Redshift and Universe expansion

[Guest 7andy]

My first time here, so go easy please! - what a place. They say believe ten impossible things before breakfast!!

 

Okay, I have done a search and haven't seen any reference to this..

 

The current thinking on the State of the Universe appears to have a number of issues to be resolved, including:

 

- It is too hot

- It is not dense enough - resulting in the invention of Dark Matter.

- It is expanding too rapidly

 

Everything we know about the Universe is based on supposition, deduction and measurement, rooted in observation - after all we can't go and visit just yet!

 

These observations are further reliant upon the phenomenon called Redshift.

 

Of course, Redshift is just an aberration in observation and measurement caused by differing frames of velocity - the absolute frequency of light doesn't really change. But what if it did, and Redshift is an effect of distance rather than velocity? After all, we assume that a photon emitted from an object half way across the visible Universe arrives at our telescopes in pristine condition, completely unaffected by its journey of billions of light years. But what if this photon was subject to entropy - just like everything else in the known Universe? During its age long trip across that vast distance, could this photon lose energy through some, as yet undiscovered process? It couldn't do the usual thing of course, and just slow down - it is light after all, and subject to its own constant of velocity. So the only other way it could balance its energy budget would be to reduce its frequency - and acquire *real* Redshift.

 

If this were the case, then several things would follow. The visible Universe would not be as big as we currently think, and, with the same mass in a smaller volume, would be much denser - there would be much less need to 'invent' Dark Matter. Being denser, the Universe could therefore be hotter.

 

And those distant objects that appear to be accelerating away faster and faster? They could in actual fact be much more sedate - or even relatively stationary - which could then have something of an impact on the Big Gang Theory...

 

 

Comments?...

 

Andy E.

[Ophiolite]

Sounds as if you have re-invented the 'tired light' theory, which I understand most cosmologists view as just a 'tired' theory.

 

It seems likely that the current conventional view is correct, but I do wish it were promoted less dogmatically. Some proponents have a religious zeal when they defend it. Could that reflect a lack of confidence in what they are espousing?

 

Perhaps one of our knowledgeable types could comment on this alternative:

The abstract says “From the assumption that intergalactic space is filled with tachyon plasma, it can be shown that the cosmological redshift can be explained by electromagnetic attenuation in the tachyon plasma field.” [Now, that’s what I call an abstract]

 

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-1/Cosmo.pdf

[[Tycho?]]

Could be, but probably not. Personally, I think these new phenomenon we are detecting, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, all the mass that is missing, I think this may because there is a fundamental, but yet unknown flaw in one of our theories. We didn't notice it at first because the effect is so small, but there are lots of oddities like this. Thats just pure speculation by the way.

 

We dont have any reason to believe photons lose energy in such a way. They lose energy when climing up a gravity well, and their frequencies can change if they interact with matter on the way here. Otherwise its the difference in velocities. I agree that redshift seems to be defended with great zeal, which is rarely seen in this field. There certainly could be a problem with it, but as of this moment, not one that I know.

[TheProphet]

Since my view on light is as it is, that light can't lose energy in that way. Becasue of the fact, to me, that light only travels in zero time hence no loss of energy in your example. It can deviate time back and forth, but this effect always cancels out in the big picture.

 

And for Dark matter we are already getting in elementary particles like the neutrino for example. That before was tought as a "sister" of the Photons and as being massless. But later research oscilations in neutrinos which indicate a small mass. From what i have read neutrinos might well be filling up alot of space, altough this is hard to measure with a particle that has a very low interaction with "common" matter.

Another candidate and one i find very likely and heavy is the Black holes, i belive we have experimentel evidence(do we?, hard to keep track here since everbody writes about them as a matter of fact). These bastards might well constitute a big bunch of all the missing heavy weight champs out there!

Gravitons are one two, altough here i know extremly little about(if these even exists).