sold a copy of my astronomy book and during the past two months I have given away nearly forty copies of earlier editions and yesterday at least three curious scientists took two leaflets about my book and one of them showed it to a colleague. I give the big bang hypothesis and inflation at most ten years.

TravisM

27-September-2005, 02:33 PM

The inflationary epoc is defined as the time when space expanded faster than the speed of light. It solved 3 problems at once, as mentioned prior, and did it in such a way as not to violate GR.
The coolest one is the CMBR (Microwave Background) or Horizon Problem. If you re-winded the linear expansion of the original big bang, you'd come to a point where the CMBR should be produced and find that none of the constiuents (atomic nuclei) were in contact long enough to become so nearly the same temperature.
In the inflationary rewind scenario you'd find things came together more quickly allowing them more time to become thermalized.

Also, the expansion of space is so incredibly tiny that, when you do the numbers, the other forces at work in any system (be it atomic, solar, galactic, etc..) over come it quite easily. On truely large scales it is additive to the point it overcomes gravity, and superclusters don't have a chance of staying "neighborly..."
~72Km/sec/Mpc = 72Km/sec/3,260,000ly =
72Km/sec/30,841,327,800,000,000,000km
As you can see, adding 72Km to the number of Kilometers in a MegaParsec is a drop in bucket... although the drop in the bucket is off by many orders of magnitude!
[edit to add]
2.3345298382387e-19 Km per second per Km

Fortunate

27-September-2005, 03:03 PM

I am not an "expert." Neither am I an advocate of nor an apologist for any physical theory. Here are some things I have read or at least think I have read.

The theory of inflation was proposed by a physicist named Alan Guth in 1980, decades after the formation of the so-called big bang theory. In one stroke, it solved the problems cited by Cougar and, perhaps, some others also (q.v., From Quarks to the Cosmos by Lederman and Schramm). Along with reconciling several major questions raised by the big bang theory, the theory of inflation makes a dramatic prediction: namely, that the underlying geometry of the local universe be flat. Since this would require the sum of the mass and energy densities of the universe to have a particular value, it seems unlikely to happen by coincidence. Although other theories can be adjusted to accomodate such a mass and energy density, none, to my knowledge, predicts such a value.

Things looked bad for inflation throughout the early and mid-1990's as experiment after experiment showed that the mass density of the universe was far less than the amount needed to produce local flatness. Then, in the late 1990's a group announced that they had discovered that the local universe was basically flat, like a flat surface with dimples in it, the dimples being the result of even more localized gravitational fields. This result preceded the discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating.

A few years later, two group were independently observing type 1A supernovae to measure what everyone presumed would be the rate of deceleration of the universe. Logic said that gravity should progressively slow down the expansion. The question at the time was whether gravity would eventually decelerate the expansion to the extent of reversing it and producing a "big crunch" or whether the universe would continue to expand for ever, albeit at a decreasing rate. To their shock, both groups found that the expansion rate was actually increasing rather than decreasing. This acceleration led to the proposal that there most be some form of "dark energy" driving the acceleration. Although dark energy was not proposed for any reason arising from the theory of inflation, its presence might eventually support inflation theory by, perhaps, if there turns out to be precisely the right amount of it, leading to the value for the total mass and energy of the universe predicted by inflation. We will have to wait to find out. If the dark energy turns out to exist in precisely the right amount, that would be a huge feather in the cap of inflation theory because making correct predictions for otherwise unlikely eventualities is a lot more impressive than merely accounting for things using hindsight.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 03:46 PM

It is an epicycle that corrected another epicycle (the big bang hypothesis), but also required an epicycle itself (dark energy), ad infinitum.

The original root of the problem: the 19th century Doppler effect interpretation of the shift of absorption lines in the spectra of galaxies. What happened afterwards is analogous to what often happens in conspiracy theories: everything is forced to fit the theory.Well said, I agree that we'll know one way or the other fairly soon. The next generation of space telescopes is likely to provide us enough information to discern if we've just been falling down the rabbit hole.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 03:56 PM

As the space widens, wouldn't the space between atoms also increase? Or do they pull themselves together somehow, and therefore stay together in spite of the expansion of space?I believe the explanations are either "it's not expanding enough for us to notice locally" or "everything is expanding together, even our atoms". That is to say, you can't measure space expansion with a ruler, because the ruler itself is expanding along with space.

Personally I think we jumped to conclusions when we saw Hubble's redshifts some 80 years ago (the sole 'evidence' of space expansion) and, as with every generation of science for all of history, assumed we 'figured it all out', discounting any dissenters as heretics in the process. I'd like to see more astronomers at least try to use 'old physics' to explain mysterious observations, rather than consistently resorting to Dark Matter/Energy whenever observation doesn't match theory. There's no shame in admitting that we just don't know yet.

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 04:08 PM

I'd like to see more astronomers at least try to use 'old physics' to explain mysterious observations.

I did, though I am not an astronomer. They cannot, because they are normal people, bound by paradigm, whereas I am not. Check out my homepage.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 04:12 PM

I did, though I am not an astronomer. They cannot, because they are normal people, bound by paradigm, whereas I am not. Check out my homepage.The problem seems most pervasive for astronomers trying to make news headlines, in which case Dark Matter is referenced probably 90% of the time. I can only hope that clinging to Dark Matter whenever you can't find a real answer doesn't help actual peer review publication.

Cougar

27-September-2005, 04:17 PM

Hi Mosheh,
I think you might be a little confused about the terminology here.
You're quite right about that.
Inflation is the word cosmologists use to describe a phase in the growth of the Universe. It refers to a time about 500 million years after the big bang when the rate of expansion of the universe started to increase
Well, you missed a bit on this one. As the above link states, "Guth proposed that very early in its history, when it was only 10^(-37) seconds old, the universe suddenly began to expand at an exponential rate. In other words, as time passed by the universe grew even larger even faster as its rate of expansion increased. It very rapidly exploded in size by 25 orders of magnitude when suddenly, just 10^(-34) seconds later, this period of "inflation" (as Guth called it) came to a halt. It's comparable to watching a pea become the size of a galaxy in an instant. After the inflationary era the universe continued to expand, but its rate of expansion remained comparatively steady for the next 13.7 billion years."

Cougar

27-September-2005, 04:44 PM

The original root of the problem: the 19th century Doppler effect interpretation of the shift of absorption lines in the spectra of galaxiesBut when we measure the spectral shift of stars on the side of a distant galaxy that is spinning toward us and compare the spectral shift of the other side spinning away from us, this seems to indicate that our interpretation of spectral shift is correct, doesn't it? So your claim that this interpretation is a problem is.... problematic.
It won't last much longer, though. Ten days ago I sold a copy of my astronomy book and during the past two months I have given away nearly forty copies of earlier editions and yesterday at least three curious scientists took two leaflets about my book and one of them showed it to a colleague.
Selling like hotcakes, huh?
I give the big bang hypothesis and inflation at most ten years.I don't recommend holding your breath.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 05:16 PM

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 05:20 PM

But when we measure the spectral shift of stars on the side of a distant galaxy that is spinning toward us and compare the spectral shift of the other side spinning away from us, this seems to indicate that our interpretation of spectral shift is correct, doesn't it?

It indicates that the galaxy is rotating. That does not imply that the Doppler effect interpretation that the galaxy is moving away from us is correct. What you imply is analogous to the familiar statement that grass is green and the moon is made from Swiss cheese. Many people will swallow the second part of the statement and therefore the untruth because they know that the first part in some cases is correct (grass may also be blue or yellow or perhaps other colors) and assume that therefore the second part must also be correct, whereas they would reject the second statement if it was made as a single statement. I am not one of those many people.

So your claim that this interpretation is a problem is.... problematic.

As problematic as fishing in the ocean. For you, not for me: your boat/logic has holes in it, mine is waterproof. (nothing personal)

Selling like hotcakes, huh?

Yes. Ever tried selling hotcakes to somebody who has never heard about, seen nor tasted a hotcake? I am quite satisfied. There are about 160 copies in various editions in circulation and at least one person has read it (though I suspect that he has since passed away). I even know about one copy that has reached the second hand circuit.
Anyway, many stones may fall from a mountain, but only some of them will start the avalanche. My possibly dead stone may, as he wrote an extensive review. I am very grateful to him.

I don't recommend holding your breath.

You mean after ten years has passed? Good advice. I will do as you recommend. ;)

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 05:30 PM

Even the sun appears red-shifted, but we know it's not moving away from us

Bingo! Do you have a reference? (I did not expect that, as the sun is at "laboratory" distance. Anyway, I thought that the sun does move a little bit away from us and towards us. It has its own orbit, after all, and Earth's orbit itself is slightly elliptical. I would like to know more about this redshift. Or is it gravitational?)

what's to say Hubble's redshift isn't gravitational instead of Doppler?

I say so.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 05:44 PM

Bingo! Do you have a reference? (I did not expect that, as the sun is at "laboratory" distance. Anyway, I thought that the sun does move a little bit away from us and towards us. It has its own orbit, after all, and Earth's orbit itself is slightly elliptical. I would like to know more about this redshift. Or is it gravitational?)
The sun's gravitational redshift has been measured, but I believe there is a more outstanding solar redshift that remains unaccounted for.

Here's a recent paper (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v595n2/17223/brief/17223.abstract.html) that references an unknown solar redshift. Also, here is an abstract (http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR05/Event/28874) that is slightly more relevant, which considers a plasma redshift.

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 06:22 PM

Thank you so much. Especially the second reference seems interesting, though I doubt that plasma redshift explains the cosmic background radiation, although I have not read the arguments yet.

I saved the references and the text of the abstract and will investigate these at a later date.
Thank you so much.

