Cosmological Red Shift

No time T is only a convenience in the equations of physics. It allows one to be vague, how time parameter T is to be measured.

For example, there is an equation with parameter T that gives the rate of chemical energy released as heat by a burning candle. I'll call that equation Q1. Likewise there is an equation, Q2, also with T an explicit parameter in it, that gives the KE a moving car has. I can solve Q1 for T, getting new equation T = F1 and likewise solve Q2 for new equation T = F2.

Now I set F1 = F2 as both equal T.

Then I have an expression relating two ENERGIES, two observables, without any mention of T. Your statement is thus false.

Likewise, equation Q'1 could give the candle's unburnt length as function of T and Q'2 the car's position as function of T. Apply the same procedure and get the candle's length in terms of the car's position directly with no mention of T.

You do not need time parameter T to do physics, it is merely a great convenience. In my Second example*, you describe the burning candle in terms of the moving car's position directly. Both candle length and the car's position are observables. No mention of the unobservable parameter T in the equation relating these two observables directly to each other.

* I gave the first as you said it would be impossible to speak about energies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Capital T is temperature, degrees Kelvin, not t, time. I also stipulate that an interval of time, delta t is dynamic while an instant of time t is static. Playing games with these is exactly like dividing by zero, and that's a problem.

BillyT is a fiction author with some strange ideas about science, perhaps a few we have taught him that are not so strange, but not a scientist.

Remove t from almost anything other than the Wheeler-Dewitt equation, and you are out of the domain of physics. Do all the statics and geometry you wish there, but it isn't a dynamic model any more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Casimir effect is experimentally verified. It's data, not theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So then in theory you can derive energy from the vacuum anywhere with it and use that energy (non E=mc^2) to create thrust in inertialess space? Go surf a gravity wave, dude.

It's data. So is fiction. But it does not even rise to the level of being wrong.

 

Power requires energy flow from a point with higher energy to a point with lower energy. If vacuum energy is everywhere, there is no point with lower energy for it to flow to and no power can be derived from it. With no power there is no thrust. Don't confuse Casimir pressure with free energy.

Experimental results are data, period. It is data, sorry to directly contradict you but the Casimir effect is a brute fact.

 

Considering that it has been your past threads that have been shifted to pseudoscience, your ding dong comment is rather ironic to say the least.
I also understand enough to know that most of your posts that are out to question mainstream accepted cosmology have all been refuted including this current one.
Cosmological redshift stands: The Universe/spacetime is expanding: GR is not violated in anyway, in fact in light of recent discoveries, is further enforced and validated.

 

The point is as usual what you have missed. That being any disgreement within mainstream professionals, are being discussed by experts with knowledge and access to all the state of the art equipment available. It is also in the main being discussed by these experts without any agenda baggage which you certainly appear to have.
In essence the observed cosmological redshift confirms the expansion of spacetime/universe and of course continues to align with GR.

 

I like clear thinking. Not agreeing with me is always fine.

 

Ignoring the usual lengthy text made up of untruths and insults directed at me, I'll just comment again on the above......
[1] This is not your thread: [at least I don't think so

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]
[2] This is not your forum.
[3] This is a public and open forum where I can comment on anything I chose.

Your generally emotive and hysterical post appears to be a plead to the mods.
That scenario may have worked when you were a newbie: You are not a newbie now.
Also you should know that if you chose to carry on with this emotional crap, and decide to report, the mods are obliged to look at the whole series of posts that lead up to this, including your insulting remarks re myself speaking for Russ: A post in hindsight I should have reported but did not.
Take all this as good advice expletive deleted, and do away with your emotional posts.

The fact and evidence remains whether you like it or not, that [1] Cosmological redshift does occur: [2] The Universe/spacetime does expand: GR is well supported and is not violated.
These were a part of a few questions I did ask you previously which you did not answer: That is your perogative.
You have also yet to show exactly where I have contradicted myself.

 

Would be nice if you responded to the content, rather than the symbols used, T instead t, which easily gets lost in the text. No I did not do "statistic and geometry." I showed how, in principle, any time variable (T or t) can be eliminated from the equations of physics, resulting in new equations that directly express the changes in one observable (or a set in many cases) in terms of another variable (or set of variables) I. e. can be reduced to the relationship between real observables, in stead of given in terms of a function of an ill defined, non-observable time parameter.

Although I did this in a post making the point I made in more detail some years ago, I have since learned that Mach did exactly the same, long before me to make the same point: Physic can be stated in terms of real, measurable observables, with no reference to the un-observable parameter time. Time, only a parameter in equations, is a convenience but not an observable.

As Newton also said: the time parameter in his equation was "absolute time" not to be confused with many approximations like clock time, orbit time, even sidereal time. Newton's “absolute time” is not an observable, just an ordering parameter giving the sequence of events that can be observed, measured.

Yes I agree, that if the time parameter is eliminated for the equations of physics, then there is no time dynamic model. Every change is expressed in terms of other observable changes, not as a function of an un-observable parameter, t.

 

I don't mean this to sound rude, but you use an awful lot of words to say something that should probably take a lot less. It makes your posts harder to read/point harder to find. But I'll try to answer:

Redshifts from different causes are indistinguishable from each other. You can't tell by looking at an individual galaxy's redshift if it is doppler shift or cosmological redshift. Because they are fundamentally the same observation: a velocity. But by cataloging many galaxies and computing averages and variations with distance, you can filter them to separate the proper and cosmological components of the measured velocity.

Photons don't have "intrinsic wavelength". They have a wavelength they are sent at and a wavelength they are received at. These may or may not be the same. That's all there is.

Right. Since photons don't have "intrinsic wavelength", they can't be "stretched".

Why? That is exactly what one would expect, isn't it?

I don't see a problem here. A near infinite number of different objects emitted photons that we receive. They come from a near infinite number of different directions. If someone to your left throws a ball to you and someone to your right throws a different ball to you, you were just moving in two directions at once!

So I'll reiterate since you didn't really respond directly to my concise summary, but say it a little more directly here:
You apparently think the entire physics community is missing something about how redshift works: they aren't looking for a "mechanism" for cosmological redshift, but you think they should be. You aren't correct: there is no mechanism needed/no mechanism to look for.

From a previous post:

If that were true, there would be no cosmological redshift at all. So are you trying to say you don't believe there is cosmological redshift? You don't believe space is expanding?

 

What qualifies you to make that judgment about someone who earned a Ph. D. in physic from Johns Hopkins Un. and then worked for 30 years in their Applied Physic Lab, rising to the highest professional rank there, Principal Staff Scientist?

 

I haven't gone back through the entire thread, but I'd like to clarify this. I think it is somewhat of a philosophical question to say when the photon acquired its wavelength and while we don't really disagree, I would say it a bit differently:

I would say that a photon has one wavelength when emitted, another wavelength when received and while in transit does not have a definable wavelength. How can that bolded part be true? Simple: The photon doesn't know what reference frame it will be received in. It could have any one of an infinite number of different wavelengths when it is received, depending on the frame of reference of the receiver.

 

I will point out that if it is measured in flight, that measurement will depend upon the motion of the observer. So if someone was near a distant galaxy, but was comoving with Earth, they would measure the same frequency/wavelength as would eventually be measured when the photons arrive at Earth, whereas if they were comoving with the distant galaxy, they'd measure the same frequency/wavelength that the galaxy emitted them with.

I don't think we need to talk about light with an indefinable wavelength. We just need to be careful to state which frame of reference we're talking about and make all the appropriate conversions (which physicists call "transforms") between the frames when changing from one to the other, and I think most of the confusion in this thread results from failing to do so. I believe I have proven that; I'll be interested to know what you think after reviewing the thread.

On edit: BTW, in case it's not clear, I agree with your assertion that nothing happens to the photon. Like I said, it's all a matter of what frame you're viewing the photon from.

 

Schneibster and Billy T:


Your discussion has thrown up some aspects which I am trying to settle in my own mind regarding what the theory actually says and what it doesn't. I don't want to make your discussion a three-way conversation, I only want to check with you both if my understanding of the theory claims and implications is correct or not. Here goes.

TIME aspect: I understand that to be a function of the standard used for convenience. Billy T pointed that out. I concur. From my understanding of the theory, and please correct me if I am not consistent, time is like a standard currency for transacting between various forms of value in such a way that the relative values reflect a proportional "conversion rate". Example, one dollar can be used to 'value' grain, or poultry and so on; and the dollar remains a standard of conversion convenience, but its "standard value" does not actually exist intrinsically, only extrinsically according to its standardized value agreed for that currency. Billy T's example also highlights and confirms this transactional convenience nature of some standard exchange or conversion system which may be agreed according to its convenience in valuing other disparate quantified entities (whether themselves abstract, or hard, goods and services).

FRAME: The theory leads me to understand that a photon does not have associated with it any frame; and hence its properties are only inherent to itself, without reference to any other frame once in free space travel. Like it's wavelength, for instance, which remains unchanged unless acted upon by something in transit(eg: particle scattering; or transiting through different "space-time curvature" regions, which variable "curvature" conditions may be due to gravitational well or cosmological expansion causes and their respective mechanisms whether yet identified or explained or not in the theory).

Billy T's THOUGHT EXPERIMENT aspect: Your thought experiment involving oppositely directed photons is, as you clarified, a valid theoretical construct for analyzing aspects which themselves cannot be measured in classical or quantum terms in practice, since as already noted, the photon has no frame of reference associated with it. Such thought experiments (involving "frame-less" photons entities which nevertheless must have some intrinsic existence properties irrespective of other frames or observers, as I exampled above referring to photon intrinsic wavelength property) have had a long tradition of usefulness behind them since that great Thinker and Physicist Albert Einstein described one where he was imagining himself riding on a light beam in order to gain insight as to the nature of the frame-less behavior and implications of photons traveling at light speed, and what it tells of its relation to space-time itself and its relations and interactions with ponderous entities having various frames associated with them.

The above understandings from reading the theory on these particular aspects makes me lean towards Billy T's own understandings of the above aspects, as explained in his relevant posts on those specific aspects. I don't want to distract from your discussion or claim any more validity for my above understandings than theory can support. If I have misread that theory, and if my above understandings are in any way deficient or misled, I ask any learned member to please correct me accordingly.

Thanks in advance, Schneibster and Billy T, for your patience and indulgence while I am trying to better understand your very interesting discussion on these aspects.

 

But you can only detect one of them; the other is going away from you. It's therefore irrelevant. Not only that but refusing to choose a frame is tantamount to refusing to do physics. Period.

But Earth does not see CMB from one direction as strongly red- or blueshifted; we see all the sky as essentially the same temperature (which corresponds by the Wien law to a particular peak frequency). So it is not, in fact, frame invariant.

No, that's incorrect. One can define a frame in which the CMB is the same temperature in all directions, and some astrophysicists have done exactly that. It's called the "CMB rest frame" and it is responsible for the CMB dipole [q.v., Google it]. In that frame, the Earth is moving about 370 km/s toward Leo. The problem with defining this as a preferred frame is that the CMB varies throughout the universe. The frame in which the Earth is moving this way is therefore a local CMB rest frame, not a global one (one that would be valid throughout the universe).

I can see you don't know much about reference frames. They have an origin. But that wasn't my point; I incorrectly assumed you knew about reference frames' origins. My point was that an approximate local rest frame 13 billion light years from here would be moving away from us at nearly the speed of light. In such a frame, the temperature would be very high and the cosmic background would be very high frequency; but in the frame of Earth ca. 2016, that same background is in the microwave, at a blackbody temperature of some 2 kelvins.

I'm sorry, I gave up after this. Your basic assumption is wrong because you aren't using a consistent frame, and you're changing frames without performing a transform, which any physicist would immediately recognize as an error so severe as to invalidate the rest of what you're claiming.

 

Time is different for observers in different motion. That's a basic result of SRT. This is called "time dilation." It's pretty well known so I'll only elaborate on it if you ask. Therefore the rate of the passage of time at a distant galaxy moving away from us at a substantial fraction of the speed of light is different from the rate of the passage of time here.

That's correct. However, the observed wavelength is different for observers in different motion from one another; this is called the "FitzGerald contraction," or more commonly these days the "Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction." It's also well known, and also from basic SRT.

The problem with Billy T's thought experiment is that a) it's irrelevant because by definition only one of the two photons can ever be detected, and b) he is changing frames without doing a transform, a required step when changing frames.

Time dilation and the FitzGerald contraction are both results of the basic SRT transforms that must be applied when changing reference frames.

Done.

Sure.

 

Schneibster:

Your discussion with Billy T is getting even more interesting for me. This is another aspect that I have been trying to get straight in my own mind regarding what impl ications and applications are actually possible according to theory and practice involving CMB. If I may ask:

How is such a "CMB rest frame" frame arrived at in practice as well as in theory?

Is Earth's observed relative motion with regard to that "CMB rest frame" a state of motion in "absolute" terms according to the underlying space itself over which that "CMB rest frame" is 'mapped'?

Since Big Bang Expansion is held by theory to be isotropic in all directions, then how can you assert the following to Billy T?

Isn't the only variable Earth's proper motion rather than the CMB background from all directions equally in the CMB universal frame since Big Bang event?


Since the CMB is composed of blackbody range of wavelengths of a set globally determined range of 'perceived frequencies' dependent on the isotropic nature of Big Bang event and expansion since, how can a CMB frame, once arrived at, then [b[not[/b] be considered to apply to the whole universe which includes all regions which were must all have been there at Big Bang beginning and subsequently evolved state and which are all still 'there' (only bigger in expanses in space-time terms)?


I hope you can see where your assertion there to Billy T has confused me as to what I thought I understood about CMB, frames, Big Bang Expansion and Proper motions with respect to local space (as distinct from cosmological theory 'recession' interpreted 'motion' relative to CMB produced and pervading all of GLOBALLY ISOTROPIC expanding space regions separately and collectively)?


Can you please elaborate your meanings in light of my above questions, so I can better understand what you meant rather than what I may have misunderstood by misreading your CMB related frame assertion to Billy T? Thanks, Schneibster (or Billy T or any other learned member) in advance for any kind explanations you have time to give for my benefit.

 

BTW worth mentioning (I didn't know it until I scared up this reference) that the CMB dipole was practically the first thing everyone went looking for after Peebles et al. discovered the CMB in the first place. Here's the reference: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-dipole-history.html and it has links to prove it. Here is the link to the original Conklin paper in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v222/n5197/abs/222971a0.html

Amusingly, this paper from Nature in 1969 talks about the reference frame of the origin of the CMB:

He doesn't mention that such a frame would be moving relative to Earth at nearly the speed of light; he assumes anyone with an intelligence greater than that of the legumes would already know it.

So there's some evidence to support my contention that distant reference frames are, by definition, assumed to be moving at the local velocity with respect to Earth, for bonus points.

 

Excellent. I'm impressed. Can you provide a link to any papers (no matter what subject or when) that are available online? All I found before (not an exhaustive search) from you was "Dark Visitor". You don't have to do this or self identify if you'd rather not. With a PhD, at some point you specialized. Not in astrophysics, I take it?

I have many friends with similar credentials, lists of patents to their credit, etc.

Your level of factual science writing yields little clue of this background for the most part, but then many of the friends I just mentioned (many of whom were educated abroad) have similar writing styles and might make the same mistakes.

When you write:

"They are the very same photons that were emitted from that cooling plasma …(peak wave length of the black body spectrum when first emitted, was probably gamma rays - many dozens of thousands times shorter wave length than now."

You are recycling the "tired photon" theory. This theory has been falsified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

case closed.