Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: CMBR Alternative Interpretation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93

    CMBR Alternative Interpretation

    Greetings Cosmo-Questors, I've come back for more punishment, bearing what seems to me like an interpretation of the CMBR that can support the Hypersphere Cosmology thesis. I would value your criticism. Regards, Pete.

    The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has become interpreted as evidence for the Big-Bang expanding universe LCDM standard cosmological model.
    The CMBR consists of electromagnetic microwave radiation that peaks at a frequency corresponding to blackbody radiation with a temperature of 2.70 Kelvin above absolute zero. It comes to observers here from all directions in space.

    Standard cosmology interprets the CMBR as relic radiation leftover from a primeval fireball about a third of a billion years into the supposed expansion of the universe from a spacetime singularity or near singularity. At this time the universe had supposedly expanded to a radius of a third of a billion light years and cooled to a temperature of about 3,000K, at which point it deionised from a proton-electron plasma and allowed photons to pass freely through it. Such photons which allegedly had very high energies and short wavelengths, subsequently became much lower energy longer wavelength photons due to the expansion of space and they now appear to us as the microwave background radiation.

    We cannot see the CMBR with the naked eye, but if we could the night sky would not appear dark between the stars because about 400 CMBR photons per square centimetre per second impinge from all directions, they represent a significant cosmic phenomena that demands an explanation.

    In Hypersphere Cosmology, all the electromagnetic radiation that does not become absorbed on its journey will eventually return to its point of origin after about 13 billion years but in a much redshifted form due to gravitational redshifting and lensing both caused by the small positive hyperspherical spacetime curvature of the entire universe.

    Cosmologists estimate that our galaxy, the Milky Way, has an age alarmingly close to the supposed age of the universe itself, somewhere around the thirteen billion year mark. They remain adamant that it cannot possibly have an age greater than their estimated age of the universe. Yet the Milky Way contains the so-called Methuselah star (HD 140283), whose apparent longevity does seem to severely challenge standard the cosmic age limit.

    The average surface temperatures of all the billions of stars in a galaxy or a galactic cluster adds up to something resembling a blackbody radiation source at about 3,000K when seen from a cosmic distance.
    Thus, the CMBR we observe in this region of the hyperspherical cosmos may well have originated from this region and re-converged back here in highly redshifted form thirteen billion years later. Observers in a deep intergalactic void may not observe any CMBR at all.
    The following two diagrams show the combined effects of Hyperspherical Lensing and Hyperspherical Vorticitation. Hyperspherical Lensing brings electromagnetic radiation to a focus at the antipode point to its emission. Hyperspherical Vorticitation moves the source of emission to its antipode point in the same period.

    The first diagram shows this effect in the reduced dimension ‘surface of a sphere’ representation of a hypersphere, and the second shows it in the reduced dimension ‘two-ball’ representation of a hypersphere. Thick arrows represent the movement of the source due to vorticitation; thin arrows represent the paths of emitted radiation.

    Can I post a 24.5 Kb png diagram?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    2,032
    What are you trying to prove?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Standard LCDM cosmology implies singularities, inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, and problems exist with the so-called Hubble tension.
    For a long while I've looked at possible alternatives and I have offered elements of a growing alternative scheme here over the years for falsification.
    Here I introduce a possible mechanism to account for the CMBR, this is something new that I would appreciate some criticism on.
    Proof and falsification seem tricky matters in cosmology, I merely seek to ask if this idea could account for our observations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    In Hypersphere Cosmology, all the electromagnetic radiation that does not become absorbed on its journey will eventually return to its point of origin after about 13 billion years but in a much redshifted form due to gravitational redshifting and lensing both caused by the small positive hyperspherical spacetime curvature of the entire universe.
    So spacetime in your cosmology is very highly curved in order to get light to "return to its point of origin." But you've left out the part about the CMBR having slightly hotter and colder variations throughout. Your cosmology doesn't seem to have an explanation for those. And further, using the largest of those variations as one leg of a very long, narrow triangle, it has been determined that the angles of the triangle add up to 180 degrees, or very close to it, and therefore we conclude the Universe is pretty close to FLAT, not highly curved as in your model. How do you explain that observation?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    The anisotropies in the CMBR seem pretty small but significant, and they do not seem obviously correlated with any of the observable megastructures in the cosmos. Conventionally, 'quantum fluctuations' are invoked to explain them, and also the local anisotropies in the distribution of matter.

    The deviation from flatness required to close the observable universe also seems pretty small, corresponding to a deceleration of only ~7e-10 metres/second^2.

    If the CMBR observed here does originate from the local galaxy or galactic cluster then perhaps we should expect some small anisotropies in it. I have speculated that a galaxy or galactic cluster observed from say 10 or more billion light years away would exhibit a spectrum approximating to that of a black body, but I remain uncertain about what choices of parameters and figures would be acceptable in a debate about this.

    I also remain uncertain about what choices of parameters and figures would prove acceptable in calculating the 'outgoing' photon flux from all the surrounding radiation emitting sources within say 300 million light years, for this should match the 'incoming' CMBR photon flux, according to this hypothesis.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    I have speculated that a galaxy or galactic cluster observed from say 10 or more billion light years away would exhibit a spectrum approximating to that of a black body...
    I doubt that you have done any calculations at all to support your speculations, but if you have, please present them. In the meantime, I will point out that this is hardly a novel speculation. It was considered and dismissed long ago. One reason for the dismissal is simply that the CMB spectrum isn't merely a good approximation to that of a blackbody; it is, in fact, the best blackbody spectrum ever measured. The deviations are denominated in parts per million (order of 10ppm, if memory serves). Since the spectrum of starlight (e.g.) is not nearly that good a fit to that of a blackbody, the superposition of such spectra does not converge to anything resembling that of a blackbody to anywhere near the 10ppm level. So, please show your maths that somehow reproduces a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, nonetheless.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Performing the calculations isn't the problem, I have equations for hyperspherical redshift, lensing, and vorticitation, and I have computational facilities. The problem is finding acceptable and appropriate data to explore this hypothesis, and that's partly why I'm here.

    I'm interested in the spectra of far distant galaxies, z >10, for example GN-z11, however it seems that at such distances the best we can get is a handful of pixels in a narrow band of highly redshifted wavelengths. I suppose that I could use that as evidence in itself, but I would prefer something broader in scope.

    Geo Kaplan, you say that 'this idea was considered and dismissed long ago', can you give me a reference for such considerations?

    Moderators, can I please have permission to post small diagrams and links?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    Moderators, can I please have permission to post small diagrams and links?

    You should have no problems with posting links.
    Posting diagrams may have difficulties, but that is forum related, and is being worked on.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    Performing the calculations isn't the problem, I have equations for hyperspherical redshift, lensing, and vorticitation, and I have computational facilities. The problem is finding acceptable and appropriate data to explore this hypothesis, and that's partly why I'm here.

    I'm interested in the spectra of far distant galaxies, z >10, for example GN-z11, however it seems that at such distances the best we can get is a handful of pixels in a narrow band of highly redshifted wavelengths. I suppose that I could use that as evidence in itself, but I would prefer something broader in scope.

    Geo Kaplan, you say that 'this idea was considered and dismissed long ago', can you give me a reference for such considerations?
    Sure! For a succinct argument, good ol’ Ned Wright has the following: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Thanks for that Geo Kaplan. Ned Wright’s paper rightly shows that starlight from relatively near sources does not display a very smooth blackbody spectrum, yet when he speculates on light from ultra-distant sources, he seems to leave room for what I’m speculating about particularly if some sort of a ‘tired light’ comes into play.

    My postulated hyperspherical redshift mechanism does not suffer from the lack of time dilation which leads to the dismissal of other ‘tired light’ type mechanisms.
    Equation. Where d = astronomical distance, M = mass of universe, A = curvature of universe as an acceleration, L = Antipode distance.

    \frac{1}{Z+1 } = \frac{{\lambda}_{e }}{{\lambda}_{o } } =1-\frac{d{c}^{2 }}{ 2GM} = 1-\frac{dA}{{c}^{2 } } = 1-\frac{d}{L }

    or see https://www.specularium.org/componen...322-equation-6 for clarity.

    This works just as well substituting observed frequency/expected frequency in place of expected wavelength/observed wavelength, so it can give the time dilation as well as the redshift of wavelength.

    As this site isn’t currently accepting picture attachments, I include a link to a short page which has the hyperspherical lensing diagram at the bottom.
    https://www.specularium.org/componen...m/340-the-cmbr

    In this, light from stars in the galaxy and galactic cluster surrounding an observer goes right round the hypersphere of the universe and re-converges on the observer in a highly redshifted form and seemingly smeared all round the observer’s spherical horizon to create a CMB.
    Last edited by Peter J Carroll; 2021-Nov-24 at 04:29 PM. Reason: unclear equation

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    Thanks for that Geo Kaplan. Ned Wright’s paper rightly shows that starlight from relatively near sources does not display a very smooth blackbody spectrum, yet when he speculates on light from ultra-distant sources, he seems to leave room for what I’m speculating about particularly if some sort of a ‘tired light’ comes into play.
    I can't identify anything in what you've shown that evades the problem that Wright identifies: The spectrum of multiple blackbody radiators of differing temperatures is not itself a blackbody spectrum. And that's already allowing for the possibility that there exists a magic smoothing function that elides over the absorption and emission lines of actual starlight. To be taken seriously at all, you will have to show, with proper maths instead of handwaving, how your proposal manages to reproduce an isotropic CMB that matches a blackbody spectrum to within 10ppm. Matching to 10% or 1% is nowhere near sufficient. The bar is extremely high, which is why so many alternative cosmologies are dismissed before they're published. The measured CMB's perfection is a severe constraint.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Thanks for that Geo Kaplan. Before I start the number crunching, could the following approach prove an acceptable method?
    Experimentally assume that the universe remains roughly isotropic and isomorphic in time as well as space.
    Calculate the total amount of light escaping from a sphere of about 300,000 light years radius centred here.
    Treat that light as smeared out around a spherical shell about 6.5 billion light years away and now re-converging here redshifted by about z = 1100, having apparently come from a spherical shell horizon about 13 billion light years away.
    How many arcseconds of ‘smearing’ would prove acceptable for something which effectively acts as a point source at a distance of 6.5 billion light years?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    Thanks for that Geo Kaplan. Before I start the number crunching, could the following approach prove an acceptable method?
    Experimentally assume that the universe remains roughly isotropic and isomorphic in time as well as space.
    Calculate the total amount of light escaping from a sphere of about 300,000 light years radius centred here.
    Treat that light as smeared out around a spherical shell about 6.5 billion light years away and now re-converging here redshifted by about z = 1100, having apparently come from a spherical shell horizon about 13 billion light years away.
    How many arcseconds of ‘smearing’ would prove acceptable for something which effectively acts as a point source at a distance of 6.5 billion light years?
    I don't see how your proposal addresses the fundamental question: Can the radiation of imperfect blackbodies of different temperatures/redshifts magically superpose to produce a (near) perfect blackbody spectrum of an object at a single temperature? I don't even see how the radiation of perfect blackbodies of different temps, etc., could superpose to produce that measured result. I don't think you appreciate sufficiently just how exquisitely the CMB conforms to that of a theoretical blackbody of ~2.7K. Consider the "tired light" exercise in Wright's FAQ: Even after invoking magic fine-tuning of the "cartoon model", the residuals considerably exceed 10ppm. You'll have to explain how it's possible for the residuals to diminish when a more realistic model for stars is used. I can only see how it would get worse. But even by some maths quirk you could pull off that feat, you'd still be left with the arbitrariness of that fine-tuning, on top of your invocation of a tired light mechanism.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Thanks for that Geo Kaplan.

    I have added a diagram with some outline calculations at the bottom here https://www.specularium.org/componen...m/340-the-cmbr

    I hope to show that the closed geometry of a hypersphere creates a vast optical illusion by spreading sources of illumination at near antipode distance right round the observers horizon, causing them to overlap with each other multiple times and effectively smearing them into an apparently uniform source around that spherical horizon.

    For this I have used the following equations from this paper https://www.specularium.org/hypersphere-cosmology

    The actual distance of a source comes from the redshift-distance equation 6. A redshift of z = 1100 corresponds to near antipode distance.

    The apparent distance of a source comes from the hyperspherical lensing equation 16. This I have derived from Perlmutter's data. This data when presented on logarithmic scale graphs often fails to make it clear that on the grounds of apparent magnitude, high redshift sources will have extremely vast apparent distances and that the antipode itself would in principle appear an unlimited distance away.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    The deviation from flatness required to close the observable universe also seems pretty small, corresponding to a deceleration of only ~7e-10 metres/second^2.
    Assuming your figure is correct, that's just to close the universe. But your cosmology has space so curved that light returns to its point of origin after 13 billion years! That's highly curved!

    But beyond that, Supernova Ia observations show that indeed the expansion was initially decelerating, but then after some number of billion years, the expansion started accelerating. Obviously these observations directly contradict your claims, since acceleration implies an open universe. Is there any way to explain these Sne Ia observations in your cosmology?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    I have added a diagram with some outline calculations at the bottom here https://www.specularium.org/componen...m/340-the-cmbr
    These calculations don't address the question and don't deal with the fundamental issue with what you are saying - there exists no known mechnism by which the CMBR spectrum can be reproduced by a sum of emissions from stars. It is up to you to prove otherwise, if you cannot then your alternative idea for the source of the CMBR fails the first test by not matching well established observations.

    Maths, please, not more handwavium.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    I hope to show that the closed geometry of a hypersphere creates a vast optical illusion by spreading sources of illumination at near antipode distance right round the observers horizon, causing them to overlap with each other multiple times and effectively smearing them into an apparently uniform source around that spherical horizon.

    I am sorry, but "you hope to show", that does not fly here.
    You come here with a claim, and you know the rules well enough that you will defend that claim and not develop it here.
    Either show in your next post that this is a workable idea or otherwise this thread will be closed for apparent reasons.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here, the special rules for the ATM section here and conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Assuming your figure is correct, that's just to close the universe. But your cosmology has space so curved that light returns to its point of origin after 13 billion years! That's highly curved!

    But beyond that, Supernova Ia observations show that indeed the expansion was initially decelerating, but then after some number of billion years, the expansion started accelerating. Obviously these observations directly contradict your claims, since acceleration implies an open universe. Is there any way to explain these Sne Ia observations in your cosmology?
    Firstly, if that small acceleration can close the universe then surely that closure will cause light to return to its point of origin after a period in years that corresponds to the closure size in light years.

    Secondly the SN 1a observations are fully explained within this hypothesis with the maths and data in full here https://www.specularium.org/hypersph...here-cosmology and here https://www.specularium.org/hypersph...12-equation-16 and here https://www.specularium.org/hypersph...11-equation-17
    Last edited by Peter J Carroll; 2021-Nov-29 at 12:53 AM. Reason: additional reference

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    I am sorry, but "you hope to show", that does not fly here.
    You come here with a claim, and you know the rules well enough that you will defend that claim and not develop it here.
    Either show in your next post that this is a workable idea or otherwise this thread will be closed for apparent reasons.
    My apologies for the choice of phrase 'hope to show', I believe that it does show that, I didn't wish to appear arrogant.

    I assert that hyperspherical lensing provides a better explanation of the Sn 1a data than 'accelerating expansion' driven by a putative 'dark energy', and that hyperspherical lensing will have the effect of superimposing a very high number of similar copies of near antipode sources onto the field of view of an observer. The precise number of copies can be calculated and it depends rather sensitively on the precise redshift chosen and the angular width of the field of view, Plus as you can see from my treatment of the Sn 1a data there is some wiggle room for the precise value of L, the antipode distance because of margins of error in the apparent magnitude measurements.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter J Carroll View Post
    My apologies for the choice of phrase 'hope to show', I believe that it does show that, I didn't wish to appear arrogant.

    I assert that hyperspherical lensing provides a better explanation of the Sn 1a data than 'accelerating expansion' driven by a putative 'dark energy', and that hyperspherical lensing will have the effect of superimposing a very high number of similar copies of near antipode sources onto the field of view of an observer. The precise number of copies can be calculated and it depends rather sensitively on the precise redshift chosen and the angular width of the field of view, Plus as you can see from my treatment of the Sn 1a data there is some wiggle room for the precise value of L, the antipode distance because of margins of error in the apparent magnitude measurements.
    You assert but have not shown them. So that's a continued failure. And this is besides your CMB problem. As I'd feared, you have done no calculations. Since you continue to talk aspirationally about what you hope to show someday, maybe, if all goes well, why not do that work first? This sub forum is not for us to help you develop an idea.

    I remain skeptical (that's a gentler phrasing than what I'd normally use) that you could show a sum of different-temperature black bodies emitting a spectrum that looks like that of a single-temperature one. Mere inspection of Planck's formula ought to make that obvious, without much cogitation. So allow me to make that a direct challenge: Show it. As Shaula said, use maths. No handwavium pentoxide verbiage.

    Thanks.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    14,323
    Thread closed for moderator discussion.

    Thread permanently closed.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2021-Nov-29 at 05:05 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •