The Universe is a continuum of matter

[ZVBXRPL]

Why would redshift occur in this Continuum Universe?

The current explanation is that the light is shifted to the red, because of doppler effect and expansion of space itself. This is causing the increase in wavelength.

If light is travelling as a wave through the Universe, it can lose energy, the longer the distance, the greater this loss of energy can be.

The further away distant galaxies are the more energy they lose, the longer the wavelength, the greater the redshift.

If the reason for redshift is dopper effect and expanison of space, then why are some galaxies not redshifted? Why do some not have the redshift they should have?

if the reason is not doppler effect or expansion of space, but instead that the redshift is caused by the journey itself, then this would account for anomalies.

It is not only the distance travelled, loss of energy causing redshift but the environmental factors it encounters on it's journey.

One light wave might travel relatively unobstructed by anything and gradually lose energy and arrive at Earth and hit our eyes and telescope having undergone a redshift.

Another light wave may have a more arduous journey and gone through a phase where it actually increased in energy for a time and blueshifted, either staying blueshifted or eventually returning to redshift but not at the value expected.

When light wave is travelling through a galaxy, the surrounding continuum conditions are different to when it was travelling between galaxies. There is high chance the light wave could gain a little energy after it's long journey. When all light enters our galaxy it may undergo a slight increase in energy.

So if you take one light wave that travelled for VERY long time and underwent a large redshift through losing energy, when it enters our galaxy, there will be a slight increase in energy, but not enough for it to be blueshifted.

On the otherhand if you take a nearby galaxy, the light wave from that galaxy may undergo small degree of redshift, but nowhere near as much as the distant galaxy. Then when that light wave enters our galaxy and energy increases, the net result is a blueshift.

There is a way we could test this, it would involve sending out a spaceship/probe etc with detection equipment as far as possible out beyond the solar system.

Measure the redshift/blueshift of a light wave coming from a distant galaxy, on the probe and on Earth and compare the results.

If the results vary it shows that the redshift/blueshift phenomena can vary even at relatively short distances, so there is no way you can say that redshift is caused solely by doppler and no reason at all to believe that space is expanding.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to write popular science books. Sometimes it seems that people with Nobel Prizes are the among worst offenders.

Is this not because Nobel prize winners and many other famous scientists, have written books to explain their unique perception of how they have grown to accept their genuine interpretation of a particular view of a science related subject.

 

Have they not been moved by an inner drive to explain their inner interpretations .

 

Also , a famous mathematician or physicist once said , something to the effect ....

 

... " if you jumped off the back of a bus, and spoke to the first person, stranger they came across, and explained their deeply held theory or interpretation . If unable to explain , concisely and understandably ..... Then it is most likely , they do not understand the subject themselves ! "

 

So many scientists who write popular science , I believe , they feel they have a perception that they understand well and are able to explain , simply and understandably their subject.

 

This interpretation by Frank Wilczek , has a close link to ZVBXRPL. 's ideas in some respects.

 

Mike

Edited December 30, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Why would redshift occur in this Continuum Universe?

The current explanation is that the light is shifted to the red, because of doppler effect and expansion of space itself. This is causing the increase in wavelength.

 

It is not the Doppler effect. But otherwise this is correct. If you have an alternative model, please show (using maths) that it produces results that match observation.

If light is travelling as a wave through the Universe, it can lose energy, the longer the distance, the greater this loss of energy can be.

The further away distant galaxies are the more energy they lose, the longer the wavelength, the greater the redshift.

 

This "tired light" idea was one of the first explanations proposed to explain red shift. It doesn't work.

 

If the reason for redshift is dopper effect and expanison of space, then why are some galaxies not redshifted? Why do some not have the redshift they should have?

 

The expansion of space only occurs over very large distances (where the distribution of matter is approximately homogeneous). On the scale of galaxy clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound and orbiting one another. Therefore there is no expansion. In this case we do see Doppler shifts meaning that some galaxies are blue-shifted (because they are approaching us) and others are red-shifted (because they are moving away from us).

 

if the reason is not doppler effect or expansion of space, but instead that the redshift is caused by the journey itself, then this would account for anomalies.

It is not only the distance travelled, loss of energy causing redshift but the environmental factors it encounters on it's journey.

One light wave might travel relatively unobstructed by anything and gradually lose energy and arrive at Earth and hit our eyes and telescope having undergone a redshift.

Another light wave may have a more arduous journey and gone through a phase where it actually increased in energy for a time and blueshifted, either staying blueshifted or eventually returning to redshift but not at the value expected.

 

 

Do you have a model that predicts these effects and that can be compared with observation?

