Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[Native]

So it sounds like it's a litany of different claims. Give me a specific one to look at maybe.

You can get more informations of the anomaly-redshift-subject here.

 

[Meow Mix]

You can get more informations of the anomaly-redshift-subject here.

I'd prefer a reputable source with peer-review, but we can still look to the literature based on things that are commented on.

The site says,

A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

Dr. Arp showed in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'.

But this is resolved by the Hubble Deep Field, which didn't exist in Arp's time. Markarian 205 is behind NGC 4319:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1992ApJ...398..495B
Bahcall, J. N., Jannuzi, B. T., Schneider, D. P., Hartig, G. F., & Jenkins, E. B. (1992). The near-ultraviolet spectrum of Markarian 205. The Astrophysical Journal, 398, 495-500.

We have detected absorption in the spectrum of the bright AGN Mrk 205 that is produced by Mg II ions in the intervening barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319. This result is consistent with the cosmological interpretation of the redshifts of both Mrk 205 and NGC 4319...

 

[Native]

Great, but can you quantify this? I've asked multiple times for you to quantify your paradigm: what equations are you using to make any of your interpretations, and how did you derive them?

Meow Mix, I am in fact "intellectual quantifying" it all but on the natural philosophical scales by asking into the standing claims and contradictions. I see no logical reasons at all to begin calculations and equations before an idea are well thought through and most of the dots are connected.

I said:
You have my deepest sympathy for dealing with this bunch of speculative assumptions. (Do you by any chance have a cultural contact to a Native Tribe?)

I do not, though there are Native-friendly schools and programs in the area. Why?

Because native tribes are more grounded in their world perceptions compared to the very speculative cosmological scientific approaches, that´s why.

I said:
This sounds almost like "Newtons gravity works in our Solar System but not inside our Milky Way galaxy" in where our Solar System is located.
Don´t you think this is inconsistent?

No. The more distance there is between objects, the more powerful the Hubble flow. So for a given distance, you'd need a given amount of gravity to resist it. On small scales like solar systems, this isn't a problem. On large scales like clusters, the masses are much greater, so still not a problem.

But the Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and should behave equally to the Milky Way rotation, which needs "dark matter" to "work", but the SS doesn´t .
You´re in fact having two inconsistent laws of motions in the same overall galactic location. Doesn´t this bother your logical scientific senses at all?

If I were to make an analogy, I'd go back to the rubber analogy.

I can´t take Einsteins "rubber sheet" analogy seriously. Assuming celestial objects to have just an one direction fall is non sense. What provides curving motions in space are specifically connected to the very E&M whirling formation of objects.

Besides this, I have the Universe to be eternal and infinite and with changes of its content by a process of eternal formation, dissolution and re-formation. This perception was/is what modern science can learn from our ancestral Stories of Creation all over the world if interpreting their stories into modern cosmological language.

This was especially my reason for asking into your eventual connection to a native tribe.

 

[Native]

But this is resolved by the Hubble Deep Field, which didn't exist in Arp's time. Markarian 205 is behind NGC 4319:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1992ApJ...398..495B
Bahcall, J. N., Jannuzi, B. T., Schneider, D. P., Hartig, G. F., & Jenkins, E. B. (1992). The near-ultraviolet spectrum of Markarian 205. The Astrophysical Journal, 398, 495-500.

To me it really doesn´t matter if Hubble was at stage or not. Once again you have a case of cosmological interpretation.

In a flat 2D cosmic image you cannot immediately decide the depth of objects. Scientists then use an attempt of luminosity to decide both distance and redshift, not even regarding how light looses its luminosity by distances.

But Halton Arp observed this case as the quasar in question was/is dynamically connected to the galaxy by its galactic arm, where both was given different redshift values.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix, I am in fact "intellectual quantifying" it all but on the natural philosophical scales by asking into the standing claims and contradictions. I see no logical reasons at all to begin calculations and equations before an idea are well thought through and most of the dots are connected.

That's not how this works, though. You can't just imagine a vague idea and just kind of "go with it."

But the Solar System is located in the Milky Way galaxy and should behave equally to the Milky Way rotation, which needs "dark matter" to "work", but the SS doesn´t .
You´re in fact having two inconsistent laws of motions in the same overall galactic location. Doesn´t this bother your logical scientific senses at all?

Gravity is working the same in the solar system as it is at the edge of the galaxy; what's different is what's gravitating. Dark matter halos are the way they are (and where they are) because dark matter behaves differently during the galaxy formation process.

