Researchers Predict Mysterious Dark Energy Is Located in Vast Sea of GEODEs Between Galaxies

Luminous Matter Distribution

A GEODE scenario does not change standard formation of structure in the Universe. Universe grows from left to right. Blue regions correspond to matter. GEODEs form in green regions and migrate into black regions. Credit: Volker Springel and the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics

Astronomers have known for two decades that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but the physics of this expansion remains a mystery. Now, a team of researchers at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa have made a novel prediction — the dark energy responsible for this accelerating growth comes from a vast sea of compact objects spread throughout the voids between galaxies. This conclusion is part of a new study published in The Astrophysical Journal.

In the mid-1960s, physicists first suggested that stellar collapse should not form true black holes, but should instead form Generic Objects of Dark Energy (GEODEs). Unlike black holes, GEODEs do not ‘break’ Einstein’s equations with singularities. Instead, a spinning layer surrounds a core of dark energy. Viewed from the outside, GEODEs and black holes appear mostly the same, even when the “sounds” of their collisions are measured by gravitational wave observatories.

Because GEODEs mimic black holes, it was assumed they moved through space the same way as black holes. “This becomes a problem if you want to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe,” said UH Mānoa Department of Physics and Astronomy research fellow Kevin Croker, lead author of the study. “Even though we proved last year that GEODEs, in principle, could provide the necessary dark energy, you need lots of old and massive GEODEs. If they moved like black holes, staying close to visible matter, galaxies like our own Milky Way would have been disrupted.”

Croker collaborated with UH Mānoa Department of Physics and Astronomy graduate student Jack Runburg, and Duncan Farrah, a faculty member at the UH Institute for Astronomy and the Physics and Astronomy department, to investigate how GEODEs move through space. The researchers found that the spinning layer around each GEODE determines how they move relative to each other. If their outer layers spin slowly, GEODEs clump more rapidly than black holes. This is because GEODEs gain mass from the growth of the universe itself. For GEODEs with layers that spin near the speed of light, however, the gain in mass becomes dominated by a different effect and the GEODEs begin to repel each other. “The dependence on spin was really quite unexpected,” said Farrah. “If confirmed by observation, it would be an entirely new class of phenomenon.”

The team solved Einstein’s equations under the assumption that many of the oldest stars, which were born when the universe was less than 2 percent of its current age, formed GEODEs when they died. As these ancient GEODEs fed on other stars and abundant interstellar gas, they began to spin very rapidly. Once spinning quickly enough, the GEODEs’ mutual repulsion caused most of them to ‘socially distance’ into regions that would eventually become the empty voids between present-day galaxies.

This study supports the position that GEODEs can solve the dark energy problem while remaining in harmony with different observations across vast distances. GEODEs stay away from present-day galaxies, so they do not disrupt delicate star pairs counted within the Milky Way. The number of ancient GEODEs required to solve the dark energy problem is consistent with the number of ancient stars. GEODEs do not disrupt the measured distribution of galaxies in space because they separate away from luminous matter before it forms present-day galaxies. Finally, GEODEs do not directly affect the gentle ripples in the afterglow of the Big Bang, because they are born from dead stars hundreds of millions of years after the release of this cosmic background radiation.

The researchers were cautiously optimistic about their results. “It was thought that, without a direct detection of something different than a Kerr [Black Hole] signature from LIGO-Virgo [gravitational wave observatories], you’d never be able to tell that GEODEs existed,” said Farrah. Croker added, “but now that we have a clearer understanding of how Einstein’s equations link big and small, we’ve been able to make contact with data from many communities, and a coherent picture is beginning to form.”

According to Runburg, whose primary research interest is unrelated to GEODEs, “the most exciting consequence, for me, is that previously disconnected communities of researchers now have common ground. When different communities work together, the whole always becomes something greater than the sum of the parts.”

Reference: “Implications of Symmetry and Pressure in Friedmann Cosmology. III. Point Sources of Dark Energy that Tend toward Uniformity” by K. S. Croker, J. Runburg and D. Farrah, 1 September 2020, The Astrophysical Journal.
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abad2f

18 Comments on "Researchers Predict Mysterious Dark Energy Is Located in Vast Sea of GEODEs Between Galaxies"

  1. “Astronomers have known for two decades that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, but the physics of this expansion remains a mystery.”

    Again, look up and read the research of Halton Arp, totally falsifies red shift and hence the statement above. Standard cosmology is built on an assumptive house of cards, and dark energy yet another very, very expensive snipe hunt.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:06 pm | Reply

      Pseudoscience.