Fortunate

27-September-2005, 07:42 PM

Some messages imply that dark matter is an arcane, highly artificial, and contrived concept posited to support the theory of inflation. I had understood (perhaps I am wrong) that when it was observed that the motions of stars and galaxies implied that they were being tugged by forces greater than the gravitational attractions of the bodies that we could see, that a relatively simple solution was to imagine that there might be some other matter that we couldn't see. This putative stuff was referred to as "dark matter." Just seems like Occam's razor at work. Of course, that doesn't mean that this explanation is correct.

akirabakabaka

27-September-2005, 08:19 PM

dirkbontes

27-September-2005, 11:49 PM

Indeed. That also would have been my response.
Explaining new phenomena by applying - without any supporting evidence - a theory to it that describes a familiar phenomenon, is the recourse of the inept (i.e. just about everybody, so there is no shame in that).
I discuss such phenomena and their solutions in my book.

Fortunate

28-September-2005, 12:25 AM

A number of years ago, when I first read about the theory of inflation, I concluded that it might well turn out to be correct. Of course, I was probably influenced by the attitude of the person who wrote the book that I read. I think he favored the theory. But I was convinced largely by some thoughts that I had independently of his. I don't understand quantum theory, so I couldn't evaluate it from that angle, but I often have to speculate about the truth of statements that I can't or won't bother to scrupulously verify.

The theory seemed credible partly because the majority, or at least a large number of people who knew more about the subject than I did, found it plausible. Perhaps that seems wimpy, but, in fact, I sometimes cull the number of options that way. Life is short, and I don't intend to spend it plowing through dead end streets. Perhaps I am not alone in that. I realized that the theory was unproven and, hence, tentative.

It was the fact that it solved so many apparently diverse problems simultaneously that impressed me the most. The number and range of its successes seemed unlikely to be a coincidence. Ad hoc fixes tend to be monogamous. When I see a guy with a whole flock of beautiful women hanging all over him, I figure he must have something.

SirBlack

28-September-2005, 01:11 AM

Shouldn't Occam's razor work against Dark Matter? Is it simpler to admit our theories don't accurately describe the universe on a galactic scale (as observation would imply), or to decide that this all-encompassing all-mysterious unobservable Dark Matter is screwing up our observations?

Perhaps it really is simpler to fool ourselves into believing this rather than fixing our equations, but I don't think that's the purpose of the razor. ;)

Well, here's how I look at it...

Observation: Gravity works quite well at scales ranging from small objects on Earth to at least everything in the solar system.

Problem: Distant galaxies show phenomena that must be caused by stronger forces than the gravity provided by the visible matter in those galaxies.

Question: In regards to a distant galaxy, is it plausible that all matter present is visible to us?

Speculative Answer: No, some amount of matter is very likely not visible to us. (Though this does not necessarily mean a significant amount.)

Solution #1: The amount of non-visible matter is insignificant. Our understanding of gravity is invalid at galacitc scales.

Questions wrt #1: Are there any other reasons to suspect gravity is wrong at large scales? If we look at smaller-than-galactic scales, are there proportional discrepancies between observation and expectations based on the current understanding of gravity? Can we form any sort of modified equation of gravity that would agree with all observations on all scales?

Solution #2: The amount of non-visible matter is insignificant. Gravity works as understood currently. But there is some other force working together with gravity to produce the phenomena.

Question wrt #2: Do we have any other reasons to suspect such a force exists that can operate on such large scales?

Solution #3: The amount of non-visible matter is actually significant and is present in the necessary amount to produce the phenomena from gravitational effects alone. (This is Dark Matter)

Question wrt #3: Are there any other ways this non-visible matter could be shown to exist? For instance, if this matter had been present from the beginning of the universe, would it have had any observable consequences?

Now which of those solutions is really the simplest? I guess it depends on if there are any answers to those questions in regards to each solution. I seem to recall that Dark Matter agrees withsome other ideas/theories/phenomena so wouldn't that make it the preferable solution?

Fortunate

28-September-2005, 01:16 AM

Explaining new phenomena by applying - without any supporting evidence - a theory to it that describes a familiar phenomenon, is the recourse of the inept (i.e. just about everybody, so there is no shame in that).
I discuss such phenomena and their solutions in my book.

Are you asserting that it is inane to at least suspect that the laws of gravity might be the same in galaxies as they are on earth and in our solar system? I thought that dark matter was simply postulated to account for the fact that the gravitational pull from objects visible to us didn't account for the observed trajectories.

Or do you mean that it is foolish to assume that the existence of dark matter is the only possible explanation?

Or do you mean that, in the light of more recent evidence, the existence of dark matter no longer seems plausible, yet people still cling to the idea?

Or do you mean something else? I don't mean to be combative. I am just not sure what you mean.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 01:42 AM

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 01:45 AM

Of course, I was probably influenced by the attitude of the person who wrote the book that I read.

We all are easily influenced and many of us will buy the Eifel tower and thus happiness.

I often have to speculate about the truth of statements that I can't or won't bother to scrupulously verify.

That's inherent to life. Is there a lion behind the bush or not? Sometimes you have to take a gamble.

The theory seemed credible partly because the majority, or at least a large number of people who knew more about the subject than I did, found it plausible. Perhaps that seems wimpy, but, in fact, I sometimes cull the number of options that way.

No, that is quite all right. Everybody does that, even when it concerns pink elephants. It is impossible to know and understand all, so sometimes you have to set sail by those people who specialize in such things.

I realized that the theory was unproven and, hence, tentative.

That caution was wise.

It was the fact that it solved so many apparently diverse problems simultaneously that impressed me the most. The number and range of its successes seemed unlikely to be a coincidence. Ad hoc fixes tend to be monogamous. When I see a guy with a whole flock of beautiful women hanging all over him, I figure he must have something.

Sure, that is a good indicator. I hope to convince people for that reason also.

You are sensible.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 01:51 AM

As the space widens, wouldn't the space between atoms also increase?
No. The electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions are probably 50 orders of magnitude stronger than the barely perceptible expansion of space, so nuclear particles are well anchored to their set distances. Even gravitation beyond our galaxy - out to about 4 million lightyears - is strong enough to totally swamp the expansion effect. If astronomers could only see our Local Group of galaxies, they couldn't tell the universe was expanding.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 02:01 AM

Are you asserting that it is inane to at least suspect that the laws of gravity might be the same in galaxies as they are on earth and in our solar system?

No, the laws of nature and especially physics are the same everywhere. They are defined by the structure of the universe.

I thought that dark matter was simply postulated to account for the fact that the gravitational pull from objects visible to us didn't account for the observed trajectories.

Indeed, simply, simplistically. We used to have a light in the ceiling and a cord that needed to be pulled to activate or inactivate that light. That cord had the length of the hight of the ceiling minus the length of an arm. Should we then deduce from this that the light that the sun emits is activated and inactivated by a cord that is as long as the distance to the sun minus the length of an arm?
There is no evidence at all that the phenomenon observed is caused by additional gravitational force. Dark matter was postulated to explain a gravitational force that does not necessarily exist. Now it would have been another thing entirely if first the existence of dark matter had been proven and only then the phenomenon had been observed. Then postulating dark matter would have been plausible. Now it is a fantasy creature.

Or do you mean that it is foolish to assume that the existence of dark matter is the only possible explanation?

Yes.

Or do you mean that, in the light of more recent evidence, the existence of dark matter no longer seems plausible, yet people still cling to the idea?

I do not know of any such evidence, nor do I care. I know an epicycle when I see one.

Or do you mean something else? I don't mean to be combative. I am just not sure what you mean.

I assume I have made myself clear. No offence taken.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 02:17 AM

But when we measure the spectral shift of stars on the side of a distant galaxy that is spinning toward us and compare the spectral shift of the other side spinning away from us, this seems to indicate that our interpretation of spectral shift is correct, doesn't it?It indicates that the galaxy is rotating. That does not imply that the Doppler effect interpretation that the galaxy is moving away from us is correct. What you imply is analogous to the familiar statement that grass is green and the moon is made from Swiss cheese. Many people will swallow the second part of the statement and therefore the untruth because they know that the first part in some cases is correct (grass may also be blue or yellow or perhaps other colors) and assume that therefore the second part must also be correct, whereas they would reject the second statement if it was made as a single statement. I am not one of those many people.... your boat/logic has holes in it, mine is waterproof. (nothing personal)I'm afraid it's your logic that leaves quite a bit to be desired. The differential redshift readings on the "left" and "right" sides of spinning galaxies provide proof that spectral shift is directly correlated with motion relative to an observer, just like terrestrial experiments have shown. Perhaps you can explain how you then "logically disconnect" this correlation when comparing whole galaxies with different spectral shifts. Ahoy, ye land lubber?...at least one person has read it (though I suspect that he has since passed away).Hopefully your book did not cause this condition.Anyway, many stones may fall from a mountain, but only some of them will start the avalanche.Oh, so you've read Per Bak's How Nature Works? Now, there's a good science book.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 02:21 AM

Now which of those solutions is really the simplest?

Scientist usually do not guess; unless they guess lucky, like mathematicians are wont to do.

Neither do I guess. Either we know, or we do not know. I do not care whether a solution is the simplest or not. I require a solution to be correct.

I guess it depends on if there are any answers to those questions in regards to each solution.

Yes, it depends, especially on critical ability and creativity.

I seem to recall that Dark Matter agrees withsome other ideas/theories/phenomena so wouldn't that make it the preferable solution?

No. My shoe fits those ideas/theories/phenomena also. And I like to use that shoe to kick this imaginary dark matter aside.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 02:22 AM

This might be rhetorically clever, but factually, it is inaccurate.

