AGN candle could show that "universal expansion could be an illusion"

when we study the most distent clusters of galaxies in the hubble volume (what we can see) we find old large galaxy clusters that look to be fully formed about 11-12 billion years ago (looking 11-12 billion light years away is looking backwards in time the same amount).




when we find fully devoloped and mature galaxies that soon after the "big bang" (theory of expansion),
we asume they must have forned early in the the history of the universe. but we also asume they are traveling away from us at the velocity indicated by there red shift, but there is a problem,
how can very early galaxies coalase into clusters of galaxies while the initial expansion is occouring?




how can the clusters hold together when cosmological expansion should seperate them over time?




if the clusters can form early in the time frames described just after inflation, how come we still see younger clusters forming latter on after inflation in the exact same manner?




would different amounts and rates of expansion at different times create the same cluster formations we observe alot closer to our galaxy?




how can great walls of matter form in an expanding universe and wouldnt those matter walls (ex sloan great wall) vary with size when expansion is different at different stages of the age of the universe?






recently AGN (Active Galaxy Nuclus) or bright active galaxies have been studyed to find if they are a more reliable distence marker (standard candle) for precise distence calculations.

Accurate distances to celestial objects are key to establishing the age and energy density of the Universe and the nature of dark energy.” says Darach Watson (et al). “A distance measure using active galactic nuclei (AGN) has been sought for more than forty years, as they are extremely luminous and can be observed at very large distances.”

So how is it done? As we know, active galactic nuclei are home to supermassive black holes which unleash powerful radiation. When this radiation ionizes nearby gas clouds, they also emit their own light signature. With both emissions in range of data gathering telescopes, all that’s needed is a way to measure the time it takes between the radiation signal and the ionization point. The process is called reverberation mapping.

“We use the tight relationship between the luminosity of an AGN and the radius of its broad line region established via reverberation mapping to determine the luminosity distances to a sample of 38 AGN.” says Watson.

AGN here

if the type 1A supernova standard candle is being replaced and they are the reason why we first noticed this expansion what happens if AGN show that there is less expansion?




what would it mean for science if the new standard candles show that the universe is nearly static?
could this new standard candle imply the universe is static and much older than thought?




if the big bang was inflationary then expansive we should see younger and yonger galaxies the further back and therfore not clustered and not mature.




how does the time frame for the big bang work in the face of finding a cluster similar to the one we are part of at the "time" we are finding them?




if fully formed galaxies are seen in both local and in pre history and they all all excelerating away from each other at near half the speed of light each how can they form clusters and walls covering billions of years over vast areas of time?

mature galaxies here

we still are unsure of what causes a type 1A supernova,
and the nova seam to be going slower the further away from us they are.
untill this is explained how can we asume we understand the most studied of astronomical bodies?




in favour of AGN
i have been in favour of using galaxies like AGN to detemine distence for a while now and beleive that the lensing dynamics are more predictable.




so what happens if AGN galaxies show the hubble constant is a different value?




taking into account the inconsistencies of a condencing and clumping universe and an expanding one,
i am eager to see if this new method forces a rethink of expansion and the big bang.




because i expect the results of the AGN study to be very interesting and the implications to be far reaching.

if we cant trust type 1A nova for luminosity distence,
mabey we cant trust the expansion dirived from the study of type 1A,
it could be that looking at larger and more reliable markers AGN that we see the universe is not expanding to oblivion




xploder

I don't know anything about this but find it interesting never the less. My instincts refuse the whole big bang scenario.
I have a couple dumb questions if anyone can answer.

How can you tell expansion when you can see so little and do not know from what point everything is expanding. Couldn't the space you can see be just a fluke ans not even represent the whole?

How do we have such nice pictures showing the whole Milky Way when we are in part of it, so we could not ever see the whole thing?

If they just now found the huge bubbles at the edge of our solar system how come they keep acting like they know where everything is and details of the whole Galaxy?

How can you tell expansion when you can see so little and do not know from what point everything is expanding. Couldn't the space you can see be just a fluke ans not even represent the whole?

we can only see the "hubble volume" any light from outside this volume has not had enought time to reach us (in the big bang model)

How do we have such nice pictures showing the whole Milky Way when we are in part of it, so we could not ever see the whole thing?

i suspect these pics are artistic representations from known data

If they just now found the huge bubbles at the edge of our solar system how come they keep acting like they know where everything is and details of the whole Galaxy?

you ask a very good question,

i suspect it will take a while for the implications of the bubble discovery to "set in" the minds of scientists,
the other interesting question is if there is an optical implication to finding these bubbles and does that change distence measurements?

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER

we can only see the "hubble volume" any light from outside this volume has not had enought time to reach us (in the big bang model)

How do we have such nice pictures showing the whole Milky Way when we are in part of it, so we could not ever see the whole thing?

i suspect these pics are artistic representations from known data

i suspect it will take a while for the implications of the bubble discovery to "set in" the minds of scientists,
the other interesting question is if there is an optical implication to finding these bubbles and does that change distence measurements?

xploder

Thanks:-)
I don't see how we could tell where we are in relation to a starting point for big bang seems like that would make a difference.
But how can you really have so much "known data" of something you can't see as we are in an outer arm and we can't even get a lot of known data of our own solar system.


All very interesting, but i am inclined to think we all know far less then we think we know and except way to many things that are supposedly known as fact.

edit on 8-10-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

reply to post by XPLodER


That was a fascinating read. If the Universe is actually static I will be utterly amazed. If we are wrong about such a fundamental thing imagine what else we could be wrong about.

reply to post by XPLodER







I dunno, but when I look at this picture of the "threads" of galaxies in the Known Universe, it reminds me of the picture of the crab nebulae in the link below:

www.space.com...

It seems that there are some similarities to both structures and since the crab is a Super Nova remnant, well maybe astronomers could compare the two in a microcosm and macrocosm sort of way. Makes me wonder what kind of remnant is at the heart of the "Big Bang".

Great post, XplodeR. We should talk. I have spent 30 years developing a new mathematics that indicates that the red shift is an inherint property of light. I.E. over long distances, the wavelenght of light increases.

I recall, in a program discussing the "M-Theory" (or "Brane Theory" - it's got a bunch of different names and flavors) - there was speculation on what would happen if two parallel branes were to, somehow, strike each other. The thought was that it would create another parallel brane that would be akin to a "big bang" - with a twist.

It was explained more as a "big tear" as opposed to a "big bang" - with vast amounts of energy being released across space, with a potential for a sort of "bouncing" - meaning multiple releases of energy over multiple areas at different times. Sort of like if you had two blankets hung parallel to each other, and smash them together, they will ripple and collide, swing out, then back to collide again, and so forth.

In trying to find mention of that theory, I did run across:

www.wired.com...

In our picture, there was a universe before the Big Bang, very much like our universe today: a low density of matter and some stuff called dark energy. If you postulate a universe like this, but the dark energy within is actually unstable, then the decay of this dark energy drives the two branes together. These two branes clash and then, having filled with radiation, separate and expand to form galaxies and stars.

Then the dark energy takes over again. It's the energy of attraction between the two branes: It pulls them back together. You have bang followed by bang followed by bang. You have no beginning of time. It's always been there.

A rather interesting take... though not quite as relevant to the OP's observations. Still, an interesting concept (perhaps Dark Matter... the mysterious bugger, can coalesce and trigger more "big bangs" - or perhaps just large concentrations of any mass can).

Originally posted by XPLodER
if the type 1A supernova standard candle is being replaced and they are the reason why we first noticed this expansion what happens if AGN show that there is less expansion?

I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about the type 1A supernova being replaced unless you have a specific source to quote that says that.

Typically when astronomers have more than one yardstick to measure distance with, they look at all of them, and take a preponderance of the evidence approach, at least from what I've seen. The more different approaches you can use to verify a result, the more confidence you have in it. Of course, if it gives a different answer, then you lose confidence. But you're still faced with determining which one is right.

what would it mean for science if the new standard candles show that the universe is nearly static?
could this new standard candle imply the universe is static and much older than thought?

Actually, you should look at the graph you posted.

What it shows is that even if the dark energy expansion was shown to be false, that finding will have little effect on our estimate of the age of the universe. I'm not sure if you know how to read that graph, but I'm telling you, that's what the graph says. You can confirm this by going back to sources before dark energy was discovered in 1998, like let's say 1995-1997, and look at estimates of the age of the universe. After dark energy was discovered, the estimates didn't really change much. The dark energy effect would be greater in the future than it was in the past. That is also evident from the graph you posted.

Also, part of your post gets into the great wall debate, which has been posted several times on ATS. The idea that the great wall couldn't have formed given current models is a fringe theory that most astronomers don't believe in as far as I know.

Originally posted by Melyanna
Great post, XplodeR. We should talk. I have spent 30 years developing a new mathematics that indicates that the red shift is an inherint property of light. I.E. over long distances, the wavelenght of light increases.

There have been other claims of what you describe (which is called a "tired light" hypothesis) and they have failed to stand up to scrutiny so far, but maybe you have something new that hasn't been considered before.

Have you looked at the other tired light models, and how they have been shown to not match observations?

If your idea solves the problems the previous tired light models didn't address, you should publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal. You can read a little bit about the history of tired light models here:

Tired light

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am preparing to publish. It is a Unified Field Theory that provides a unified theory that incorporates branes, strings, quantum effects, relativity, and shows how the four basic forces are related. Interestingly, it also shows how all anomalous science fits in, as well as the origings of most religious symbols and ancients mystery symbols.

I understand that is an outrageous claim. This came to me in a series of dreams and visions, and 30 years of very hard and frustrating work.

Essentially, it is a model of the universe as an infinitely large one sided brane, like a mobius strip, that rolls itself up into infinitely small string shapes, that vibrate in discrete quantized energy pulses. to create all energy forms in the known universe, including light, matter, cells, life, solar systems, galaxies, etc.

As the brane is infinite, it cannot be described by computational mathematics, so I have developed a branch of topology that visually shows the brane collapsing into a zero sided, zero edged shape with infinite mass and energy. The brane can take an infinite number of paths to this singularity like shape, and some of those paths, when run backwards, seem to be exact models for everything in our universe.

As to the idea of branes striking each other, in this model they meld into oneness or singularity when they occupy the same infinitely small space with zero dimensions.

Originally posted by Melyanna
I understand that is an outrageous claim.

A unified field theory is sort of a holy grail of physics, so yeah it would be impressive if you're the one that finally solved it.

Where I got skeptical was when you threw the religious symbols in there. Well, I may have been skeptical before that, but yeah, that's where the claim really got "outrageous" as you put it. But good luck; if it gets published, I'll look forward to reading it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by XPLodER
if the type 1A supernova standard candle is being replaced and they are the reason why we first noticed this expansion what happens if AGN show that there is less expansion?

I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about the type 1A supernova being replaced unless you have a specific source to quote that says that.

i only have my models to show the type 1A are unreliable and there is no consensus that this is the case, in my opinion a galaxy is better than a star explosion in a galaxy to measure distence concidering "lensing"

Typically when astronomers have more than one yardstick to measure distance with, they look at all of them, and take a preponderance of the evidence approach, at least from what I've seen. The more different approaches you can use to verify a result, the more confidence you have in it. Of course, if it gives a different answer, then you lose confidence. But you're still faced with determining which one is right.

i applaud this approach and hope that the new AGN studies can be compaired to the numerous nova studies.

what would it mean for science if the new standard candles show that the universe is nearly static?
could this new standard candle imply the universe is static and much older than thought?Actually, you should look at the graph you posted.

well in a flat universe the universe would be infinate so it does go to corrilate age

What it shows is that even if the dark energy expansion was shown to be false, that finding will have little effect on our estimate of the age of the universe. I'm not sure if you know how to read that graph, but I'm telling you, that's what the graph says. You can confirm this by going back to sources before dark energy was discovered in 1998, like let's say 1995-1997, and look at estimates of the age of the universe. After dark energy was discovered, the estimates didn't really change much. The dark energy effect would be greater in the future than it was in the past. That is also evident from the graph you posted.

well if perceived distence was altered it should change the age of the universe.

Also, part of your post gets into the great wall debate, which has been posted several times on ATS. The idea that the great wall couldn't have formed given current models is a fringe theory that most astronomers don't believe in as far as I know.

the reason that the great wall evidence was presented is because it shows expansion over time should produce different clusters and walls in different sizes and configerations as the space expanded at different rates.

you must realize that when modeling the big bang to now, these early clusters of galaxies and early walls look like the ones being formed closer to our time in the time line.
how can we have varying inflation and expansion but have a constent development of clusters and walls?

if i streach a sheet and there are two points they seperate.

at different times the points should be different distences from each other, and this means that walls would be more likely to form early as should clusters, but the further the expansion the smaller the clusters and walls should be in the face of cosmological expansion the closer to now we get as the expansion is increasing the smaller and smaller the clusters should be.
but we see local clusters that are remakably similar to the ones found just shortly after the period of inflation.

so if the observational evidence of distent clusters shows little change over the 11-12 billion years since their birth to now in our cluster, how can we say expansion is increasing?

same point on the walls,
early the lower expansion should allow for larger walls the further you go back in time,
so the closer walls should be smaller than the walls further away.

i think that the expansion is "mostly" an optical illusion created from the nova/galaxy lensets in conjuction with our solar/galaxy lenset. in this manner the distence to the object becomes part of the lensing equation and can explain why the further away the nova is the "slower" it appairs

i always enjoy your replies

xploder

Originally posted by Melyanna
Great post, XplodeR. We should talk. I have spent 30 years developing a new mathematics that indicates that the red shift is an inherint property of light. I.E. over long distances, the wavelenght of light increases.

i have spent nearly 20 years developing a theory of gravitational lensing called DL or density lensing,
it uses optical physics and GR.
as this following article shows the GM or gravitational microscoping effect of some lenses effect even high energy releases.

Aims. This article shows the first evidence ever of gravitational lensing phenomena in high energy gamma-rays. This evidence comes from the observation of an echo in the light curve of the distant blazar PKS 1830-211 induced by a gravitational lens system.

Methods. Traditional methods for estimating time delays in gravitational lensing systems rely on the cross-correlation of the light curves from individual images. We used the 300 MeV–30 GeV photons detected by the Fermi-LAT instrument. It cannot separate the images of known lenses, so the observed light curve is the superposition of individual image light curves. The Fermi-LAT instrument has the advantage of providing long, evenly spaced, time series with very low photon noise. This allows us to use Fourier transform methods directly.

Results. A time delay between the two compact images of PKS 1830-211 has been searched for by both the autocorrelation method and the “double power spectrum” method. The double power spectrum shows a 4.2σ proof of a time delay of 27.1 ± 0.6 days, consistent with others’ results.

source HERE

i beleive that "most" objects can be lenses including the indivdual galaxies

source

A gravitational lens not only distorts the image of a distant object, it can also act like an optical lens, collecting and refocusing the light to make it appear brighter. Wondering if gravitational lensing might be responsible for the unusual brightness of these objects, the Herschel scientists teamed up with CfA astronomers Mark Gurwell and Ray Blundell to use the Submillimeter Array (SMA) to help resolve the question through its superb spatial resolution.

source HERE

light from distent galaxies through these new lenses are found in the infra red / sub mm wavelengths

we do need to take into account we are inside a lensing galaxy as well

xploder

A lot of stuff here makes me beg the question: Is light speed still considered a "constant"? Is not that why no matter how far we look, no matter where we look, we essentially see the same cosmos with galaxies and such?
I mean, thats why they pointed Hubble at the most remote darkest spot we could find, right? Too see if there was an end or a difference to it all? And guess what, it is the same as far as the eye can see. So far...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Hello Arbitrageur

I am reading through the links you provided. It is thanksgiving weekend here in Canada, so I am particularly tight for time. So far, the model I am developing is consistent with the observational hurdles you have pointed out. The inherint redshift is not due to scattering as proposed by Zwickie, and it is consistent with the experimental observation of the Tollman surface brightness test.

When i have finished reviewing all of the links, I will write a longer answer. Thank you again for the considered and thoughful feedback.

Melyanna

reply to post by XPLodER


Hello There XPLodER

I am taking some time to study what you and Arbitrageur have written. Will post again when I have finished composting.

Thanks again for the great thread. By the way, what you are talking about seems actually similar to what Mensur Omerbashich wrote about that sparked the whole Elenin thing. Have you read his work? I would love to discuss it with you if you have or are willing to.

Melyanna

I think our physicist have been boxed into a paradigm for a very long time and we really know nothing. None of them can think outside what they have been taught and we are now traped in a box of physics that can never work.

Our brightest minds are brainwashed and stuck.

Originally posted by Melyanna
So far, the model I am developing is consistent with the observational hurdles you have pointed out. The inherint redshift is not due to scattering as proposed by Zwickie, and it is consistent with the experimental observation of the Tollman surface brightness test.

That sounds encouraging.

How about the experimental observation of time dilation mentioned here?

Errors in Tired Light Cosmology

The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.

In 2001 Goldhaber and the Supernova Cosmology Project published results of a time dilation analysis of 60 supernovae. A plot of their width factor w versus the redshift z is shown below.

If the redshift were due to a tired light effect, the width of a supernova light curve would be independent of the redshift, as shown by the red horizontal line. If the redshift is due to an expanding Universe, the width factor should be w = (1+z) as shown by the blue line. The best fit to the data is the black line, and it is clearly consistent with the blue line and rules out the tired light model.

The observational data fits the blue line much better than the red line, right? That graph claims to rule out the tired light model, and I must say, it looks fairly convincing to me, though I try to keep an open mind.

Originally posted by Xeven
Our brightest minds are brainwashed and stuck.

They are a bit stuck in figuring out what dark matter really is, they admit that.

But many would love to be the one who solves the dark matter problem by whatever means necessary including, if necessary, rewriting some accepted theories. I don't know how you can say they are "brainwashed". Each of them can look at the data and interpret that however they want, or they can go collect their own data, which some do and some interpret it differently.

Same thing with the dark energy problem. Those observations were only made in 1998 so there has only been enough time to absorb the data and not enough time to brainwash anybody with it. It's not like the people that discovered dark energy even have any pet theory to hang on to...they don't. They are as baffled as anyone else by the observations. You can't say they are sticking to the explanations they already have for dark energy, when they don't have any explanations.

I don't think you understand how science works.