looking at the start of the universe

[Walter L. Wagner]

Andrew:

I believe this statement of yours best sums up the quandary:

"I dare say impossible to notice by redshift observations (or any other means which I know of)."

In other words, it is not something which we ourselves can test. It remains instead as an interpretation of observations of recession of distant galaxies [implied recession due to measured red-shifts]. In some models, it is suggested that "space is expanding". I prefer to conceptualize that the galaxies are in fact moving away from us "through nothingness" unless there is some good reason to interject a mathematical construct that derives the same result.

--

As an aside, I should note that before Copernicus, there were extensive models of our solar system in which the Earth was in a fixed, non-rotating reference frame, in the center of the solar system. In those models, everything revolved around the Earth. Those models were effective for some purposes, giving accurate predictions. However, as we know, they were wrong.

--

In either model ["expanding space", or "recessional movement through nothingness"], however, it is implied that the CMB is [was] emitted by matter other than the matter that comprises the galaxies we see, even the very most distant galaxies. In other words, the CMB-emitter is composed of a very hot plasma of mostly protons, electrons, deuterons, etc. that is expanding [into nothingness] and cooling, and we here on Earth see that matter the way it was some 14 billion years ago. It's white-hot black-body radiation of some 2,700 degrees K is red-shifted to a black-body spectrum of a stationary 2.7 degree K blackbody; whether the red-shift is caused by physical recession through space, or due to a presumed "expansion of space" between us, results in the same conclusion - the CMB-emitter is receding from us at near relativistic velocity of some 0.9999991 c, giving it a huge red-shift.

Regards,


Walter

 

[(Q)]

In some models, it is suggested that "space is expanding". I prefer to conceptualize that the galaxies are in fact moving away from us "through nothingness" unless there is some good reason to interject a mathematical construct that derives the same result.

Your conceptualization is wrong, as there is a HUGE difference between the expansion model based on observations and your model of objects hurtling through space. The math does NOT derive the same results.

As an aside, I should note that before Copernicus, there were extensive models of our solar system in which the Earth was in a fixed, non-rotating reference frame, in the center of the solar system. In those models, everything revolved around the Earth. Those models were effective for some purposes, giving accurate predictions. However, as we know, they were wrong.

Strawman argument.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Q:

You present no support for your accusations.

Nor do you dispute that the CMB-emitter is composed of protons, electrons, deuterons, etc. at very high temperature, receding from us at very high speed. I presume you therefore acknowledge that such is an accurate description of the CMB-emitter that we see, in our reference frame, spherically surrounding us.

Your point of argument, instead, is that the recession is caused by the "expansion of space" between us and the CMB emitter, and not due to "movement through space".

Of course, we have observed that movement through space does cause a red-shift [citations available if necessary] if the movement is away from the observer. What he have not observed is any direct evidence that "space is expanding".

 

[(Q)]

Q:

You present no support for your accusations.

I, along with others, have already presented the support, you have yet to do so for your claims.

Nor do you dispute that the CMB-emitter is composed of protons, electrons, deuterons, etc. at very high temperature, receding from us at very high speed. I presume you therefore acknowledge that such is an accurate description of the CMB-emitter that we see, in our reference frame, spherically surrounding us.

That is what it may appear to be viewed, but like other concepts is counter-intuitive. The explanation is that those objects are being carried along by the expansion of space, as it always has been from the moment of the Big Bang and evidently will continue. That is also why their recessional velocities are proportional to the distances between them.

Your point of argument, instead, is that the recession is caused by the "expansion of space" between us and the CMB emitter, and not due to "movement through space".

Correct.

Of course, we have observed that movement through space does cause a red-shift [citations available if necessary] if the movement is away from the observer. What he have not observed is any direct evidence that "space is expanding".

Those links have also been posted, to experiments yielding strong evidence in favor of expansion.

Where are your links supporting your theory? Where is the evidence?