I defer to your wisdom, but please enlighten us concisely.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 02:40 AM

There is no evidence at all that the phenomenon observed is caused by additional gravitational force. Dark matter was postulated to explain a gravitational force that does not necessarily exist.Well, the strong and weak nuclear forces are certainly ruled out. The only other known force of nature - electromagnetism - does not seem to be a realistic candidate. Surely that would be detectable in other ways, which are not observed?

So are you saying we should skip over what Fortunate suggests is the simplest, most direct possibility and jump with both feet to hypothesize a new, unknown force of nature in order to explain what appears to be the gravitational effect of nonluminous matter that we have not yet been able to detect?

Well, I suppose you can try it, but it seems a lot like going "all in" before the flop when you're holding nothing more than a deuce and a 7 off-suit.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 02:42 AM

No. The electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions are probably 50 orders of magnitude stronger than the barely perceptible expansion of space, so nuclear particles are well anchored to their set distances.

You presume that this imaginary expansion of space, this imaginary change in the very structure of the universe, will not affect the forces and constants of nature that are defined by that structure. That is not a fact, but an opinion: your opinion. I have a message for you that will alarm you, but that will hopefully also reduce your hubris: the universe does not care one bit about your opinion.

Even gravitation beyond our galaxy - out to about 4 million lightyears - is strong enough to totally swamp the expansion effect.

We have just dismissed that argument as your opinion and hubris, so that does not count.

If astronomers could only see our Local Group of galaxies, they couldn't tell the universe was expanding.

So it isn't. That is clear, isn't it? Now solve the problem: why are the absorption lines in the spectra of non-local galaxies shifting and shifting disproportionately? No, you cannot use expansion, we just ruled that out. No, nor proper motion either. No, it isn't gravitational. Come on, jump a little up and down to spike those brains. You can do it! (Ssh! You might crib something from my homepage.)

Cougar

28-September-2005, 02:52 AM

I defer to your wisdom, but please enlighten us concisely.Well, Alan Guth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201328402/104-9971410-5475107?v=glance) was a particle physicist, not a cosmologist. He wasn't particularly looking to prop up the big bang theory. As one of the reviewers at Amazon says, it was his "painstaking and persistent analysis of magnetic monopole production in grand unified theories that led him, step by step, to one of the great breakthroughs of 20th-century science, the discovery of the cosmic inflation that conjured our universe out of a speck of vacuum far smaller than a proton."

Platinum Rhymer

28-September-2005, 02:52 AM

Actually an astrophsycist told me that the inflation theory stock is rising because the last major observational result was in support of it (CMB power spectrum).

Cougar

28-September-2005, 03:14 AM

You presume that this imaginary expansion of space...The expansion of space is not a mere opinion. It is a conclusion based on observations and logic. No, it's not a proven fact carved in stone. Observations are facts. Theories are supported by facts. Opinions... well, anybody can have an opinion.We have just dismissed that argument...Cases are dismissed when there is a lack of evidence. In this case, there is plenty of evidence for expansion, or haven't you been keeping up?why are the absorption lines in the spectra of non-local galaxies shifting and shifting disproportionately?Not sure what you're talking about here, Dirk. For the last 80 years the spectra of non-local galaxies have been shown to shift in a very direct proportion to their distance from us, their distance being ascertained by other means, such as Cepheid variable stars, RR Lyrae stars, general brightness, type Ia supernova peak brightness, etc.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 03:18 AM

Actually an astrophsycist told me that the inflation theory stock is rising because the last major observational result was in support of it (CMB power spectrum)....which provides the lesson that scientific theories gain strength not because more people "like" them, but because they gain more supporting observational evidence.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 03:41 AM

I'm afraid it's your logic that leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Perhaps you are right. We should examine that. However, if my logic is at fault I am not qualified to judge that. If your logic is qualified, please be so kind to judge mine. If not, perhaps another judge will be found.

The differential redshift readings on the "left" and "right" sides of spinning galaxies provide proof that spectral shift is directly correlated with motion relative to an observer, just like terrestrial experiments have shown. Perhaps you can explain how you then "logically disconnect" this correlation when comparing whole galaxies with different spectral shifts.

It is analogous to a square being a rectangle, but a rectangle not necessarily being a square. You are offering the green grass and the Swiss cheese together. So, no it does not provide proof that spectral shift is directly correlated with motion relative to an observer. That part of a shift in the position of absorption lines in a spectrum is due to proper motion - whether rotation or approaching or moving away - does not necessarily mean that all of this shift is due to proper motion. As there is no evidence at all that distant galaxies have any more proper motion than nearby galaxies, the average shift in the position of absorption lines in a spectra of nearby galaxies due to proper motion should be subtracted from that of distant galaxies to simulate their on average not moving at al. Any redshift that remains - supposedly a lot - requires an explanation other than proper motion or expansion.

Ahoy, ye land lubber?

:)
I like that.

Hopefully your book did not cause this condition.

No, he had criticism, some justified, but then reviewers nearly always have some criticism. But he had a lot of praise also, so he was a cautious believer.

Oh, so you've read Per Bak's How Nature Works? Now, there's a good science book.

Haven't read it. Perhaps should. Thank you for the recommendation.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 03:52 AM

Some messages imply that dark matter is an arcane, highly artificial, and contrived concept posited to support the theory of inflation.That's exactly why it is seen as contrived, it was created in order to mold observation to match theory (not inflation theory, but galactic rotation as you mentioned)...It's difficult to make sense of your criticism here, Bakabaka. We have an observation that stellar orbits within galaxies are moving at particular rates. And we have totaled up the mass of all the luminous stuff along with the known gas and dust within such galaxies. And we find that the total observed mass does not account for the observed orbital velocities, that is, according to Newton's universal gravitation (which we know is accurate enough to use in our spaceflight calculations) OR Einstein's General Theory of gravitational acceleration, which in practical terms doesn't differ much from Newton's laws at the speeds we're talking about. These are very strongly supported theories. So what do you suggest? The galaxy is a big place. Is it so inconceivable that there is a lot to it that we are not detecting? I suppose it's possible that our gravitational theories are for some reason inaccurate at galactic scales. Fact is, new gravitational theories have been tried; problem is, they have failed to remain consistent with all the observations. They don't work. So again, your criticism that dark matter is "contrived" is difficult to understand when dark matter is currently the only explanation that can be consistent with reality. If you've got another explanation with observational evidence to support it, bring it on!

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 03:52 AM

Well, Alan Guth (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201328402/104-9971410-5475107?v=glance) was a particle physicist, not a cosmologist. He wasn't particularly looking to prop up the big bang theory. As one of the reviewers at Amazon says, it was his "painstaking and persistent analysis of magnetic monopole production in grand unified theories that led him, step by step, to one of the great breakthroughs of 20th-century science, the discovery of the cosmic inflation that conjured our universe out of a speck of vacuum far smaller than a proton."

So Guth had his day in court. Good for him. And I do not doubt that he was a lot smarter than I. Good for him too.

I won't go into magnetic monopoles, but I would like to be shown one, preferably more, so I may be sure that I am not fooled.

So perhaps I did not formulate my rhetoric sufficiently perfect. Nevertheless, if inflation was not invented for the purpose of being an epicycle for the big bang - did I say that? - it certainly does function as such an epicycle, not so? That was what my rhetoric intended to assert.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 04:46 AM

Well, the strong and weak nuclear forces are certainly ruled out. The only other known force of nature - electromagnetism - does not seem to be a realistic candidate. Surely that would be detectable in other ways, which are not observed?

Darn you. ;) I was not sure myself, so I had to take out my book and read my own book, which I had not meant to do. I consulted the index and it wasn't indexed as rotation, nor as Rosalind (a moon), but under galaxies - rotational velocity. see page 66, where I found not Rosalind, but Vera Rubin.
Having read page 66 and 67, I now have to swallow one of my statements: the force is gravitational, but it is not dark matter that causes it, but matter that has already been detected. (There, confessing my mistake did not hurt; it does embarass me, though. :o Um, the more I consider it, the more it hurts. Ouch!)

So are you saying we should skip over what Fortunate suggests is the simplest, most direct possibility and jump with both feet to hypothesize a new, unknown force of nature in order to explain what appears to be the gravitational effect of nonluminous matter that we have not yet been able to detect?

No, according to my book he is right: it is gravity. No, there is no new unknown force of nature. Yes, I suppose the matter is nonluminous. No, we have already detected it.

Well, I suppose you can try it, but it seems a lot like going "all in" before the flop when you're holding nothing more than a deuce and a 7 off-suit.

Yeah, well before I opened my book that would be a sound assertion, but when I opened it a handful of aces fell out. It is up to you smart guys to play them and do the calculations that prove that my solution is correct; I mainly do conceptual science.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 05:33 AM

The expansion of space is not a mere opinion. It is a conclusion based on observations and logic.

So? That does not mean that it is true.

No, it's not a proven fact carved in stone.

See. ;)

Observations are facts.

Quite. (Last Monday I spoke a philosopher who told me that facts are constructions that do not exist. Either she was smarter than I - which is likely - or she was more crazy than I - which I consider certain; at least I am not that crazy.)

Theories are supported by facts.

Wrong theories are also supported by facts. Perhaps it is better to say that hypotheses are supported by facts, that theories fit the facts and that wrong theories appear or are made to fit the facts.

Opinions... well, anybody can have an opinion.

Most people do and confuse them with truth.

Cases are dismissed when there is a lack of evidence. In this case, there is plenty of evidence for expansion, or haven't you been keeping up?

No, I have been out of it for five years and it will be a few months more before I return. I do not care for any such evidence anyway: facts made to fit the theory, or if that is not possible the theory is made to fit the facts.

Not sure what you're talking about here, Dirk.

I am not either. Please enlighten me, so that I may enlighten you. Ah, wait. Yes.

For the last 80 years the spectra of non-local galaxies have been shown to shift in a very direct proportion to their distance from us, their distance being ascertained by other means, such as Cepheid variable stars, RR Lyrae stars, general brightness, type Ia supernova peak brightness, etc.

Yes. What I am talking about is that the spectra are stretched. I was not here talking about the shift in or not in proportion to distance. I was talking about the disproportional shift within each single spectrum. A well known fact, I was recently told by Antoniseb and Ricimer. (And proof that I did not know everything about the redshift of spectra - or did and forgot about it when I needed it.)

Please spare me the distance scale. I like it when people tell me something that I do not know. I hate it when people tell me unasked what I have read and heard a thousand times before. (I occasionally do ask if my memory needs to be refreshed.) I can tell you a horror story about an astronomer who spent a lot of his valuable time to write a lengthy email to explain to ME what the redshift was, unasked. As a consequence I then lost all respect for professional astronomers.

The distance scale does not prove expansion. And my book was published under own management in September/August 2000 (last and first day, in two versions), so anything you might want to know about type Ia supernovae is discussed in it - well, anything that matters.

It has been nice to discuss these subjects with you. Thank you.

Ari Jokimaki

28-September-2005, 07:16 AM

The differential redshift readings on the "left" and "right" sides of spinning galaxies provide proof that spectral shift is directly correlated with motion relative to an observer, just like terrestrial experiments have shown. Perhaps you can explain how you then "logically disconnect" this correlation when comparing whole galaxies with different spectral shifts.
Big Bang theory is one example how to do that "disconnection", i.e. cosmological redshift is not Doppler in Big Bang theory. There was a discussion about this couple of months ago in this thread (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19057).

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 03:58 PM

No. The electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions are probably 50 orders of magnitude stronger than the barely perceptible expansion of space, so nuclear particles are well anchored to their set distances. Even gravitation beyond our galaxy - out to about 4 million lightyears - is strong enough to totally swamp the expansion effect.Sounds like Zeno's paradox in reverse to me. If the expansion of space has absolutely no effect on any patch of local space because other forces are far stronger than it, how does it ever have any effect whatsoever on the largest patches of space, or even a single photon (redshift)? (i.e. if I keep running half the distance, how do I ever get to where I'm going?)

If astronomers could only see our Local Group of galaxies, they couldn't tell the universe was expanding.
*waves his hands*

"In the Milky Way, the so-called "K-effect" shows that hot, young stars seem to be exploding away from us in every direction (i.e., they have an excess redshift right here in our own galaxy). If this had been heeded when first discovered, the expansion of the universe might never have been promulgated." -- says Mr. Arp. [/handwaving]

Cougar

28-September-2005, 04:06 PM

...cosmological redshift is not Doppler in Big Bang theory.I totally agree. With doppler, we have motion through space with respect to an observer. With cosmic expansion we have apparent motion with respect to an observer. The mechanisms are different. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I contend that the observer's perceived results and the mathematics are equivalent.

Grey

28-September-2005, 04:07 PM

Darn you. ;) I was not sure myself, so I had to take out my book and read my own book, which I had not meant to do. I consulted the index and it wasn't indexed as rotation, nor as Rosalind (a moon), but under galaxies - rotational velocity. see page 66, where I found not Rosalind, but Vera Rubin.
Having read page 66 and 67, I now have to swallow one of my statements: the force is gravitational, but it is not dark matter that causes it, but matter that has already been detected. (There, confessing my mistake did not hurt; it does embarass me, though. :o Um, the more I consider it, the more it hurts. Ouch!)Wait, let me get this straight. You're arguing a position, but you're not sure what your position is (even on a conceptual level, such as the nature of the explanation for galactic rotation curves), unless you go check the book that you wrote five years ago?

No, according to my book he is right: it is gravity. No, there is no new unknown force of nature. Yes, I suppose the matter is nonluminous. No, we have already detected it.Ah, so you are really espousing a dark matter model, except that you think that we've already detected the dark matter (though presumably we haven't realized that, or at least aren't aware that there's enough of whatever it is to account for the observations). Can you tell us what you think it is?

No, I have been out of it for five years and it will be a few months more before I return. I do not care for any such evidence anyway: facts made to fit the theory, or if that is not possible the theory is made to fit the facts.And here you seem ready to simply dismiss evidence out of hand, assuming that it's been either fabricated or used incorrectly, but making those judgments without actually looking at the data.

Cougar

28-September-2005, 04:08 PM

No, I have been out of it for five years and it will be a few months more before I return....Hey, great. The more, the merrier.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 04:13 PM

I'm afraid it's your logic that leaves quite a bit to be desired. The differential redshift readings on the "left" and "right" sides of spinning galaxies provide proof that spectral shift is directly correlated with motion relative to an observer, just like terrestrial experiments have shown. Perhaps you can explain how you then "logically disconnect" this correlation when comparing whole galaxies with different spectral shifts.I guess I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread:

We KNOW that the galaxy is spinning, because just about every galaxy we observe is spinning, so there is no problem accepting that Doppler interpretation. But we DON'T know for sure that all galaxies are actually moving away from us, or that there isn't something else entirely causing this energy loss in photons.

So only the detectable differential in left/right is convincingly explainable, but this is a small fraction of the total redshift of the galaxy.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 04:21 PM

So are you saying we should skip over what Fortunate suggests is the simplest, most direct possibility and jump with both feet to hypothesize a new, unknown force of nature in order to explain what appears to be the gravitational effect of nonluminous matter that we have not yet been able to detect?
I would suggest rather that our understanding of gravity is highly limited in scale. Given that we already know the effect of gravity on a quantum scale is mostly not understood, I'm not sure why we think we know so much about it on a galactic scale. Our observations would imply that we are mistaken. Dark Matter isn't any better than claiming that gravity doesn't work the way we assume it does on such large scales.

If we're surrounded by such incredible amounts of Dark Matter, why is it's effect on galactic rotation the only way it manifests, conveniently filling the holes in our hypotheses? Why doesn't it gravitationally lens all of our extra-galactic observations, or have other obvious effects that such a tremendous amount of matter should have?

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 04:23 PM

For the last 80 years the spectra of non-local galaxies have been shown to shift in a very direct proportion to their distance from us, their distance being ascertained by other means, such as Cepheid variable stars, RR Lyrae stars, general brightness, type Ia supernova peak brightness, etc.
The cosmic distance ladder isn't too accurate past about 1bly. What is z at that distance, less than 1? All distances further than 1bly pretty much rely on redshift, which is contentious. And Arp showed that this redshift is quantized, which has been both supported and refuted by further studies, so as of now it is simply unreliable for distance calculations.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 04:28 PM

It is an epicycle that corrected another epicycle (the big bang hypothesis)...This might be rhetorically clever, but factually, it is inaccurate.
Just to be annoying, I've got to quote the Alternative Cosmology Group here, whose members are far more respectable than I when it comes to science:

The epicyclic character of the theory, piling ad-hoc hypothesis upon hypothesis, its incompleteness and the appearance of a singularity in the big bang universe beginning require consideration of alternatives.

please don't hit me.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 04:36 PM

Well, here's how I look at it...

Observation: Gravity works quite well at scales ranging from small objects on Earth to at least everything in the solar system.

Problem: Distant galaxies show phenomena that must be caused by stronger forces than the gravity provided by the visible matter in those galaxies.
Well formulated, SirBlack. If I had to choose, I'd say #1 is the simplest, given our lack of understanding of gravity on very small scales. Have we really observed gravity 'behaving as it should' on any scale significantly larger than our solar system? (perhaps gravitational lensing is the only example? but that does not describe motion of large masses)

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 05:21 PM

"In the Milky Way, the so-called "K-effect" shows that hot, young stars seem to be exploding away from us in every direction (i.e., they have an excess redshift right here in our own galaxy). If this had been heeded when first discovered, the expansion of the universe might never have been promulgated." -- says Mr. Arp. [/handwaving]

Great! I did not know that. This is so exciting. I will brood on this and solve it. I have ideas.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 05:27 PM

(off topic)
Great! I did not know that. This is so exciting. I will brood on this and solve it. I have ideas.I believe Arp's interpretation of redshifts, mostly coming from his work with quasars, is that redshift is not relational to distance but to age of the object. He claims to have observed the same with galaxy clusters, explaining why some neighborly galaxies have vastly different redshifts (the higher redshift galaxy would be the likely offspring of the lower redshift galaxy).

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 05:32 PM

Wait, let me get this straight. You're arguing a position, but you're not sure what your position is (even on a conceptual level, such as the nature of the explanation for galactic rotation curves), unless you go check the book that you wrote five years ago?

Yes. You are entitled to call me stupid. :o
Well, I forgot a lot in five years time. I did not simply make one discovery in astronomy and astrophysics at the end of the last century, but I solved the lot. One or a few discoveries may be etched in your mind, but if you make hundreds and one of them, that barely takes up two pages, slips your mind I do not consider that strange.

Ah, so you are really espousing a dark matter model,

Yes. :o

except that you think that we've already detected the dark matter (though presumably we haven't realized that, or at least aren't aware that there's enough of whatever it is to account for the observations). Can you tell us what you think it is?

It is the intergalactic hot ionized gass - with a twist. (see page 67 of my book)

And here you seem ready to simply dismiss evidence out of hand, assuming that it's been either fabricated or used incorrectly, but making those judgments without actually looking at the data.

Okay. I will humor you. What data have been discovered during the past five years and why would that data support the dark matter hypothesis or whatever theory we are talking about?

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 05:36 PM

(off topic)
I believe Arp's interpretation of redshifts, mostly coming from his work with quasars, is that redshift is not relational to distance but to age of the object. He claims to have observed the same with galaxy clusters, explaining why some neighborly galaxies have vastly different redshifts (the higher redshift galaxy would be the likely offspring of the lower redshift galaxy).

