5 ms·

Another problem with the standard model is attributing the cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect.

by sahil50 5y ago

FridayoLeary 5y ago
could you pls elaborate on that?
- JPLeRouzic 5y ago
  sahil50 posted this 2 months ago: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJWq63nflgwS0ZHh?usp=sharing https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJW...
- andyjohnson0 5y ago
  I'm not the parent commenter, and I'm not a physicist, but this might be a reference to the non-mainstream theories that are often grouped under the heading of "plasma cosmology". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
- sahil50 5y ago
  What Hubble objectively measured wasn't galaxies receding. He measured redshift. Or photon energy loss. And there's another way to explain this, that is simpler, self-consistent, and doesn't require the concept of "inflation" where apparently space expanded faster than the speed of light. The explanation: photon hubbling, tired light. That galaxies are frankly right where they are. They're not receding. The photon loses energy. It costs energy to forge a path through spacetime.
  - naasking 5y ago
    "Tired light" has failed other tests, so it's probably not the answer.
    - sahil50 5y ago
      How so? Considering all the data on redshift we have, tired light fits. Not galactic recession. Rough calculations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0gar1pEt2xsA9cfF9EOy511G8w/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga... Data from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/
      - phaemon 5y ago
        Galaxies are either approaching or receding from our perspective. How could they possibly be stuck in some "place"? Your theory makes no sense.
        sahil50 5y ago
        How do you know?
        phaemon 5y ago
        How do I know that two objects are either receding or approaching? Because it's obvious. Think about it yourself. Edit: ah, wait, your theory says that approaching objects look the same as receding ones. I think you need to justify that.
        sahil50 5y ago
        You misread. The cosmological redshift is not attributable to galaxies receding. The cosmological redshift is photons losing energy as they forge a path through the gravitationally connected universe. It's the cost of traveling. Total redshift = Cosmological redshift (photon forging a path through spacetime) + Doppler redshift (for example, Andromeda drifting toward us) + Gravitational redshift (like how Sun-to-Earth photons are redshifted because the Sun is more massive)
        raattgift 5y ago
teilo 5y ago
As opposed to what?
- drran 5y ago
  As opposed to one of "tired light" models. Light is not immortal, so it loses some energy with time. E.g. gravitational noise can affect photon energy, or photon can lose some energy to medium due to friction, or photon can lose some energy because of truncation of ideal sinusoidal wave at Planck scale, or speed of light is a bit slower than c (because light arrived 16 seconds later than gravitational waves, when gravitational waves were discovered), thus photon is not frozen in time and expands at very slow rate.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    The standard argument against 'tired light' is that it should lead to scattering of light from more distant objects, but this has not been observed in the data.
    - sahil50 5y ago
      The standard argument is a straw man argument. Tired light is not photons getting scattered, and is not photons bumping into stray electrons. Tired light is because there is a cost to traveling through spacetime. The photon is warping the shape of all the universe mass around it. The photon is doing work.
    - drran 5y ago
      The intensity of scattering is proportional to loss of energy. It is impossible to detect such low scattering level in our visible Universe because it is full of gasses and dust, which created many many orders of magnitude stronger scattering, which is still hard to notice except for very bright objects near to dense clouds of dust. It's not possible to confirm or disapprove this argument yet. Moreover, if we are talking about friction and medium (the Ether), then it was predicted long time ago[1], that discussion will be resolved in favor of Ether when Higgs field will be discovered, because Higgs field must be present everywhere, like Ether, and because medium is required for transverse waves to propagate. Discovery of Higgs boson and Higgs field was announced in 2012, so discussion is resolved, but we still call the medium as (physical, quantum) vacuum, like we still call atom as atom («unbreakable») after breaking it, or we use «-» for presence of electrons instead of absence of electrons. (non-native speaker) [1]: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.882562 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.882562

Another problem with the standard model is attributing the cosmological redshift to the Doppler effect.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

could you pls elaborate on that?

JPLeRouzic 5y ago
sahil50 posted this 2 months ago: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJWq63nflgwS0ZHh?usp=sharing https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1K1qoUFvqZp1fWbpcKJW...
andyjohnson0 5y ago
I'm not the parent commenter, and I'm not a physicist, but this might be a reference to the non-mainstream theories that are often grouped under the heading of "plasma cosmology". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
sahil50 5y ago
What Hubble objectively measured wasn't galaxies receding. He measured redshift. Or photon energy loss. And there's another way to explain this, that is simpler, self-consistent, and doesn't require the concept of "inflation" where apparently space expanded faster than the speed of light. The explanation: photon hubbling, tired light. That galaxies are frankly right where they are. They're not receding. The photon loses energy. It costs energy to forge a path through spacetime.
- naasking 5y ago
  "Tired light" has failed other tests, so it's probably not the answer.
  - sahil50 5y ago
    How so? Considering all the data on redshift we have, tired light fits. Not galactic recession. Rough calculations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0gar1pEt2xsA9cfF9EOy511G8w/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga... Data from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/
    - phaemon 5y ago
      Galaxies are either approaching or receding from our perspective. How could they possibly be stuck in some "place"? Your theory makes no sense.
      - sahil50 5y ago
        How do you know?
        phaemon 5y ago
        How do I know that two objects are either receding or approaching? Because it's obvious. Think about it yourself. Edit: ah, wait, your theory says that approaching objects look the same as receding ones. I think you need to justify that.
        sahil50 5y ago
        You misread. The cosmological redshift is not attributable to galaxies receding. The cosmological redshift is photons losing energy as they forge a path through the gravitationally connected universe. It's the cost of traveling. Total redshift = Cosmological redshift (photon forging a path through spacetime) + Doppler redshift (for example, Andromeda drifting toward us) + Gravitational redshift (like how Sun-to-Earth photons are redshifted because the Sun is more massive)
        raattgift 5y ago

teilo 5y ago

As opposed to what?

drran 5y ago
As opposed to one of "tired light" models. Light is not immortal, so it loses some energy with time. E.g. gravitational noise can affect photon energy, or photon can lose some energy to medium due to friction, or photon can lose some energy because of truncation of ideal sinusoidal wave at Planck scale, or speed of light is a bit slower than c (because light arrived 16 seconds later than gravitational waves, when gravitational waves were discovered), thus photon is not frozen in time and expands at very slow rate.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  The standard argument against 'tired light' is that it should lead to scattering of light from more distant objects, but this has not been observed in the data.
  - sahil50 5y ago
    The standard argument is a straw man argument. Tired light is not photons getting scattered, and is not photons bumping into stray electrons. Tired light is because there is a cost to traveling through spacetime. The photon is warping the shape of all the universe mass around it. The photon is doing work.
  - drran 5y ago
    The intensity of scattering is proportional to loss of energy. It is impossible to detect such low scattering level in our visible Universe because it is full of gasses and dust, which created many many orders of magnitude stronger scattering, which is still hard to notice except for very bright objects near to dense clouds of dust. It's not possible to confirm or disapprove this argument yet. Moreover, if we are talking about friction and medium (the Ether), then it was predicted long time ago[1], that discussion will be resolved in favor of Ether when Higgs field will be discovered, because Higgs field must be present everywhere, like Ether, and because medium is required for transverse waves to propagate. Discovery of Higgs boson and Higgs field was announced in 2012, so discussion is resolved, but we still call the medium as (physical, quantum) vacuum, like we still call atom as atom («unbreakable») after breaking it, or we use «-» for presence of electrons instead of absence of electrons. (non-native speaker) [1]: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.882562 https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.882562