Cosmological Red Shift

I am not familiar with what is being taught at the most advanced levels of cosmology.

When I see a well-known physicist like Leonard Susskind publishing a book that makes such claims, and when those claims have the strong explanatory power that the view I have advanced above does, I tend to see it as the forefront of science. And you may be right, I may be in advance of the current mainstream, as you note below. I will address that in that location.

I would perhaps be more correct to say that this is the forefront of current mainstream thought on cosmology, and then cite sources; I hope I have cited fairly compelling ones above, and I have just found Susskind(2005) and am currently walking through the index looking for a good overall look and for specific citations from Vilenkin, Guth, and Linde.

I am currently reading page 303 where it looks like my views above are directly substantiated. I will post shortly on that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, here's the gist of the discussion on page 303 of Susskind(2005):

Basically we're looking at a very specific permutation of the "rolling ball in a dish" analogy that is often used to explain both the Higgs mechanism and the general idea of inflation itself.

The quantum vacuum within which the vacuum fluctuation that would eventually become our universe can be characterized as a landscape of different levels of cosmological constant. After the initial quantum fluctuation, at whatever level of cosmological constant it at random had (remember that a quantum fluctuation can happen at any random point on the landscape, as quantum fluctuations can happen anywhere in the quantum vacuum, just as in our universe), it would naturally tend to "roll down" if it could to an area with a lower cosmological constant. Susskind characterizes this first stage in our universe as a "slow roll," since we would be more likely to be near a shallow slope than a steep one, because there are far more shallow slopes than there are local "mountains" and corresponding "holes." And this corresponds just exactly, even down to using the same phraseology, to the "slow roll" that is used in discussing inflation. Then, the universe encountered a "hole," not unexpected somewhere nearby, though unlikely as a starting place (and lacking the characteristics as a starting place to result in anything like our universe, due to its unacceptably low value of the cosmological constant, which would preclude inflation). In rolling down the steep slope in this "hole," the universe rapidly dissipates the inflaton, resulting in "reheating," in which the universe is filled with the energy of the decaying inflaton. The Big Bang ensues.

Quoting Susskind:

Italics in the original; the comments in brackets [] are mine. Note as well that Susskind in this section is developing his version of the anthropic principle, which is controversial, but this does not take away from the fact that this view absolutely requires inflation to precede the hot Big Bang, since the material in the Big Bang does not exist in the universe until the steep part of the descent releases the energy of the transition from a high cosmological constant to a lower one.

Susskind presents a great deal more supporting evidence of this later in the book, but that's his main presentation of the energy dynamics of the inflationary universe in ΛCDM.

On edit, it is worth noting that the exact era when particles began to have mass is the period of reheating. This corresponds to the Higgs mechanism that gave mass to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Better still, who has confidence in YOUR physics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We'll see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You may see that as a "smart arse" answer to save your bacon, I see it as a copout avoidance of the question.
We of course observe cosmological redshift of distant galaxies, within the precision of our instruments which verify universal/spacetime expansion.

Another smart arse evasive answer and the usual dig at the person that has tried to keep yourself, rajesh and expletive deleted honest.
The Universe is spacetime: The evidence of cosmological redshift tells us that the universe/spacetime is expanding: Or that in the distant past, the universe/spacetime was much smaller which leads us to the BB.

Stupid avoidance answer.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Obviously by the ignorance your posts reflect, you reject standard accepted cosmology.

Along with GP-B being fraudulent and aLIGO also, when in fact BH's are now confirmed. But of course all you need to do is supply/fabricate some other entity that explains the observational evidence we see today, and please do not say BNS which has already been demolished and the paper rejected by real professional experts.
Worm holes and Time travel are of course still hypothetical but both allowed for by the equations of GR:
So, when are you going to honestly answer the questions I put to expletive deleted, although I imagine he has the same avoidance answers as you do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Schneibs.
Is this what is known as "Eternal Inflation"?
brucep was/is always pushing that aspect but of late he has been absent.
Perhaps he like many others here in the past, have been driven away by the anti mainstream agenda laden cosmology brigade?
Perhaps brucep does not have my staying power?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or maybe he is on holidays or just having a break.

 

It's part of the argument, not the concept itself. Eternal inflation is the idea that the landscape of cosmological constants has universes popping out all over it all the time due to the constant appearance of vacuum fluctuations. The particular quote above is part of the answer to the question, "If so many universes are possible, why are we here?"

 

Hi expletive deleted:
You said.......

Obviously had me somewhat confused.....


Then.....

So expletive deleted, if you were not referring to BICEP2, what were you referring to?
I have mentioned to you before in an effort to try and help, that your posts are confusing overall....For a start, they mostly lack paragraphs...secondly you seem to flower your posts with over done, excessive, schmaltzy, cheesy niceties. Try sticking to current terminologies and accepted posting styles and the confusion people are having with your posts, won't be so apparent.
I'm not in anyway referring to the occasional spelling mistake or omission of a word or two through laziness that does not detract from the message of the post...rather the anomalies I have specifically mentioned.

 

What do you think of the following?
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

 

paddoboy, it's short, and it has only some of the concepts, but yes. They're looking for evidence in the Planck findings right now; the search is on for B-mode polarizations in the CMB not caused by local dust. They've ruled out ones that are stronger than about 50% of the B-mode signal, which puts them down nearer the noise threshold, making the data analysis far more than twice as difficult. Planck is still collecting data, and analysis always takes far longer than collection- and now it's much more difficult. It's going to be a while.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Planck/Planck_gravitational_waves_remain_elusive

 

I think I could not put it clearly.

SR has a localised domain, its domain (flat spacetime) is the part of GR domain...What this guy is doing is attempting to explain a cosmological (global/GR) aspect with SR.

 

Intereference is required, regarding Schneibster posts........

It is quite apparent that either he is presenting the current mainstream view or he is pushing as DMOE says oxymoronic 'Mainstream Alternative' approach... ...

1. His loud assertion that Cosmological Redshift (a GR phenomenon) falls and Doppler Redshift (SR stuff); This is not the main mainstream.
2. His loud assertion that BB came after Inflation or something like that, is also not mainstream.

It is disturbing that we have no opinion from Mods or Mods are not able to organise some views from the currently working guys. These are critical points and change the very established opinion on both the topics and hence it should be clearly established whether it is Mainstream or Mainstream Alternative or even Fringe.

PS: Even though my basic opinion on many issues are quite contrarion, but I can decipher the mainstream POV, Whatever Schneibster is pushing is held by a very few so called mainstream guys....It is not THE mainstream.

 

As usual, you fail. Standard acceptable cosmology is reasonable firm. As we move closer to the BB, things do get less certain and of course once we arrive at the Planck scale speculation takes over.....Speculation though comes in two forms: That hypothesised by reputable professionals based on current knowledge, such as....
https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/
and your own and certain others, complete ignorance of standard accepted evidenced based cosmology such as BH's and the BB, and hypothesising pseudoscience nonsense such as Black Neutron Stars and unicorns.

The trick is to be able to decipher the difference: That's your failure.

 

I never fail......

BTW what is standard acceptable cosmology with reference to two major points as stormed by Schneibster ?

1. Cosmological Red shift is doppler red shift or Cosmological redshift is no doppler red shift ?
2. Inflation came after BB or BB came after inflation ?

 

Incorrect spelling it's a-l-w-a-y-s

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have some questions to answer first my friend: You know, the previous ones you sidestepped....
[1]Do you believe we see cosmological redshift?
[2]Do you accept the universe/spacetime is expanding?
[3]Do you accept standard accepted cosmology?
[4]Do you have problems with GR?

The crux of the matter of this thread is of course cosmological redshift does happen...spacetime/Universe is expanding...GR is still overwhelmingly supported along with those two scenarios.
You have shown in post 94 that you do not accept cosmological redshift, so as an extension you also deny spacetime/universal expansion as well as GR [among a host of other overwhelmingly supported mainstream theories].
These are the same methodological arguments that YEC's and other God botherers are continually trying to raise to find fault with 21st century mainstream cosmology.
They also fail, just as you have: Sad.

 

Since I started this thread, so I understand 'the crux of the matter of this thread' ...and the crux is not that cosmological redshift does happen...the crux is on the theory/mainstream explanation behind this observed reality. Hope you get it now after participating in 10-12 pages.....

 

You contradict yourself.
You may have started this thread, but Russ and Schneibs have certainly provided the expertise and exposed your agenda and that of another

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The crux of the matter is as I stated: the interpretation raised by Schneibs was a recent addition.
Now answer the questions without any more avoidance and cop outs, or I'll assume [and accurately] what your answers are anyway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[1]Do you believe we see cosmological redshift?
[2]Do you accept the universe/spacetime is expanding?
[3]Do you accept standard accepted cosmology?
[4]Do you have problems with GR?

 

Russ provided expertise ? The guy does not know about the angle subtended by Sun on an earth based observer.

Schneibster's is not recent addition...you do not add just like that...these are some of the hypos...need lot of work before they can be added to mainstream. He is outrightly wrong on cosmological redshift being doppler shift...i do not care about his views on BB/Inflation because I find both of them nothing but fantasy..

 

In actual fact it is your whole view on 21st century cosmology is fantasy and you ignore all evidence, which points to an agenda.

 

Other than your usual unreasonable rejection of 21st century cosmology, your claim re Schneibs is fraudulent also I suggest. I have already in fact answered that for you but again just to make sure in case you by passed the previous post. Many cosmological GR inspired observations can be explained by two interpretations. Schneibs has given one of those which Russ had educated you on earlier [any myself also] This fact is also evident in a possible alternative description of light bending: Instead we could just as correctly say that it is space-time itself that is distorted by the presence of mass.
Either is correct, and either is satisfactory to explain the scenario.
Hope that helps.

 

Whoa ! What is this ? Please read a bit about Occam's razor.

So which one is mainstream...do you agree with him completely or you agree with other one ?

Thats hilarious.

What is the possible alternative description of light bending you are suggesting ?

 

Nothing to do with Occam's razor, just another example of your inability to recognise FoR's and standard cosmology.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Í've already answered that, obviously it conflicts with your anti standard accepted cosmology nonsense.

It's there in black and white: Actually hilarious is denying the data from GP-B and aLIGO.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't mind spoon feeding.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While you may explain light bending, I may say that light is just following geodesics and travelling in as straight lines as possible in curved spacetime. Not withstanding your own previous denial of curved/warped space time

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!