Is there a proof of equality, or is it a supposition or assumption? What are cites of articles addressing this?
Is there a proof of inequality? Of several articles doubting equality one is:
Preprint Galileo differential scaling in physics
If assuming the equality of distances is invalid, how does that affect ideas about dark energy?
Robert Shour
You've raised an important and nuanced question about the relationship between redshift distance and luminosity distance in the context of supernovae. This topic is critical for our understanding of cosmological measurements and dark energy.
The equality between redshift distance and luminosity distance is not a straightforward proof but rather an outcome of the cosmological model we use. In the standard model of cosmology, assuming a homogeneous and isotropic universe (described by the FLRW metric), redshift and luminosity distances are related but not necessarily equal. They depend on the cosmological parameters like the Hubble constant, matter density, and dark energy.
There isn't a direct proof of equality; rather, it's derived from the cosmological equations. However, if we assume certain cosmological models, these distances can be related in specific ways. The article you referenced, "Galileo Differential Scaling in Physics", discusses alternative models that might challenge these assumptions.
If the assumed equality or relationship between these distances is invalid, it could significantly impact our understanding of dark energy. For example, it could suggest that our measurements of the accelerating expansion of the universe (attributed to dark energy) might need re-evaluation. This would prompt a re-examination of the cosmological constant and other dark energy models.
In my recent publication, "Schrödinger Equation: Unfit for Fundamental Law",
Article Schrödinger Equation unfit for fundamental law
I explore foundational aspects of physics that indirectly touch on these cosmological measurements. My findings might provide additional insights into the fundamental assumptions underlying our cosmological models.Looking forward to a vibrant discussion on this intriguing topic!
With best regards,
Sandeep Jaiswal
My take on this is the following. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as redshift distance. On the other hand the luminosity distance is defined as the distance so that the luminosity and flux of an object satisfy a usual equation. In a static universe this is the same as the proper distance but not in an expanding one. Now for cosmology we use type Ia SNe because we can predict their luminosity, so we can calculate their luminosity distance. Then we plot them against redshift. Finally we take our cosmological models, predict the distance - redshift relation and compare to the data. The model which is expanding and accelerating fits the data, so we accept it as a model of the Universe.
At page 59 in Saving the appearances : a study in idolatry by Barfield, Owen, 1898-1997:
I suppose a large part of astrophysics, for example, to be unverifiable by any prediction or experiment ...
- Badges
- Science topic