- Thank you received: 0
A Mechanism for Cosmological Redshift.
22 years 1 month ago #2934
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
You say it takes 10e53 or so protons to cause the Hubble redshift? How do you determine this?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 1 month ago #2936
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You say it takes 10e53 or so protons to cause the Hubble redshift? How do you determine this?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jim,
It looks like I've made a very stupid error in my previous post, omitting the square root from the formula. I've corrected it now.
The correct formula is actually z=(2/3)(pi)G(rho)(R^2)/(c^2), or r=sqrt[{3z(c^2)}/{2G(pi)(rho)}], which gives 7x10^26 m for z=1 and 1 proton/m^3 density. Those figures look quite realistic. In this case the mechanism I presented above would serve as a homogenizing factor or just one more "degree of freedom" in thermodynamic equilibrium of matter and EM radiation in the universe.
Anyway, Doppler is promptly cut away by Occam's razor.
You say it takes 10e53 or so protons to cause the Hubble redshift? How do you determine this?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jim,
It looks like I've made a very stupid error in my previous post, omitting the square root from the formula. I've corrected it now.
The correct formula is actually z=(2/3)(pi)G(rho)(R^2)/(c^2), or r=sqrt[{3z(c^2)}/{2G(pi)(rho)}], which gives 7x10^26 m for z=1 and 1 proton/m^3 density. Those figures look quite realistic. In this case the mechanism I presented above would serve as a homogenizing factor or just one more "degree of freedom" in thermodynamic equilibrium of matter and EM radiation in the universe.
Anyway, Doppler is promptly cut away by Occam's razor.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 1 month ago #2937
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Now that you have this revelation why not see how it fits real space and observed redshift? I still say the density of the universe is much higher than 1 proton mass per cubic meter and this is observed in LAF lines.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- AgoraBasta
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 1 month ago #2976
by AgoraBasta
Replied by AgoraBasta on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I still say the density of the universe is much higher than 1 proton mass per cubic meter and this is observed in LAF lines.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jim,
After all, light gravitates. This means that photons are sucked into the same places whither other light electrically neutral particles of IGM matter are sucked. Such particles are primarily neutrinos, the next lightest neutral "particle" of ordinary matter is hydrogen atom. If you consider my ELF soup model, it's quite natural to propose that matter accretions would group around areas of stronger E-component of the ELF soup, interacting by dipolar momentum; areas with the stronger B-component would be filled mostly with dense flux of neutrinos and atomic hydrogen, i.e. electrically neutral particles with non-zero magnetic momentum.
So your LAF nicely fits anywhere from quasars till huge voids, all depending on the model, and it doen't necessarily measure the average density but rather the density by the light path, which path naturally bends towards the areas of higher matter and energy density.
I still say the density of the universe is much higher than 1 proton mass per cubic meter and this is observed in LAF lines.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Jim,
After all, light gravitates. This means that photons are sucked into the same places whither other light electrically neutral particles of IGM matter are sucked. Such particles are primarily neutrinos, the next lightest neutral "particle" of ordinary matter is hydrogen atom. If you consider my ELF soup model, it's quite natural to propose that matter accretions would group around areas of stronger E-component of the ELF soup, interacting by dipolar momentum; areas with the stronger B-component would be filled mostly with dense flux of neutrinos and atomic hydrogen, i.e. electrically neutral particles with non-zero magnetic momentum.
So your LAF nicely fits anywhere from quasars till huge voids, all depending on the model, and it doen't necessarily measure the average density but rather the density by the light path, which path naturally bends towards the areas of higher matter and energy density.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 1 month ago #2989
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The IGM the quasars are found in is not a special place in the universe so the density there is about average for the universe as a whole. The LAF is caused by quite a number of protons in clouds that are not observed directly or by other means(other than quasar spectra). The total density between here and a quasar averages about 10,000 protons per cubic meter which is much more stuff that is invisible than your estimate suggests. The redshift Z=1 is about 10E24 meters according to Hubble not 10E26 meters.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.292 seconds