Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A positive cosmological constant
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Anon E. Mouse
May 1, 2012, 3:33:52 PM5/1/12
to
I recently conducted research of issues relating to the cosmological
constant in the Lambda-DMD model or the EFE. I expected to find that
there were significant issues with the manner in which Lambda altered
the predictions and solutions of the EFE and I found that to my eyes,
this is not the case.
The best general reference I found is from Wikipedia,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Based on my own analysis I assumed lambda must have a positive value
slightly less than unit in order to explain the observed Hubble flow.
Wiki cites Riess, A. et al. (September 1998). and Perlmutter, S. et
al. (June 1999). and Baker, Joanne C.; et al. (1999). finding a value
of lambda of approximately 0.7
The wiki article goes on to describe the following effects of this
value of lambda when applied to the standard CMD model.
Describing these as surprising or problems.
First, a finite entropy of the observable universe.
Yes, if entropy is used to describe either unobserved heat or
information, either, the quantity in the observable universe should be
finite, as predicted.
This issue is related to vanishing entropy in a black hole.
Yes, since light does not escape black holes information vanishes
beyond the Swwrtzschild radius. The heat or information about the
heat, either, are unobservable - but, this is not the same thing as
gone, vanished, or missing.
The next problem are discontinuities. predicted by the lambda CMB
standard model. Well, such discontinuities are presently observed as
"clusters" of non-radiant space. Large scale voids, is a possibly
better term I have seen used in the literature.
Quoting now,
"Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the
cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to
attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe."
Yes, a small portion of the early universe with low velocity and high
mass/energy density almost certainly was gravitationally bound and
collapsed long long ago. The rest escaped through hyper-inflation",
although, hyper-inflation can be seen as simply an extreme case of the
generalized Hubble flow we presently observe and as characterized by
sub-unit positive Lambda.
Quoting again,
"Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for
any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the
cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for
the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a
key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical
observations.particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and
the cosmological constant.[12"
Yes, an observationally bound universe has been a standard prediction
of relativity with or w/o expansion since the origins of Freidmann
equation. and similar.
Quoting again, requoting actually,
"particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the
cosmological constant."
Yes, the EFE with a sub-unit positive value of lambda for our locally
observed universe does predict that a portion of the mass energy of
our apparent origins has been left behind, and we no long see or feel
it.
This is why I am puzzled by the final sentence of this portion of the
article which says,
"All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the
standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is
included."
???? No, did the author mean to say, but only when the cosmological
constant term is NOT included???
At least, these are the results of my personal researches. I had
thought there was a difficulty with role of lambda as given by
Einstein (1917) or derived by Schrodinger, (1947) because to me
solving for A and integrating clearly should and I find do produce
these predictions, all of which are in accord with current
observations.
I have also found that I have a relative who was in charge of the Navy
leap second program during the some of the years (1956-1973) when the
time T the orbital period of the earth, was the standard for the
standard second.
The year was adopted because it was believed it would be more stable
than the day. This was not the case. The year gained about a second a
year and the day gains about 2 a century. This ridiculously small bit
of unverifiable data is the only planetary orbital period data I have
found to date.
None the less, It, along with the Moon orbital radius data which is
laser interferometry indicate there may be local planetary orbital
evidence for an expanding metric tensor in accord with a positive
lambda less than unit and approximately equal to 0.7
On a more reasonable cosmological time scale, the galaxy rotational
curve problem is very likely explained by EFE if it includes 0.7
lambda. Here there may be actual computational or predictive problems
in that Eons of time are represented. Recursive integrations of the
metric tensor must be balanced by recursive integrations of the stress
energy tensor. The successive decrease in stress energy (gravitation,
loosely speaking) should account for the observation that old galaxies
which should be gravitationally bound are actually not bound because
space-time is presently under more stress than in past. G the
gravitational constant is expected to have been lower in past than at
present. The metric tensor would also have been lower, but apparently
proportionally less so. old galaxies which seem like they should be
bound based on kinetics alone (the metric) are actually unbound
because the star velocity and displacement have been increasing as a
result of Hubble flow as applied to past and present dilation of space-
time resulting from the energy a big bang origin. (This final is
empirical for me, but more rigorous for experts in the field, citing
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0201097 )
Sincerely,
AAG
Sincerely,
AAG
constant in the Lambda-DMD model or the EFE. I expected to find that
there were significant issues with the manner in which Lambda altered
the predictions and solutions of the EFE and I found that to my eyes,
this is not the case.
The best general reference I found is from Wikipedia,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
Based on my own analysis I assumed lambda must have a positive value
slightly less than unit in order to explain the observed Hubble flow.
Wiki cites Riess, A. et al. (September 1998). and Perlmutter, S. et
al. (June 1999). and Baker, Joanne C.; et al. (1999). finding a value
of lambda of approximately 0.7
The wiki article goes on to describe the following effects of this
value of lambda when applied to the standard CMD model.
Describing these as surprising or problems.
First, a finite entropy of the observable universe.
Yes, if entropy is used to describe either unobserved heat or
information, either, the quantity in the observable universe should be
finite, as predicted.
This issue is related to vanishing entropy in a black hole.
Yes, since light does not escape black holes information vanishes
beyond the Swwrtzschild radius. The heat or information about the
heat, either, are unobservable - but, this is not the same thing as
gone, vanished, or missing.
The next problem are discontinuities. predicted by the lambda CMB
standard model. Well, such discontinuities are presently observed as
"clusters" of non-radiant space. Large scale voids, is a possibly
better term I have seen used in the literature.
Quoting now,
"Discontinuity also affects the past sign of the pressure of the
cosmological constant, changing from the current negative pressure to
attractive, with lookback towards the early Universe."
Yes, a small portion of the early universe with low velocity and high
mass/energy density almost certainly was gravitationally bound and
collapsed long long ago. The rest escaped through hyper-inflation",
although, hyper-inflation can be seen as simply an extreme case of the
generalized Hubble flow we presently observe and as characterized by
sub-unit positive Lambda.
Quoting again,
"Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for
any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the
cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for
the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a
key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical
observations.particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and
the cosmological constant.[12"
Yes, an observationally bound universe has been a standard prediction
of relativity with or w/o expansion since the origins of Freidmann
equation. and similar.
Quoting again, requoting actually,
"particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the
cosmological constant."
Yes, the EFE with a sub-unit positive value of lambda for our locally
observed universe does predict that a portion of the mass energy of
our apparent origins has been left behind, and we no long see or feel
it.
This is why I am puzzled by the final sentence of this portion of the
article which says,
"All of these findings should be considered major shortcomings of the
standard model, but only when the cosmological constant term is
included."
???? No, did the author mean to say, but only when the cosmological
constant term is NOT included???
At least, these are the results of my personal researches. I had
thought there was a difficulty with role of lambda as given by
Einstein (1917) or derived by Schrodinger, (1947) because to me
solving for A and integrating clearly should and I find do produce
these predictions, all of which are in accord with current
observations.
I have also found that I have a relative who was in charge of the Navy
leap second program during the some of the years (1956-1973) when the
time T the orbital period of the earth, was the standard for the
standard second.
The year was adopted because it was believed it would be more stable
than the day. This was not the case. The year gained about a second a
year and the day gains about 2 a century. This ridiculously small bit
of unverifiable data is the only planetary orbital period data I have
found to date.
None the less, It, along with the Moon orbital radius data which is
laser interferometry indicate there may be local planetary orbital
evidence for an expanding metric tensor in accord with a positive
lambda less than unit and approximately equal to 0.7
On a more reasonable cosmological time scale, the galaxy rotational
curve problem is very likely explained by EFE if it includes 0.7
lambda. Here there may be actual computational or predictive problems
in that Eons of time are represented. Recursive integrations of the
metric tensor must be balanced by recursive integrations of the stress
energy tensor. The successive decrease in stress energy (gravitation,
loosely speaking) should account for the observation that old galaxies
which should be gravitationally bound are actually not bound because
space-time is presently under more stress than in past. G the
gravitational constant is expected to have been lower in past than at
present. The metric tensor would also have been lower, but apparently
proportionally less so. old galaxies which seem like they should be
bound based on kinetics alone (the metric) are actually unbound
because the star velocity and displacement have been increasing as a
result of Hubble flow as applied to past and present dilation of space-
time resulting from the energy a big bang origin. (This final is
empirical for me, but more rigorous for experts in the field, citing
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0201097 )
Sincerely,
AAG
Sincerely,
AAG
![Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
May 2, 2012, 7:11:47 PM5/2/12
to
Anon E. Mouse <agal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [[...]] there may be local planetary orbital
> evidence for an expanding metric tensor [[...]]
There is good reason to believe that bound systems (e.g., our solar
system) will *not* significantly partake of the overall cosmological
expansion:
arXiv:gr-qc/0508052
published: American J. of Physics 80(5), May 2012, p.376-381
authors: Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
title: In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand?
date: Submitted on 12 Aug 2005 (v1), last revised 9 Jan 2012 (this version, v2)
abstract:
The expansion of the universe is often viewed as a uniform
stretching of space that would affect compact objects, atoms and
stars, as well as the separation of galaxies. One usually hears
that bound systems do not take part in the general expansion, but
a much more subtle question is whether bound systems expand
partially. In this paper, a very definitive answer is given for
a very simple system: a classical "atom" bound by electrical
attraction. With a mathemical description appropriate for
undergraduate physics majors, we show that this bound system
either completely follows the cosmological expansion, or -- after
initial transients -- completely ignores it. This "all or nothing"
behavior can be understood with techniques of junior-level
mechanics. Lastly, the simple description is shown to be a
justifiable approximation of the relativistically correct formulation
of the problem.
Bonnor,
"Size of a hydrogen atom in the expanding universe",
Classical and Quantum Gravity volume 16 (1999) page 1313,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/4/020
abstract:
I take a simple model of the hydrogen atom in a universe without
spatial curvature. The Maxwell equations are formulated on the
background cosmic spacetime. For a class of cosmic metrics, which
includes the de Sitter universe, these equations admit solutions
corresponding to an atom whose radius remains strictly constant
during the expansion. In the Einstein-de Sitter universe approximate
calculations show that the atom expands, but at a rate which is
negligible compared with the general cosmic expansion.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
> [[...]] there may be local planetary orbital
> evidence for an expanding metric tensor [[...]]
There is good reason to believe that bound systems (e.g., our solar
system) will *not* significantly partake of the overall cosmological
expansion:
arXiv:gr-qc/0508052
published: American J. of Physics 80(5), May 2012, p.376-381
authors: Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano
title: In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand?
date: Submitted on 12 Aug 2005 (v1), last revised 9 Jan 2012 (this version, v2)
abstract:
The expansion of the universe is often viewed as a uniform
stretching of space that would affect compact objects, atoms and
stars, as well as the separation of galaxies. One usually hears
that bound systems do not take part in the general expansion, but
a much more subtle question is whether bound systems expand
partially. In this paper, a very definitive answer is given for
a very simple system: a classical "atom" bound by electrical
attraction. With a mathemical description appropriate for
undergraduate physics majors, we show that this bound system
either completely follows the cosmological expansion, or -- after
initial transients -- completely ignores it. This "all or nothing"
behavior can be understood with techniques of junior-level
mechanics. Lastly, the simple description is shown to be a
justifiable approximation of the relativistically correct formulation
of the problem.
Bonnor,
"Size of a hydrogen atom in the expanding universe",
Classical and Quantum Gravity volume 16 (1999) page 1313,
doi:10.1088/0264-9381/16/4/020
abstract:
I take a simple model of the hydrogen atom in a universe without
spatial curvature. The Maxwell equations are formulated on the
background cosmic spacetime. For a class of cosmic metrics, which
includes the de Sitter universe, these equations admit solutions
corresponding to an atom whose radius remains strictly constant
during the expansion. In the Einstein-de Sitter universe approximate
calculations show that the atom expands, but at a rate which is
negligible compared with the general cosmic expansion.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
Anon E. Mouse
May 3, 2012, 5:39:55 PM5/3/12
to
> Quoting again,
> "Another investigation found the cosmological time, dt, diverges for
> any finite interval, ds, associated with an observer approaching the
> cosmological horizon, representing a physical limit to observation for
> the standard model when the cosmological term is included. This is a
> key requirement for a complete interpretation of astronomical
> observations.particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and
> the cosmological constant.[12"
>
> Yes, an observationally bound universe has been a standard prediction
> of relativity with or w/o expansion since the origins of Freidmann
> equation. and similar.
>
> Quoting again, requoting actually,
> "particularly pertaining to the nature of dark energy and the
> cosmological constant."
>
> Yes, the EFE with a sub-unit positive value of lambda for our locally
> observed universe does predict that a portion of the mass energy of
> our apparent origins has been left behind, and we no long see or feel
> it.
"The Cosmological Spacetime
Fulvio Melia, Majd Abdelqader
(Submitted on 30 Jul 2009)
We present here the transformations required to recast the
Robertson-Walker metric and Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations in
terms of observer-dependent coordinates for several commonly assumed
cosmologies. The overriding motivation is the derivation of explicit
expressions for the radius R_h of our cosmic horizon in terms of
measurable quantities for each of the cases we consider. We show that
the cosmological time dt diverges for any finite interval ds
associated with a process at R -> R_h, which therefore represents a
physical limit to our observations. This is a key component required
for a complete interpretation of the data, particularly as they
pertain to the nature of dark energy. With these results, we affirm
the conclusion drawn in our earlier work that the identification of
dark energy as a cosmological constant does not appear to be
consistent with the data. "
I find that there has been an evolution in the concepts of an
observationally bound universe of which as was previously unaware. The
original conception flowed from SR and featured a gravitational bound
lensing that would limit observation.
The development of GRT as given 1915 did not change this. The
inclusion of a cosmological constant possibly does alter this concept,
in the manner described in detail in the cited paper. This discussion
is in terms of ds/dt/T (my terms, not theirs, and is highly technical.
The concept however can be understood approximately as plus or minus
c. If neither light not gravity can propagate faster than c and if we
are moving at a good fraction of c and were formerly moving even
faster kinetically, then anything on th eother side of creation moving
away from us at high gamma would emit light we can not see and have
mass/energy we can not feel.
In a like manner, the expansion of the cosmos causes a local and
regional expansion fo space-time. This expansion velocity is additive
to kinetic velocity and can sum to more or less than c for a given
(our present) observable universe.
Thus the inclusion of a positive cosmological constant added in 1917
alters a founding postulate of the relativity principle as given in
1915. It is the second of only three postulates that is altered. The
second postulate as given and translated states roughly, no mass can
move faster than c. The amended necessary to include a postive
cosmological constant would be, no mass moving faster than c can be
directly observed, or as an affirmative statement, only mass moving
with a relative velocity less than c may be directly observed.
This is a small, but possibly important alteration of the basic
theory.
Some of the implications are, or may be:
Mass/energy has been left behind our local group. Mass energy has
escaped our local group and expansion of space-time over time
increases apparent velocities in a manner inconsistent with Newtonian
mechanics alone.
and in quantum mechanics:
The relative velocity of the masses and charges of the prions of the
nucleus are moving with a relative velocity greater than c in the
laboratory frame of reference and this is the fundamental cause of our
inability to directly observe sub-atomic particles, which is why we
use inference instead of direct observation.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Gallistel
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 4, 2012, 3:54:15 AM5/4/12
to
In article
<ab7eccc2-5132-40d7...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
combination of names; he is the only astronomer in the world with that
name, so it should be easy to find him at arXiv. He also blogs at
Cosmic Horizons. It's a low-traffic blog so you can easily read
everything. He also discusses his own recent work there. Recently,
together with a Dutch colleague, he wrote a paper criticizing some
recent work (not sure if it is the above paper) claiming that strange
things happen at the Hubble radius, and shows that the claim is false.
I agree. As he notes, there have been no open questions regarding
cosmic horizons for at least more than 40 years. There is a classic
paper by Wolfgang Rindler which is THE paper to read if one is
interested in these things. He didn't write that many papers in the
1950s so you should be able to find it at ADS (where you can access the
full text in PDF or GIF format). Also, you absolutely have to read
Stabell and Refsdal's paper on the classification of cosmological models
and the companion paper by Refsdal, Stabell and de Lange which
calculates various quantities for various cosmologies. In particular,
they explicitly calculate all the various types of horizons for a wide
range of cosmological models, and plot them in the cosmological
parameters space. Anything which disagrees with this is simply wrong.
(Note that before Rindler's paper there was real confusion of the
concepts and also confusion in the nomenclature.) These two papers can
also be found at ADS. Just search for "Stabell, R."; these are among
his oldest papers.
> Thus the inclusion of a positive cosmological constant added in 1917
> alters a founding postulate of the relativity principle as given in
> 1915. It is the second of only three postulates that is altered. The
> second postulate as given and translated states roughly, no mass can
> move faster than c. The amended necessary to include a postive
> cosmological constant would be, no mass moving faster than c can be
> directly observed, or as an affirmative statement, only mass moving
> with a relative velocity less than c may be directly observed.
Even without the cosmological constant, cosmological velocities can be
greater than C. Check out Edward Harrison's classic textbook on
cosmology.
> Mass/energy has been left behind our local group. Mass energy has
> escaped our local group and expansion of space-time over time
> increases apparent velocities in a manner inconsistent with Newtonian
> mechanics alone.
The local groups is well within the horizon.
> The relative velocity of the masses and charges of the prions of the
> nucleus are moving with a relative velocity greater than c in the
> laboratory frame of reference and this is the fundamental cause of our
> inability to directly observe sub-atomic particles, which is why we
> use inference instead of direct observation.
There is no evidence of this. Also, what is "direct"? Various types of
electron microscopes essentially observe individual atoms.
<ab7eccc2-5132-40d7...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
"Anon E. Mouse" <agal...@gmail.com> writes:
> I referenced the paper cited above and quote the abstract here;
> "The Cosmological Spacetime
> Fulvio Melia, Majd Abdelqader
> (Submitted on 30 Jul 2009)
>
> We present here the transformations required to recast the
> Robertson-Walker metric and Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations in
> terms of observer-dependent coordinates for several commonly assumed
> cosmologies. The overriding motivation is the derivation of explicit
> expressions for the radius R_h of our cosmic horizon in terms of
> measurable quantities for each of the cases we consider. We show that
> the cosmological time dt diverges for any finite interval ds
> associated with a process at R -> R_h, which therefore represents a
> physical limit to our observations. This is a key component required
> for a complete interpretation of the data, particularly as they
> pertain to the nature of dark energy. With these results, we affirm
> the conclusion drawn in our earlier work that the identification of
> dark energy as a cosmological constant does not appear to be
> consistent with the data. "
Please read recent papers by Geraint Lewis. That's an uncommon
> I referenced the paper cited above and quote the abstract here;
> "The Cosmological Spacetime
> Fulvio Melia, Majd Abdelqader
> (Submitted on 30 Jul 2009)
>
> We present here the transformations required to recast the
> Robertson-Walker metric and Friedmann-Robertson-Walker equations in
> terms of observer-dependent coordinates for several commonly assumed
> cosmologies. The overriding motivation is the derivation of explicit
> expressions for the radius R_h of our cosmic horizon in terms of
> measurable quantities for each of the cases we consider. We show that
> the cosmological time dt diverges for any finite interval ds
> associated with a process at R -> R_h, which therefore represents a
> physical limit to our observations. This is a key component required
> for a complete interpretation of the data, particularly as they
> pertain to the nature of dark energy. With these results, we affirm
> the conclusion drawn in our earlier work that the identification of
> dark energy as a cosmological constant does not appear to be
> consistent with the data. "
combination of names; he is the only astronomer in the world with that
name, so it should be easy to find him at arXiv. He also blogs at
Cosmic Horizons. It's a low-traffic blog so you can easily read
everything. He also discusses his own recent work there. Recently,
together with a Dutch colleague, he wrote a paper criticizing some
recent work (not sure if it is the above paper) claiming that strange
things happen at the Hubble radius, and shows that the claim is false.
I agree. As he notes, there have been no open questions regarding
cosmic horizons for at least more than 40 years. There is a classic
paper by Wolfgang Rindler which is THE paper to read if one is
interested in these things. He didn't write that many papers in the
1950s so you should be able to find it at ADS (where you can access the
full text in PDF or GIF format). Also, you absolutely have to read
Stabell and Refsdal's paper on the classification of cosmological models
and the companion paper by Refsdal, Stabell and de Lange which
calculates various quantities for various cosmologies. In particular,
they explicitly calculate all the various types of horizons for a wide
range of cosmological models, and plot them in the cosmological
parameters space. Anything which disagrees with this is simply wrong.
(Note that before Rindler's paper there was real confusion of the
concepts and also confusion in the nomenclature.) These two papers can
also be found at ADS. Just search for "Stabell, R."; these are among
his oldest papers.
> Thus the inclusion of a positive cosmological constant added in 1917
> alters a founding postulate of the relativity principle as given in
> 1915. It is the second of only three postulates that is altered. The
> second postulate as given and translated states roughly, no mass can
> move faster than c. The amended necessary to include a postive
> cosmological constant would be, no mass moving faster than c can be
> directly observed, or as an affirmative statement, only mass moving
> with a relative velocity less than c may be directly observed.
greater than C. Check out Edward Harrison's classic textbook on
cosmology.
> Mass/energy has been left behind our local group. Mass energy has
> escaped our local group and expansion of space-time over time
> increases apparent velocities in a manner inconsistent with Newtonian
> mechanics alone.
> The relative velocity of the masses and charges of the prions of the
> nucleus are moving with a relative velocity greater than c in the
> laboratory frame of reference and this is the fundamental cause of our
> inability to directly observe sub-atomic particles, which is why we
> use inference instead of direct observation.
electron microscopes essentially observe individual atoms.
Anon E. Mouse
May 5, 2012, 12:37:33 PM5/5/12
to
The abstract of:
How does the Hubble sphere limit our view of the Universe?
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01249.x
Bibliographic Code: 2012MNRAS.tmpL.447L
It has recently been claimed that the Hubble sphere represents a
previously unknown limit to our view of the universe, with light we
detect today coming from a proper distance less than this 'cosmic
horizon' at the present time. By considering the paths of light rays
in several cosmologies, we show that this claim is not generally true.
In particular, in cosmologies dominated by phantom energy (with an
equation of state of ? < -1) the proper distance to the Hubble sphere
decreases, and light rays can cross it more than once in both
directions; such behaviour further diminishes the claim that the
Hubble sphere is a fundamental, but unrecognized, horizon in the
universe.
I would agree with this set of statements also, in that the existence
and characteristics of the Hubble sphere is model dependent and models
relying on phantom energy instead of relativity do not necessarily
have Hubble spheres.
The general prediction of the GRT with positive sub-unit equation of
state of approx 0.7 or a Lambda of approx 4.81 e-20 the specific model
dependent predictions about the size and shape of the Hubble sphere
are;
The Hubble sphere, or the observational horizon in cosmology is
predicted by the EFE (1917) to exist for our observable universe. It
is predicted to be an oblate spheroid, and not a true sphere. The
flattening is predicted to align with local group velocity relative a
hypothetical big band origin.
The current common assumption that the cause of the North/South
isotropy in CMB is due to the asymmetric magnetic field of the Earth
makes the CMB ansitropic within observational limits.
However, if the isotropy is a Doppler effect, then this planet, the
solar system, and our galaxy all have a kinetic velocity relative to
our origin of about 385 m/s with a vector heading pointing
substantially due North. Adopting this assumption as a working
hypothesis the Hubble sphere is predicted by my model to be:
Oblate with the shortest axis due south, the next shortest axis due
north. and the longest radii to be substantially symmetric round the
orbital plane.
This predicted limit naturally can not be directly observed. However,
its effects on observations can be predicted. These predictions are;
The star population density along the southern axis will appear to be
lowest. The oldest galaxies will be preferentially observed in the
southern sky, these old, small galaxies will be on average blue
shifted.
The population density along the northern observational axis will be
next least. The oldest galaxies in this direction will be
preferentially red-shifted and relatively expanded in comparison to
southern galaxies and possible to our own. Those that rotate will
appear to us to have higher kinetic velocities than the southern
galaxies, and possibly those of the local group.
The star population densities along the orbital plane are predicted to
be greatest. The diversity of red vs blue shift should be greatest and
this distribution should show less skew than either the northern or
southern observational axis.
A straight linear regression of the locally observed Hubble flow gives
a maximum age of the universe of about 20 billion years. My
expectation is that a progressive regression should predict a lower
age, in reasonable agreement with other estimates, an age of about 17
billion years.
The observation that our rotational plane, and substantially all
rotational aligns with or progessive motion planes can not be derived
from GRT alone.
However, it can be predicted by grand unified field theory with an
assignable cause, the conservation of the angular momentum of the
prions and orbital electrons of the constituent mass as this mass is
either translated or accelerated in the cosmic (or local)
gravitational field. In plainer English, the apparent alignment of
rotation with our progression is probably not accidental.
These are substantially all the direct predictions about the local
universe that I can make at the present that I feel can be
observationally confirmed or not. There are additional predictions of
GRT with a positive sub-unit equation of state such as an apparent
increase in mass/ density over Eons. This is the contra-variance of
gravitation and mass density. GRT predicts an increasing stress energy
tensor and that predicts increasing mass densities. This will effect
thing like super novas so a corollary prediction of this model is that
super nova should be observational more common radially than
southerly, they may be fractionally or proportionally more common
along the northern axis, but not enough to compensate for the lower
mean population density. I would expect that this corollary prediction
would fall within observational limits, But direct measures of
increasing velocity, mass density, or any other measure as a result of
cosmological expansion while possibly important, will be extremely
difficult to measure directly, the extreme precision of the NIST
standard meter protocols could hypothetically form a direct measure,
but the typical assumption would be that the comparative standard was
changing over time and not the light standard. Like I said, direct
measures in excess of experiemtnal errors will be extremely difficult
and even if each prediction of the model mentioned above had
confirmation, it would still only imply that the model itself may be
valid.
Sincerely,
Anthony A Gallistel
How does the Hubble sphere limit our view of the Universe?
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01249.x
Bibliographic Code: 2012MNRAS.tmpL.447L
It has recently been claimed that the Hubble sphere represents a
previously unknown limit to our view of the universe, with light we
detect today coming from a proper distance less than this 'cosmic
horizon' at the present time. By considering the paths of light rays
in several cosmologies, we show that this claim is not generally true.
In particular, in cosmologies dominated by phantom energy (with an
equation of state of ? < -1) the proper distance to the Hubble sphere
decreases, and light rays can cross it more than once in both
directions; such behaviour further diminishes the claim that the
Hubble sphere is a fundamental, but unrecognized, horizon in the
universe.
I would agree with this set of statements also, in that the existence
and characteristics of the Hubble sphere is model dependent and models
relying on phantom energy instead of relativity do not necessarily
have Hubble spheres.
The general prediction of the GRT with positive sub-unit equation of
state of approx 0.7 or a Lambda of approx 4.81 e-20 the specific model
dependent predictions about the size and shape of the Hubble sphere
are;
The Hubble sphere, or the observational horizon in cosmology is
predicted by the EFE (1917) to exist for our observable universe. It
is predicted to be an oblate spheroid, and not a true sphere. The
flattening is predicted to align with local group velocity relative a
hypothetical big band origin.
The current common assumption that the cause of the North/South
isotropy in CMB is due to the asymmetric magnetic field of the Earth
makes the CMB ansitropic within observational limits.
However, if the isotropy is a Doppler effect, then this planet, the
solar system, and our galaxy all have a kinetic velocity relative to
our origin of about 385 m/s with a vector heading pointing
substantially due North. Adopting this assumption as a working
hypothesis the Hubble sphere is predicted by my model to be:
Oblate with the shortest axis due south, the next shortest axis due
north. and the longest radii to be substantially symmetric round the
orbital plane.
This predicted limit naturally can not be directly observed. However,
its effects on observations can be predicted. These predictions are;
The star population density along the southern axis will appear to be
lowest. The oldest galaxies will be preferentially observed in the
southern sky, these old, small galaxies will be on average blue
shifted.
The population density along the northern observational axis will be
next least. The oldest galaxies in this direction will be
preferentially red-shifted and relatively expanded in comparison to
southern galaxies and possible to our own. Those that rotate will
appear to us to have higher kinetic velocities than the southern
galaxies, and possibly those of the local group.
The star population densities along the orbital plane are predicted to
be greatest. The diversity of red vs blue shift should be greatest and
this distribution should show less skew than either the northern or
southern observational axis.
A straight linear regression of the locally observed Hubble flow gives
a maximum age of the universe of about 20 billion years. My
expectation is that a progressive regression should predict a lower
age, in reasonable agreement with other estimates, an age of about 17
billion years.
The observation that our rotational plane, and substantially all
rotational aligns with or progessive motion planes can not be derived
from GRT alone.
However, it can be predicted by grand unified field theory with an
assignable cause, the conservation of the angular momentum of the
prions and orbital electrons of the constituent mass as this mass is
either translated or accelerated in the cosmic (or local)
gravitational field. In plainer English, the apparent alignment of
rotation with our progression is probably not accidental.
These are substantially all the direct predictions about the local
universe that I can make at the present that I feel can be
observationally confirmed or not. There are additional predictions of
GRT with a positive sub-unit equation of state such as an apparent
increase in mass/ density over Eons. This is the contra-variance of
gravitation and mass density. GRT predicts an increasing stress energy
tensor and that predicts increasing mass densities. This will effect
thing like super novas so a corollary prediction of this model is that
super nova should be observational more common radially than
southerly, they may be fractionally or proportionally more common
along the northern axis, but not enough to compensate for the lower
mean population density. I would expect that this corollary prediction
would fall within observational limits, But direct measures of
increasing velocity, mass density, or any other measure as a result of
cosmological expansion while possibly important, will be extremely
difficult to measure directly, the extreme precision of the NIST
standard meter protocols could hypothetically form a direct measure,
but the typical assumption would be that the comparative standard was
changing over time and not the light standard. Like I said, direct
measures in excess of experiemtnal errors will be extremely difficult
and even if each prediction of the model mentioned above had
confirmation, it would still only imply that the model itself may be
valid.
Sincerely,
Anthony A Gallistel
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
May 5, 2012, 3:40:07 PM5/5/12
to
In article
<b4e4f799-7da6-4cbd...@t23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The last paragraph before the acknowledgments reads:
None of this should really come as a surprise, as the evolution of
the particle and event horizones, and the Hubble Sphere have been
the focus of several classic papers [please check these must-read
references]. Recent contributions have added little to our
understanding.
:-)
> I would agree with this set of statements also, in that the existence
> and characteristics of the Hubble sphere is model dependent and models
> relying on phantom energy instead of relativity do not necessarily
> have Hubble spheres.
The Hubble sphere is the proper distance c/H_0, where H_0 is the
Hubble constant. Thus it always exists unless the universe is
smaller than the Hubble sphere. Again, all of this has been known in
detail since the 1950s.
> The general prediction of the GRT with positive sub-unit equation of
> state of approx 0.7 or a Lambda of approx 4.81 e-20 the specific model
> dependent predictions about the size and shape of the Hubble sphere
> are;
>
> The Hubble sphere, or the observational horizon
Please read the paper you mention above. Please. In general, the
Hubble sphere is neither an event horizon nor a particle horizon.
> in cosmology is
> predicted by the EFE (1917) to exist for our observable universe. It
> is predicted to be an oblate spheroid, and not a true sphere.
Where did you ever get this idea?
> The
> flattening is predicted to align with local group velocity relative a
> hypothetical big band origin.
???
> The current common assumption that the cause of the North/South
> isotropy in CMB is due to the asymmetric magnetic field of the Earth
> makes the CMB ansitropic within observational limits.
>
> However, if the isotropy is a Doppler effect, then this planet, the
> solar system, and our galaxy all have a kinetic velocity relative to
> our origin of about 385 m/s with a vector heading pointing
> substantially due North. Adopting this assumption as a working
> hypothesis the Hubble sphere is predicted by my model to be:
>
> Oblate with the shortest axis due south, the next shortest axis due
> north. and the longest radii to be substantially symmetric round the
> orbital plane.
You are confusing several different things.
> This predicted limit naturally can not be directly observed. However,
> its effects on observations can be predicted. These predictions are;
>
> The star population density along the southern axis will appear to be
> lowest. The oldest galaxies will be preferentially observed in the
> southern sky, these old, small galaxies will be on average blue
> shifted.
Again, you are confusing different things on different scales. Also,
what you predict is not observed.
> However, it can be predicted by grand unified field theory with an
> assignable cause, the conservation of the angular momentum of the
> prions and orbital electrons of the constituent mass as this mass is
> either translated or accelerated in the cosmic (or local)
> gravitational field. In plainer English, the apparent alignment of
> rotation with our progression is probably not accidental.
Prions are molecules in the brain, in the news a few years ago in the
context of mad-cow disease.
<b4e4f799-7da6-4cbd...@t23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> How does the Hubble sphere limit our view of the Universe?
> DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01249.x
> Bibliographic Code: 2012MNRAS.tmpL.447L
That's the paper I meant.
> DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01249.x
> Bibliographic Code: 2012MNRAS.tmpL.447L
The last paragraph before the acknowledgments reads:
None of this should really come as a surprise, as the evolution of
the particle and event horizones, and the Hubble Sphere have been
the focus of several classic papers [please check these must-read
references]. Recent contributions have added little to our
understanding.
:-)
> I would agree with this set of statements also, in that the existence
> and characteristics of the Hubble sphere is model dependent and models
> relying on phantom energy instead of relativity do not necessarily
> have Hubble spheres.
Hubble constant. Thus it always exists unless the universe is
smaller than the Hubble sphere. Again, all of this has been known in
detail since the 1950s.
> The general prediction of the GRT with positive sub-unit equation of
> state of approx 0.7 or a Lambda of approx 4.81 e-20 the specific model
> dependent predictions about the size and shape of the Hubble sphere
> are;
>
> The Hubble sphere, or the observational horizon
Hubble sphere is neither an event horizon nor a particle horizon.
> in cosmology is
> predicted by the EFE (1917) to exist for our observable universe. It
> is predicted to be an oblate spheroid, and not a true sphere.
> The
> flattening is predicted to align with local group velocity relative a
> hypothetical big band origin.
> The current common assumption that the cause of the North/South
> isotropy in CMB is due to the asymmetric magnetic field of the Earth
> makes the CMB ansitropic within observational limits.
>
> However, if the isotropy is a Doppler effect, then this planet, the
> solar system, and our galaxy all have a kinetic velocity relative to
> our origin of about 385 m/s with a vector heading pointing
> substantially due North. Adopting this assumption as a working
> hypothesis the Hubble sphere is predicted by my model to be:
>
> Oblate with the shortest axis due south, the next shortest axis due
> north. and the longest radii to be substantially symmetric round the
> orbital plane.
> This predicted limit naturally can not be directly observed. However,
> its effects on observations can be predicted. These predictions are;
>
> The star population density along the southern axis will appear to be
> lowest. The oldest galaxies will be preferentially observed in the
> southern sky, these old, small galaxies will be on average blue
> shifted.
what you predict is not observed.
> However, it can be predicted by grand unified field theory with an
> assignable cause, the conservation of the angular momentum of the
> prions and orbital electrons of the constituent mass as this mass is
> either translated or accelerated in the cosmic (or local)
> gravitational field. In plainer English, the apparent alignment of
> rotation with our progression is probably not accidental.
context of mad-cow disease.
0 new messages