I'm going to explore some physical math for a toy model. My aim is to find out if there is the reasonable possibility to get a consistent model of tired light (neutrino-/em-radiation) expanding space. Not traditionally, so that the cosmological redshift is due to the expanding universe but so that the radiation itself is the cause of the expansion, event the cause of the accelerating universe when more and more radiation have reached even more places in the space.
My basis for future research is that in any consistent mathemathical model of dark space anomalies it's helpful that the same mechanism could be found in the dark energy and in the dark matter phenomena.
Some my first thoughts have been raised from the observations that galaxies and clusters seem to be more massive measured by gravitational bending than measured by visible stars with estimated/calculated orbits. Thus I think there could be possibility that the dense radiation would increase the space in the center areas of galaxies and that increased space was spent for orbiting objects to alter their orbital periods. The conclusion would be that the normal baryonic matter were responsible for all the mass - it would have been an erroneous method to calculate masses at dense radiation via orbits - gravitational bending gives higher accurate mass value but it is obviously too small also.
I'm asking the information to decide if the issue is worth of exploring...
The first piece of information you need to deal with is the fact that the energy density of radiation falls as the fourth power of redshift whereas dark energy is accurately modelled by the cosmological constant, i.e. a constant density. I think that rules out the idea but YMMV.
Still, if tired light loose its spatiality for the vacuum constantly / meter, not as relation to the carrying em-energy, there is a way... The redhift would be a consequence, yes, but not because of mysterious expanding space but because of spatial tiring of light, which mechanism expanded the space...
The amount of radiation, the density of quanta, would expand the universe. There would be the vacuum mechanism between the space and the radiation quanta helping each other to exist. On the other hand, the inertial matter spends space and transmits radiation. Maybe this is a bit worth of exploring, I'm considerig with math for a while...
ES: the density of quanta, would expand the universe
The density is reducing while the expansion is increasing so a causative link seems contradictory
You would also need to explain the time dilation of supernovae light curves (e.g. Goldhaber et al) and of quasar linear features (Dai et al).
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191
GD: The density is reducing while the expansion is increasing so a causative link seems contradictory
That must be found out. As more entropy as more radiaton, the gravitational sources of radiation must also count in...
GD: seems contradictory
ES: That must be found out.
Yes, that's why I said "seems", good luck with that.
ES: As more entropy as more radiaton,
The number of CMB photons has remained constant since decoupling (other than a minor amount lost to absorption).
ES: the gravitational sources of radiation must also count in...
It does but the energy of the CMB falls as (1+z)^4 compared to matter which falls at (1=z)^3 so matter became dominant as the universe expanded. The transition was at about 48,000 years, long before decoupling at about 378,000 years. Dark energy has a constant density so started to dominate matter a few billion years ago as the matter density continued to fall.
The significant phenomenom is that the space potentiality, spatial vacuum energy, elapses for masses where matter exists, but in the empty space not. So the expansion is due to the volume of the empty cosmic bubble - the more extra spatial vacuum energy the large the bubble is. The density doesn't rule. Of course we must take account the tired light error in redshifts too, which improves the possibility to verify the expanding effect of the radiation...
Still considering if to explore as a separated research project but it's quite hard without revealing the whole concept...
Bear in mind also that, during the radiation dominated era, the energy density of the photons was the main cause of the expansion decelerating.
George,
Our understanding of the dynamics during the radiation dominated era is based on the guesswork. To draw the line between matter-likehood and radiation-likehood at the early universe is impossible without knowing the mechanism of the inflation, which could have been the mixture of dimensional transitions in spatial formation or something like that. I mean, there can have been an amount of fading interferences...
So your point is relevant but poorly justified.
The equations of state of radiation and non-relativistic matter are both well understood and the density of each is known with good accuracy. The transition would have been after about 48 thousand years whereas inflation ended at approximately 10-32 seconds so I don't think there is any immediate connection, the epochs are too far apart.