      Redshift is what astronomers base their distance measurements on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift ; and that is sufficient proof it works]!

      Dark energy is observed [see the references in the paper the article describe] so it is not a “snipe hunt”. Nor is science expensive, but among the best return on investment a nation can do [IIRC NASA has papers on that].

      Ironically your baseless comment is a “snipe hunt”.

      • The very well documented, meticulous, and extremely compelling scientific research of Halton Arp is certainly not pseudoscience, and it’s interesting how dismissive you are of anything that you disagree with. If you’re going to call it pseudoscience out of hand just because you don’t agree with it, at least actually read his work and be specific about what you find unscientific. And red shift has many many challenges, and again, has been falsified by Halton Arp’s research.

        And dark energy has certainly not been observed. Effects have been observed, and by default it’s been labeled as dark energy, whatever that supposedly is.

      • Also, a few alternatives to red shift:

        5 Alternative Explanations for the Redshift we Observe

        There is mounting evidence that the redshift that is observed for most celestial objects in our Universe may not be due to recessional velocity. What is redshift is and 5 alternative explanation which cast doubt on the assumption that redshift is due only to recessional velocity.
        Mainstream:
        1. Doppler Redshift
        2. Cosmological Redshift via space expansion
        3. Gravitational Redshift
        Alternatives:

        1. Compton Scattering
        Individual electrons are pushed by light.
        This causes a redshift. The redshift depends on the incoming frequency and also giver a blurring effect on the spectral lines.

        2. Billiouin Scattering & Raman Scattering
        Non linear transparent material (usually crystal) gives off a redshifted wave into a certain direction.
        The spectrum gives extra lines on both sides of each spectral line.

        3. Variable Mass Hypothesis for Quasars (Theory by Halton Arp)
        The redshift of quasars might be caused by a different state of matter.
        In this model matter can be created out of the centre of a galaxy (maybe from Neutrinos),
        and slowly grow into stable matter. During this growth process the matter changes and its redshift.

        4. The Wolf Effect
        Gives a clear Redshift in matter but also blueshift.
        The non-linear scattering causes light to shift red and blue into different direction.
        This needs matter to be aligned into a certain direction.

        5. Plasma Redshift – Ari Brynjolfsson
        Plasma causes redshift due to a certain quantum state.
        This transfers energy from the light into the plasma in the form of heat (and possibly pressure).

        Wolf Effect Papers:
        Non-cosmological redshifts of spectral lines
        Beyond the paywall
        Spectral shifts produced by source correlations
        Beyond the paywall

        Plasma Red-shift papers:
        Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma – Ari Brynjolfsson
        Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced In The Laboratory–a Discussion in Terms of New Tired Light.

        Plasma redshift in laboratory
        Investigation of the mechanism of spectral emission and redshifts of atomic line in laser-induced plasmas
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a … 2608000089

        Abstract

        In low-temperature plasmas, the specific emission mechanism and the evolvement of the continuum and isolated lines are quite complex, which are described in detail. The calculations from the Stark-broadening measurement of individual lines show the density to be of the order of magnitude of 1018 cm−3. It is seen that the redshifts of spectral lines detected in this experiment are influenced by the electron density. A possible reason for this is given.
        **From the article**

        This is the reason for the redshift:

        The recombination radiation is a free–bound radiative
        transition effect. During this course, a free electron
        combines with an ion into a certain bound state.
        Meanwhile, the excess energy being carried away by a
        photon is irradiated in the form of electromagnetic wave.
        In normal words:
        *The light is captured by the free electrons and re-emitted.
        But during a small time the electrons are in a higher energy state,
        and moving through space.
        And while the electrons move, they lose energy.
        This causes light to be re-emitted at a slightly lower energy-level and frequency.*

        More free electrons give more redshift:

        Preliminary analysis indicates that, when the electron
        density increases, the difference of the atomic energy
        levels is reduced, and then the redshift is raised
        Strong electric fields inside the plasma cause broadening of the spectral lines.

        Stark broadening caused by ion- and electron-
        produced electric fields tends to dominate over other
        impacts for lines from plasmas.
        This latter may be happening in “quasars”.

        There is also a time-delay component dependent on the light-frequency.
        This is also observed during novas in space.
        Similar to the slowing down of light in the Safire experiment.

        Article beyond the paywall

        Some “discussion” here

        Sun’s Plasma Redshift

        Our Sun’s Center-to-Limb Redshift: A Puzzle

        Abstract

        After the red/blue-shift due to our Sun’s rotation is subtracted from the data, there remains a puzzling center-to- limb redshift which incereases by a 3:1 ratio at the limb. This variation contrasts to the expected gravitational redshift that should be independent of center-to-limb position. The observed functional variation is consistent with a photon energy-loss mechanism in the Sun’s “plasma atmosphere.” Several different energy-loss redshift mechanisms have been proposed including…..
        MichaelMonzina:
        When we study redshift patterns from around our own solar atmosphere, we find evidence that plasma redshift is the real cause of photon redshift in space. It was once believed that space was a near vacuum. Now we know it’s a dusty plasma environment that interacts with light. Photons traveling through a plasma medium lose energy to the plasma atmosphere. The greater the amount of plasma that the light has to traverse, the more redshift we observe. Its no mystery then why there’s a distance/redshift relationship to objects in space. The more plasma that light must traverse, the more it loses momentum to the plasma medium. In such an environment, a static universe also automatically predicts the existence of a distance/redshift relationship, albeit an non-expanding explanation for photon redshift. In some few instance, galaxy movement might also be toward us or away from us. It’s a somewhat more complex environment than trying to treat space as an empty vacuum.This observation from solar physics suggests that all redshift in space is plasma redshift related. The more plasma that the light has to traverse, the more potential for it to transfer momentum to that plasma, even though that particular photons reaches a telescope on Earth.If you look at history of astronomy it’s clear that astronomers oversimplified the environment of space. It’s not the ’empty vacuum’ they envisioned in the 1800-1950’s. It wasn’t until satellites in space measured the first currents in Birkeland currents around our planet that astronomers started to take any part of Kristian Birkeland’s work seriously and even today few astronomers know anything about his larger body of work.

        Discussion here

        Gravitational Redshift

        An observation decades in the making confirms predictions about how light behaves in an immense gravitational field
        “”Milky Way’s Black Hole Provides Long-Sought Test of Einstein’s General Relativity”

        More resources
        Red Shift Riddles
        Articles by Halton C. Arp

        8 Reasons Quasars are not what they seem and why we can’t trust Redshift
        – See the Pattern

        FermiLab – Very mainstream
        Why does light slow down in water
        It takes 8 minutes before he starts answering the question:
        The dielectric medium creates its own oscillating electrical field in opposite direction and slightly delayed.
        This new wave replaces the original wave, with each step deeper into the dielectric medium.
        At the end the dielectric puts a wave out that is completely shifted and delayed compared to the first incoming wave.
        This output wave appears slowed down compared to the incoming wave.
        Why does light bend when it enters glass
        Now it takes 10 minutes before he starts answering the question using the Maxwell equations.
        The electromagnetic wave is affected by the dielectric.
        The electric component of the wave is replaced by the electric component in the dielectric.
        And this is only possible with a different wave-direction.

        In other simpler words: Light is an electromagnetic wave.
        The electric component of the electromagnetic wave is affected in a dielectric medium and this bends the wave
        into a certain direction.
        It can even bend to only follow the surface:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
        More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and [email protected]

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarZyxzevn Posts: 1117Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:48 pmLocation: Earth

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:38 am

        Just found this:

        The Effects of Plasma Lensing on the Inferred Dispersion Measures of Fast Radiobursts
        Abstract + paywall
        Open access (pdf)

        Radio signals are delayed when propagating through plasma. This type of delay is frequency dependent and is
        usually used for estimating the projected number density of electrons along the line of sight, called the dispersion
        measure (DM). The dense and clumpy distribution of plasma can cause refractive deflections of radio signals,
        analogous to lensing effects. Similar to gravitational lensing, there are two contributions to the time delay effect in
        plasma lensing: a geometric delay, due to increased path length of the signal, and a dispersive delay due to the
        change of speed of light in a plasma medium. We show the delay time for two models of the plasma distribution,
        and point out that the estimated DM can be biased. Since the contribution of the geometric effect can be
        comparable to that of the dispersive delay, the bias in the measured DM can be dramatically large if plasma lensing
        effects are not taken into account when signals propagate through a high-density gradient clump of plasma

        More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and [email protected]

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Higgsy Posts: 444Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Higgsy » Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:37 pm

        There are only two things you need to consider to be sure that cosmological redshift is not caused by a refractive or re-emissive mechanism: lack of spectral dispersion and lack of blurring of distant objects.

        Note: clarification added in edit that I am referring to cosmological redshift.

        “Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you’re mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you’ll need to explain exactly how you’re defining ‘temperature'” – Mozina

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarorrery Posts: 390Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:04 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by orrery » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm

        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent to defend the notion that light travels through the vacuum of space while simultaneous!y observing that space is not a vacuum will always confound and mistify those with an even an ounce of common sense.

        That there are still cosmologists out there who entertain the notion of Doppler or cosmological redshift while simultaneously preaching the instantaneous packet nature of light would be laughable in no stretch of time if their traps weren’t so ridiculously destructive to potentially bright minds.

        “though free to think and to act – we are held together like the stars – in firmament with ties inseparable – these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them – each of us is only part of a whole” -tesla

        http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Michael Mozina Posts: 2073Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:59 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sat Feb 15, 2020 5:37 pm
        There are only two things you need to consider to be sure that cosmological redshift is not caused by a refractive or re-emissive mechanism: lack of spectral dispersion and lack of blurring of distant objects.

        Note: clarification added in edit that I am referring to cosmological redshift. Perhaps you could show us a Z>10 image of a galaxy that isn’t “blurred”? Plenty of proposed tired light mechanisms wouldn’t necessarily cause spectral dispersion. The last x-ray study of redshift that I read, while showing a good correlation with the visible spectrum in most cases, also showed a large number of “catastrophic failures” that didn’t correlate very well to the visible spectrum. How do you then know that there is a lack of spectral dispersion in all cases?
         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Higgsy Posts: 444Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Higgsy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:16 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm
        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent … So what exactly is your proposed mechanism for the redshift/distance mechanism?
        “Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you’re mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you’ll need to explain exactly how you’re defining ‘temperature'” – Mozina

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarorrery Posts: 390Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:04 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by orrery » Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:28 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:16 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm
        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent … So what exactly is your proposed mechanism for the redshift/distance mechanism? Ari did a fine enough job already. No need to reinvent the wheel, going beyond that is just fools living in paradigms more fit for fantasy than reality.
        “though free to think and to act – we are held together like the stars – in firmament with ties inseparable – these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them – each of us is only part of a whole” -tesla

        http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Higgsy Posts: 444Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Higgsy » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:05 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:28 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:16 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm
        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent … So what exactly is your proposed mechanism for the redshift/distance mechanism? Ari did a fine enough job already. No need to reinvent the wheel, going beyond that is just fools living in paradigms more fit for fantasy than reality. Who is this Ari of whom you speak. And what is his proposed mechanism?
        “Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you’re mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you’ll need to explain exactly how you’re defining ‘temperature'” – Mozina

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarZyxzevn Posts: 1117Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:48 pmLocation: Earth

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:46 pm

        I could call it “dark redshift” and collect a Nobel prize, for explaining most of
        the observations in astronomy. It would remove the need for “dark energy”,
        and much more.

        My current theory on Redshift is based on how matter reacts to light.
        Any light pushes all matter forwards, even when all of the light passes through.
        I should call this “dielectric plasma redshift”

        During the transit of light through dielectric matter, produces interfering waves with the matter.
        (See FermiLabs videos.)
        The dielectric itself removes all the incoming light, and the out-going light is produced by the
        dielectric material itself. This causes light to slow down as it passes through dielectric.
        Denying this fact, means that you have to complain with FermiLabs.
        I repeat: None of the incoming light comes out of a dielectric material!
        So none of the light of a star that we see is the original light.
        This is not emission (electron band change), but dielectric wave interference.

        Energy transfer:
        In sparse free floating dielectric matter, the matter is also accelerated by the light.
        The accelerated matter also interacts with each other, transferring some of the energy to heat.
        This causes the dielectric outgoing light to be different than the incoming light.
        This subject is not researched much, because it is an edge-case.

        From observations it appears to me that this outgoing light has slightly lower frequency than the incoming light.

        Now the discussion part:
        But shouldn’t the intensity of the light change as well?
        No, not much: The dielectric does not absorb any energy, except that it is pushed forward a bit.
        Otherwise all air, glass or water would look black.
        This means that the outgoing light is producing the same amount of light, but decreased
        in frequency to match the change in speed.

        Estimate:
        The amount of redshift depends:
        a) on the push force of the light, (linear with frequency F)
        b) transfer of the push force of the light to the material, (estimated: 1/F)
        c) and the loss of speed in the material. (depends on ionization)

        b. can be tested with plasma with strong lasers.
        Maybe laser-fusion experiments can give some insights in this.

        More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and [email protected]

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarorrery Posts: 390Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 7:04 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by orrery » Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:50 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:05 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:28 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:16 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm
        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent … So what exactly is your proposed mechanism for the redshift/distance mechanism? Ari did a fine enough job already. No need to reinvent the wheel, going beyond that is just fools living in paradigms more fit for fantasy than reality. Who is this Ari of whom you speak. And what is his proposed mechanism? This forces me to conclude that you didn’t read the OP
        “though free to think and to act – we are held together like the stars – in firmament with ties inseparable – these ties cannot be seen but we can feel them – each of us is only part of a whole” -tesla

        http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmaCosmology

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarZyxzevn Posts: 1117Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:48 pmLocation: Earth

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Zyxzevn » Sun Feb 16, 2020 9:24 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:50 pm
        This forces me to conclude that you didn’t read the OP No he never does that.
        More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and [email protected]

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        crawler Posts: 519Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by crawler » Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:52 pm

        Zyxzevn wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:46 pm
        I could call it “dark redshift” and collect a Nobel prize, for explaining most of
        the observations in astronomy. It would remove the need for “dark energy”,
        and much more.

        My current theory on Redshift is based on how matter reacts to light.
        Any light pushes all matter forwards, even when all of the light passes through.
        I should call this “dielectric plasma redshift”

        During the transit of light through dielectric matter, produces interfering waves with the matter.
        (See FermiLabs videos.)
        The dielectric itself removes all the incoming light, and the out-going light is produced by the
        dielectric material itself. This causes light to slow down as it passes through dielectric.
        Denying this fact, means that you have to complain with FermiLabs.
        I repeat: None of the incoming light comes out of a dielectric material!
        So none of the light of a star that we see is the original light.
        This is not emission (electron band change), but dielectric wave interference.

        Energy transfer:
        In sparse free floating dielectric matter, the matter is also accelerated by the light.
        The accelerated matter also interacts with each other, transferring some of the energy to heat.
        This causes the dielectric outgoing light to be different than the incoming light.
        This subject is not researched much, because it is an edge-case.

        From observations it appears to me that this outgoing light has slightly lower frequency than the incoming light.

        Now the discussion part:
        But shouldn’t the intensity of the light change as well?
        No, not much: The dielectric does not absorb any energy, except that it is pushed forward a bit.
        Otherwise all air, glass or water would look black.
        This means that the outgoing light is producing the same amount of light, but decreased
        in frequency to match the change in speed.

        Estimate:
        The amount of redshift depends:
        a) on the push force of the light, (linear with frequency F)
        b) transfer of the push force of the light to the material, (estimated: 1/F)
        c) and the loss of speed in the material. (depends on ionization)

        b. can be tested with plasma with strong lasers.
        Maybe laser-fusion experiments can give some insights in this. How does your redshift theory fare in relation to delays & intervals & gaps & durations (ie timescale stretch)?

        Tired-light hypotheses and the cosmologies that depend on them are not generally considered plausible.

        Here is the irresoluble problem: Even if the energy loss mechanism can be made to work, there is a critical feature that simply cannot be explained. There is no way to explain the increased delay between weakened pulses; the increased time intervals between redshifted light pulses. There is no explanation for the elongation of the “gaps” between photons!

        Astrophysicists, including G. Burbidge and Halton Arp, while investigating the mystery of the nature of quasars, tried to develop alternative redshift mechanisms but were thwarted by the essential time-stretch feature. It was pointed out in Goldhaber et al “Timescale Stretch Parameterization of Type Ia Supernova B-Band Lightcurves” (ApJ, 558:359–386, 2001) that alternative theories are simply unable to account for timescale stretch observed in the emission profiles of type Ia supernovae.

        The tired-light hypotheses/mechanisms cannot explain (i) The elongation of the time interval between light pulses, (ii) nor the duration interval of the bursts of light, such as the duration of supernovae explosions. The more distant such events, the longer they appear to take —the greater their time duration seems to be. No weakened-light concept can deal with this reality.

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Higgsy Posts: 444Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Higgsy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:19 am

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:50 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:05 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 7:28 pm

        Higgsy wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:16 pm

        orrery wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:56 pm
        The number of Ptolemaic circles one has to invent … So what exactly is your proposed mechanism for the redshift/distance mechanism? Ari did a fine enough job already. No need to reinvent the wheel, going beyond that is just fools living in paradigms more fit for fantasy than reality. Who is this Ari of whom you speak. And what is his proposed mechanism? This forces me to conclude that you didn’t read the OP Ah – I didn’t realise you were on first name terms with the late Dr Brynjolfsson. I note that a) said Dr Brynjolfsson’s paper was never accepted for publication and b) in the very begiinning of his analysis he invalidly ascribed the Poynting vector to a single photon. The Poynting vector is defined for a field in classical electromagnetism. There is no valid definition of the Poynting vector for a single photon in QM (nor can there be because the vector is well defined in time and space whereas the propagating photon is not). Since the entire huge paper starts from this invalid definition, I skimmed but did not study the rest. There are other problems with his analysis that I noticed, even with a quick assessment, but this one is a gaping hole that brings it all down.
        “Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you’re mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you’ll need to explain exactly how you’re defining ‘temperature'” – Mozina

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        Higgsy Posts: 444Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Higgsy » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:23 am

        Zyxzevn wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:46 pm
        I could call it “dark redshift” and collect a Nobel prize, for explaining most of
        the observations in astronomy. It would remove the need for “dark energy”,
        and much more.

        My current theory on Redshift is based on how matter reacts to light.
        Any light pushes all matter forwards, even when all of the light passes through.
        I should call this “dielectric plasma redshift”

        During the transit of light through dielectric matter, produces interfering waves with the matter.
        (See FermiLabs videos.)
        The dielectric itself removes all the incoming light, and the out-going light is produced by the
        dielectric material itself. This causes light to slow down as it passes through dielectric.
        Denying this fact, means that you have to complain with FermiLabs.
        I repeat: None of the incoming light comes out of a dielectric material!
        So none of the light of a star that we see is the original light.
        This is not emission (electron band change), but dielectric wave interference.

        Energy transfer:
        In sparse free floating dielectric matter, the matter is also accelerated by the light.
        The accelerated matter also interacts with each other, transferring some of the energy to heat.
        This causes the dielectric outgoing light to be different than the incoming light.
        This subject is not researched much, because it is an edge-case.

        From observations it appears to me that this outgoing light has slightly lower frequency than the incoming light.

        Now the discussion part:
        But shouldn’t the intensity of the light change as well?
        No, not much: The dielectric does not absorb any energy, except that it is pushed forward a bit.
        Otherwise all air, glass or water would look black.
        This means that the outgoing light is producing the same amount of light, but decreased
        in frequency to match the change in speed.

        Estimate:
        The amount of redshift depends:
        a) on the push force of the light, (linear with frequency F)
        b) transfer of the push force of the light to the material, (estimated: 1/F)
        c) and the loss of speed in the material. (depends on ionization)

        b. can be tested with plasma with strong lasers.
        Maybe laser-fusion experiments can give some insights in this. Have you calculated the cross-section for interaction of a photon with matter in the IGM?
        “Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you’re mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you’ll need to explain exactly how you’re defining ‘temperature'” – Mozina

         Top

        ——————————————————————————–

        User avatarZyxzevn Posts: 1117Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:48 pmLocation: Earth

        Re: Redshift caused by plasma and more
        Report this post
        Quote

        Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Feb 17, 2020 2:10 am

        crawler wrote: ↑
        Sun Feb 16, 2020 10:52 pm
        ….
        The tired-light hypotheses/mechanisms cannot explain (i) The elongation of the time interval between light pulses, (ii) nor the duration interval of the bursts of light, such as the duration of supernovae explosions. The more distant such events, the longer they appear to take —the greater their time duration seems to be. No weakened-light concept can deal with this reality.
        I think that could be selective data, and needs to be more studied over a wider range.
        In the laboratory experiment, there were different light-speeds in frequency, can be tested well.

        The dielectric slows down the incoming light by removing it completely with wave interference,
        and replace it with a new outgoing wave.

        There some room for play there.
        The electromagnetic (light) wave reacts to 4 possible things:
        1. dielectric constant
        2. magnetic constant
        3. time-delay (reaction time of electrons around atom).
        4. movement due to radiation pressure.

        (3). Is visible in superconducting material.
        (4). This happens more in gas/plasma.

        So my hypothesis is that 4 causes the redshift.
        But 3 may can cause light-stretching as well.

        3. Can be estimated from tests in laboratory.
        Popular science article
        They put a super conducting system in a quantum state, and measure how long it takes to change the state.
        My hypothesis is that this delays the dielectric wave as well.
        4. Radiation pressure is a well know physical phenomenon, but how is it transferred?

        In the video Light going through water bottle
        the pulse seems stretched out and acts weird through the liquid medium.
        That is probably how it behaves in plasma too, but crossing many lightyears.

        Let me explain the redshift in a slightly different way:
        The electron-shell is receives the EM-wave, and reacts to it, to send it further.
        The shell is a bit like a balloon.
        It is also pushed forward a bit, while receiving it.
        But the reaction is slow, and the electron-shell is soon pulled backward by the nucleus,
        while it sends out the new wave.
        The outward wave is now redshifted very slightly.
        While the atom is pushed forward a bit, minimal energy is lost in this mechanism.
        This energy may be converted to a longer light pulse, as if the electron shell is still sending out
        the old signal. But that would be more erratic at the end, I think.
        A bit like we see in the water bottle video.