 

[andbna]

The metric expansion of space is a key part of science's current understanding of the universe, whereby spacetime itself is described by a metric which changes over time in such a way that the spatial dimensions appear to grow or stretch as the universe gets older. It explains how the universe expands in the Big Bang model, a feature of our universe supported by all cosmological experiments, astrophysics calculations, and measurements to date.

-Wikipedia

Can there be any stronger evidence for the expansion of space?
-Andrew

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Q and Andrew:

The relevant quote from above reads:

"science's current understanding"

Clearly, the author of that Wikipedia article himself does not have a clear understanding that not all cosmologists agree that "space is expanding".

As to the evidence, it also clearly supports the model in which distant galaxies recede through space, and more distant galaxies recede faster, all the while such is perceived by an observer under GR.

I'm sure both of you will agree that objects near to our planet [say, within our solar system], if they are moving through space towards us will emit light that is blue-shifted, and if they are moving away from us, will emit light that is red-shifted.

We see in the galactic neighborhood galaxies which show a distinct red-shift. Galaxies which appear further away appear to have a greater red-shift.

Based on those facts, Hubble initially proposed an expanding Universe [not expanding "space"] in which those galaxies are receding from us through space; with the recessional velocity greater the farther away they are. If he imagined time to be reversed, so the galaxies were coming towards us, he recognized they could all be on top of us at once, which he concluded must therefore have been the case early on in the history of the Universe.

All of the evidence gathered so far supports Hubble's initial description. It does not necessarily support a concept of space [nothingness] itself expanding [though as I indicated earlier, that can be a mathematical construct to help understand the concept]. In other words, the evidence we have is of nearby galaxies having a red-shift, and more distant galaxies having a greater red-shift, as discovered by Hubble and continously refined [though there are some alternative theories which I won't delve into here, as I do not subscribe to them] in greater detail since.

Additional evidence of the CMB-emitter has also been obtained from numerous experiments [as cited by Q]. That evidence shows that the light emitted by the CMB-emitter has a very distinct frequency-spectrum curve, that exactly mimics the spectrum of a stationary black-body of temperature 2.7 degrees K. That is, not coincidentally, the exact same spectrum of a black-body of 2,700 degrees K, but with recessional velocity of roughly 0.9999991 c, giving it a red-shift of 1,000. It also shows that the light is almost uniform from all directions [isotropic], but that more refined measurements have shown a very slight 'dimpling' of that background light.

Those are the facts; and I believe you agree with those facts.

How you interpret them is another matter.

As frequently stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We have evidence that objects receding through space will have a red-shift, just as objects moving through space towards us will have a blue-shift. The natural conclusion thus reached by Hubble [and Penzias and Wilson, and many others] was that the galaxies are receding from us through space [i.e. through nothingness].

You now make the extraordinary claim that space itself is "expanding", but provide no support other than conclusionary allegations [other than similar conclusionary allgegations]. Where is the evidence? What factual data has been accrued that tends to support that supposition? I would appreciate a summary of those facts, and the links, if you have it. Otherwise, we are just playing a game of semantics.

The main concept I've been trying to get across is that the CMB-emitter is matter that is separate and distinct from the matter of the visible galaxies - -a confusion that initiated this thread. To many, it has been mis-stated that the CMB is "left-over" radiation from the Big Bang, and that likewise, the galaxies are what is 'left-over' from the Big Bang. Thus, many have equated that the CMB originated from the matter of the galaxies that we see. That is false. It is emitted from the matter of the CMB-emitter, which we see [as a presumed hot plasma of 2,700 degrees K, in its reference frame] with a recessional velocity of about 0.9999991 c, whether we conclude that the recessional velocity is engendered due to the CMB-emitter traveling through space, or due to "space expanding" between it and us.

Regards,


Walter

 

[2inquisitive]

Walter L. Wagner,

Those are the facts; and I believe you agree with those facts.