Arp has a copy of my book. Either he did not read it or did not understand it. I recommend that he reads it again. He is one of the smart fellows, though. I respect him for that.

dirkbontes

28-September-2005, 05:42 PM

Hey, great. The more, the merrier.

Before I respected you, Cougar. You are starting to grow on me, though. During the past day I have started to like you more and more.

Have got to run now. There is a lecture by a geologist on Mars to amateur astronomers in another city and I intend to give away there a handful of the very much outdated, first Dutch language edition of my book.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 05:48 PM

Okay. I will humor you. What data have been discovered during the past five years and why would that data support the dark matter hypothesis or whatever theory we are talking about?The mysterious Abell 1689 gravitational lensing is the only observable evidence that comes to mind, the rest remains theoretical.

The original poster of this topic seems to have disappeared, I'm not sure if he ever specified if he was talking about inflation or expansion. Either way I am perplexed why in 80 years we still don't have a shred of observational evidence of either (except the Abell lensing, but then my question still stands, why all observations are not lensed by this tremendous amount of matter?).

Arp has a copy of my book. Either he did not read it or did not understand it. I recommend that he reads it again. He is one of the smart fellows, though. I respect him for that.I've glanced at your livejournal site with the 'Edge Paradox' chapter, but it's not really apparent what you're talking about without reading the rest of the book and knowing what you mean by 'dinergon'. (please start a new thread if you care to explain :))

Grey

28-September-2005, 06:07 PM

I totally agree. With doppler, we have motion through space with respect to an observer. With cosmic expansion we have apparent motion with respect to an observer. The mechanisms are different. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I contend that the observer's perceived results and the mathematics are equivalent.I'll nitpick here. The mathematics isn't quite the same. For a Doppler shift, the relevant parameter is the relative motion of the source (at the time of emission) to the observer (at the time of observation). For a cosmological redshift, what matters is the change in scale factor of the universe between the time of emission and the time of observation.

For example, imagine the two different cases. We have two distant galaxies that are at rest with respect to each other (in the one case, they're both at rest in a static universe, in the other, the universe isn't expanding at the moment), and a bright light (a supernova, perhaps?) is emitted from one toward the other. Now the galaxies start separating rapidly (either motion through space that remains static, or just because the universe starts expanding). After a while, the universe starts contracting rapidly, and when the light arrives at the second galaxy, the universe is now twice the size it started out as, and still rapidly contracting. In the first case, with a Doppler shift, we'd expect the light to be strongly blueshifted (the galaxies are moving toward each other). In the second case, the scale factor has increased, so we'd expect a redshift.

You are correct, though, that what we observe in both cases is just a shift in the wavelength observed, and that if we just looked at a single source and didn't have any other information, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two types of redshift.

Grey

28-September-2005, 06:28 PM

Yes. You are entitled to call me stupid. :oHey, I've forgotten things too. But I think I would have remembered how I solved a major cosmological issue. :)

Well, I forgot in lot in five years time. I did not simply make one discovery in astronomy and astrophysics at the end of the last century, but I solved the lot. One or a few discoveries may be etched in your mind, but if you make hundreds and one of them, that barely takes up two pages, slips your mind I do not consider that strange.You're bold, I'll give you that. You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that you've actually solved all of the problems of astrophysics, and that each one only took two pages or so. But you're welcome to try to convince me.

It is the intergalactic hot ionized gass - with a twist. (see page 67 of my book)If you'd like to send me a copy, or tell me where I might request it through an interlibrary loan, I'd be happy to read that. Otherwise, perhaps you could at least summarize your ideas here. For starters, we can see hot ionized gas, and what we see isn't enough to account for the rotation curves. So is there more of it that we can't see, and why can't we see it? Or do you have some other explanation?

Okay. I will humor you. What data have been discovered during the past five years and why would that data support the dark matter hypothesis or whatever theory we are talking about?Well, even if we restrict ourselves to observations that have some bearing on dark matter, there are a lot. Of course we have more and better observations of rotation curves. We have results from WMAP that would seem to put an upper limit on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe (so, since you're suggesting that the dark matter is baryonic, you'll have to come up with an alternate explanation for the WMAP results). We have studies of clusters and superclusters that put constraints on the amount of dark matter in intergalactic and intercluster space. We have observations of some elliptical galaxies that seems (though it's been disputed) to indicate that they have little or no dark matter. We've seen a galaxy that appears to be composed almost entirely of dark matter, with little or no luminous matter. Any reasonable theory of dark matter is going to have to be able to explain a host of recent observations.

Now, it's possible in principle that your ideas could indeed do that (though, as I said, you'll have to convince me :)), but it certainly wouldn't be valid to just ignore those observations and pretend that they're all irrelevant.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 06:32 PM

Fact is, new gravitational theories have been tried; problem is, they have failed to remain consistent with all the observations. They don't work. So again, your criticism that dark matter is "contrived" is difficult to understand when dark matter is currently the only explanation that can be consistent with reality. If you've got another explanation with observational evidence to support it, bring it on!
That is exactly my contention, dark matter is a fudge factor, so of course it can be consistent with reality... it can be consistent with anything we want it to be, as long as we arbitrarily give it the properties we need it to have. That other models of gravity have failed is hardly a reason to believe that dark matter is the "only explanation" for what we observe, when we can barely begin to limit its properties.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 06:36 PM

If you've got another explanation with observational evidence to support it, bring it on!I hope to someday be in a position to research and explain such a thing, but for now I'm more interested in the failures of current theories like BBT, which we can at least all debate on equal footing (given the rediculous amount of BBT research available, as opposed to alternative theories).

Mosheh Thezion

28-September-2005, 06:58 PM

The cosmic background radiation needs to be confirmed.. and we cannot do so until we launch a vessel equipted to test, and send it beyond our galaxy, and into clean open space between galaxies... then if it sees the same background, i will believe it...

but the 22 cm radiation we get from space... as static.. is the frequency emitted by hydrogen gas at 2 degrees kelvin, in space....

so that signal, only, perhaps, shows that there is a cloud of hydrogen that envelopes the entire galaxy.. and at least the region we are in.

it doesnt prove the big bang...

it doesnt prove anything, since hydrogen could be giving us that same signal.
-MT

ferg.c.

28-September-2005, 07:02 PM

You're quite right about that.

Well, you missed a bit on this one. As the above link states, "Guth proposed that very early in its history, when it was only 10^(-37) seconds old, the universe suddenly began to expand at an exponential rate. In other words, as time passed by the universe grew even larger even faster as its rate of expansion increased. It very rapidly exploded in size by 25 orders of magnitude when suddenly, just 10^(-34) seconds later, this period of "inflation" (as Guth called it) came to a halt. It's comparable to watching a pea become the size of a galaxy in an instant. After the inflationary era the universe continued to expand, but its rate of expansion remained comparatively steady for the next 13.7 billion years."

Thanks Cougar for puting me right on the time scale aspect. I seem to remember something about the rate of universal expansion changing at 300 million years. I'll look it up and post back. It's in my notes from the recent 4th Greek Amateur Astronomy Conference which took place in Athens on 9-11th Sept. As I said more questions are raised than answered though.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 07:18 PM

Thanks Cougar for puting me right on the time scale aspect. As I said more questions are raised than answered though.
Is this really just a problem of working in the wrong direction? That is, after deciding that the Big Bang is a valid model, we tend to start at the 'beginning' and work our way to present time. We start right after the Planck era and then work out the evolution that logically follows, the sticky part being the intial conditions (which we can conveniently set to whatever we want).

Then when this turned out to not match observation, we stuck in the inflationary ('new physics') period to bring things into line (or to give even more leeway on our initial conditions)?

I have to say that given the evidence of observation, which shows consistently that no matter how far into space we look everything appears the same (no evolution towards a 'beginning' whatsoever, just fully evolved galaxies), we have taken a backwards approach. We should start by dissecting galaxies to understand how their systems function, and then work our way back to how those initial conditions were created.

ferg.c.

28-September-2005, 07:33 PM

Hi Akira,
I guess that the problem has something to with the fact that in our time frame the BB never happened! Time was infinitely slow at the begining of the Universe if you try to explain it from the outside. This has to do with the way density warps time-space. If there was a singularity at the BB then Time would never have got started.
Things always look the same throughout the Universe from here because what ever you look at is also at it's centre and therefore the same age as us. That's because we can't easily understand the nature of universal expansion. Try Rocky Colbes "say over and over to yourself - the universe is not expanding, it's the space it's in that's expanding!"
Cheers
Ferg

Grey

28-September-2005, 07:33 PM

That is exactly my contention, dark matter is a fudge factor, so of course it can be consistent with reality... it can be consistent with anything we want it to be, as long as we arbitrarily give it the properties we need it to have.I'd actually disagree with this. That is, we do assign dark matter the properties it needs to have to explain, say, galactic rotation curves and cluster dynamics. However, we don't stop there. Instead, using the properties we know it would have to have, we make predictions or run simulations of what should happen in certain circumstances (for example, the formation of galaxies). We then compare those predictions to what we see. If things match pretty well, then we think that we might have the right idea. If things don't match, then we go back to the drawing board. We also look for expected effects on different types of experiment to try to get independent confirmation of the model. Current dark matter models do quite well in these kinds of tests, while other models are not very successful. That doesn't mean that our dark matter models must be correct, but right now it looks like the way to bet.

This is pretty similar to the discovery of the neutrino. Originally, it was just that energy and momentum appeared not to be conserved under beta decay. But the conservation laws seemed so accurate in every other respect, that rather than assume they must be wrong, Pauli suggested that they could still work if there were an undetected additional particle involved in the decay. He figured out what properties such a particle would have to have in order to explain the results. It was 25 years before direct experimental evidence confirmed the neutrino's existence, but most physicists had accepted its existence on theoretical grounds long before then.

ferg.c.