 

Or do you just claim that every observation fits your vague idea? In which case your idea is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

 

Measure the redshift/blueshift of a light wave coming from a distant galaxy, on the probe and on Earth and compare the results.

If the results vary it shows that the redshift/blueshift phenomena can vary even at relatively short distances, so there is no way you can say that redshift is caused solely by doppler and no reason at all to believe that space is expanding

 

(Redshift is not caused solely by Doppler shift: this only applies to a few galaxies in our local cluster that are moving away from us. Most redshift is caused by the expansion of space.)

 

On the one hand, there is one model that fits all the evidence.

On the other hand, you have no model at all.

 

I think I will stick with the science.

 

Also, how does your model explain the really strong evidence for expanding space such as:

- the success of general relativity

- the cosmic microwave background

- the exact amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe

Have they not been moved by an inner drive to explain their inner interpretations .

 

I would prefer that they stuck to explaining science.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Strange

[ZVBXRPL]

 

It is not the Doppler effect. But otherwise this is correct. If you have an alternative model, please show (using maths) that it produces results that match observation.

 

This "tired light" idea was one of the first explanations proposed to explain red shift. It doesn't work.

 

 

The expansion of space only occurs over very large distances (where the distribution of matter is approximately homogeneous). On the scale of galaxy clusters, the galaxies are gravitationally bound and orbiting one another. Therefore there is no expansion. In this case we do see Doppler shifts meaning that some galaxies are blue-shifted (because they are approaching us) and others are red-shifted (because they are moving away from us).

 

 

Do you have a model that predicts these effects and that can be compared with observation?

 

Or do you just claim that every observation fits your vague idea? In which case your idea is not falsifiable and therefore not science.

 

 

(Redshift is not caused solely by Doppler shift: this only applies to a few galaxies in our local cluster that are moving away from us. Most redshift is caused by the expansion of space.)

 

On the one hand, there is one model that fits all the evidence.

On the other hand, you have no model at all.

 

I think I will stick with the science.

 

Also, how does your model explain the really strong evidence for expanding space such as:

- the success of general relativity

- the cosmic microwave background

- the exact amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe

 

I would prefer that they stuck to explaining science.

How would an expanding Universe that came as a result of the Big Bang lead to the situation you describe, where within galaxy clusters, space itself is no longer expanding, but the space between the clusters is expanding?

If gravitational attraction is the reason, why is it limited to within galaxy clusters? Why would it not be uniform throughout the entire Universe?

At whatever point in history of the Universe, gravity starts to become a factor, would it not be a factor throughout the whole Universe and cause the whole Universe to stop expanding?

Is CMB limited to within galaxy clusters? Or is it present throughout the whole Universe, including between the clusters, part of the expanding space?

If the CMB is uniform and spread evenly throughout the whole Universe, does this not conflict with the idea that the Universe is expanding between clusters but not expanding within clusters due to effects of gravity?

You say, on one hand there is a model that fits all the evidence, but there are many questions and issues with the model you speak of. The reason it is the standard model is because there is deemed to be a lack of an alternative model, not because the model is correct. It is more, the best we got for now.

Because there is only one model, any time a problem arises for that model, fixes are found and added on, but these fixes do not have any evidence to support them. They are an attempt to prevent ending up in a world of science with NO standard model.

If at some point the model is proven to be inaccurate, all the fixes to the model become ridiculous and pointless, because they were solutions to problems that didn't exist in the first place.

Edited December 31, 2014 by ZVBXRPL

[Strange]

How would an expanding Universe that came as a result of the Big Bang lead to the situation you describe, where within galaxy clusters, space itself is no longer expanding, but the space between the clusters is expanding?

 

In fact, the observed structure of galaxies and galaxy clusters is yet more evidence for the big bang theory because they match what is predicted by the model. (I know this whole idea of models matching reality is foreign to you, but it is the basis of science.)

 

If gravitational attraction is the reason, why is it limited to within galaxy clusters? Why would it not be uniform throughout the entire Universe?

 

Because gravity falls off with an inverse square law. The distances between galaxy clusters are so large they is relatively little gravitational attraction.

 

At whatever point in history of the Universe, gravity starts to become a factor, would it not be a factor throughout the whole Universe and cause the whole Universe to stop expanding?

 

Overall, it could do. And, until recently it was assumed that it would slow if not stop the rate of expansion. But the latest evidence (another foreign concept) ahows that the rate of expansion is actually increasing.

 

Is CMB limited to within galaxy clusters? Or is it present throughout the whole Universe, including between the clusters, part of the expanding space?

 

It is everywhere.

 

If the CMB is uniform and spread evenly throughout the whole Universe, does this not conflict with the idea that the Universe is expanding between clusters but not expanding within clusters due to effects of gravity?

 

No. Why would it. In fact, the CMB was the absolute knock-out blow to steady state models. There is no other model that can explain it.

 

You say, on one hand there is a model that fits all the evidence, but there are many questions and issues with the model you speak of.

 

That is a rather odd assertion from someone who seems to know pretty much zero about the theory.

 

The reason it is the standard model is because there is deemed to be a lack of an alternative model, not because the model is correct.

 

There have been alternatives. And people still work on other possibilities. But none of them fit all the evidence. It is not just that there are no alternatives, it is that it is a very successful model.

 

But as you have no model at all, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is.

 

You might be better off asking some basic questions in the cosmology forum.

 

<bizarre and profoundly wrong comments about the way science works>

 

Er, no.

[Mordred]

To help explain redshift and expansion as well as what is referred as Universe geometry. Rather than post articles with difficult metrics. I will instead post two articles I wrote with some assistance.

Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members)

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

 

The above is a quick breakdown of the 3 types of redshift as well as a FAQ article in regards to expansion and BB model. Included is an explaination on why expansion does not occur in gravity influenced areas such as large scale structures.

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2 of the above article is here.

 

The last article covers universe geometry included is a breakdown of the FLRW metric in terms of distance in the positive, negative and flat geometry (basically energy density relations) in 2d,3d and 4d.

 

I posted the critical density calc in post 18 of this thread. This is the average energy density per cubic meter. Of which only a % is dark energy. Recall I mentioned that dark energy is only 6.0*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. This small amount is locally easily overpowered by gravity as well as the strong force.

However this article though more technical is also useful

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

[Bignose]

This continuum is one continuus body, I called it continuum of matter, but perhaps I should have said continuum of energy to avoid confusion.

I am confused by your use of matter, energy, and even continuum here...

 

I guess this if probably futile, but still any chance of presenting a model directly? Because this unconventional use of terminology is making things really confusing. With a model presented, we can see exactly what it is you are saying.

[studiot]

Bignose

I am confused by your use of matter, energy, and even continuum here...

 

 

 

'Hear' 'Hear' from the benches.

 

 

ZVBXRPL

I have already asked for an explanation of what you mean by continuum (post#94)?

Edited December 31, 2014 by studiot

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

'Hear' 'Hear' from the benches.

 

 

ZVBXRPL

I have already asked for an explanation of what you mean by continuum (post#94)?

.

Could this possibly be, because we are so accustomed to thinking of things as separate entities ( eg particles, groups, lumps etc ) .

 

Could we possibly fall into the " Goldfish perception trap " , . Namely that the goldfish in the tank, or fish in the sea for that matter. See themselves as entities drifting endlessly about in nothingness, not seeing the water supporting them , but only the " Things " , they come across. Eg a particle of grit, a group of stones, a Hugh lump of granite under the sea, but nonetheless the vast open spaces , seem as nothing. In reality, the sea or goldfish aquarium are very much an integrated continuous systems . I think this is what is being put forward by ZVBXRPL , and for that matter to a similar extent Wilczek.

 

So with ZVBXRPL's and Wilczek's primary view of reality , it's the things that structure up space , like the fields , are the continuous reality of space ( not in space ) ,that spread out to well ' wherever ' . And it is the disturbance of these fields ( thus disturbances in space ) , by the necessary energy , which creates the ' so named - PARTICLES - and WAVES . of the Standard Model.

 

Mike

Edited December 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[studiot]

I understand what you are saying Mike, but I prefer the word 'pattern' (in the artistic/arrangement sense not the protoype sense) to 'disturbance', since the latter implies there is a 'correct' form or flow of the field lines.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I understand what you are saying Mike, but I prefer the word 'pattern' (in the artistic/arrangement sense not the protoype sense) to 'disturbance', since the latter implies there is a 'correct' form or flow of the field lines.

.

O.k. But I am only quoting Frank Wilczek's word " Disturbance " as the effect of energy to create particles.

 

I will double check , but I am sure that is what he was saying :- Here is following 3 minute interview .

 

Here his description of particles of the standard model , as being " disturbances " in the fields which

Themselves

. " ARE SPACE ," which itself is the Primary Reality included in the maths behind this reality.

 

Link :-

 

 

Mike

Edited December 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Link :-

 

I think 4 links to the video are more than enough.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think 4 links to the video are more than enough.

I think his comments are clear enough . ( 4 for emphasis )

 

If he. ( Frank Wilczek ) has this relevant understanding of the model , complete with the description as well as the maths, how can WE argue with that .

 

Mike

Edited January 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I think his comments are clear enough . ( 4 for emphasis )

 

If he. ( Frank Wilczek ) has this relevant understanding of the model , complete with the description as well as the maths, how can WE argue with that .

 

Mike

 

Then post the maths, in the appropriate place (i.e. not here), if that's what you want to discuss. The actual science content of that video is almost nil — all you are getting is a very basic overview that particles are resonances of fields. That's it. Wilczek is not describing a continuum of matter, which is the topic of this thread, so stop with the hijacking already. This is not your thread, this is ZVBXRPL's thread, to discuss his (or her) model. And if a model is not forthcoming , it will be closed.

[Mordred]

To add to this I've read several of Wilcezs puplished papers. His work in the field of QCD is masterful. I particularly enjoyed his lattice lattice gauge symmetry paper. As far as assymptotic freedom his mathematics definetely does not even hint at an ether. Specifically it involves quark color interactions. His Crystal time models are also specific to symmetry time reversal breaking.

 

However as you mentioned asymptotic freedom here is his paper on it.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502113

 

One should never rely on pop media literature even if it is presented by the author of a theory. Too often it has been "Dummie'd down so the public can read it. This often leads to misrepresentation of the actual model.

 

I've read numerous of his papers on various aspects of QCD and QFT never had I seen any indication of anything remotely resembling an aether theory. Just good employment of virtual particle production, zero point energy and lattice configurations to explain particle symmetries.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

To add to this I've read several of Wilcezs puplished papers. His work in the field of QCD is masterful. I particularly enjoyed his lattice lattice gauge symmetry paper. As far as assymptotic freedom his mathematics definetely does not even hint at an ether. Specifically it involves quark color interactions. His Crystal time models are also specific to symmetry time reversal breaking.

However as you mentioned asymptotic freedom here is his paper on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502113

One should never rely on pop media literature even if it is presented by the author of a theory. Too often it has been "Dummie'd down so the public can read it. This often leads to misrepresentation of the actual model.

I've read numerous of his papers on various aspects of QCD and QFT never had I seen any indication of anything remotely resembling an aether theory. Just good employment of virtual particle production, zero point energy and lattice configurations to explain particle symmetries.

I think there is a case for recognising the nature, shape, direction , and other features of space at discrete locations. What is at issue here is the philosophical, and mental model , we individually harbour , as to the real nature of space ( an empty void or a complex structure of fields and disturbances )

 

Then post the maths, in the appropriate place (i.e. not here), if that's what you want to discuss. The actual science content of that video is almost nil all you are getting is a very basic overview that particles are resonances of fields. That's it. Wilczek is not describing a continuum of matter, which is the topic of this thread, so stop with the hijacking already. This is not your thread, this is ZVBXRPL's thread, to discuss his (or her) model. And if a model is not forthcoming , it will be closed.

But I do recognise this is ZVBYRPL's thread . I have , believe it it not , been trying to support him , not hijack . I do think Wilczek's comments , to some extent ,support ZVBYRPL's ideas.

 

Mike

Edited January 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Commentary about being OT or hijacking has been split, so as to not make more of a mess of this

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87168-off-topic-split-from-universe-is-a-continuum-of-matter/

 

But I do recognise this is ZVBYRPL's thread . I have , believe it it not , been trying to support him , not hijack .

!

Moderator Note

And yet we've spent most of the recent posts discussing Wilczek, and not the OP. Which is, by definition, a hijack. Which I recognized and warned about — gosh, it's almost like I've been through situations like this before — but you ignored me. And that is what has annoyed me the most here: you do not get to decide when to follow the rules and when not to, and when to listen to the mods and when to ignore them and continue doing your thing.

I do think Wilczek's comments , to some extent ,support ZVBYRPL's ideas.

A long-deceased horse that you continue to beat. You posted the comment and the video. That's where it should have ended.

 

Let's get back to discussing ZVBYRPL's ideas

[derek w]

Perhaps you need two opposing continuum that repel each other,an excitation in one causing ripples in the other.

e.g. two electrons would repel because the space between would have excitation from the opposing continuum.

 

an electron and positron, the space between would become neutral,and the electron and positron would collapse in to each other.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

The horse is not dead ! It has just been having a small sleep and contemplation !

. Continuum field of space

.

Distortion creating particle . Being part of space .

 

.illustration only

 

Mike

Edited January 1, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Here his description of particles of the standard model , as being " disturbances " in the fields which

Themselves

. " ARE SPACE

 

This sounds (from this slightly garbled sentence) like a pretty standard description of quantum field theory.

 

As such it has nothing, zero, zilch, zip to do with the universe (supposedly) being a continuum of matter. It would be nice to see ZVBXRPL provide (a) a model and (b) some evidence supporting this model.

[MigL]

If anything, this is science that disproves the OP.

Space-time is a 'continuum of fields' would be more appropriate, scalar, vector and tensor.

As Mike himself posted, matter, which is made up of 'disturbances' in the fields, is not the primary component and only a by-product of the fields.

[Kramer]

 

So. “Quasi divergences” between doctrinaires of S.M. are leveled, idea about a material corpuscular reality of world is buried, as dead horse. Now O.P may go and sleep in peace.

Is it absent, but this is not important because it must be intended, the mysterious hidden hand that exits unreal particles from the fields.

[ZVBXRPL]

CMB is interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Theory.

I would say that CMB is evidence for the theory I am suggesting and evidence against an expanding Universe which in turn is evidence against a Big Bang.

If the Universe is expanding and it is space itself that is epanding, then there should be large regions of the Universe that are totally devoid of anything. Only empty space exists in these regions and these regions are those that are expanding, giving the expanding Universe.

In the continuum Universe I am suggesting there is NO empty space anywhere in the Universe, so nowhere is there regions of empty space.

The fact that CMB is everywhere throughout the observable Universe supports that theory.

During the inflation period you get empty space expanding faster than the speed of light. The Universe as we know it is increasing in size to massive proportions.

At some point gravity becomes a factor.

All the matter in the Universe starts to come under the influence of gravity.

If all the matter is evenly distributed throughout the Universe before, during and after the Big Bang and inflation period, the gravity would have equal effect throughout the Universe.

You would not get a Universe that is still expanding. If you did, you would not get a uniform CMB, you would a large regions of the Universe without CMB.

Having a Big Bang, a Universe that expanded and is still is expanding, CMB being uniform throughout the Universe and gravity being a factor only within galaxies and not between galaxy clusters cannot all be true. There is conflict.

If there are large regions of space that are expanding, regions between galaxy clusters, these regions have been expanding since the Big Bang, you would not get CMB in these regions. CMB can only come as a result of something, it cannot come as a result of nothing. If the nothing is actually something, then you cannot have a period of inflation where this "nothing" travelled faster than the speed of light because "something" cannot travel faster than the speed of light. Even though the concept of nothingness travelling faster than the speed of light is a farcical concept in itself, it is a loophole, a way of getting round the "speed limit of the Universe" concept. If you don't have the loophole, you cannot break your own rules.

The CMB picture of the Universe would show large regions devoid of anything.

The CMB being present throughout the Universe is something you would expect to see in an Infinite Universe, where there is no empty space. There is never nothing, there is always something. CMB is just an example of the something.

Edited January 2, 2015 by ZVBXRPL

[Strange]

CMB is interpreted as evidence for Big Bang Theory.

I would say that CMB is evidence for the theory I am suggesting and evidence against an expanding Universe which in turn is evidence against a Big Bang.

 

Please show in mathematical detail:

 

a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.

b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect.

 

If the Universe is expanding and it is space itself that is epanding, then there should be large regions of the Universe that are totally devoid of anything.

 

Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail:

a) Why these regions should exist.

b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be

c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions.

 

During the inflation period you get empty space expanding faster than the speed of light.

 

Expansion is not a speed.

 

At some point gravity becomes a factor.

 

Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on.

 

You would not get a Universe that is still expanding. If you did, you would not get a uniform CMB, you would a large regions of the Universe without CMB.

 

Please show, mathematically, that this is the case.

 

The CMB picture of the Universe would show large regions devoid of anything.

The CMB being present throughout the Universe is something you would expect to see in an Infinite Universe, where there is no empty space. There is never nothing, there is always something. CMB is just an example of the something.

 

Do you even know the cause of the CMB?

 

What is the source of the CMB in your model?

[ZVBXRPL]

 

Please show in mathematical detail:

 

a) How your model predicts the temperature and spectrum of the CMB.

b) How the predictions of the big bang model are incorrect.

 

 

Please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail:

a) Why these regions should exist.

b) What the size and distribution of these regions should be

c) How the observed structure of the universe matches these predcitions.

 

 

Expansion is not a speed.

 

 

Gravity has always been a factor. It is, after all, a consequence of the same theory that the big bang model is based on.

 

 

Please show, mathematically, that this is the case.

 

 

Do you even know the cause of the CMB?

 

What is the source of the CMB in your model?

Instead of cherry picking and multi quoting my post, can you not single quote my entire post and reply to the whole thing in a paragraph or two? Or don't reply at all, one or the other, I don't mind which. If you do then I can reply with my own single quote paragraph or two.