  2. KARARYU THE DRAGON GHOUL | September 3, 2020 at 12:39 am | Reply

    The less scientifically wary would be led from the title to belive the story is about a Steven Universe episode plotline… LOL

  3. The so called Hubble Constant, may not be a Constant after all, but an Accelerating Variable and is caused by energy being fed from a parallel connecting Universe, to our Universe. The acceleration may continue mid-way through the life of our Universe and then decelerate, only to repeat cyclical phenomenon.

    • Indeed, a bunch of studies late last year highlighted problems with the Hubble Constant. I’m of the impression that what expansion there is is entirely a locally-generated phenomenon and therefore the rates of expansion are entirely dependent upon local conditions. So while the overall effect is a gradual expansion, there is neither consistency nor uniformity to its progress. We therefore have no reason to believe in any Big Bang or Big Crunch scenario. The upsgot is that the universe is driven by a multitude of interactions taking place at local scales which have an effect upon surrounding largher-scale structures and upon the whole in a random and somewhat chaotic manner. This certainly fits with the observations.

      • meme of the moment-” what expansion there is is entirely a locally-generated phenomenon ………” 👉https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/

      • Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:36 pm | Reply

        Not exactly. The “constant” Hubble seemed to see was later replaced by a “Hubble rate”, which is the main parameter in the model of expansion physics. That physics of the universe “scale factor” (roughly: the average distance between galaxies on sufficiently large scales) is in turn depending on the universe inner state according to the general relativistic model of the process [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) ]:

        “In the early stages of the Big Bang, most of the energy was in the form of radiation, and that radiation was the dominant influence on the expansion of the universe. Later, with cooling from the expansion the roles of matter and radiation changed and the universe entered a matter-dominated era. Recent results suggest that we have already entered an era dominated by dark energy, but examination of the roles of matter and radiation are most important for understanding the early universe.

        Using the dimensionless scale factor to characterize the expansion of the universe, the effective energy densities of radiation and matter scale differently. This leads to a radiation-dominated era in the very early universe but a transition to a matter-dominated era at a later time and, since about 4 billion years ago, a subsequent dark-energy-dominated era.”

        The Hubble rate now is called H_0 in the papers, and it is approaching a constant from above as dark energy dominates more and more (currently at 70 % of the average summed energies). But the expansion is then approaching an exponential which of course means the expansion itself is “speeding up”.

        ” I’m of the impression that what expansion there is is entirely a locally-generated phenomenon and therefore the rates of expansion are entirely dependent upon local conditions. So while the overall effect is a gradual expansion, there is neither consistency nor uniformity to its progress. We therefore have no reason to believe in any Big Bang or Big Crunch scenario.”

        Given that the cosmic background spectra tell us the universe is homogeneous in energy content to 1 part in 100,000 in all directions, it is commonly accepted that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. The Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model is an expression of that.

        Seeing how the vacuum energy Lambda is starting to dominate the inner state of the universe it is no surprise that it is also staring to dominate the adiabatic (no heat exchange) free expansion (no work exchange). Since the expansion is free, only constrained by the nner physics, one may well ask how it started. Since the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter model contains a first era of cosmological inflation, the cosmologists studying our inflationary hit big bang physics express that as “inflation put the bang in hot big bang”. See PBS Space Time videos “What Caused the Big Bang?” and “What Happened Before the Big Bang?” [also on youtube].

        In general it is not convincing to refer to impressions without any references, or even a few references, to conclude that the current physics is erroneous or even something to “believe/not believe” in since facts may be more convincing that baseless belief.

        I think you refer to the current sole remaining observational tension between many low-z (local universe) and many high-z (integrative, far universe) Hubble rate measurement. This is still an open question, but the most likely is that the local observations, that often rely on a complicated “distance ladder” for distances, have unknown systematic errors. As an example what they have to contend with the latest BOSS galaxy survey summary of 20 years of observations agree with the general high-z result. I’ll make a separate comment so I can link to it.

        • Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:57 pm | Reply

          “it is also staring to dominate” = it is also starting to dominate.
          “by the nner physics” = by the inner physics.
          “our inflationary hit big bang physics” = our inflationary hot big bang physics.
          ““inflation put the bang in hot big bang”” = “inflation puts the bang in hot big bang”.
          “that baseless belief” = than baseless belief.

        • meme of the moment- “still an open question………” 👉https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/

      • Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:50 pm | Reply

        [ https://scitechdaily.com/largest-3d-map-of-the-universe-ever-created-astrophysicists-fill-in-11-billion-years-of-our-universes-expansion-history/ ]

        “Largest 3D Map of the Universe Ever Created: Astrophysicists Fill In 11 Billion Years of Our Universe’s Expansion History ”

        ““Taken together, detailed analyses of the eBOSS map and the earlier SDSS experiments have now provided the most accurate expansion history measurements over the widest-ever range of cosmic time,” says Will Percival of the University of Waterloo, eBOSS’s Survey Scientist. “These studies allow us to connect all these measurements into a complete story of the expansion of the Universe.””

        From the summary paper of the 20+ papers [“The Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Implications from two Decades of Spectroscopic Surveys at the Apache Point observatory”, arXiv:2007.08991]:

        “We show that the BAO data alone are able to rule out dark-energy-free models at more than eight standard deviations in an extension to the flat, ΛCDM model that allows for curvature. When combined with Planck Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements of temperature and polarization the BAO data provide nearly an order of magnitude improvement on curvature constraints. The RSD measurements indicate a growth rate that is consistent with predictions from Planck primary data and with General Relativity. When combining the results of SDSS BAO and RSD with external data, all multiple-parameter extensions remain consistent with a ΛCDM model. Regardless of cosmological model, the precision on Ω_Λ, H_0, and σ_8, remains at roughly 1 %, showing changes of less than 0.6 % in the central values between models. The inverse distance ladder measurement under a ow_0w_aCDM yields H_0 = 68.20 ±0.81km s^−1 Mpc^−1, remaining in tension with several direct determination methods.”

        That is, they are at 1 % precision and everything – apart from the local H_0, is fine to sometimes 8 sigma quality (5 sigma is the golden standard for new discoveries, 3 sigma for theory comparison).

        [Since my comment grew on me, I’ll add the most exciting result is that the whole BOSS project underwrote a short list of possible vacuum energy value physics in the paper conclusions , the most simple and consistent with observed inflation physics – see the videos – and expansion physics – spontaneous inner state changes of adiabatic free expansion – being Weinberg’s “anthropic multiverse”.]

  4. meme of the moment-” GEODEs’ mutual repulsion caused most of them to ‘socially distance’ ………” 👉https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/

    https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/2020/09/dark-energy.html

  5. Wouldn’t these GEODEs be detectable through gravitational lensing?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:52 pm | Reply

      Nice catch! The paper discuss that. (They claim their physics is consistent with such observations, the GEODEs have scattered that much now.)

  6. The expansion of the universe is not too hard to figure out the way things Within it is a little tricky. The best way to look at the a span sion is to think of a Galaxy within a Galaxy within a Galaxy within a Galaxy within a Galaxy. The universe itself as we know it is a mere pin drop compared to the rest of the universe. The mysterious dark energy Between the galaxys that’s easy but I’m not gonna give that A way.

  7. Torbjörn Larsson | September 3, 2020 at 3:01 pm | Reply

    Oh, so these GEODE de Sitter solutions was the dark energy black hole solutions that avoided the Schwarzschild’s black hole solution core energy density going towards Planck energy densities. Interesting proof of principle, but I note that they glue a different metric (positive curvature) onto the surrounding tending-to-average-flat metric at infinity.

    Meanwhile they do away with the consensus black hole model and naively the firewall solutions [ https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123 ] as well as consensus explanation for the vacuum energy constant that reside in the Einstein equations and quantum field theory both. They also have a spin problem if they want to avoid current bounds on MACHO observations (which should see these objects): “Population III GEODEs with high spin are plausible.”

    Interesting, but not the most likely hypothesis.

    And the metric change is problematic. The Schwarzschild solution is in principle general relativistic and an infalling observer shouldn’t note the event horizon (apart from the firewall). It likely depends on the derivatives of curvature as well as (dark) energy if observers would see something. Their model is very complex, so I dunno about that.

    Also, their glued de Sitter vacuum solution should make a so called domain wall that sits between different vacuums – but maybe that simply would substitute a firewall which seems needed as per the above reference.

    Finally, the gluing isn’t trivial since the event horizon is a global property of the black hole. The convenience map changes physicists do to try to make theory further into black holes are not changing the physics. And how does the local physics “know” how to glue? The event horizon is a global epiphenomena that depends on the black hole – see above on the infalling general relativistic observer “ignorance” of it — an underlying dark energy solution shouldn’t be.

    We’ll see if GEODEs goes anywhere useful.

  8. meme of the moment- “still an open question………” 👉https://chemicalgorithms.blogspot.com/

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.