28-September-2005, 07:52 PM

This is pretty similar to the discovery of the neutrino. Originally, it was just that energy and momentum appeared not to be conserved under beta decay. But the conservation laws seemed so accurate in every other respect, that rather than assume they must be wrong, Pauli suggested that they could still work if there were an undetected additional particle involved in the decay. He figured out what properties such a particle would have to have in order to explain the results. It was 25 years before direct experimental evidence confirmed the neutrino's existence, but most physicists had accepted its existence on theoretical grounds long before then.

Actually this is the way science has been done since Aristotle. Some guys get lucky and there hypothesis turns out to be the true nature of the universe and others however brilliant thier ideas might be get proved wrong. It's pretty much intuition and potluck. See Ptolemy and Fred Hoyle as opposed to Einstein and Copernicus.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 08:44 PM

Current dark matter models do quite well in these kinds of tests, while other models are not very successful. That doesn't mean that our dark matter models must be correct, but right now it looks like the way to bet.
I can respect this, but am still not at all certain why dark matter theories are so much more popular than alternative theories, which tend to be incorporate larger sets of observations but usually have to modify the 'old physics'. Conversely, theories based on expanding-space still rely almost exclusively on a Doppler interpretation of redshifts, and don't have much to show for it by way of predictions or verifiable observations even after 70-some years.

It reminds me of string theory, where mathematically we have all of these great ideas, it's just that none of them appear to be observable (or even testable in many cases). We shouldn't abandon these ideas, but we shouldn't concentrate so exclusively on them.

Great example of the neutrino prediction, that helps put the dark matter/energy debates into perspective. I'm placing my bets on the next generation of space telescopes, which are sure to finally push us in the right direction. (maybe in 10 years discussing alternatives to the Big Bang won't be relegated to ATM threads :shhh: )

iron4

28-September-2005, 09:45 PM

Can anyone tell me what the inflation theory has done to become the top theory in explaining the origin of the universe and how it came about?

During inflation, our observable Universe increased in size 1030 times. That helped to solve the horizon problem, as well as other problems.

Of all the books that I posess, one of my favourites is Cosmological inflation and Large-Scale Structure (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521575982/002-3919654-1340860?v=glance)

Cougar

28-September-2005, 10:04 PM

I have to say that given the evidence of observation, which shows consistently that no matter how far into space we look everything appears the same (no evolution towards a 'beginning' whatsoever, just fully evolved galaxies....I think if you look a little closer, you will find that your assertion is far off the mark. There is plenty of evidence of cosmic evolution.

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 10:07 PM

I think if you look a little closer, you will find that your assertion is far off the mark. There is plenty of evidence of cosmic evolution.I've been looking for a while, and it doesn't appear to be so. The most obvious example are the Hubble deep fields, which show fully formed 'ancient' galaxies as far as it can see.

Could you point me to some resource showing that we see any sort of evolution the futher back in time/deep in space we look?

iron4

28-September-2005, 10:13 PM

I've been looking for a while, and it doesn't appear to be so. The most obvious example are the Hubble deep fields, which show fully formed 'ancient' galaxies as far as it can see.

Could you point me to some resource showing that we see any sort of evolution the futher back in time/deep in space we look?

Quasars are practically all concentrated at high redshift, and they are rare or non existent at low redshift. That's a prove of evolution

akirabakabaka

28-September-2005, 11:39 PM

Cougar

29-September-2005, 01:42 AM

I think if you look a little closer, you will find that your assertion is far off the mark. There is plenty of evidence of cosmic evolution.I've been looking for a while, and it doesn't appear to be so. The most obvious example are the Hubble deep fields, which show fully formed 'ancient' galaxies as far as it can see... Could you point me to some resource showing that we see any sort of evolution the futher back in time/deep in space we look?
Here's a small section of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Do these look like the kind of "fully formed galaxies" that we see in our local neighborhood?
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/hudf1.jpg

Cougar

29-September-2005, 01:48 AM

Quasars are practically all concentrated at high redshift, and they are rare or non existent at low redshift. That's a prove of evolutionThis doesn't tell us anything other than 'quasars have high redshift'. It says nothing of their age, how they output so much energy, their distance, what is causing the redshift, etc.
Well, if you remove one of the most useful tools of the astronomer - the redshift-distance relation - then it's easy to discount an enormous number of well-accepted astronomical findings. Fact is, the redshift-distance relation is very strongly supported. Those who doubt it are not strongly supported.

Donnie B.

29-September-2005, 01:53 AM

(maybe in 10 years discussing alternatives to the Big Bang won't be relegated to ATM threads :shhh: )Akira, I will wager one US dollar that on September 28, 2015, the Big Bang will still be considered the mainstream theory of the origin of the cosmos.

To be determined by a vote of then-current members of this forum, if it still exists, or mutual agreement between the two of us, if not.

Are you in? :)

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 01:59 AM

The mysterious Abell 1689 gravitational lensing is the only observable evidence that comes to mind, the rest remains theoretical.

I gather from your words that it appears to have insufficient mass to do so? Appearances can be deceptive. I suspect that this mystery may be quite easily explained. In fact, I also see a possibility other than "dark" matter. I will need to know more about Abell 1689 and perhaps its environs before I can say anything definite, though. (And I possibly will have to read some parts of my book to freshen up.)

I am perplexed why in 80 years we still don't have a shred of observational evidence of either

Paint a dot on an elastic and stretch the elastic and you will see that the dot is stretched proportionally. The ratio is constant. Being part of the elastic it is impossible to observe any change in the structure of the elastic. Of course there is no observable evidence: it does not exist, nor can it be observed if such a thing does happen. The hypothesis is a contradiction in termino - if that is the correct expression.

(except the Abell lensing, but then my question still stands, why all observations are not lensed by this tremendous amount of matter?).

Good question. I suspect Abell 1689 is a special case.

I've glanced at your livejournal site with the 'Edge Paradox' chapter, but it's not really apparent what you're talking about without reading the rest of the book and knowing what you mean by 'dinergon'. (please start a new thread if you care to explain :))

I am impressed. I already thought highly of you, but this is evidence of curiosity and intelligence!

No, I do not care to explain at this moment. Simply substitute particle or photon or airplane or lighthouse or Pioneer or whatever and it will make sense.
Two other people did read it and it made sense to them, though they thought it should be formulated and proven mathematically and quantummechanically. (My book has a quantummechanical redshift formula, though.) They also made two valuable remarks that I will investigate at a later date.

Mosheh Thezion

29-September-2005, 02:44 AM

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 02:52 AM

If you'd like to send me a copy, or tell me where I might request it through an interlibrary loan, I'd be happy to read that.

The libraries of the British Astronomical Association and of the British Interplanetary Society have a copy of the third English edition. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek in Den Haag/The Hague in The Netherlands has had a cheaper small font version for about one year now; I do not know if they have catalogued it, though. The library of the Stichting De Koepel in Utrecht in The Netherlands should have a copy, but that has been removed by someone so clever to also remove the catalogue card, so the book would not be missed. He did the same with the previous edition, but when he saw the last edition he exchanged them and also put the catalogue card of the second edition back. (!) I guess it is some kind of compliment, but it is rather embarrassing that the only person to appreciate my work is a thief.

Otherwise, perhaps you could at least summarize your ideas here. For starters, we can see hot ionized gas, and what we see isn't enough to account for the rotation curves. So is there more of it that we can't see, and why can't we see it?

No, there is not more that we cannot see. Those ions are not stealth-equipped Klingon warbirds, you know. Appearances are deceptive, though.
The summary? 1. There is no other possible culprit, and (2) the gas is distributed in the same way the dark matter is. And 3: is the twist (see next).

Or do you have some other explanation?

3: If a mass is more massive than it is known to be, it must somehow have changed its restmass. There is only one possible way to do that: by moving at relativistic velocities. As it happens, the gas is doing that, being incredibly hot. It is moving and/or vibrating at such velocities that the theory of special relativity applies. I suspect any astrophysicist worth his salt can do the equations and calculations and prove my conclusion within half an hour. I might try to learn and do them myself, but that might take up a lot more time... Page 67 has two more discoveries about this gass, but those do not relate directly to this extra mass phenomenon; one by me and one by Klaas Wassenaar.

Well, even if we restrict ourselves to observations that have some bearing on dark matter, there are a lot. Of course we have more and better observations of rotation curves.

(Yawn.)

We have results from WMAP that would seem to put an upper limit on the amount of baryonic matter in the universe (so, since you're suggesting that the dark matter is baryonic, you'll have to come up with an alternate explanation for the WMAP results).

My theory does not require any more matter than has already been observed, so that is no problem.

We have studies of clusters and superclusters that put constraints on the amount of dark matter in intergalactic and intercluster space.

That is no problem either.

We have observations of some elliptical galaxies that seems (though it's been disputed) to indicate that they have little or no dark matter.

As is to be expected and as might have been predicted from my theory. Elliptical galaxies are dust poor, not producing any supernovae to speak of. No dust, then no intergalactic ions either. No intergalactic hot ions, no relativistic extra mass. Q.E.D.

We've seen a galaxy that appears to be composed almost entirely of dark matter, with little or no luminous matter.

I would expect this galaxy to be very active, having lots of starbursts and hot young stars and supernovae, and thus to produce a huge amount of dust and thus lots of intergalactic hot ions that produce a huge amount of relativistic extra mass. It might pay to observe this galaxy in the infrared.

Any reasonable theory of dark matter is going to have to be able to explain a host of recent observations.

No problem.

Edit add: I have appreciated this list. Thank you for providing it.

Now, it's possible in principle that your ideas could indeed do that (though, as I said, you'll have to convince me ), but it certainly wouldn't be valid to just ignore those observations and pretend that they're all irrelevant.

I know my capabilities. I excell in conceptual science. I am the best, no doubt about it. I also know the worth of my theories. A problem solved correctly, is solved correctly and no amount of new data can change that.
Absolute truth is immutable. That is the reason I was confident that new data could not dent my theory. Observations do not worry me. What I distrust are the interpretations of these observations by other people who are not as qualified as I am to interpret such results. They are bound by paradigm. I define paradigm.

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 03:34 AM

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that you've actually solved all of the problems of astrophysics, and that each one only took two pages or so.

Not nearly all, I suspect, just all that matter. I suppose I missed some and of course solving problems often evokes more questions to be answered.
It took me three years of my spare time, one Dutch edition and three English editions and I sunk about four thousand dollars into it. And nearly every page has at least one discovery. Page 67 for example has at least three.
So saying that solving each problem of astrophysics took only two pages or so does not match the sheer effort that went into it.

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 03:47 AM

Here's a small section of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Do these look like the kind of "fully formed galaxies" that we see in our local neighborhood?
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/hudf1.jpg

They look like very far away disturbed galaxies. Isn't it true that disturbed galaxies are more active and therefore more luminous and visible than quiescent galaxies? Cannot the distribution of galaxies in this Hubble deep field for that reason have been skewed? We see these far, disturbed galaxies, whereas equidistant quiescent galaxies are hidden because they do not emit sufficient light for Hubble to detect them without a longer exposure time. Does that make sense, or are there objections to this hypothesis?

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 03:56 AM

Well, if you remove one of the most useful tools of the astronomer - the redshift-distance relation - then it's easy to discount an enormous number of well-accepted astronomical findings. Fact is, the redshift-distance relation is very strongly supported. Those who doubt it are not strongly supported.

You are doing that thing with the green grass and the Swiss cheese again.
Akirabakabaka did not remove the redshift-distance relation for galaxies nor for quasars. What he said was that the redshift of a quasar does not tell us at what distance this quasar is, implying that part of this redshift has to be attributed to another factor than mere distance and that therefore redshift and distance in the case of quasars do not correlate in the same way as they do in the case of galaxies.

dirkbontes

29-September-2005, 04:37 AM

3: If a mass is more massive than it is known to be, it must somehow have changed its restmass. There is only one possible way to do that: by moving at relativistic velocities. As it happens, the gas is doing that, being incredibly hot. It is moving and/or vibrating at such velocities that the theory of special relativity applies. I suspect any astrophysicist worth his salt can do the equations and calculations and prove my conclusion within half an hour. I might try to learn and do them myself, but that might take up a lot more time... Page 67 has two more discoveries about this gass, but those do not relate directly to this extra mass phenomenon; one by me and one by Klaas Wassenaar.

It has occurred to me that this same mechanism may explain the K-effect of hot young stars in our own galaxy that Akirabakabaka mentioned.
And of course it will also occur in the center of stars. So the calculated mass of our sun may be larger than its restmass. If I were an astrophysicist I would at this very moment start reviewing the behaviour of protons and other nucleids in the heart of stars.

Ari Jokimaki

29-September-2005, 01:26 PM

Here's a small section of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Do these look like the kind of "fully formed galaxies" that we see in our local neighborhood?
http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/hudf1.jpg
No, but they look like peculiar galaxies we see in our local neighborhood. See Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html). One on the upper right in the HUDF image has the appearance similar to ARP 2 - 5, for example. Equivalents for the one on the lower left might be ARP 30, ARP 32, ARP 62, ARP 63, ARP 71, ARP 148 among others.

akirabakabaka

29-September-2005, 02:26 PM

Akirabakabaka did not remove the redshift-distance relation for galaxies nor for quasars. What he said was that the redshift of a quasar does not tell us at what distance this quasar is, implying that part of this redshift has to be attributed to another factor than mere distance and that therefore redshift and distance in the case of quasars do not correlate in the same way as they do in the case of galaxies.
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. :) If Cougar believes that the verdict is in on quasar redshifts, that is up to him, but I think that most people would disagree.

akirabakabaka

29-September-2005, 03:12 PM

Here's a small section of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. Do these look like the kind of "fully formed galaxies" that we see in our local neighborhood?No, but they look like peculiar galaxies we see in our local neighborhood. See Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html).
I'm not sure what you're pointing out here Cougar. Don't get all Hoagland on us with blurry zoomed images out of context. ;) But seriously, I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the deep field surveys.

I see lots of press releases and news articles such as this (http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2070) repeatedly claiming that we are seeing galaxies "just 800 million years after the big bang", but don't offer any evidence why that is what they believe they are seeing. Do you know of any published sources to actually analyze these galaxies that confirm their 'young age' consistent with a Big Bang evolution? (a quick search comes up empty for me, but they have to be out there...)

There's plenty of rebuttals citing the deep field surveys hoever. Here's a Lerner paper (http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0509611) that claims to see evidence for a non-expanding universe in the deep field survey.

This paper (http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/9908270) (FAINT, MOVING OBJECTS IN THE HUBBLE DEEP FIELD) certainly adds to the controversy of what the deep field is showing us.

Mosheh Thezion

29-September-2005, 06:21 PM

akirabakabaka

29-September-2005, 06:29 PM

isnt the most interesting thing about the deep field is that it shows that between the small expanding galxies..

there is nothing... no loose gas... just clean empty space.

doesnt that say anything to you about a hydrogen/helium beginning?
like maybe there was'nt one.
-MT
From the standpoint of BBT, it's hard to say that nothing but questions arise when given the deep field survey data. I'm really interested in seeing a paper that actually analyses the deep field and concludes "yes these are the earliest known galaxies ever observed". All I see is handwaving in this regard.

Is the deep field just being ignored now, a full decade later? I wonder what followup work has been done. This only reaffirms my belief that the next generation of space telescopes will push BBT out of the mainstream.

The HDF Project (http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/hdf.html) for anyone interested in the data.

Cougar

29-September-2005, 07:01 PM

I'm really interested in seeing a paper that actually analyses the deep field and concludes "yes these are the earliest known galaxies ever observed". All I see is handwaving in this regard.

Is the deep field just being ignored now, a full decade later? I wonder what followup work has been done.
Well, a quick check of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field) reveals that......almost all of the 3,000 objects in the [deep field] image are galaxies, some of which are among the youngest and most distant known. By revealing such large numbers of very young galaxies, the HDF has become a landmark image in the study of the early universe, and it has been the source of almost 400 scientific papers since it was created.... All of these studies revealed substantial differences between the properties of galaxies today and those that existed several billion years ago.... The HDF galaxies contained a larger proportion of disturbed and irregular galaxies than does the local universe. The young universe was much smaller than today's universe, and thus galaxy collisions and mergers were more common.... astronomers believe that star formation was occurring at its maximum rate 8–10 billion years ago, and has decreased by a factor of about 10 since then....

akirabakabaka

29-September-2005, 09:27 PM

it has been the source of almost 400 scientific papers since it was createdI wonder why I can't find any of them. :eh: I'm not trying to be difficult, I really can't find them. Searching for any information that cites the Hubble deep fields, or deep fields of any kind, generally turns up stuff like this:

Top 10 Problems with the Big Bang (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp): 9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

Alternative Cosmology Group (http://cosmology.info/): We still find normal galaxies, heavy elements, strings and clusters of galaxies at the further and further shifting outskirts of the observable universe

Obviously these are anti-BB sites, but apparently they havn't found these papers either (or are ignoring them). I've been digging on arXiv for a while but I can't find any. If you can think of any relevant search terms that maybe aren't so obvious (acronyms maybe? HDF?) that might help.

I just now finally found this paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9911/9911493.pdf) that cites a deep field study to support their claim regarding BB evolution. What's funny is if you scroll down to the citation, there is a disclaimer: But there is no consensus on this issue.

akirabakabaka

29-September-2005, 10:01 PM

Incidentally I just stumbled upon this recent Hubble news, Spitzer and Hubble Team Up to Find "Big Baby" Galaxies in the Newborn Universe (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/full/), discussing this very issue. (I'll mention it here to avoid being ToSeek'd, also not sure what the new rules mean for posting these kinds of things as new topics). To cherry pick some choice quotes:

"It made about eight times more mass in stars than are found in our own Milky Way today, and then, just as suddenly, it stopped forming new stars. It appears to have grown old prematurely." (huh?)

Spitzer's IRAC is sensitive to the light from older, redder stars which should make up most of the mass in a galaxy, and the brightness of the galaxy suggests that it is quite massive indeed. (...but doesn't suggest that it is older than assumed?)

The galaxy is believed to be about as far away as the most distant galaxies and quasars now known.

The GOODS Spitzer observations have previously revealed evidence for mature stars in more ordinary, less massive galaxies at similar distances.

For such a large galaxy, this would have been a tremendously explosive event, and the energy from the quick emergence of those stars would have helped reheat the universe very shortly after it cooled following the Big Bang.

This last one amuses me for some reason, that this observation is immediately absorbed into the BB framework, in spite of being evidence to the contrary.

Ari Jokimaki

30-September-2005, 07:26 AM

I've been digging on arXiv for a while but I can't find any. If you can think of any relevant search terms that maybe aren't so obvious (acronyms maybe? HDF?) that might help.
Try NASA ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html).

I found some papers you're looking for. I did it by first looking up Hubble Deep Field homepage (http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/hdf.html). Then I tried to find a name of any scientist working on the project. I found one, and entered it to ADS search form, got list of papers, opened one paper and located a mention to the original HDF paper, found it and entered it to the ADS search, which gave me the paper (linked below). Then I opened the abstract page of the paper, clicked the "Citations to the Article" and started browsing. Simple, huh? :)

I'm not going to give links to the papers about cosmological evolution, because there is hundreds of papers in that citation list, but here's the link to the original paper of Hubble Deep Field so you can go through the list yourself:

The Hubble Deep Field: Observations, Data Reduction, and Galaxy Photometry - Williams et al. (1996) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996AJ....112.1335W&db_key=AST&d ata_type=HTML&format=&high=420b0ec3be25226)

Another option is to type your search words in the ADS search page. I tried it with "hubble deep field" (450 papers) and "hubble deep field evolution" (38 papers).

Mosheh Thezion

30-September-2005, 07:41 AM

There is one good explination for it all...

that all galaxies begin as what we only imagine as Black holes... and that they blow up due to a super massive spin along 2, yet one major axis. and so...
exploded to form all the matter and stars we see...
that is why it all looks that way. in the deep field.

i have no doubt,, that soon they will be saying this, and no credit will be given to me..

but i am saying it today, right now, have been for months...

i can't be the only one to take this position, but i have nothing to lose by doing so, and thus i can say my thoughts without being discredited, since i have no credit.
-MT

Cougar

30-September-2005, 02:34 PM

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I contend that the observer's perceived results and the mathematics are equivalent.I'll nitpick here. The mathematics isn't quite the same. For a Doppler shift, the relevant parameter is the relative motion of the source (at the time of emission) to the observer (at the time of observation). For a cosmological redshift, what matters is the change in scale factor of the universe between the time of emission and the time of observation.Thanks, Grey. I guess that was a rather old and precarious limb, one that might have held - as far as the perceived results, anyway - in the days when lambda was zero and the Hubble constant was... constant.

akirabakabaka

30-September-2005, 03:13 PM

Try NASA ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html).

I found some papers you're looking for

Ahh thanks for the tips!

Nereid

30-September-2005, 11:34 PM

it has been the source of almost 400 scientific papers since it was created I wonder why I can't find any of them. :eh: I'm not trying to be difficult, I really can't find them.So I went to Google Scholar, and entered "HDF hubble" (the 'hubble' is to remove hits that have to do with an 'HDF gene', for example), and got 'about 2,250' hits (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=HDF+hubble&btnG=Search)!

Enjoy.

Grey

01-October-2005, 03:39 AM

The libraries of the British Astronomical Association and of the British Interplanetary Society have a copy of the third English edition. The Koninklijke Bibliotheek in Den Haag/The Hague in The Netherlands has had a cheaper small font version for about one year now; I do not know if they have catalogued it, though. The library of the Stichting De Koepel in Utrecht in The Netherlands should have a copy...Hmm, I don't believe I've ever requested something internationally through an interlibrary loan, so I don't know how easy that will be. I'll look into it, though. Thanks for the information.

3: If a mass is more massive than it is known to be, it must somehow have changed its restmass. There is only one possible way to do that: by moving at relativistic velocities. As it happens, the gas is doing that, being incredibly hot. It is moving and/or vibrating at such velocities that the theory of special relativity applies. I suspect any astrophysicist worth his salt can do the equations and calculations and prove my conclusion within half an hour. I might try to learn and do them myself, but that might take up a lot more time...As a nitpick, moving at relativistic velocities doesn't change the rest mass of a particle (which is, by definition, the mass when at rest). Indeed, most physicists these days don't refer to an increase of mass at all, preferring to include the factor of gamma into the momentum or energy calculations. However, apart from that, this is at least an interesting idea. Let's take a look at some numbers and see if it works.

For the Milky Way, observation shows that there is roughly 5 to 10 billion solar masses of gas. The temperature varies from around 100 K in the cool denser clouds and filaments to about 1,000 K in the less dense regions between such clouds. There are regions heated to closer to 10,000 K by hot O and B type stars, but these don't account for much of the gas. We'll give your idea the benefit of the doubt by assuming 1,000 K for all of the gas, which, for monotomic hydrogen works out to an rms velocity of about 1.6 km/s. This is much too small to have any noticable relativistic mass increase. Hmm, well perhaps we can work the other way, and figure out what temperature the gas would need to be at, and then see if we can come up with a reason why it radiates as though it were at a much lower temperature. The amount of dark matter in the Milky Way is estimated at about a trillion solar masses, or at least 100 times the mass of the gas we see. To have that kind of effective mass increase, the particle speed would need to be 99.995% of the speed of light. We need to use a relativistic version of the equation that relates kinetic energy to temperature, and we get about 7 x 10^14 K. So for this to work, we'd need to come up with a reason why the gas appears to be about 12 orders of magnitude colder than it really is. But there's a worse problem. These gas molecules are moving at nearly the speed of light, but the escape velocity from the galaxy at the Sun's distance is only about 350 km/s, about a thousand times smaller. If the gas were this energetic, it wouldn't actually be gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, and the Milky Way could never have formed.

Let's see if we fare any better looking at the dynamics of a cluster of galaxies, where we observe more gas, and at a higher temperature. For the Virgo cluster, the observed mass of hot gas is about 2 x 10^13 solar masses, with a temperature of around 70 million K. That temperature gives us an rms velocity of about 1,300 km/s, which is a lot higher, but that's still only a factor of 1.0000097 for gamma. The dark matter estimate for the Virgo cluster is about 40 times the mass of the hot gas we observe, so that requires a velocity of about 99.97% of the speed of light, which works out to a temperature of about 3 x 10^14. The discrepancy between observed temperature and that needed for your idea isn't quite as large in this case, but it's still about seven orders of magnitude off, and the typical particle velocity would again be much higher than the escape velocity for the cluster.

My theory does not require any more matter than has already been observed, so that is no problem.I should have been more specific. The power spectrum observed by WMAP specifically suggests the existence of a substantial amount of nonbaryonic matter in the universe. A theory proposing that the dark matter is baryonic would need to have an alternate explanation for the observed power spectrum.

I would expect this galaxy to be very active, having lots of starbursts and hot young stars and supernovae, and thus to produce a huge amount of dust and thus lots of intergalactic hot ions that produce a huge amount of relativistic extra mass. It might pay to observe this galaxy in the infrared.Here (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/dark_matter_galaxy.html?2322005)'s a link describing the galaxy in question, and that's not actually the case. There are actually no stars or stellar remnants observed at all. I don't know if it's been observed in the infrared, but such things should certainly be seen in the visible range as well.

Edit add: I have appreciated this list. Thank you for providing it.No trouble. There are certainly other recent observations that relate to dark matter as well.

I know my capabilities. I excell in conceptual science. I am the best, no doubt about it. I also know the worth of my theories. A problem solved correctly, is solved correctly and no amount of new data can change that.
Absolute truth is immutable. That is the reason I was confident that new data could not dent my theory. Observations do not worry me. What I distrust are the interpretations of these observations by other people who are not as qualified as I am to interpret such results. They are bound by paradigm. I define paradigm.Well, I'd agree that the laws of physics probably remain constant over time. But if you don't have all the available data when solving a problem, you may come up with a solution that appears to work, but can be seen to be false with the addition of new data. In this case, though, it seems that you didn't even work through the math to confirm that your idea works with the data available at the time, so it would seem that your overconfidence is unjustified. It might serve you well to take the time to learn how to work out the calculations, so you could determine which of your ideas might actually work.

dirkbontes

01-October-2005, 04:17 AM

Well done. This is so exciting.

I have announced in another thread that I would not post anything for one week - excluding announcements of my intention - so I wil respond after one week.

Grey

01-October-2005, 06:32 PM

Well done. This is so exciting.

I have announced in another thread that I would not post anything for one week - excluding announcements of my intention - so I wil respond after one week.Glad I could be of help. Certainly it's no trouble if you have other matters to address.

Jens

03-October-2005, 08:44 AM

No. The electromagnetic and strong nuclear interactions are probably 50 orders of magnitude stronger than the barely perceptible expansion of space, so nuclear particles are well anchored to their set distances. Even gravitation beyond our galaxy - out to about 4 million lightyears - is strong enough to totally swamp the expansion effect. If astronomers could only see our Local Group of galaxies, they couldn't tell the universe was expanding.

Cougar,

Very nicely timed response. There was an article on the New Scientist website today:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8082

About this precise issue. I don't know how you did it, but the article said that some cosmologist has "found the solution to why the universe expands but our waistlines don't (at least not necessarily)." It says that this cosmologist's expert-friends couldn't solve it either.

So maybe you could claim this as the first publication, and try to get the Nobel Prize for yourself...

Cougar

04-October-2005, 03:38 AM

Very nicely timed response....I love when that happens. :)

dirkbontes

08-October-2005, 09:16 PM

For the Milky Way, observation shows that there is roughly 5 to 10 billion solar masses of gas. The temperature varies from around 100 K in the cool denser clouds and filaments to about 1,000 K in the less dense regions between such clouds. There are regions heated to closer to 10,000 K by hot O and B type stars, but these don't account for much of the gas.

I meant the hot intergalactic gas, not the relatively cold intragalactic gas.

But there's a worse problem. These gas molecules are moving at nearly the speed of light, but the escape velocity from the galaxy at the Sun's distance is only about 350 km/s, about a thousand times smaller. If the gas were this energetic, it wouldn't actually be gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, and the Milky Way could never have formed.

Good thinking.

The discrepancy between observed temperature and that needed for your idea isn't quite as large in this case, but it's still about seven orders of magnitude off,

That certainly disproves my idea. Well done.

and the typical particle velocity would again be much higher than the escape velocity for the cluster.

I do not think I ever considered that, though it may have made me uneasy. It has been five years, so I do not remember much of what I was thinking at the time.

I should have been more specific. The power spectrum observed by WMAP specifically suggests the existence of a substantial amount of nonbaryonic matter in the universe. A theory proposing that the dark matter is baryonic would need to have an alternate explanation for the observed power spectrum.

I will be glad to provide one if necessary. I have run into power spectra before (geology), but