Matti Pitkanen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:42:01 +0300 (EET DST)
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> Subj: Re: Fwd: [time 587++]
> Date: 8/24/99 1:22:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com (Paul Marmet)
> To: WDEshleman@aol.com
> Dear Bill,
> Here are some answers to the questions. I am also adding some references.
> More answers could certainly be given later.
> >> I read the paper by Marmet about plasma model for cosmic redshifts
> >> and want to represent some criticism.
> >> ************
> >> 1. Can inelastic scattering of light with atoms and molecules cause cosmic
> >> redshifts?
> Certainly, it has been demonstrated by Jauch and Rohlich around 1960 that
> in quantum electrodynamics ALL interactions are inelastic and therefore
> necessarily lead to redshifts. However, Jauch nd Rohlich solved the
> calculations only in the case of particles and atoms. The problem was too
> complicated for molecules but the collisions are necessary inelastic. I
> have made a semiclassical calculation of the energy loss of the photons
> (redshift) in the paper:
> It shows that there is a redshift which is proportional to the amount of
> gas, light has crossed in space which is roughly proportional to the
> distance. It also explains the redshift on the Sun's disk which has never
> been explained otherwise. See at:
> Hard copies can be obtained directly at:
> Furthermore, many redshifts of galactic objects cannot be explained by
> relativity. The explanation is easy using the non elastic redshift
> mechanism. You can see the paper Non_Doppler redshift of Some Galactic
> Objects at:
> The full paper appears at:
> On this last paper, you can see that the inelastic Non-Doppler mechanism is
> absolutely necessary to explain the astronomical observations.
> >> The basic idea is that redshift is produced by inelastic scattering of
> >> light with atoms and molecules. This effect is evidently real but works
> >> only if the density of atoms is large enough. Quoting Marmet's paper.
> >> "Is there enough matter in space to account the observed redshift in
> >> terms of the theory offered here? An average concentration of about 0.01
> >> atom/cm3 is required to produce the observed redshift, as given by the
> >> Hubble constant (Marmet 1988b). This required density of matter in space
> >> is larger that what has been measured experimentally until presently, but
> >> our ability to detect such matter is still very imperfect."
> I have never said that it works ONLY if the density of atoms is large enough!
> It works at any density. The redshift is (linearly) proportional to the
> density times the distance traveled plus some other factors explained in my
[MP] I meant with 'works' that the redshift is large enough given the
distance of hthe object. The required density seems so huge
that it is difficult to understand how GRT cosmology could have coped so
> >> If I remember correctly, the average recent density of matter is roughly
> >> one proton per cubic meter (correct me if I am wrong!). This is by a
> >> factor 10^-4 smaller than the needed density. This density would be over
> >> critical by factor of order 10^3 whereas Hubble's results demonstrate that
> >> density is subcritical by factor of order 10 at least (this is bad news
> >> for inflation theorists).
> The paragraph above is what is written at so many places. It is the most
> non-scientific article in Cosmology.
> "When you read: the average recent density of matter is roughly one proton
> per cubic meter"
> Is this the result of a measurement? or the result of a theory? or what?
[MP] This is rough rule of thumb based on critical density according
to standard cosmology. It is not a result of direct measurement:
measurements of say Hubble telescope rely on redshifts etc.. and
a model for cosmology. What one can say that the density reproducing
redshifts is 10^4 times larger than this density. The factor of
this order of magnitude requires dramatic revision of cosmology.
GRT cosmology would be badly (mild word) wrong.
This in turn makes wonder why so badly wrong theory migh have survived so
well. The problems of the theory are real but quantitatively rather
innocent. One should understand why density is definitely subcritical (TGD
predicts this), why fluctuations in temperature are so small (TGD explains
also this whereas inflations is now in difficulties), one should
understand apparement acceleration of expansion without introducing
cosmological constant (TGD does also this), one should understand
galaxy formation, etc...
> This is NOT the result of a measurement. Measurements always report
> missing matter. Intergalactic gravitational fields show that the amount of
> matter in the Universe in much larger.
> This claim is a theoretical prediction assuming Einstein's General
> Relativity. We know that this model does not work. They had to invent the
> inflationary universe to correct Eintein's theory. Astrophysicists admit
> all the time that there are problems, but they do not have the courage to
> change the model.
