Hi all. This is my first posting to this group, although I was around for CCC2 in 2008! I have recently posted a pre-print of a paper describing what appears to be a new approach to a mechanism for accounting for redshift in a static universe. As far as I can see it does not readily fit into the taxonomy outlined by RedshiftDrift in his review paper on this topic, so it may be of interest to this group. As you will see, the basic idea is not original (hence the Jeans reference) but the proposed mechanism based on the Schwarzschild metric possibly is. Title: The Origins of Redshift in a Static Universe Abstract There is increasing observational evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope missions that we do not inhabit an expand- ing universe as described by the ΛCDM cosmological model, but rather a static universe. Such a universe has been postulated as the natural consequence of an extended theory of gravity that is based on the Exochronous (timeless) metric, ΣGR. The main challenge that faces any static universe model is the need to account for the observed cosmological redshift-distance relationship, as defined by the Hubble parameter. Up to now this has been explained by the so-called ‘tired light’ effect, but this suffers from numerous shortcomings. We propose here a mechanism based on the contraction of atomic matter: the Jeans Contraction, named after the physicist who first suggested this phenomenon as a source of cosmological redshift. We show how this postulated contraction of atomic mat- ter is in fact a natural and inevitable consequence of the application of the Schwarzschild metric of General Relativity. Full text: Preprint
Comments welcome. As you might expect, this paper is barred from arXiv and is unlikely to get much traction from mainstream journals as it:
- refutes the ΛCDM cosmological model
- does away with dark energy and dark matter
- supports a non-expanding universe model
- provides an explanation for redshift that is not based on the Hubble expansion
PS to the above. The paper also includes a section on a specific tired light model; double Compton scattering, which again, I cannot see explicitly referenced in Louis’ review paper, even though it is an acknowledged mechanism that operates in the early (pre-recombination) universe. This tired light mechanism appears to work well for CMB redshift, but would not work in the general case of light from distant galaxies.
Welcome back Robin @rajbooth, it’s been a long time since CCC-2!
You may also want to post your paper on HAL https://hal.science/, an French archive which is similar to arXiv but without too much referee censure. As long as your paper is properly formatted, like the version you have on preprint.org, they will accept it as a pre-print.
As for my review paper, I stopped adding redshift mechanisms to it in 2012. There are too many of them (certainly over 200) and I no longer have the time, nor the will, to maintain all that!
However, you may want to add your paper Jeans Contraction and double Compton scattering to the GitHub repo in the proper category (or create a new category), as long as there are no copyright issues. Files added in that folder will appear on the ACG website.
The ACG website is now updated by the ACG community, so go ahead and help improve it! (Some instructions are given here. Don’t worry about messing it up, maintainers can revert the website to previous versions.)
P.S. Is that you standing behind me in the CCC-2 picture?
@RedshiftDrift Thanks for the suggestions. I tried to upload my paper to the redshift folder in the repo but I don’t appear to have push permissions. Is that something you can sort out? I don’t think it is particularly worthwhile trying to get the paper on to multiple preprint archives. As long as it is out there somewhere with a DOI and indexed by Google, that’s good enough for me. Yes, that is indeed me in the CCC2 photo, standign behind you. Well spotted!
@rajbooth click “Create pull request”. I have ‘push’ permissions to complete the process once I get notified by the system.
The papers on ACG are indexed by Google, but don’t get a DOI. HAL papers get a unique identifier such as hal-00000000, but not a DOI. arXiv assigns a DOI. I agree with you, only one copy on an open archive is necessary, there’s not much point having multiple copies. However, there might be an advantage to also have links to all dissident cosmology papers on the ACG website.
P.S. I look at the CCC-2 group photo with some sadness; already three people in this group have passed away: Tom Van Flandern, Chuck Gallo, and Hilton Ratcliffe (and maybe others…) Jacques Moret-Bailly and John Hartnett are unreachable and were not in good health last time I contacted them years ago…
@RedshiftDrift I tried to use the pull request method of loading my paper, but unless I am missing something, it does not seem well suited to getting a PDF into the repo. Normally I would use this GitHub feature to load a code edit into an existing repo by creating a new branch and adding my new code by copy/paste into a new file in that branch, which can then be merged with the main branch by the repo admin. I don’t see how it works for loading a fomatted PDF into my new branch?
My apologies @rajbooth, I keep forgetting to give people ‘write access’… Just did it now, you should be able to upload files to the repository.
This looks unusual to you because the repo is not used for code, but instead contains files for the website!
Here’s how to do it:
I’ll get a message when you’re done, and I’ll take care of the rest. The .md files are automatically converted to .html and appear on the website.
@rajbooth I edited your changes to https://cosmology.info/redshift/ to keep the original lists in decreasing order of date within each categories, and listed “The Jeans Contraction” under ‘Relativistic Dynamics’ (‘blue shift’ was a bit confusing.) Don’t hesitate to change this if you find a better description.
@RedshiftDrift Thanks for making those changes - all good with me. One thing still to sort out is that my uploaded paper is still in my personal repo branch and I don’t think I haqve the ability to move it into the redshift folder in the main branch. Is that the right place for it and is that something you could do?
@rajbooth I have very little experience with handling different repos and branches - I only know barely enough to approve changes and make merges! Since you have the github permissions to edit and upload files directly on the acg repo webpage, I suggest you upload the files manually. (You may need addidional permissions to synchronize your personal repo with the ACG repo, I don’t know. But I won’t give you full access since I wouldn’t know how to correct mistakes made by another user…)
However, since the https://cosmology.info/redshift/ list provides links to already published or archived versions of your paper that are freely available, I don’t see any point in having another copy of your .pdf document on github.
@rajbooth . Double quote from the preprint: An alternative redshift mechanism [ .. ] is one that was first proposed by the British astronomer, Sir James Jeans [ .. ]. To quote directly from the article in which he made this proposal: “Another possibility - nearly but not quite identical with the foregoing - is that the universe retains its size, while we and all material bodies shrink uniformly. The red shift we observe in the spectra of the nebulae is then due to the fact that the atoms which emitted the light millions of years ago were larger then than the present-day atoms with which we measure the light - the shift is, of course, proportional to distance. The final end here is a universe in which all matter has shrunk to nothing.” Compare this with the section Length Contraction at my website. The Variable Mass Theory too has as a consequence that we and all material bodies shrink uniformly, because any length $L$ is inversely proportional to (elementary particle rest) mass $m$ , according to
$$ L = \frac{m_0}{m} L_0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad a = \frac{m_0}{m} a_0 $$
where $a=$ size of an atom (i.e. the Bohr radius). Because $m$ is increasing, mass becomes more massive, uniformly for all material bodies. And lengths $L$ and $a$ shrink accordingly, macroscopically as well as microscopically (starting from $_0=$ here and now). So far so good. Let’s now jump to the mathematics in the paper, especially
3. The Jeans Contraction
Let’s do some peer review at this place. The theory is more or less similar to the one in Wikipedia for a Spherically symmetric gravitational field:
$$ 1+z=\frac{\lambda_\infty}{\lambda_e}=\left(1-\frac{r_S}{R_e}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}} $$
where $z=$ redshift, $\lambda=$ wavelength, $r_S=$ Schwartzschild radius, $R=$ radius, $e=$ at source of emission. Theory is also related to a thread at this forum by @budrap00 named Gravitational Redshift & Expanding Spherical Wavefronts. From this thread we copy:
$$ 1+z = \left(1-\frac{r_S}{R_{esw}}\right)^{-1/2} $$
And from our preprint we copy:
$$ \dot{a} = \left(1-\frac{r_S}{r}\right)^{\omega_p/2} \qquad (13) $$
with
$$ r_S = \frac{2G m_p}{c^2} \quad ; \quad r = r_C = \frac{\hbar}{m_e c} \quad ; \quad \omega_p = \frac{m_p c^2}{\hbar} $$
where $G=$ gravitation constant, $c=$ speed of light, $m_p=$ proton mass, $\hbar =$ reduced Planck constant, $m_e$ = electron mass. Calculating the Hubble constant $H_0$ in this way sounds promising. However, $(\omega_p/2)$ has a physical dimension $s^{-1}$ and I have never seen an exponent in physics which is not pure numerical. It is not impossible though that the end-result nevertheless makes sense. Let’s give it the advantage of the doubt:
$$ \dot{a} = \frac{\omega_p r_S}{2 r} = \frac{m_p c^2}{\hbar}.\frac{2G m_p}{c^2}.\frac{m_e c}{2\hbar} = \frac{Gm_p^2m_e c}{\hbar^2} $$
As a next step, take a look at the section Dimensions check at my website. A concise expression for the so-called (dimensionless) coupling constant $\alpha_G$ is derived there:
$$ \alpha_G = \frac{Gm_p^2}{\hbar c} $$
where it is referenced to a paper by Patrick Tonin: The Quantum Bang Hypothesis: An Alternative to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. From formula (4) backwards in Tonin’s paper we have:
$$ H_0 = \frac{1}{t_0} \quad ; \quad t_0 = \frac{t_e}{\pi \alpha_G} \quad ; \quad t_e = \frac{h}{m_e c^2} $$
Since $\dot{a}\approx H_0$ it follows that
$$ H_0(Tonin) = \frac{m_e c^2}{h}.\pi.\frac{Gm_p^2}{\hbar c} = \frac{1}{2}.\frac{Gm_p^2m_e c}{\hbar^2} = \frac{1}{2}H_0(Booth) $$
It is seen that the theory by @PatrGT (and @sahil5d too) gives exactly half of the $H_0$ value by @rajbooth.
@HanDeBruijn Thanks for your comments on this paper. Being able to get some real feedback at last is most welcome.
Taking your first pooint, you are of course absolutely correct that a non-dimensinless exponent in an equation (13) is not physically meaningfull. This was sloppy drafting on my part. Equation (13) shoud reeally be written as:
$\dot{a} = \left( 1 - \frac{r_S}{r} \right) ^{N/2}$ where $N = \omega_p t$, and $t$ is the time period over which we wish to measure the Hubble rate; in this case 1 second.
Turning to your second point, thank you for drawing my attention to Tonin’s paper, which I was previously unaware of. Having now read it in detail, it appears to me very similar to a number of othe rpapers that I have read, all of which purport to be able to calculate $H_0$ from the basic constants of nature, e.g. $m_p, m_e, G, \pi$ etc. For example, this one by Talbot. The main isse with all these papers is that they do not describe any physical mechanism or model to underpin their respective $H_0$ formulae. They are all essentially exercises in numerology. I have nothing against numerology per se. The use of numerological reasoning by Dirac in formulating his LNH was useful in that it provides a pointer to cosmic coincidences that may ultimately lead to a more detaild understanding of the physical mechanisms that link these “constants” of nature. I can certainly come up with my own set of constants that would lead to the correct observed value of $H_0 \simeq 72$ km/s/Mpc, but it would be an ad hoc formulation that would not be based on any fundamental physical principle such as the Jeans Contraction. What I would ideally like is for some reviewer of my paper to identify the flaw in my formulation that results in the value of $2 \times H_0$.
@rajbooth .
$$ \dot{a} = \left(1-\frac{r_s}{r}\right)^{N/2} \quad \mbox{where} \quad N = \omega_P t $$
For the sole purpose of dimensionless making? I’m sorry to say that I do not consider such an assignment ($t = 1\mbox{ }s$) as an improvement. It’s a pity for my own theory too. I would really love to see a satisfactory derivation of the kind for the Hubble parameter.