I keep seeing you overlooking the same mistakes over and over, Walter. You may have a Ph.D in physics, but you do not seem to be a very knowledgable cosmologist or astronomer. I do not agree with the current model in all respects, but your simple model contains many more errors wrt observation.
(1) You claim that if the current expansion were reversed, 14 billion years ago all galaxies would be occupying about the same 'space'. This cannot possibly be correct unless you subscribe to the 'emitter' theory of light, light that moves away from the emitter at 300,000 km/s, but is received by us at a much, much slower relative speed because of the recessional speed of the emitter, in fact 0.0000009 c. Do you? If not, how do you propose it took the CMB light 14 billion years to reach us if the 'CMB-emitter' was right next to us when the light was emitted? Inflation theory gets around the problem by stating the universe was already 14 billion light years in radius when the light was emitted. Hubble's simple hypothesis had no inflationary period and cannot be correct unless the emitter theory of light is correct, or perhaps if the Big Bang occured 14 billion years earlier than the surface of first scattering. Could you please explain your thoughts?
(2) You keep stating that the CMB is receding from us at .9999991 c. That figure is using the relativistic Doppler formula. That formula was first proposed when objects were discovered that were receeding from us at greater than the speed of light. Since Special Theory states nothing can move from us at a relative velocity greater than the speed of light, the Doppler formula was re-done with the addition of a gamma function. That was just an add-hock method of ensuring that nothing can exceed 'c', since 'c' is hypothesized as the maximum value of '1'. Modern cosmology keeps the original Doppler formula for velocity-related red-shift, plus adds cosmological red-shift due to the expansion of the space-time fabric.
(3) You keep referring to space as 'nothingness'. I do not agree with that either. Explain what pair production arises from, if not from vacuum energy or a dynamical aether. Explain how two atomic clocks in the vacuum, one in mid-Earth orbit and the other in geostationary orbit, will beat at different rates unless there is something in the 'vacuum' that affects the cesium atom's transitions. Remember, both those clocks are in gravitational freefall, not experiencing any acceleration effects.
(4) You state that the CMB radiation is isotropic, the same red-shift from all directions except for slight 'dimpling'. This is also incorrect. The temperature is the same from all directions (2.64 K), but we can, and do, detect red-shift variations in the spectrum. A 'deaberration' of the light received from the CMB has to be performed. The direction aberration caused by the solar system's peculiar velocity relative to the 'Hubble Flow' ( the CMB) is the largest error that has to be accounted for. For greater accuracy, the aberrations caused by the rotation of the Earth and the Earth's motion around the sun have to be taken into consideration. Yes, we CAN detect absolute motion now-a-days. Some will say it is just motion relative to the CMB, but it is still absolute motion within our visible universe. BTW, absolute motion is called 'peculiar velocity' in astronomy and cosmology.

 

[(Q)]

Clearly, the author of that Wikipedia article himself does not have a clear understanding that not all cosmologists agree that "space is expanding".

Wrong. They do agree.

As to the evidence, it also clearly supports the model in which distant galaxies recede through space, and more distant galaxies recede faster, all the while such is perceived by an observer under GR.

GR supports an expanding universe. You don't.

I'm sure both of you will agree that objects near to our planet [say, within our solar system], if they are moving through space towards us will emit light that is blue-shifted, and if they are moving away from us, will emit light that is red-shifted.

Yes, we've moved well past that. Please do the same.

We see in the galactic neighborhood galaxies which show a distinct red-shift. Galaxies which appear further away appear to have a greater red-shift.

Based on those facts, Hubble initially proposed an expanding Universe [not expanding "space"] in which those galaxies are receding from us through space; with the recessional velocity greater the farther away they are. If he imagined time to be reversed, so the galaxies were coming towards us, he recognized they could all be on top of us at once, which he concluded must therefore have been the case early on in the history of the Universe.

Wrong, they are not receding from us "through" space.

All of the evidence gathered so far supports Hubble's initial description. It does not necessarily support a concept of space [nothingness] itself expanding [though as I indicated earlier, that can be a mathematical construct to help understand the concept]. In other words, the evidence we have is of nearby galaxies having a red-shift, and more distant galaxies having a greater red-shift, as discovered by Hubble and continously refined [though there are some alternative theories which I won't delve into here, as I do not subscribe to them] in greater detail since.