What happens if you have an orbiting, hot body of baryonic matter as it cools? It radiates. What happens to the orbit when it does this? It contracts (simple conservation at work). This is why baryonic matter forms highly dense (with respect to the vacuum or intergalactic filaments) things like stars and planets. Dark matter can't do this, it remains diffuse in effectively a halo.

I can´t take Einsteins "rubber sheet" analogy seriously. Assuming celestial objects to have just an one direction fall is non sense. What provides curving motions in space are specifically connected to the very E&M whirling formation of objects.

I don't understand what's being said here: "what provides curving motions in space are specifically connected to the very E&M whirling formation of objects." What are you talking about?

Besides this, I have the Universe to be eternal and infinite and with changes of its content by a process of eternal formation, dissolution and re-formation. This perception was/is what modern science can learn from our ancestral Stories of Creation all over the world if interpreting their stories into modern cosmological language.

This was especially my reason for asking into your eventual connection to a native tribe.

So, if you have an eternally cyclic model, how do you get around the Second Law of Thermodynamics problems that plague every other cyclical model (except maybe Penrose's latest thing)?

 

[Meow Mix]

To me it really doesn´t matter if Hubble was at stage or not. Once again you have a case of cosmological interpretation.

In a flat 2D cosmic image you cannot immediately decide the depth of objects. Scientists then use an attempt of luminosity to decide both distance and redshift, not even regarding how light looses its luminosity by distances.

But Halton Arp observed this case as the quasar in question was/is dynamically connected to the galaxy by its galactic arm, where both was given different redshift values.

Did you miss the entire spectroscopic absorption of Mg II lines, placing the one galaxy behind the other? Did you read the paper, or at least its conclusions and the relevant section on the method and findings?

 

[Native]

That's not how this works, though. You can't just imagine a vague idea and just kind of "go with it."

It well can be that my approaches seems vague to you, but let the logical arguments decide this.

Gravity is working the same in the solar system as it is at the edge of the galaxy;

Nope - as the orbital motions in the SS and in the MW in large are different.

What happens if you have an orbiting, hot body of baryonic matter as it cools? It radiates. What happens to the orbit when it does this? It contracts (simple conservation at work).

This is simple thermodynamics and I can´t see how this is significant in the overall galactic structure and it doesn´t say anything of the different rotational motions in the SS and MW.

I don't understand what's being said here: "what provides curving motions in space are specifically connected to the very E&M whirling formation of objects." What are you talking about?

I am talking of the very fundamental formative force which create both rotational and orbital motions, the EM force which works in spherical circuits = thus giving curved motions everywhere.

So, if you have an eternally cyclic model, how do you get around the Second Law of Thermodynamics problems that plague every other cyclical model (except maybe Penrose's latest thing)?

Well it doesn´t plague me at all. "Entropy" is IMO just "a general transformation of energies" and that´s all. It fits very well together with the ancient perception of an eternal process of formation, dissolution and re-formation. Thus also obeying the law of energy conservation.

Edit: And you hardly cannot say this is a "vague idea", can you?

 

[Native]

Did you miss the entire spectroscopic absorption of Mg II lines, placing the one galaxy behind the other? Did you read the paper, or at least its conclusions and the relevant section on the method and findings?

OK I guess this is all just a question of interpretations and "your words against mine". I just wished to inform you of other approaches and opinions to the consensus redshift-idea.

PS: I´m having no troubles in accepting the redshift method for rotating motions, for instants objects in a rotating galaxy, but I reject this method for distance measuring as there is no such thing as a luminous light constant.

 

[Meow Mix]

It well can be that my approaches seems vague to you, but let the logical arguments decide this.

Surely you can see how it might be frustrating to debate science with someone that just sort of vaguely says "E&M" and "plasma" and "circular" a lot, but never gives a quantitative picture of what they even mean? You can't just nebulously invoke plasma pinch effects and say "therefore stuff orbits." It really doesn't work that way.

Nope - as the orbital motions in the SS and in the MW in large is different.

This is simple thermodynamics and I can´t see how this is significant in the overall galactic structure and it doesn´t say anything of the different rotational motions in the SS and MW.

I was explaining why we find baryonic matter in the center and dark matter largely in a halo around the edges. Gravity works the same everywhere in the galaxy, the difference is in whether the stuff gravitating interacts with light or not. The stuff that does interact with light contracted to the middle as it cooled, again, simple conservation.

I am talking of the very fundamental formative force which create both rotational and orbital motions, the EM force which works in spherical circuits = thus giving curved motions everywhere.

How? In what amount? How specifically?

Well it doesn´t plague me at all. "Entropy" is IMO just "a general transformation of energies" and that´s all. It fits very well together with the ancient perception of an eternal process of formation, dissolution and re-formation. Thus also obeying the law of energy conservation.

Dude, I wish I could just ignore entropy too. I'll give you a fist bump on that one. ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

OK I guess this is all just a question of interpretations and "your words against mine". I just wished to inform you of other approaches and opinions to the consensus redshift-idea.

PS: I´m having no troubles in accepting the redshift method for rotating motions, for instants objects in a rotating galaxy, but I reject this method for distance measuring as there is no such thing as a luminous light constant.

Even if we ignore the Mg II absorption redshift, do you see how absorption lines still tell us one object is in front of another?

 

[Native]

Surely you can see how it might be frustrating to debate science with someone that just sort of vaguely says "E&M" and "plasma" and "circular" a lot, but never gives a quantitative picture of what they even mean? You can't just nebulously invoke plasma pinch effects and say "therefore stuff orbits." It really doesn't work that way.

Yes, I can see it´s very frustrating, but it works if you have an open mind and tries to look at things in different way but the consensus way.

I was explaining why we find baryonic matter in the center and dark matter largely in a halo around the edges. Gravity works the same everywhere in the galaxy, the difference is in whether the stuff gravitating interacts with light or not. The stuff that does interact with light contracted to the middle as it cooled, again, simple conservation.

I know you were - but I´m takling of different gravitational motions which logically cannot be explained by one law. (I hope you are aware that Newtons gravitational celestial laws of motions was contradicted in galaxies and totally discarded by Einstein?)

I said:
"I am talking of the very fundamental formative force which create both rotational and orbital motions, the EM force which works in spherical circuits = thus giving curved motions everywhere.

How? In what amount? How specifically?

You can for instants take the Milky Way conditions and deduce the EM rotational force from the strong nuclear gamma- and x-rays beaming out of the galactic poles and if you need a graphic idea of the curved motion, I can recommend to compare the galactic motion with a Faraday Motor with an electric current which makes the battery (the perpendicular galactic disk in this case) to swirl (the spacial curved motions et all). (Not to be confused as a curved Universe as such)

EDIT: If estimating the orbital motions of the Milky Way, you´ll get the value of the actual EM force which drives the entire galaxy. And if so, you don´t need any gravitational laws or "dark matter" and get the correct explanation of both rotational and orbital motions.
------------
From your second post:

Even if we ignore the Mg II absorption redshift, do you see how absorption lines still tell us one object is in front of another?

I´m sorry, It´s STILL a question of interpreting an observation. If a higher luminous object is behind or in front of another object the redshift method will skew the distances in question.

 

[Native]

I said:
"Well it doesn´t plague me at all. "Entropy" is IMO just "a general transformation of energies" and that´s all. It fits very well together with the ancient perception of an eternal process of formation, dissolution and re-formation. Thus also obeying the law of energy conservation.

Dude, I wish I could just ignore entropy too. I'll give you a fist bump on that one. ^.^

Thanks Who are saying you cannot ignore and drop it? It´s just a consensus concept which isn´t needed at all in the cosmological scales.

And I hope you would incorporate the very idea of an eternal process of formation, dissolution and re-formation - and then skip the very idea of a beginning Big Bang.

If you make this logical change of paradigm, I´ll most certainly return your fist bump immediately OK you have one just by posting your OP here anyway

 

[Polymath257]

That's easy. A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor.

No, actually, a tensor is just a multilinear map. That is transforms under a change of coordinates in a particular way is a consequence of that.

Furthermore, you have to be very careful about tensor fields on manifolds in situations where the basis vectors are not those from a coordinate chart.

But physicists tend not to distinguish between tensors and tensor fields, nor deal well with bases that are not coordinate bases.

 

[leroy]

I debated on whether to get into why we know space is expanding, but at a certain point I'd be explaining the basics forever. So, I will answer questions under each different post about the subjects they contain.

Ok if you answer questions I have at least 4

1 why didn’t the age or the universe “changed” with the discovery of dark energy, we have been told that the age of the universe is around 14B years old, and as far as I know this age was determined based on the expansion rate of the universe, but after dark energy was discovered the expansion rate became larger than previously thought, so shouldnt the universe be younger?

2 why don’t we “feel” the movement of our galaxy? Supposedly we are moving towards Andromeda in an accelerated way, so shouldn’t we feel this acceleration?

3 why cant dark matter simply be “dust” or “rocks” or anything normal and boring? Why the need of proposing something as wild as “dark matter”?

4 in the many worlds interpretation of QM, what happens if an event (say the decay of an atom) has a probability of 10%, would that imply that 10 new universes branched, where in one universe the particle decayed and in the other 9 universes the particle didn’t?

 

[Meow Mix]

1 why didn’t the age or the universe “changed” with the discovery of dark energy, we have been told that the age of the universe is around 14B years old, and as far as I know this age was determined based on the expansion rate of the universe, but after dark energy was discovered the expansion rate became larger than previously thought, so shouldnt the universe be younger?

It did actually did!

[GALLERY=media, 9472]A3 by Meow Mix posted Jun 18, 2021 at 4:36 AM[/GALLERY]

Each line on this plot depends on the density parameter makeup of the universe, with the orange region having no dark energy. I'll be covering this plot more later, but for now, what's being plotted here are Type 1a supernovae at particular redshift and scale factor (one of the major pieces of evidence for dark energy).

It's not a coincidence that all of the lines converge at t = 0 because the lines that are plotted are all possible universes that would lead to the universe we see today. This is an attempt to see which line we might be on.

How the age is calculated depends on which components are accounted for: it would be calculated differently for a matter-only universe (t_0 = 2/3H_0). The scale factor would be calculated as a(t) = (t/t_0)^(2/3). So the size also had to be updated. Before dark energy, it was actually a fair thing to do to treat the universe as matter-only because the only other component aside from curvature (radiation) is so negligible. However, we can't use this now; and multi-component calculations are more complicated.

2 why don’t we “feel” the movement of our galaxy? Supposedly we are moving towards Andromeda in an accelerated way, so shouldn’t we feel this acceleration?

It's negligible for a creature on a planetary surface. For instance, experiencing rotation on a surface is also an acceleration; but in order for us to even look at this we have to build a Foucalt pendulum (a pendulum that has degrees of movement such that you can start swinging it, and over time you will notice it sweeps out a circle even if it was perfectly straight at the start thanks to Earth's rotation).

Yet you are right, we are moving: and we can know this by looking at the cosmic microwave background (CMB). When we smooth it out and account for very tiny differences in temperature, a dipole structure becomes apparent:

[GALLERY=media, 9499]Cmbdipole by Meow Mix posted Jun 24, 2021 at 5:32 PM[/GALLERY]

What you're seeing here is a map of the entire sky, with one side appearing slightly hotter and one appearing slightly cooler. This is due to motion of the observer relative to the CMB (it's roughly 370 km/s!)

3 why cant dark matter simply be “dust” or “rocks” or anything normal and boring? Why the need of proposing something as wild as “dark matter”?

I'll get deeper into this in my dark matter post coming up, but the short version is this: because we can very accurately calculate how much of the universe's energy density is "normal" (baryonic) matter; and it's not enough to account for the mass that exists.

[GALLERY=media, 9474]Clusters by Meow Mix posted Jun 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM[/GALLERY]

(Ignore the plot on the right, it isn't very relevant right now. We want the text on the left.)

For instance, when we look at galaxy clusters, we can infer a lower limit to the density parameter of matter of the universe (any matter, dark or baryonic or whatever). Yet we can independently calculate the density parameter for baryonic matter, and we get a much lower number. So we know that most of the mass in the universe is not baryonic, and that at least makes it "exotic" (to us), and we use other reasoning to infer that it either weakly interacts with light or doesn't interact with light (making it "dark"). I will cover that reasoning in my dark matter post, but for now, a short version is that if the missing matter doesn't interact with light, it not only answers why we don't see it with our eyeballs but also answers why galaxies have the structure that they do (if it did interact with light or didn't exist, galaxies would look different), among other things!

4 in the many worlds interpretation of QM, what happens if an event (say the decay of an atom) has a probability of 10%, would that imply that 10 new universes branched, where in one universe the particle decayed and in the other 9 universes the particle didn’t?

I don't really know a lot about Many Worlds on a deep technical level, so I don't feel comfortable answering this authoritatively. Sorry! I will be taking the advanced grad level quantum stuff this Fall and Spring semester, so maybe that will change.

Maybe @exchemist or @Polymath257 could answer this with more confidence. I could take a stab at it but imposter syndrome is a thing.

 

[Meow Mix]

3 why cant dark matter simply be “dust” or “rocks” or anything normal and boring? Why the need of proposing something as wild as “dark matter”?

Just letting you know that I made the 4th post in the series that answers this question with more detail than my earlier answer

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No, actually, a tensor is just a multilinear map. That is transforms under a change of coordinates in a particular way is a consequence of that.

It's a joke. And a common one. For example, I found a quote in a source years ago that referred to tensors using the old adage "if it quacks like a duck..." and took the time to look it up (wasn't difficult). The paper cited one of Anthony Zee's in a Nutshell books, Einstein Gravity in a Nutshell, where I found (before the duck bit) the following:

Long ago, an undergrad who later became a distinguished condensed matter physicist came to me after a class on group theory and asked me, “What exactly is a tensor?” I told him that a tensor is something that transforms like a tensor. When I ran into him many years later, he regaled me with the following story. At his graduation, his father, perhaps still smarting from the hefty sum he had paid to the prestigious private university his son attended, asked him what was the most memorable piece of knowledge he acquired during his four years in college. He replied, “A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor.”

Furthermore, you have to be very careful about tensor fields on manifolds in situations where the basis vectors are not those from a coordinate chart.

In practice, what one is more concerned with is whether or not the physical systems or properties thereof satisfy the requisite transformation properties. Indeed, it is this requirement that provided and continues to provide a central role in the formulations of modern physics from the use of e.g., the so-called Christoffel symbols in general relativity to the covariant derivative in gauge field theory. And yes, physicists tend to be quite careless in their usage of terms and notations, especially compared to e.g., geometers or similar specialists in mathematical fields that are heavily used in physics. But being careful about tensor fields is less problematic than e.g., the use of the Dirac notation in quantum mechanics or the fact that vectors (like tensors) are elements of a set with additional structure and by definition are elements of the corresponding spaces that result from taking these sets and equipping them with the requisite structure.
A "Coordinate chart" is just a chart, and charts are already well-defined objects that physicists have a tendency to conflate with (or see as a prime example of) coordinate systems rather than maps. The lectures by Frederic Schuller are useful here for the would-be physicist as he exercises rather more care than is typical even of mathematical physicists:
Lectures on the Geometric Anatomy of Theoretical Physics
The WE-Heraeus International Winter School on Gravity and Light Central Lecture Course
Apart from this, specifying that tensors are multilinear maps misses most of what is important, especially to the non-specialist, as apart from anything else it fails to distinguish tensors from e.g., determinants or any number of multilinear maps, including those that are special (but important) instances of tensors such as differential forms.
Personally, I would find the characterization of tensors as objects that "eat" elements of vector spaces and their duals more informative than your definition, which is inadequate to characterize tensors in any case and is uninformative more generally. But I do like the more algebraic take of your definition, as I've found students (and even colleagues) often tend to fail to grasp the more algebraic aspects of tensors due to the manner in which they use and/or happen upon them in their work (e.g., specifically the differential geometry of relativistic gravitational physics, in which one finds a far more horrific abuse of terminology and notation as well as conceptual confusions in the ways in which "differentials" are used to characterize tensors and give a limited and generally misleading characterization of their nature).

 

[Native]

• Cmbdipole
  

Cmbdipole by Meow Mix posted Jun 24, 2021 at 5:32 PM

What you're seeing here is a map of the entire sky, with one side appearing slightly hotter and one appearing slightly cooler. This is due to motion of the observer relative to the CMB (it's roughly 370 km/s!)

I can´t see how "a motion of the observer" can produce such a CMBR dipole. Please elaborate on this.

I don't really know a lot about Many Worlds on a deep technical level, so I don't feel comfortable answering this authoritatively. Sorry! I will be taking the advanced grad level quantum stuff this Fall and Spring semester, so maybe that will change.

Don´t worry about this "Many Worlds" speculation. The Universe is just that: Uni-verse but lots of fly-away speculations derives from lack of natural cosmological insights.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can´t see how "a motion of the observer" can produce such a CMBR dipole. Please elaborate on this.

This is actually the Doppler effect (unlike my explanation in the OP for how the Hubble flow is not the Doppler effect): Earth's motion through space causes a "hot" region (that we're moving towards) and a "cool" region (that we're moving away from) with respect to the entire CMB.

Possibly counter-intuitively, the hot region corresponds to a blue shift, so it's the blue section.

Don´t worry about this "Many Worlds" speculation. The Universe is just that: Uni-verse but lots of fly-away speculations derives from lack of natural cosmological insights.

I'm familiar with Many Worlds, I just didn't feel confident answering technical questions about it as a) the last quantum class I had was something like 3 semesters ago and b) I will know much more by the end of the advanced grad quantum classes in fall and spring.

I try not to talk authoritatively about stuff that I only have a general understanding of. Sometimes I probably do know enough, and it may just be imposter syndrome

 

[Meow Mix]

Lectures on the Geometric Anatomy of Theoretical Physics
The WE-Heraeus International Winter School on Gravity and Light Central Lecture Course

Thanks for these!