GRT model is not complete. Inflationary scenario is in difficulties.
I believe however that the geometrization of gravitation is correct:
what is needed is to generalized spacetime concept: spacetime
as a 4-surface and manysheeted spacetime concept are my medicines
to the diseases of cosmology.
> Every week they discover new clusters of galaxies. Two weeks ago, I have
> seen on the Web that the number of galaxies in the universe has been
Yes, I saw this data also. How much this is due to the increase of the
observed size of the universe rather than average density?
Here TGD also predicts new effects: light form very distant regions
of spacetime can arrive along very large almost empty spacetime sheet
with larger H.
> They have decided to DOUBLE the previous number of galaxies.
> Do you know that the average number of atoms MEASURED in a spiral galaxies
> like ours (in our Milky Way) is 2 millions atoms per cubic meter? Such a
> large density increases considerably the average in the universe to more
> than one proton /cubic meter. In nebula, there are ebillions of atoms
> /m^2. Furthermore there is the transparent matter (missing mass) plus
> other transparent gases that do not emit spectral lines as explained in the
> paper: Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe published in 1989 (Web
> You can get a hard copy of this paper at:
> It is non-scientific and misleading claiming that the density of matter is
> the one calculated by one particlar model (one special case of Einstein's
> relativity), when observations and knowledge of spectroscopy lead to a
> quite different answer. By the way, my formation as a physicist is in
What I see as a problem is the huge discrepancy of order 10^4.
If you are right then one can safely forget General Relativity in
cosmological length scales and concentrate to rescue it in planetary
> I am convinced that the average (including gases in galaxies) is about
> 0.02 atom/cc.
> >> 2. Anomalous reshifts of Arp
> >> "Arp's redshifts hift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler
> >> theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book Quasars, Redshifts and
> >> Controversies provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989
> >> review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of
> >> 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect
> >> was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial
> >> RedshiftsL A Bibliographical Catalogue." Many other papers indicate that
> >> non-velocity redshifts have been observed."
> >> [MP]
> >> I think it was just Arp who observed quantization of recession
> >> velocities and the existence of 'God's fingers': series of astrophysical
> >> objects in the line of sight. TGD provides explanation for these
> >> objects as images of one and same object. The prediction is that
> >> photons rotate in strong gravitational fields associated with the large
> >> voids of size of order 10^8 light years. Photons coming observer in Earth
> >> can rotate n=1,2,3,... times before detection and this means that redshift
> >> is quantized and one sees a series of pictures on the line of sight.
> >> This effect would be one experimental signature of TGD based model
> >> of large voids surrounding cosmic strings and containing galactic cosmic
> >> strings at their boundaries. Classical Z^0 force is in crucial role in
> >> the physics of this model. Classical Z^0 force also prevents the
> >> collapse of supernovas to blacholes, which General Relativistic models
> >> tend to predict.
> I know Halton Harp quite well. I met him several times. We even played
> tennis together.
> His observations of anomalous redshifts of quasars are very important.
> However, it would be too long to comment all the paragraphs above.
I agree. The problem is that only understood effect is regarded as real
effect. Nice to hear that you know him!
> >> 3. Cosmic background radiation
> >> "The existence of the 3 K microwave radiation is no longer valid evidence
> >> for the Big Bang. There is no need to assume, as Big Bang believers do,
> >> that this background radiation came from a highly Doppler-redshifted
> >> blackbody(3) at about 3,000. K - that is, from the exploding ball of
> >> matter - when its density became low enough for energy and matter to
> >> decouple. The background radiation is simply Planck's blackbody radiation
> >> emitted by our unlimited universe that is also at a temperature of about 3
> >> K (Marmet 1988). "
> Thank You. You might be interested to see the original copy of this paper.
> I refer to it at:
> The original (short) letter to Science is at:
> >> Can the model predict the temperature of the radiation correctly?
> >> Also the observed anistropy (see below) should be predicted.
> The small anisotropy of the radiation is due to motion of the solar system
> with respect to the universe.
I was referring to anistropy which can be understand as fluctuations
delta rho/rho mapped to fluctuations delta T/T by dictated by
the dependence of rho on T.
> One must note that this is motion with
> respect to the universe is NOT COMPATIBLE with Eeinstein's Relativity.