Repeating yourself doesn't make it valid.

Additional evidence of the CMB-emitter has also been obtained from numerous experiments [as cited by Q]. That evidence shows that the light emitted by the CMB-emitter has a very distinct frequency-spectrum curve, that exactly mimics the spectrum of a stationary black-body of temperature 2.7 degrees K. That is, not coincidentally, the exact same spectrum of a black-body of 2,700 degrees K, but with recessional velocity of roughly 0.9999991 c, giving it a red-shift of 1,000. It also shows that the light is almost uniform from all directions [isotropic], but that more refined measurements have shown a very slight 'dimpling' of that background light.

Why do you keep repeating yourself?

Those are the facts; and I believe you agree with those facts.

How you interpret them is another matter.

Actually, it's how you misinterpret them.

As frequently stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We have evidence that objects receding through space will have a red-shift, just as objects moving through space towards us will have a blue-shift. The natural conclusion thus reached by Hubble [and Penzias and Wilson, and many others] was that the galaxies are receding from us through space [i.e. through nothingness].

Complete bullshit.

You now make the extraordinary claim that space itself is "expanding", but provide no support other than conclusionary allegations [other than similar conclusionary allgegations]. Where is the evidence? What factual data has been accrued that tends to support that supposition? I would appreciate a summary of those facts, and the links, if you have it. Otherwise, we are just playing a game of semantics.

All has been presented to you, if you choose to ignore it, that is your problem. And they are not semantics.

Put simply, you are wrong.

The main concept I've been trying to get across is that the CMB-emitter is matter that is separate and distinct from the matter of the visible galaxies - -a confusion that initiated this thread. To many, it has been mis-stated that the CMB is "left-over" radiation from the Big Bang, and that likewise, the galaxies are what is 'left-over' from the Big Bang. Thus, many have equated that the CMB originated from the matter of the galaxies that we see. That is false. It is emitted from the matter of the CMB-emitter, which we see [as a presumed hot plasma of 2,700 degrees K, in its reference frame] with a recessional velocity of about 0.9999991 c, whether we conclude that the recessional velocity is engendered due to the CMB-emitter traveling through space, or due to "space expanding" between it and us.

Space IS expanding between the objects and carrying them away from each other. This is cosmology. And you don't seem to get it.

 

[sniffy]

a lay person speaks. I heard recently that light can travel at different speeds. Does this have any bearing on the subject matter?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Just a little clarification. In the equation e=mc2, e and m are energy and matter and the c, the speed of light, is measured in distance over time. So, if I have understood correctly there are four components, energy, matter, time and distance.

Is it necessary for all four components to have come into existence at the same time?

Is distance in the equation the same as space? ie created by the other components all being present, or was there space before the big bang?

 

[(Q)]

a lay person speaks. I heard recently that light can travel at different speeds. Does this have any bearing on the subject matter?

Light travels at c. It does not travel at different speeds.

When traveling through a medium, it appears to slow down in that there is a delay while the photons are absorbed and re-emitted, but continue to travel at c.

 

[(Q)]

Walter

Question for you. In some of those far off distant galaxies, in their frame of reference, some galaxies are actually moving towards us, yet they are still red-shifted much the same as their neighboring galaxies. How do you explain that?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

2Inquisitive:

Your quote below is of interest:

"The direction aberration caused by the solar system's peculiar velocity relative to the 'Hubble Flow' ( the CMB) is the largest error that has to be accounted for. For greater accuracy, the aberrations caused by the rotation of the Earth and the Earth's motion around the sun have to be taken into consideration. Yes, we CAN detect absolute motion now-a-days. Some will say it is just motion relative to the CMB, but it is still absolute motion within our visible universe. BTW, absolute motion is called 'peculiar velocity' in astronomy and cosmology."

Yes, I was aware of this [and it is predicted by my model], as there have been reports of a slight dipole anisotropy [I believe it was first reported about ten years ago, though I don't have it in front of me right now] in addition to the dimpling, but I did not want to complicate the discussion. Thanks for pointing this out! Don't let Q know about this, though; he'll likely have a hard time 'digesting' it!

As to "nothingness" allowing for the production of virtual particles, I don't have a problem with that, and neither did Paul Dirac, who hypothesized the existence of a "sea" of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in empty space. They remain virtual, unless energy is imparted, which can separate them into particle/anti-particle. After all, that is the presumptive origin of the Universe! Infinite energy expanding into space-time, thereby creating lots of particles at very high temperature. I mentioned this earlier in this thread.

As to your quote below:

"Explain how two atomic clocks in the vacuum, one in mid-Earth orbit and the other in geostationary orbit, will beat at different rates unless there is something in the 'vacuum' that affects the cesium atom's transitions. Remember, both those clocks are in gravitational freefall, not experiencing any acceleration effects."

I don't have a ready answer. I believe it would have to do with virtual particles, or the other 'properties' of space [nothingness]. I believe you've already looked into this, and I'd appreciate citations to the answer to the question you posed [as well as the experiment]. If you haven't already figured out the answer, I'll cogitate on it for awhile.

As to the first section of your post, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. Yes, the recessional velocity [and astronomers refer to galaxies as receding from us, and the red-shift as caused by the recession] of nearby galaxies implies that in the distant past, they started moving away from this general vicinity of the Universe, and were previously associated with this locale. Hubble showed that their recessional velocity was roughly proportional to their distance, and hence they were all roughly on top of us at once. Are you disputing that now?

I do believe you now agree that there is a CMB-emitter [which Q queried as to what that is], matter that is separate and distinct from the matter that constitutes the visible galaxies. It is moving away from us at high speed [in a spherical shell of matter surrounding us at great distance], so that its light is tremendously red-shifted.

What I contend is that the CMB-emitter is, just as the galaxies are moving away from us, also moving away from us, only faster than the galaxies. Because it is located much farther away, it is moving away much faster. Here's where Hubble would have needed to take into account GR, however, because the recessional velocity of the CMB is so large, and simple [speed X time = distance] is no longer applicable, as it is for the nearby galaxies.

As you noted, the CMB-emitter is a relatively uniform spherical shell [of a hot plasma, that we see red-shifted to a cool 2.7 degrees K] surrounding us, against which we can measure the Solar-System's motion/drift through the Milky Way, and/or the Milky-Way's drift towards nearby galaxies that are too close to have a noticeable recession [part of our local cluster]. You called that our "peculiar velocity" which is an apt term.

In essence, that spherical shell keeps being measured as further and further away, as time passes [in our, or any other reference frame], and the red-shift keeps getting larger and larger. In other words, we keep measuring a new CMB-emitter, as the 'current' front cools, expands [and becomes relatively transparent], and makes way for the matter behind it to emit light that we see.

However, we won't be able to see much of a change in only a few years, compared to the 14 billion years elapsed since the similar hot matter of our region of the Universe expanded, cooled, then gravitationally contracted and formed the Milky Way. I first began writing about it 30+ years ago [actually, December, 1975], and I suspect that if we measure it again in 100 years, we might be able to detect a very slight difference, compared to the measurements made a decade ago. Who knows, perhaps with adequate instrumentation, we might be able to detect a slightly more red-shifted CMB every few years!

Q:

As to your question, if they are moving towards us [i.e. not receding], they will have a blue-shift. Only very nearby galaxies would be expected to have such motion. I believe some nearby galaxies have been measured with a blue-shift, but I don't have the cites in front of me. I don't know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us. Can you give citations to such reports?

Regards,


Walter

-------

 

[(Q)]

[and it is predicted by my model]Don't let Q know about this, though; he'll likely have a hard time 'digesting' it!

So, it is your pet theory. As I suspected.

As to your question, if they are moving towards us [i.e. not receding], they will have a blue-shift. Only very nearby galaxies would be expected to have such motion. I believe some nearby galaxies have been measured with a blue-shift, but I don't have the cites in front of me. I don't know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us. Can you give citations to such reports?

It doesn't matter. If there are local galaxies moving in different directions, as has been observed, then there distant galaxies also moving in different directions, those directions being towards us.