The "Dimensional transitions" are issue of the inflation epoch. The secret of spatial features at that epoch is unrevealed, What's the significance of the straightening period of curved (curled?) spacetime? Were there anyhow point-like field patterns even without baryonic matter counterbalancing string-like radiation and was it sufficient to decelerate the expansion?
It seems to me that the sparser tiring radiation the more effective expansion in respect of the volume.
ES: The "Dimensional transitions" are issue of the inflation epoch. The secret of spatial features at that epoch is unrevealed, ...
I wouldn't argue with that, in fact even at the later GUT epoch, there are speculative ideas around on changes of dimensionality. However, that is still much earlier than the transition from radiation to matter domination.
ES: It seems to me that the sparser tiring radiation the more effective expansion in respect of the volume.
The energy density of radiation falls as (1+z)4 while that of matter falls at (1+z)3 so both become less effective at slowing expansion.
Hm. GD: The energy density of radiation falls as (1+z)4 while that of matter falls at (1+z)3 so both become less effective at slowing expansion.
I say: The energy density of radiation raises as (1+z)4 while that of matter raises at (1+z)3 so both become more effective at accelerating expansion. Still, when the premise is radiation-based expanding, there must be the logic ratio between redshift by expanding-tiring and by doppler effect yet due to the motion and gravitational state of observers and radiators.
If the radiation expands the universe, it expands the more the larger vacuum bubble penetrated. --> accelerated expanding.
What I said is that during period of the radiation dominated era it's contradictory to think there is radiation without radiators! The radiator has matter-like behaving with delays and causal connections, even spherical gravity. Let it be though the quantum vacuum bubbling...
By the way, there is a weird way to have radiation without radiators in the early universe: the stolen energy from the future - just invert the map of the cosmic background radiation fluctuations! :)
ES: I say: The energy density of radiation raises as (1+z)4 while that of matter raises at (1+z)3
If you have an amount of matter in a box and you increase the size of the box by doubling the length of the sides (i.e. z=1), then the volume increases by a factor of 8 so the density decreases by a factor of 8 since it still contains the same amount of mater. You can't have an increase in the volume causing an increase in the density.
ES: What I said is that during period of the radiation dominated era it's contradictory to think there is radiation without radiators!
The majority of the photons bouncing around at that time were those released by electron-positron annihilation prior to nucleogenesis. They remain in thermal equilibrium with the plasma until the time of last scattering.
If one would have a model for the photon which allows to consider the energy loss (redshift) of photons as a consequence of some (random) interactions of the photon with some fluctuating background field (which coud be imagined as intergalactic "vacuum fluctuations"), then the question is wether or not it is necessary to consider "space" to be "expanding".
If a photon loses energy in interactions with vac.fluc., and therey the energy of the vac.fluc. increases, then one could imagine that there is a 'critical point' for energy of the vac.fluc., where the vac.fluc. could create low-energy photons. Such a mechanism could be understood as the origin of the 3K background radiation. The question then would be wether or not the fairytale of the "big bang" should be abandoned.
Particle models which consider photons as objects having an 'intrinsic' structure exist. One of such particle models is the so-called "hypotron theory" (HT) (which is under construction). For preliminary research notes (up to now still in German) see
http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf
HT can be considered as an extension ot the quark model. HT predicts 4 chargeless bosons as stable particles which are identified as "photon","strongon"('='gluon), "weakon"('='Z-particle), and "virolon"('='???higgs???), and 1 chargeless fermion which is identied with the neutrino (corresponding to the electron),and 4 charged fermions which can be considered as stable ! for some special reason which has to do with a 'new' non-additive quantity called "supercharge" which is related to electric charge charge by a non-linear relationship.The 4 fermions are identified as the "positron" and "proton" and the 'new' particles called "duolon" (charge=2) and "quadrolon" (charge=3).
"Duolons" and "quatrolons" can be considered as canditates for forming a kind of 'new' matter, for example a "dark atom" might be a compound object consisting out of some "quatrolons" and some "anti-duolons". In HT the "neutron" is considered as a compound object proton+electron+antineutrino plus some hypotron-dipoles. Similarly an "ultraneutron" can be specified by using "duolons" instead of "proton". "Ultraneutrons" migth be further candidates for forming 'new' kinds of matter.
To summarize: HT is a theory which has enough freedom to develope ideas about the "secrets of black matter" in the context of a concrete particle model.
http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf
KGK: If one would have a model for the photon which allows to consider the energy loss (redshift) of photons as a consequence of some (random) interactions of the photon with some fluctuating background field (which coud be imagined as intergalactic "vacuum fluctuations"), then the question is wether or not it is necessary to consider "space" to be "expanding".
That is called "Tired Light". It has many problems but perhaps the simplest to see is that it predicts that supernova light curves should be redshifted but remain the same duration. They don't, they are stretched by a factor of (1+z) which is consistent with expansion. Look up "Tired Light" and you'll find several other problems that rule it out.
GD: Up to now I unfortunately could not find a hint that there is a concrete model of "Tired Light" which relies on a resonable specific particle model or particle theory which is able to describe an assumed intrinsic structure of the photon and/or to describe the nature of the interaction of the photon with a fluctuating medium. Such an interaction might be different from that what classical electrodynamics or quantum electrodynamics can predict. The very nature of the photon should be considered as to be decisive for the predictions that can be made about the possibilities and type of energy loss of the photon as well as for the creation of photons which embody the background radiation. The fact that contemporary "Tired Light" models are not consistent with some observations can be considered as a reason to increase the efforts to understand the very nature of the photon.
KGK: Up to now I unfortunately could not find a hint that there is a concrete model of "Tired Light" which relies on a reasonable specific particle model or particle theory ..Generally that is correct. There are crackpot theories out there sure, but nothing worth while. The evidence I mentioned doesn't depend on any specific theory, all models of that form only reduce the energy of the light, they don't spread it out in time. Light curves for supernovae last a few weeks in their rest frame and finding a theory that can make them last several weeks more takes something beyond simple particle or photon models.
GD:
Many thanks for your informations.
As I am not an expert in the field of observations in astrophysics and cosmology and their interpretations, let me just ask a further question concerning the light curves of exploding stars (supernova). If a star explodes then in the spatial region around the exploding star, which might have near or distant 'neighbours' having a huge mass too, the distribution of mass in this spatial region changes, not 'suddenly' but in the course of a dynamical process, and thereby according to GR the curvature changes and thereby influences the motion of photons in this spatial region. Is this taken into account in the interpretations of a light curve of a supernova?
KGK: As I am not an expert in the field of observations in astrophysics and cosmology and their interpretations, ...
Well if you want to come up with a workable Tired Light model, you'll have to become more knowledgeable in the subject than all the astronomers and astrophysicists who have ever looked at the topic.
The star's nearest neighbours would typically be some light years away, the light curve lasts only a few weeks so any effects on other stars would be seen long after. Generally this would take the form of a "light echo"
Birkhoff's Theorem means that, to first order, the explosion has no gravitational effect beyond the immediate vicinity, the alteration to the curvature takes the form of gravitational waves on top of the simple "point mass" field and as I'm sure you realise, they are so weak that it takes an instrument like LIGO to detect them at all. The effect on the typical environment would be completely undetectable. Even the slight influence on the timing of pulsars probably wouldn't be measurable for such a small event and it's very unlikely that there would be a pulsar close to a supernova by coincidence.
The gravitational wave transients would last a fraction of a second so none of this is of any consequence for the duration of the light curve which is fairly smooth over a few weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkhoff%27s_theorem_%28relativity%29
dark energy = deformation space-time
Please read my theory (draft)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315825530_Theory_of_Empty_Universe_Second_Draft
Article Theory of Empty Universe (Second Draft)
- Badges
- Science topic