SNe Ia, Implications, Interpretations, Lambda-CDM...

[modest]

PhysBang,

The article from which coldcreation quotes excerpts: (Scientific American Jan. 2001 Vol. 284 p. 37, 54, 58) is reprinted almost entirely under the title: "The Quintessential UNIVERSE" at the link I gave in my last post. What may be confusing you is CC's style of quoting many sentences from throughout the article using ellipsis points. Perhaps this is not the case at all and I fail to understand.

I have noticed that you and I agree cosmologically on many issues that have been discussed here on Hypography. Our descriptions and explanations have shared many commonalities and I would guess our history in science is probably very much the same.

I have had a history with coldcreation since I became a member here of disagreement on almost every cosmological issue we have discussed. I also have thoroughly enjoyed each and every disagreement because CC is always willing to provide sources and scientific logic to his arguments. This provides a footing for us to find common and more-often uncommon ground. I've been forced to learn issues and theories that I otherwise would have no knowledge of. Above all, I have noticed that CC has never attacked another user but is interested only in scientific discussion with a pleasant demeanor. If you look at his post history I think you'll find everything I've said true.

I'm perplexed about what you write to CC:

Originally Posted by PhysBang

what you wrote is delusional.... WTF is a "linear regime"?... you simply outright lie... You write this crap... crazy idea...

I'm not used to seeing this on hypography and it's hard to imagine we're talking about the same person Hopefully we can all continue this discussion because I was about to weigh in when I return from work. I think there's a lot about the standard candle tests that can be examined and certainly many different perspectives from which to examine them.

peace,
-modest

[Mike C]

Added comment.
See below:

Hubble Constant

Mike C

[PhysBang]

I apologize for my zeal. It is just that science is too often misrepresented as merely the success of the predicted as if theories spring from the mind like Athena. Coldcreation couples this presentation with the false claim that the cosmological constant was entirely unprecedented (though this also contradicts his claims that it was discussed and rejected).

His cutting and pasting of that article together is very dishonest, as there are phrases in his quote that do not appear anywhere in the document.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

I apologize for my zeal. It is just that science is too often misrepresented as merely the success of the predicted as if theories spring from the mind like Athena. Coldcreation couples this presentation with the false claim that the cosmological constant was entirely unprecedented (though this also contradicts his claims that it was discussed and rejected).

His cutting and pasting of that article together is very dishonest, as there are phrases in his quote that do not appear anywhere in the document.

PhysBang, your apology is just another unsupported attack on ColdCreation.

Please point out which parts of the post are dishonest, and why, instead of going for his throat. Your language and behaviour could benefit from being slightly more friendly.

[coldcreation]

...

Back to business gentlemen.

Hubble Space Telescope Observations of Nine High-Redshift ESSENCE Supernovae

Authors A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, R. P. Kirshner, B. P. Schmidt (et al) 2005.

Figure 13 shows the deviation from linearity (curvature). Simply put, this is what has been interpreted as acceleration in the expansion of the universe, requiring both nonbaryonic dark matter and profuse dark energy.

Clearly, the observed deviation from linearity is evidence against a flat universe: something predicted pre-1998 by the favored Friedmann model, as well as inflation theory.

The SNe Ia data reflect a globally hyperbolic geometry.

____________________________

A Definitive Measurement of Time Dilation in the Spectral Evolution of the Moderate-Redshift Type Ia Supernova 1997ex

This work signed R. J. Foley, A. V. Filippenko, D. C. Leonard, A. G. Riess, P. Nugent, S. Perlmutter, 2005, should be of interest as well.

Originally Posted by Abstract detail

This result is inconsistent with no time dilation with a significance level of 99.0%, providing evidence against "tired light" and other hypotheses in which no time dilation is expected.

Note the spectra in Figure 2, and the listed features in Table 2. The spectral features reveal the corresponding elapsed times in the Type Ia Supernova rest frame (couple the deviation in linearity from both the light curves and redshift z).

____________________________

Gravity doesn’t seem to be the only all-powerful long-range force. There seems to be something else: that something has generated incredible exhilaration—once again. The enfant terrible of cosmology is back, in uncontrolled form.

Why the cosmological constant? Why now? Those thrusting it back to the cosmological and commercial forefront—if it ever left—offer several explanations.

So the objective here is to help the reader to ask: What exactly do these astrophysicists believe, why do they believe it? And too, what are the alternatives, if any, based on empirical grounds, of course.

Good day.

CC

[Mike C]

CC

I would like to add another problem with the SN 1a's as not accurate distance candles.

There cannot be a correction added to these SN's for 'local space velocities' to correct the 'c' factor.
By this, I mean that when observing spiral galaxies at great distances, one can observerve both sides of these galaxies to determine the LSV (radial).
This then can be added or subtracted from the observed redshift to correct 'c' for these local velocities.
My opinion is that the velocity of light is fixed in relation to the 'emitting' souce since the transmission of these light pulses moves with the emitting source.
If this is not corrected, than there will be an added margin of error that is not included into the RS determined velociy.
So there is this LSV that has to be corrected.

Mike C



Mike C

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Mike C

CC

I would like to add another problem with the SN Ia's as not accurate distance candles.

Let's say for the sake of discussion that SNe Ia are fairly good standard candles (obviously every time a star goes pop there are differences in the spectra due to mass, element abundance, distance, etc.).

I do not wish to enter a discussion or debate on the standard candle factor. Perhaps someone else does. I think the evidence is compelling enough to consider the possibility that both time dilation and the deviation in linearity from the Hubble flow observed in the redshift z of those SN remnants is real.

A consistent impartial approach to determine the geometry is through the measurement of distances. Redshift and absolute luminosity are the best ways to test curvature, provided, of course that standard candles (such as type Ia supernovae) are used. The recent observations show that the universe is far from flat (by about 20-25%). That’s why there was a scramble to fine-tune using the CMB. The overall amplitude and shape of the cosmic confusion continues…but is Hubble's law dead?

One look is worth ten thousand words.
(Proverb from a fortune cookie I read in a NJ restaurant, 2005)

CC

[modest]

I wish I had more time to explore this right now.

I have heard that dark energy is supported by precision measurements of the CMB as well as studies charting the large-scale structure of the universe. I don't believe it is any longer the case that evidence comes from the SN 1A studies only.

Personally, I find 'dark energy' a natural consequence of quantum field theory. If you consider fields have a vacuum value that is energetic and non-zero then there could be cosmological effects of that. We seem to be a long way from quantitizing the vacuum energy or relating it to dark energy - but I find the relationship intuitive.

- modest (will be back with more)

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by modest

I wish I had more time to explore this right now.

I wish you did too.

Originally Posted by modest

I have heard that dark energy is supported by precision measurements of the CMB...

It's the other way around. The CMB data is supported by dark energy.

Originally Posted by modest

... as well as studies charting the large-scale structure of the universe.

No one knows for sure, but it would seem the large-scale structures require a much longer time-scale to form than permitted by the lambda-CDM model. I will try to find the reference(s) for that.

Originally Posted by modest

I don't believe it is any longer the case that evidence comes from the SN 1A studies only.

I await your source.

Originally Posted by modest

Personally, I find 'dark energy' a natural consequence of quantum field theory.

Unfortunately, quantum field theory predicts a very large value for the vacuum energy: greater than 120 orders of magnitude off the mark. Recall, that was the largest error (the biggest blunder) of all scientific history.

In another way, calculations have shown that the energy output exceeds predictions by 122 orders of magnitude (that’s enormous by any standards). The huge imbalance is worse than the gloomiest expectations. Ok, so maybe the acceleration bubble comes in two different flavors: one driven by irrational exuberance and the other by bunk, whether rational or irrational.

Originally Posted by modest

... If you consider fields have a vacuum value that is energetic and non-zero then there could be cosmological effects of that. We seem to be a long way from quantitizing the vacuum energy or relating it to dark energy - but I find the relationship intuitive.

With such a large value lambda, Einstein's general theory (modified) would basically predict a universe flying apart with absolutely no possibility of forming galaxies or people. This is discomfiture for theorists, but if the cosmological constant is equal to zero (as if it didn’t exist, or served as a fig leaf), there is the distant hope that there’s nothing to worry about. Oh really? Not so fast! A convincing model has yet to emerge that could explain why the cosmological constant is so small. Despite perfuse fudging and forswearing that has ensued, the apparition of a grotesque dark force in a standard model already riddled with peculiarities seems risible if not appalling.

But a totally crazy thing about ‘dark energy’ is that it’s not diluted or thinned with expansion like any normal forms of matter and radiation would be. And, totally insane is that something like 73% of the universe must be made up of dark energy, 23% of dark matter, and 4% of known material (protons, neutrons, electrons). In other words, 96% of the energy-density in the universe is in a form that has never been directly detected in the laboratory or anywhere else that human-kind has stepped foot, or sent probes. Even more peculiar, if at all possible, is the prospect that lambda or quintessence must have been an insignificant fraction of the mass-density of the universe just a short time ago. The self-repulsive ogre is growing fast and out of control. And it’s so ugly it repels itself.

[According to Caldwell and Steinhardt (2000),] “vacuum energy would comprise the missing two-thirds of the critical density. The requirements seem bizarre, though. Some constant that is naturally enormous must be cut down by 120 orders of magnitude, but with such precision that today it has just the right value to account for the missing energy. Extrapolating back in time to the early universe, the story seems even more bizarre…the vacuum energy density remained constant as the universe expanded, but the total vacuum energy increased as the volume of space increased.” [Both believe that some form of quintessence seems more natural, where] “like a stretched spring, this self-interaction potential leads to negative pressure.” [Wait, there’s more.] “The situation is peculiar because the energy associated with the cosmological constant or quintessence is very tiny, less than a millielectron-volt. If new ultra-low-energy physics is responsible, it should have already been observed in other experiments.” [They feel the tuning problem can be circumvented by a special field: "k-essence" (kinetic-energy-driven quintessence).] “As for the ultimate fate of the universe, the nature of quintessence, not geometry, will be the determining factor.”

From Caldwell, R.R, Steinhardt, P.J., 2000, Quintessence. You will find some of their related work on (lambda) the subject here.


CC

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Let's say for the sake of discussion that SNe Ia are fairly good standard candles (obviously every time a star goes pop there are differences in the spectra due to mass, element abundance, distance, etc.).

I do not wish to enter a discussion or debate on the standard candle factor. Perhaps someone else does. I think the evidence is compelling enough to consider the possibility that both time dilation and the deviation in linearity from the Hubble flow observed in the redshift z of those SN remnants is real.

A consistent impartial approach to determine the geometry is through the measurement of distances. Redshift and absolute luminosity are the best ways to test curvature, provided, of course that standard candles (such as type Ia supernovae) are used. The recent observations show that the universe is far from flat (by about 20-25%). That’s why there was a scramble to fine-tune using the CMB. The overall amplitude and shape of the cosmic confusion continues…but is Hubble's law dead?

One look is worth ten thousand words.
(Proverb from a fortune cookie I read in a NJ restaurant, 2005)

CC

So you accept the BBT as a viable one for our universe?
For me, this is an absolute impossibility because I am a believer in reality, rather than a universe born out of nothing but the educated human mind.

The Laws of Conservation of Matter and Energy are real and thoroughly tested and cannot be discarded.

Mike C