How do you explain the fact that they are also red-shifted as are their neighboring galaxies? In other words, no distant galaxies have yet to be found blue-shifted.

This can easily be explained with an expanding universe.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Q:

No offense, but you should allow 2Inquisitive to weigh in first, as he is decidedly better versed on this topic. I found his knowledge of the existence of the small dipole anisotropy that has been measured in the CMB, and is interpreted as our Solar System's "peculiar motion" relative to the CMB-emitter, to be refreshing. And no, it is not my pet theory. The experiment that found the dipole anisotropy was conducted long after I discussed the CMB-emitter as being a spherical shell of matter surrounding us [in our reference frame] and against which a fast velocity relative to that shell would result in a dipole measurement. I do not believe that 2Inquisitive was involved in that experimental work either, but he obviously read the initial report, and indeed, appears to be more informed about the subsequent discussions of it, as the term "peculiar motion" I had not heard previously with reference to that dipole anisotropy measurement.

With respect to your question in your most recent post [#94], it is not phrased very well, if I understand your question.

I believe you are referring to the fact that some nearby [near to the Milky Way, and part of our gravitationally bound local cluster] local galaxies have motion towards us and a blue-shift of their light, and imputing that in more distant regions where we see galaxies with larger red-shifts, they will have local clusters in which, in the reference frame of that local cluster, some of the galaxies within that distant local cluster will undoubtedly have motion in our direction as well, relative to that local cluster as a whole. Is your question then, why are those galaxies, with motions towards us relative to their local cluster, not blue-shifted?

I believe the answer should be obvious; the net motion relative to us [Milky Way] of such a galaxy would still be recessional, that is, that distant local cluster is receding at high speed, but some of the galaxies within that cluster are receding not quite as fast, giving the net effect that within that local cluster, there is net motion towards us relative to that local cluster as a whole. Thus, those galaxies will also have a red-shift, just not quite as large as the other ones in their local cluster.

If that was not your question, I am at a loss as to what your question is about.

 

[(Q)]

Q:

No offense, but you should allow 2Inquisitive to weigh in first, as he is decidedly better versed on this topic.

No offense, but that assertion has little credibility based on your lack of understanding of the topic.

If that was not your question, I am at a loss as to what your question is about.

Uh-huh. I wasn't talking about clusters. I asked you a simple, straight-forward question. A distant galaxy that IS moving towards us still shows a red-shift. How do you explain that if all galaxies are hurtling through space?

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Q:

I believe you are highly confused. There are not distant galaxies, of which I am aware, that are moving towards us. They are all receding from us. If they were moving towards us, they would have a blue-shift. Because they all have red-shifts, we interpret that as moving away from us. We cannot detect their motion by any other means.

I doubt that any astronomer can reference a distant galaxy that is moving towards us. They always determine their velocity by the red-shift or blue-shift.

2Inquisitive: Do you know of any distant galaxies that are moving towards us?

 

[Sci-Phenomena]

to say the universe even had a beginning is more humanly flawed that most can comprehend

 

[andbna]

to say the universe even had a beginning is more humanly flawed that most can comprehend

Likewise, that statement was more useless than I can comprehend.
Stay on topic, and back up your statements.

Now Walter, about that CMB.
Ok so we know that what we are seeing are essentialy different spherical 'slices' of CMB matter as time flows on. What I have to say is, how does an increase of redshift come from this? From one theory, because each 'slice' is father away from us, the expansion of space redshifts it more.
However, your theory would sudjest that that peice would have to be moving faster than the previouse.
How can this be explained?

Also: the cooling of space comes about because of Charle's gas law: that is as the universe expands, it's total volume increases thus the tempurature decreases.
If space did not expand, how could the universe have cooled eanough to allow it to become 'transparent,' versus the opaque CMB that we observe?

-Andrew

 

[Nutter]

If all these theories are based on assumptions of laws, how does anyone know any is right or wrong, in any case?

They just choose those that point to their favorite conclusion and then yammer away. :argue: