In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: June 2nd, 2022, 4:43 am
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
A simple question that is unanswered by Inflationary Theory: where does the energy loss of photos go if not to cause CMB?
A citation by Lyndon Ashmore, as it appears founder of New Tired Light Theory (NTL) and author of book The Big Bang Blasted:
"We have already seen how light is redshifted as it passes through the plasma clouds of Intergalactic space. Photons are absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons as they pass through the plasma clouds. Both on absorption and re-emission of the photon the electron will recoil.
Thus, some of the energy of the photon is lost to the electron.
Since the photon has lost energy, its frequency must also reduce (E = hf).
Since the frequency of the photon is now less, the wavelength, λ, will increase (c = fλ).
The photon has been redshifted.
But what of the energy transferred to the electrons when they recoil? This is given off as a secondary photons and forms the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation). The CMB is often cited as being the 'proof' of the Big Bang theory, the radiation left over as the echo of the Big Bang. But it is not as easy as that. Regardless of your beliefs as to how the Universe started, one piece of experimental observation has to be explained - that is, in redshift, the photons of light have a longer wavelength on arrival than when they set off. This means that photons of light have less energy on arrival than when they set off from a distant galaxy.
Where did this energy go? --- unanswered by Inflationary Cosmology!!!
In the theory of the expanding universe you will get all sorts of nonsense in an attempt to explain it, but they can't explain it really.
In 'New Tired light' we say that the energy lost by the photons in being redshifted is given given off as the CMB.
The above diagram shows how it works. Light emitted by the distant galaxy travels to Earth and is redshifted as it passes through the plasma cloud. The energy lost by this light is re-radiated as secondary, scattered, radiation by the electrons in the plasma cloud. When we add up all this secondary radiation due to all the plasma clouds and galaxies in the Universe, we get the CMB. It is for this reason that the CMB is homogeous - basically the same everywhere we look.
What evidence do we have for this?
Firstly, we can calculate the expected wavelength of this radiation and show that it is microwave.
Secondly, We can calculate the wavelength at which the intensity of the CMB radiation will 'peak' and we find that it agrees extremely well with measurements.
Thirdly, we expect the plasma clouds to show up as 'clumps' in the CMB with the nearer of the clouds appearing bigger than those further away. When we look at the CMB we find that there are small variations in it. In the Big Bang Theory, these 'clumps' are said to be at the begiining of the Universe and form the 'seeds' from which the galaxies and so on are formed. However, a team of international scientists have found that the larger of the clumps in the CMB are following the Solar system around. This means that they cannot be at the begining of the Universe - as stated in the Expanding Universe theory but they must be 'local'. However. this is what one expects in 'New Tired light'. The nearer the plasma cloud, the larger it looks - and one would expect some apparent 'movement' from a 'local' object.
Lets look at this in more detail..."
https://www.lyndonashmore.com/CMB_and_Tired_Light.htm
Is their information invalid?
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
Astro Cat, what do you think could have caused the cosmic inflation at 10^(−36) second, aside from a phase transition? It's so baffling..
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
The universe could still be curved. In inflationary theory, its flatness is predicted sheerly because of its inflated size: the further you zoom in on a ball, the flatter the local topology becomes. Say there was some initial curvature and then inflation happened: the curvature would still be there, the universe would just have inflated to such a monstrous size that the size of an observer's field of view compared to the whole thing would be miniscule and the local spacetime would appear asymptotically flat. The curvature could well simply be too small to detect within a region the size of the visible universe, but it would still exist in such a case.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2022, 10:39 am Very good review of Cosmology. I didn't know a lot of the details that you have shown so far, so I have enjoyed that.
I had always thought that I understood the Curved nature of Space that Cosmologists had been expecting and I was really kind of disappointed when they kept measuring a Flat Universe. I had always thought that a Flat Universe meant an Infinite Universe. But yet I have learned to reject any situations where Infinity shows up in an analysis. An Infinite Universe is simply Absurd so a Flat Universe is also Absurd. I don't believe in Infinities with Physical things. I'm still rooting for a Curved Universe when the measurements get more refined.
Different things in the universe have different equations of state derived after doing some differential stuff to the fluid equation (I haven't posted it yet, but we result in this):SteveKlinko wrote:But I have a basic question related to the Density of Dark Energy not scaling. Did I miss the reason for Dark Energy not scaling? It seems that if it doesn't scale then as the scale changes to larger and larger scales that more and more Dark Energy must be added to the equation to keep the density constant. Where have I gone wrong with this?
For matter, w~0, so the right hand side of that equation will have the term /a^3.
For radiation, w=1/3, you'll get a term /a^4. (The difference is really that the wavelength of photons scales inversely with scale factor, so you get the "extra" scaling. This doesn't happen with matter).
From theoretical principles (from GR) we expect dark energy's equation of state parameter w=-1 exactly. If it's not from GR but rather from something in QM, then it would have some negative (but rational) value instead, like -2/3. A lot of experiments right now constrain it at least to being at least as negative as -2/3.
If its EoS parameter is -1, then the right hand side vanishes (a^3(1+(-1)) = a^0), so it doesn't scale. If it does scale, then it has to do so in such a small amount that it would give the appearance of not scaling to be consistent with our observations so far.
--Richard Feynman
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
I don't have QFT under my belt yet so I can't answer this. I was just talking about this elsewhere, coincidentally. They don't offer a QFT class where I am so some of us have been looking into self-teaching or finding someone that will teach remotely.
--Richard Feynman
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
This wouldn't match with observations about the CMB, however. The universe is isometric and homogeneous at scales of ~100 Mpc, but there are tiny anisotropies in the CMB that wouldn't favor a tired light model of redshift, but very much favor an inflationary model of redshift: the power spectrum of the CMB is extremely sensitive to different cosmologies.snt wrote: ↑June 24th, 2022, 10:09 am The above diagram shows how it works. Light emitted by the distant galaxy travels to Earth and is redshifted as it passes through the plasma cloud. The energy lost by this light is re-radiated as secondary, scattered, radiation by the electrons in the plasma cloud. When we add up all this secondary radiation due to all the plasma clouds and galaxies in the Universe, we get the CMB. It is for this reason that the CMB is homogeous - basically the same everywhere we look.
Please take a look at the animation on this page: [url]http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/animbut/anim3.html[/url]
Different cosmologies produce completely different power spectrums. We can predict what the power spectrum would look like under a particular cosmological model:
Likewise measurements of the CMB temperature:
I want to point out that observations were so close to model prediction in this case that the error bars had to be multiplied 400x to even be visible on this plot! That doesn't happen by coincidence or by having something wildly wrong with a model as tired light proposes.
But again, there are anisotropies that tired light doesn't (can't) explain; and I would have to see what is being claimed to agree with which experiments to comment on that.snt wrote:What evidence do we have for this?
Firstly, we can calculate the expected wavelength of this radiation and show that it is microwave.
Secondly, We can calculate the wavelength at which the intensity of the CMB radiation will 'peak' and we find that it agrees extremely well with measurements.
I have no idea what this last part is talking about (the "small variations" are the anisotropies I'm talking about above). But I have no idea what it's talking about with there being something "following the solar system around." I'd need to see something specific about that, but it sounds like it's probably just the CMB dipole (observations of the CMB forms a dipole due to our motion with respect to the CMB).snt wrote:Thirdly, we expect the plasma clouds to show up as 'clumps' in the CMB with the nearer of the clouds appearing bigger than those further away. When we look at the CMB we find that there are small variations in it. In the Big Bang Theory, these 'clumps' are said to be at the begiining of the Universe and form the 'seeds' from which the galaxies and so on are formed. However, a team of international scientists have found that the larger of the clumps in the CMB are following the Solar system around. This means that they cannot be at the begining of the Universe - as stated in the Expanding Universe theory but they must be 'local'. However. this is what one expects in 'New Tired light'. The nearer the plasma cloud, the larger it looks - and one would expect some apparent 'movement' from a 'local' object.
Lets look at this in more detail...[/i]"
https://www.lyndonashmore.com/CMB_and_Tired_Light.htm
Is their information invalid?
--Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
Sometimes I wonder about the rather ludicrous idea that the observable universe's expansion could somehow be linked to its entropy. Can't think of anything else that I could link dark energy to, that would be internal to our observable universe, and detectable with today's technology.
Space is relative, maybe it's literally the case that we perceive the size of the observable universe relative to us, as a manifestation of the entropy of the observable universe. Which might mean that between 10^(-36) and 10^(-33) second, there was an explosion of entropy, that might left behind signs that we could look for.
Anyway, even by my standards this idea is pretty far out, I'll stop boring you with my ideas I promise.
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
What I do know about QFT and inflation is that gravity is basically the counterbalance to the inflaton field energy, and I can tell you that there are serious people out there that propose gravity has an entropic nature. That's about all I'm willing to say though without a deeper understanding of QFT. I expect to acquire this over the next year as I graduate with my MS and start my PhD.Atla wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 3:11 am Sometimes I wonder about the rather ludicrous idea that the observable universe's expansion could somehow be linked to its entropy. Can't think of anything else that I could link dark energy to, that would be internal to our observable universe, and detectable with today's technology.
Space is relative, maybe it's literally the case that we perceive the size of the observable universe relative to us, as a manifestation of the entropy of the observable universe. Which might mean that between 10^(-36) and 10^(-33) second, there was an explosion of entropy, that might left behind signs that we could look for.
Anyway, even by my standards this idea is pretty far out, I'll stop boring you with my ideas I promise.
--Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 1:57 amThe universe could still be curved. In inflationary theory, its flatness is predicted sheerly because of its inflated size: the further you zoom in on a ball, the flatter the local topology becomes. Say there was some initial curvature and then inflation happened: the curvature would still be there, the universe would just have inflated to such a monstrous size that the size of an observer's field of view compared to the whole thing would be miniscule and the local spacetime would appear asymptotically flat. The curvature could well simply be too small to detect within a region the size of the visible universe, but it would still exist in such a case.SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2022, 10:39 am Very good review of Cosmology. I didn't know a lot of the details that you have shown so far, so I have enjoyed that.
I had always thought that I understood the Curved nature of Space that Cosmologists had been expecting and I was really kind of disappointed when they kept measuring a Flat Universe. I had always thought that a Flat Universe meant an Infinite Universe. But yet I have learned to reject any situations where Infinity shows up in an analysis. An Infinite Universe is simply Absurd so a Flat Universe is also Absurd. I don't believe in Infinities with Physical things. I'm still rooting for a Curved Universe when the measurements get more refined.
Different things in the universe have different equations of state derived after doing some differential stuff to the fluid equation (I haven't posted it yet, but we result in this):SteveKlinko wrote:But I have a basic question related to the Density of Dark Energy not scaling. Did I miss the reason for Dark Energy not scaling? It seems that if it doesn't scale then as the scale changes to larger and larger scales that more and more Dark Energy must be added to the equation to keep the density constant. Where have I gone wrong with this?
For matter, w~0, so the right hand side of that equation will have the term /a^3.
For radiation, w=1/3, you'll get a term /a^4. (The difference is really that the wavelength of photons scales inversely with scale factor, so you get the "extra" scaling. This doesn't happen with matter).
From theoretical principles (from GR) we expect dark energy's equation of state parameter w=-1 exactly. If it's not from GR but rather from something in QM, then it would have some negative (but rational) value instead, like -2/3. A lot of experiments right now constrain it at least to being at least as negative as -2/3.
If its EoS parameter is -1, then the right hand side vanishes (a^3(1+(-1)) = a^0), so it doesn't scale. If it does scale, then it has to do so in such a small amount that it would give the appearance of not scaling to be consistent with our observations so far.
Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
I don't personally have any objections to an actually infinite universe; but I do think it would be interesting if the universe were exactly flat. I don't know what else to call it than interesting. Would it demand an explanation? I don't know, seems like it depends on whether or not there are good explanations for why it would be balanced that way (perhaps some symmetry).SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 8:58 am So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?
Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
Yes, dark energy is effectively added, and yes, in GR it's considered a property of space. There are all kinds of philosophical and mathematical nuances there though with the issue of background dependence vs. background independence (e.g. is space real or is space sheerly relational between things that are real). That's probably a whole conversation unto itself though.
--Richard Feynman
-
- Posts: 710
- Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
I suppose that since Dark energy is a property of Space then the Theory that Quantum Fluctuations are what causes the Expansion of Space must be a good fit. Each Quantum Fluctuation can create a Matter Anti Matter Particle Pair that immediately recombines but leaves some sort of extra Space where it it was created. All the countless Fluctuations add their own little bits of extra Space to create the Expansion of the Universe at the scale of the Universe. I believe there have been some studies that confirm this.Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 27th, 2022, 10:06 amI don't personally have any objections to an actually infinite universe; but I do think it would be interesting if the universe were exactly flat. I don't know what else to call it than interesting. Would it demand an explanation? I don't know, seems like it depends on whether or not there are good explanations for why it would be balanced that way (perhaps some symmetry).SteveKlinko wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 8:58 am So, don't you think it is impossible for Space to be exactly Flat because of the implications of Infinity?
Ahhh. It looks like there is Dark Energy needing to be added to maintain a constant density. I guess the answer is that Dark Energy is considered to be a property of Space, so more Space means more Dark Energy. In contrast to Matter and Photons which maintain the same quantity regardless of the scale.
Yes, dark energy is effectively added, and yes, in GR it's considered a property of space. There are all kinds of philosophical and mathematical nuances there though with the issue of background dependence vs. background independence (e.g. is space real or is space sheerly relational between things that are real). That's probably a whole conversation unto itself though.
Sorry but, Boo on Infinite Universes.
-
- Posts: 2540
- Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
Well I'm highly skeptical of this early inflationary epoch anyway, I think JWST will confirm that it never happened. I think space itself can't expand either.Astro Cat wrote: ↑June 25th, 2022, 3:18 am What I do know about QFT and inflation is that gravity is basically the counterbalance to the inflaton field energy, and I can tell you that there are serious people out there that propose gravity has an entropic nature. That's about all I'm willing to say though without a deeper understanding of QFT. I expect to acquire this over the next year as I graduate with my MS and start my PhD.
Instead, I think we may have ran into the same problem as with the Information paradox: we assumed too much or too little about the nature of quantum fluctuations. For example in the early homogeneous universe, why would they be as common and as violent, as they are today here on Earth?
-
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: July 13th, 2022, 7:09 pm
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
What matters is evidence and we must separate what is observational evidence from crystal spheres included to prop up a failed theory as is the BB.
Aristocat is confused in putting forward crystal spheres rather than observations or facts.
Dark matter, dark energy, and inflation are all crystal spheres that have no evidence to support them, They are crystal spheres added to a theory to make it work, But it doesn't.
The BB predicts certain things and to make it work experimentalists have to find it. Unfortunately for aristocat, after nearly 80 years of looking, they can't! So they don't exist.
Real evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!' Cos they prove the BB wrong.
So astrocat, why didn't the release of the james webb show evolution of galaxies as the BB requires.
Unless it is wrong
Cheers
ratfink
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
I don't know what you mean by "crystal spheres". It is a common mistake to decry science as a defective finished product, when science is never a finished product but a work in progress, ready to change when new findings are confirmed.
No one is saying that the BB, dark matter or dark energy are known phenomena, rather, they are considered amongst science's great mysteries. They these are placeholder labels used to describe observed phenomena, based on observation, where there are gaps in our knowledge.
It may be the only visible entities are fully formed galaxies while many amorphous entities may not reflect enough light to be seen. It could be a similar situation to exoplanet exploration, which made some people think that "hot Jupiters" were the most common type of planet, when they are just the most visible, being bigger and brighter than rocky planets, and the dip in a star's brightness is much easier to find in close orbiting planets. Tracking a planet that takes months or years to orbit its star is much harder than tracking one whose orbit is mere days, or even hours.ratfink wrote: ↑July 13th, 2022, 7:52 pmReal evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!'
If we were to be humble and fair-minded, we would marvel at the brilliant forensic skills and ingenuity of cosmologists in being able to discover as much about the cosmos as they have done.
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
Yet this simply isn't true. The evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy is abundant. You mention the JWT, but for instance the deep field image released just recently (SMACS 0723). This is a deep field reaching z = 8.5 (12.9-13.1 billion years ago):
Do you notice the galaxies that are stretched into thin lines in quasi-circular patterns, or other galaxies that appear warped and distorted? This is called gravitational lensing, and it's caused by background galaxies' light being warped by the mass of the SMACS 0723 cluster. These lensing effects are actually only possible because of dark matter: SMACS 0723 doesn't have enough mass from its baryonic matter to gravitationally lens to this degree!
I'm not sure where you got this notion unless from an extremely old textbook. Here is a fun little history lesson about galaxy morphologies: those "fuzzy" galaxies, spheroids, are called "ETGs" in the field to this day. Spiral-looking galaxies are called "LTGs."ratfink wrote:Real evidence is from the James Webb telescope which is going to give us the evidence.
It was said that the JW would give us ...."BB expects to see the ionization epoch where galaxies start to form."
So the newly released deep field should show us the evolution of galaxies - that is galaxies near the epoch should be fuzzy? and gradually as time goes on evolve into spirals etc.
BUT it doesn' t show that. All galaxies are perfectly formed spirals. A report from the press conference said 'well they didn't talk about old galaxies!' Cos they prove the BB wrong.
"ETG" stands for "early-type galaxy" and "LTG" stands for "late-type galaxy." Hubble originally thought, as you proposed here, that the fuzzy spheroid galaxies condensed and began to rotate to form spirals (hence "early" and then "late" types).
Yet this is actually backwards! ETGs are actually caused by different galactic processes associated with quenching (which is my active research right now, in fact): for simplicity's sake, let's say that much of the time, ETGs (spheroids) are the result of collisions between LTGs (disks/spirals). So the naming convention is actually backwards (and, for whatever Godforsaken reason, we still use it to this day -- much to the confusion of undergraduates).
--Richard Feynman
- Astro Cat
- Posts: 451
- Joined: June 17th, 2022, 2:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Bernard dEspagnat
- Location: USA
Re: In Defense of Inflationary Cosmology
I think people just don't like the "dark" monikers. It makes them sound mysterious or nebulous. Yet we know a great deal about these things, especially dark energy. We know that dark matter is mostly or entirely relativistically cold. We know where it's located (in galactic halos; and we can see where thanks to effects like gravitational lensing and collisions such as in the Bullet Cluster). The only thing that's mysterious about it isn't its gross properties but simply what it actually is. I think of this a lot like knowing a car has an engine and knowing in general how the engine works but not knowing precisely how the engine works. I think the layperson just doesn't understand how much we do actually know about dark matter.Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2022, 8:50 pm No one is saying that the BB, dark matter or dark energy are known phenomena, rather, they are considered amongst science's great mysteries. They these are placeholder labels used to describe observed phenomena, based on observation, where there are gaps in our knowledge.
Dark energy, we know even more well. We know its density parameter (just as we do dark matter's), we know its equation of state (at least that it is more negative than -2/3). We know that there is something that exists with a particular density parameter and equation of state in order to explain why the universe is flat despite the mass and radiation that exists within it that should be curving it, so we just call it "dark energy." Then, amazingly, when we perform different tests based on the predictions of the properties it must have, we find that they converge exactly the way we expect them to (such as in this plot I posted elsewhere):
Anyway, this wasn't pointed at you Sy Borg so much as just readers in general. These things aren't these mysterious things that astrophysicists and cosmologists just waggle their fingers about to fill in gaps. These things are conclusions that we know a lot about.
--Richard Feynman
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023