> According to Einstein, it must be impossible for the observer to detect his
> own motion. Einstein claimed that all velocities are "relative" and that
> there is no difference between us moving with respect to the universe and
> the universe moving with respect to us.
One can however fix local frame with respect to which matter is at rest.
This is length scale dependent concept. In larger length scale
the rest frame might well be different and this would give rise to
motion of rest frames defined in various length scales with respect
In TGD framework the concept of scale becomes precise. Spacetime sheets
glued on large spacetime sheets define entire hierarchy of rest frames
moving with respect to each other. When one speaks of scale, also
fractality is often involved. TGD cosmology is indeed fractal.
Also fractal GRT cosmology has been recently proposed
and was inspired by apparent acceleration of expansion.
> According to Einstein, we should
> not be able to detect that anisotropy of the radiation. You must notice
> that NOBODY has predicted that anisotropy before observing it. However,
> experimentally it is an experimental fact that this anisotropy is
> observable in spite of Einstein's relativity.
> My explanation of the phenomena requires a fixed frame of reference as
> explained in my book and some papers. This anisotropy is in perfect
> agreement with my description (and mass-energy conservation).
I think that we were referring to different things when talking about
> >> 4. Anisotropy of 3 K radiation has been observed!
> >> "Matter is concentrated in galaxies, in clusters and
> >> super clusters of galaxies, and in what has been called the Great
> >> Attractor (a tentatively identified but huge concentration of mass
> >> centered 150 million light-years away). These important inhomogeneities in
> >> the composition of the universe as
> >> we see it today must have first appeared in the early universe (if it
> >> exists). In fact, a comparable inhomogeneity must have existed in the
> >> matter that emitted the 3 K radiation. That inhomogeneity must appear as a
> >> distortion in the Hubble flow(4) (Dressler 1989) and must lead to
> >> observable irregularities in the 3 K background. Inhomogeneities of the 3
> >> K radiation has been looked for but nothing is compatible with the mass
> >> observed in the Great Attractor. A. E. Lange recently reported that there
> >> is no observable inhomogeneity even with a resolution of 10 seconds of arc
> >> and a sensitivity in temperature as high as DT=ñ 0.00001 K (Lange 1989). "
> >> [MP] The article was written in 1990. The results of Hubble telescope
> >> however demonstrated an inhomogenuity of required magnitude in the
> >> distribution of blackbody temperature. General order of magnitude estimate
> >> is delta T/T =about delta rho/rho, where rho is density of matter.
> >> Therefore this counter argument does not bite anymore.
> >> ======
> >> 5. Inconsistency in application of Einstein's theory.
> >> Nor can Einstein's general theory of relativity be applied in a consistent
> >> manner to the Big bang model. According to the model, when the universe
> >> was the size of an electron and was 10-23 second old, it was clearly a
> >> black hole - a concentration of mass so great that its self-gravitation
> >> would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according
> >> to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded.
> This is quite correct.
> >> Therefore, one
> >> would have to assume that gravity started
> >> to exist only gradually after the creation of the universe, but that
> >> amounts to changing the laws of physics arbitrarily to save the Big Bang
> >> model.
> A model of gravity that started to exist later is NOT COMPATIBLE with
> Einstein's Relativity.
> It is an Ad Hoc hypothesis. It is like before Galileo when the circle was
> a perfect figure and they decided to draw circles inside circles instead of
> drawing ellipses. When a theory does not work (like relativity), we must
> find a new one, instead of putting a cataplasm on the old theory.
> >> In contrast, an unlimited universe as suggested here agrees with
> >> Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological
> >> constant(5) that he proposed in 1917.
> >> [MP] Here I disagree. Cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations
> >> are completely consistent mathematically. Momdent of big bang does *not*
> >> correspond to blach hole. This is easy to see by imbedding
> >> Robertson-Walker cosmolology to M^4_+xCP_2. One finds that only
> >> *subcritical* cosmologies are imbedabble globally and *critical* cosmology
> >> for a finite duration of time after the big bang. The fact that the recent
> >> estimates for matter density are definitely sub-critical, support TGD
> >> strongly. The moment of big bang corresponds to the boundary of
> >> lightcone. This is not point singularity as often claimed. Neither it is
> >> blackhole of finite size. What happens is that metric becomes effectively
> >> two-dimensional since radial direction becomes null direction.
> >> In TGD framework lightcone cosmology (and hence also Big Bang
> >> cosmology) is absolutely crucial for the theory to exist mathematically.
> >> Lighcone boundary is metrically two-dimensional and the conformal symmetry
> >> of two-dimensional Riemann surfaces generalize. This makes it possible to
> >> generalize the Super conformal invariance of string models to TGD context.
> >> This occurs only in case of 4-dimensional Minkowski space.
> There are so many things wrong in the Bing Bang model. It never happened.
> Tell me, since there were nothing before the Big Bang, what is the cause of
> the Big Bang?
This is good question and goes to the core problem of present day physics:
the relationhip between subjective and geometric time.
I see nothing problematic in Robertson Walker cosmology
geometrically. It is well defined spacetime manifold with boundary, the
big bang. If you have soap film spanned by a frame it is not useful to
talk about the state of soap film as causated by the boundary
values at frame. The question what 'caused the state of soap film' at
frame is not sensical. Situation is same now.
What is wrong with the identification of psychological time experienced
by conscious observers with geometric time extrapolated to the notion
that some kind of time=constant front='now' propagates in geometric
spacetime. This identification indeed leads to your question what
caused the initial values at the moment of big bang, At least to the
problem what dictated the initial values.
The correct question to ask is what is the mechanism causing
the conents of our conscious experience to be concentrated around
definite moment T of geometric time (as it seems) and why the
value of T increases at least statistically. This unavoidably leads to
a theory of consciousness. which cannot be done yet publicly.
> >> 6. Anomalously large redshifts
> >> "In 1988, Simon Lilly of the university of Hawaii reported the discovery
> >> of a mature galaxy at the enormous redshift of 3.4; that is, the amount of
> >> the redshift for any spectral line from the galaxy is 340 per cent of the
> >> line's proper wavelength (Lilly 1988). This puts the galaxy so far in time
> >> that the Big Bang scheme does not allow sufficient time for
> >> its formation! As a news report on Lilly's work in Sky & Telescope
> >> expressed it, "The appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big
> >> Bang poses a serious threat . . ." (Aug. 1988, p. 124). ".
> The redshifts appear anomalous because it is not a Doppler effect. It is
> due to the amount of gas between the source of light and us.
> >> [MP] Manysheeted spacetime means fractal hierarchy of cosmologies.
> >> Each spacetime sheet is characterized by its cosmological constant
> >> and density which is the smaller the larger the spacetime sheet is.
> >> This explains the apparent acceleration of the Universe observed by Hubble
> >> telescope (the proposed explanation in terms of fifth
> >> repulsive force has already now faced difficulties: nonsensically
> >> precise fine tuning of parameters is needed).
> >> The larger the spacetime sheet the faster the expansion.
> >> The model predicts that photons can in principle come from much larger
> >> distances than predicted by Einstein's cosmology: photons just come
> >> along very large spacetime sheets. In particular, the model predicts
> >> that the ages of astrophysical objects deduced from redshift can
> >> be longer than the age of the universe. Only the lightcone proper
> >> time which is longer than the proper time associated with
> >> spacetime sheet obeying RW cosmology poses bound on the apparent
> >> lifetime of astrophysical object.
> >> ==========
> >> 7. Large voids with size of order 10^8 meters
> >> "In 1989 cane the discovery of the "Great Wall" of galaxies, a sheet of
> >> Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and
> >> approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the
> >> structure being limited only by the scale of the survey (Geller and Huchra
> >> 1989). It is located between 200 and 300 million light-years from Earth.
> >> In an interview with the Boston Globe (Nov. 17 1989), Margaret Geller of
> >> the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics offered some frank
> >> comments on the implications of her discovery:..."
> >> [MP] Does this refer to large voids with size of order 10^8 light years?
> >> It is now established that Universe contains most of its galaxies at the
> >> boundaries of large voids. Even larger structures have geen found. The
> >> guess would be that Universe has quite generally fractal like structure.
> >> TGD predicts fractality. The voids are spacetime sheets and the boundaries
> >> of these sheets contain galaxies.
> >> In the model of voids, classical Z^0 force drives galaxies gradually to
> >> the boundaries of the large voids. Similar phenomenon would probably
> >> occur in larger length scales.
> Paul Marmet
> E-Mail: Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST