Jump to content

Split from Strange dark stuff


pantheory
 Share

Recommended Posts

newscientist.com

LIGHT is in crisis. The universe is far brighter than it should be based on the number of light-emitting objects we can find, a cosmic accounting problem that has astronomers baffled.

"Something is very wrong," says Juna Kollmeier at the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Pasadena, California. Solving the mystery could show us novel ways to hunt for dark matter, or reveal the presence of another unknown "dark" component to the cosmos. "It's such a big discrepancy that whatever we find is going to be amazing, and it will overturn something we currently think is true," says Kollmeier.

 

Few would want to consider outside the box explanations (outside the Big Bang model) to solve this "over-brightness" problem. After all, the problem doesn’t seem that awesome that a standard explanation of some kind could not be found.

 

Still the appearance of over-brightness in the universe was a prediction of another cosmological model long ago so I thought I would mention it here. Here is the recent paper on it. It was a supernova paper proposing that Dark Energy is not real, whereby I was the lead author (see 7.2 and 7.3 within the paper.)

 

The paper predicts that the universe will appear brighter than what would be expected using the Hubble formula to calculate distances. Instead, this model proposes that distances are greater at redshifts greater than about .5, therefore all cosmic entities at greater distances would appear brighter than they really are/were. It also proposes that an additional brightness factor would be needed. The paper proposes new distance and brightness equations based upon the alternative cosmology, seemingly corroborated by type 1a supernova data.

 

The other aspect of the OP paper was their assertion of the over-abundance of ionized hydrogen. One possibility that might explain this is that galactic jets, stellar black holes, and some neutron star jets conceivably could ionize great volumes of in-falling matter. Such jets are all over the universe. The outside-the-box explanation concerning the alternative cosmology would be that new protons would be created surrounding black holes, and conceivably within these jets, from a background field material (not unlike dark matter). This would be an alternative to the creation of matter by the Big Bang process that in time would result in mostly neutral hydrogen, and seemingly not enough observed UV sources to ionize it, according to the OP paper.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper predicts that the universe will appear brighter than what would be expected using the Hubble formula to calculate distances.

Perhaps you could show that the predictions of your (vanity-published, unreviewed) "paper" quantitatively match the observation. A claim that "I said it would be brighter" is about as useful as a chocolate teacup. (Even if it weren't from someone with your record.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could show that the predictions of your (vanity-published, unreviewed) "paper" quantitatively match the observation. A claim that "I said it would be brighter" is about as useful as a chocolate teacup. (Even if it weren't from someone with your record.)

 

This is a peer-reviewed journal. It is the Journal of Applied Physics Research published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education. The unique equations and calculations concerning type 1a supernova and how they quantitatively match the data, is the theme of the paper. The predictions and claims about the brightnesses of all cosmic entities are also within the paper, see sections 7.1 and 7.2 in particular.

 

Here is another link to the paper.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah bless.

 

So can you show us how well your predictions match observation or not?

 

Concerning supernova, predictions would be the red straight-line graphing on figure #2 of the paper. The Hubble formula is the blue-line parabolic graph that would require variable degrees of dark energy to explain the overly dim and over-brightness data. If type 1a supernova are standard candles as expected, then the same graph would apply to all cosmic entities, not just supernovas. Notice on the graph, based upon the Hubble distance formula, that all cosmic entities with redshifts greater than about 1.1 progressively appear brighter than what they are expected based upon their Hubble calculated distances. For the alternative model calculated distances and related brightnesses appear as they should. On the left margin of figure #2 you will see brightness are on the bottom and dimmer is on the top.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take that as a No, then.

 

The answer is Yes. There are exact quantitative predictions made within the paper as to what the exact extent the universe will appear brighter. Looking at table 2. You will see the alternative distance predicted/ calculated at a redshift of about .6 (#8 in the table) is about 1.44 times greater than the Hubble formula. Square this concerning the inverse square law of light and you would get an apparent brightness of more than twice as bright. At a redshift of about 1.4, the alternative model predicts a distance of about 1.89 the Hubble distance. This when squared would relate to an apparent brightness enhancement of more than 3.5 times brighter. At the farthest distance indicated on the chart, at a redshift of 10., the alternative model's distance would be more than 10.39 times greater than the Hubble calculations. This would equate to a brightness increase of about 108 times brighter than would be expected when using the Hubble formula for distances and brightnesses.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be missing the point. I am not asking you what predictions your hypothesis makes.

 

But ... can you show us how well your predictions match observation (now you have some anomalously bright data to work with)?

 

And, as you are apparently claiming that everything should be brighter than expected from existing theory, can you show that this is the case?

 

You know, correlation, error analysis, etc. The sort of things scientists do when they want to test their hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be missing the point. I am not asking you what predictions your hypothesis makes.

But ... can you show us how well your predictions match observation (now you have some anomalously bright data to work with)?

And, as you are apparently claiming that everything should be brighter than expected from existing theory, can you show that this is the case?

You know, correlation, error analysis, etc. The sort of things scientists do when they want to test their hypothesis.

 

That is explained in posting #14, and figure 2 in the paper. The mainstream model over estimates brightnesses to a redshift of about 1.1 then under estimates them progressively thereafter. This is the blue line in figure 2. The red "nearly straight line are brightnesses according to the alternative model which match observations very well. The quantitative extent is shown in that figure.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how about the data this thread is about.............

 

The quantitative data that I could find in this article is that by their analysis there appears to be "five times too much ionized gas for the estimated number of UV sources in the modern, nearby universe." The other related theme of this article is that the universe appears to be 400% too bright based upon observable sources of EM radiation.

 

This quote: " Hubble Space Telescope observations of the large-scale structure show a brightly lit Universe. But supercomputer simulations using only the known sources of ultraviolet light produces a dimly lit Universe. The difference is a stunning 400 percent."

 

Then this quote: “The great thing about a 400 percent discrepancy is that you know something is really wrong,” said coauthor David Weinberg from Ohio State University. “We still don’t know for sure what it is, but at least one thing we thought we knew about the present day universe isn’t true.”

Since the calculations of the alternative model, which I discussed above, assert that the mainstream calculated distances are wrong, even if valid this would not change the real amount of light or UV radiation in the universe, only the calculated brightness because of underestimated distances.
For the "too much ionized hydrogen problem," I believe they might have overlooked the ionizing potential of quasars to strip electrons from matter within quasar jets, and also the possible ionizing effects of the jets on pre-existing matter, besides the quasar UV radiation that they discussed.
Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"is based upon a theory of matter diminution. Matter slowly getting smaller over time would generally appear the same as galaxies moving away from us and each other"

"In both models, whether expanding space or matter getting smaller, additional gravity would seem to be needed to hold solar systems,"

 

 

are you kidding me do you honestly think a model that states that the universe isn't expanding instead matter is getting smaller is a peer reviewed paper??

nice try I'm no ones fool. This paper doesn't follow any of the accepted models of physics including particle physics, GR SR, LCDM etc its complete garbage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you kidding me do you honestly think a model that states that the universe isn't expanding instead matter is getting smaller is a peer reviewed paper??

nice try I'm no ones fool. This paper doesn't follow any of the accepted models of physics including particle physics ........................................................

 

Alternative cosmology gets published by peer-reviewed journals once-in-awhile if one is careful about the wording (include wordings of possibility rather than of probability, wordings such as "according to this model" etc. Also such papers must include what appears to be evidence for what is being proposed or stated. Most journals do summarily dismiss papers with proposals outside the mainstream, after a quick perusal, but without reading them.

 

Here is an example of a fairly recent paper by someone else that did get published.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/the-universe-is-shrinking-a-radical-new-theory-challenges-accepted-view-of-an-expanding-cosmos.html

 

Presently I have 6 to 7 offers from new publishers (to me) who wish me to publish a new paper in their journal, some at little or no cost to me. These offers are based upon their review of my last paper which I posted on this thread. My new paper discusses the many long-considered problems in today's cosmology, and proposes "simple" solutions to these asserted problems based upon an alternative cosmology. The subject OP article may be explaining a new problem. When the time comes, granted, I might get a number of refusals first before I get one of my past or new publishers to publish this new paper. I am presently considering an offer to peer-review someone else paper that seems to have some kinship to the paper I posted here, at least as far as I can tell by the title. That's probably why they made me the offer.

pantheory

 

 

I think such a feat is as amazing as the topic. Imagine the data needed.

 

 

Some of these studies are Herculean, and take many researchers to accomplish them over many years. Most make every effort to be error free before they publish.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your model is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding and non contracting universe model.

 

Ever hear of Olber's paradox? its in every introductory cosmology textbook, a static and non expanding universe is an infinite universe and would be completely bright

 

"The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."

 

"After recalculating and plotting these cosmological distances from redshifts using the alternative model equations, there is no indication of universal expansion or the acceleration or deceleration of expansion of the universe based upon hypothetical dark energy"

 

this statement is complete bunk if you have cosmological redshift you have expansion, so your statement of recalculation is a non existent calculation, it is the same thing as stating there is no redshift period a static universe, would not have a cosmological redshift to calculate, the only redshift you would have is Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift, gravitational redshift requires a gravity well and curved spacetime which you also state doesn't exist so you only have the doppler shift

 

Wow I'm only on the second page of your article and I've found mistakes and incongruities, but I'm bored lets see how many others I can find.

 

well before we go any further lets look at the numerous tests of general relativity which your paper doesn't mention How convenient......

 

how do you explain the deflection of light tests, your universe is Newtonian, and does not cover why light is deflected as it passes by a star, but I guess that's wrong too according to your model. Yeah right, considering the mountains of data and the mountains of tests of GR that your paper makes no mention of.

 

oh yea you state the deflection of light is wrong....

 

by the way why didn't you mention stellar parallax methods your paper acts like the standard candles of supernova is the only measurement too that exists in the cosmic distance ladder, that is also plain wrong. The stellar parallax measurements can only be used up to a certain distance but that distance is sufficient to show that there is expansion. type 1a SNe is one type of standard candle a standard candle is any system whose properties are well understood enough to to be used. It is not restricted to type Sn1a supernova.

 

there also the Tully Fisher relation, the The Faber Jackson relation, Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, spectroscopic parallax, Wilson–Bappu effect, D–σ relation,

 

Your paper also cannot explain why the CMB temperature is higher then than the universe is now... a static universe would stay at the same temperature if not increase in temperature with all the stars emitting radiation. See Olber's paradox.

 

the CMB temperature is 3000 degrees Kelvin, the universe today is 2.7 Kelvin the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics is another piece of evidence that the universe is expanding, that your paper forgets to mention. In an expanding volume the contents of the container will decrease in temperature, In this case the universe is our container, if the universe is static there would be no difference in the temperature of the CMB till now, how convenient that your paper fails to consider the ideal gas laws. Its also a piece of evidence of an expanding universe.

 

"The proposal that the Hubble formula calculates distances inaccurately is not surprising or unique. Those who support the dark energy" The Hubble formula says nothing about dark energy, it merely shows the universe is expanding, if you use the Hubble formulas only you end up with a universe the size of the Hubble sphere where the observable universe is larger than the Hubble sphere... the added cosmological constant accounts for the cosmological event horizon, the Hubble sphere does not.

 

the redshift formula that people generally know is only valid up to a certain distance that distance is the Hubble sphere, that's mentioned in this paper

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg

 

"The alternative cosmological model proposes that matter becomes smaller in size but proportionally greater in quantity as time progresses. In the past there would have been accordingly fewer individual units of matter than there is now, but over time the density of matter in space would remain the same"

 

again this runs counter to thermodynamics, this is a steady state model, and a steady state model would not have temperature variations in a decreasing order.

 

I don't have to go any further, your paper does not conform to observations, it does not conform to numerous research papers that in fact show the universe as expanding, those papers include but are not restricted to the luminosity functions. So your paper does not describe our universe


 

Alternative cosmology gets published by peer-reviewed journals once-in-awhile if one is careful about the wording (include wordings of possibility rather than of probability, wordings such as "according to this model" etc. Also such papers must include what appears to be evidence for what is being proposed or stated. Most journals do summarily dismiss papers with proposals outside the mainstream, after a quick perusal, but without reading them.

 

Here is an example of a fairly recent paper by someone else that did get published.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/the-universe-is-shrinking-a-radical-new-theory-challenges-accepted-view-of-an-expanding-cosmos.html

 

Presently I have 6 to 7 offers from new publishers (to me) who wish me to publish a new paper in their journal, some at little or no cost to me. These offers are based upon their review of my last paper which I posted on this thread. My new paper discusses the many long-considered problems in today's cosmology, and proposes "simple" solutions to these asserted problems based upon an alternative cosmology. The subject OP article may be explaining a new problem. When the time comes, granted, I might get a number of refusals first before I get one of my past or new publishers to publish this new paper. I am presently considering an offer to peer-review someone else paper that seems to have some kinship to the paper I posted here, at least as far as I can tell by the title. That's probably why they made me the offer.


 

Some of these studies are Herculean, and take many researchers to accomplish them over many years. Most make every effort to be error free before they publish.

 

 

yeah there have been some garbage models published it happens all the time, this doesn't not mean they are accurate models.. Publishing alone does not mean its accurate.

 

a key note here is that redshift is not the only piece of evidence for an expanding universe, you also have the CMB temperature and the temperature of the universe today, the first generation stars which is a result of a higher density of material due to a higher density of hydrogen in the past. The CMB itself is evidence that the universe has a beginning and is the result of big bang nucleosynthesis, which your model does not consider. As such your model belongs in the speculation section on this forum and should not even be included in the topic of this thread, as it does not conform with the mountains of observational evidence against your paper, and is therefore not a model which accurately describes this universe

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your model is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding and non contracting universe model.

 

Ever hear of Olber's paradox? its in every introductory cosmology textbook, a static and non expanding universe is an infinite universe and would be completely bright

 

"The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."

 

Not necessarily because you assume that photons fly absolutely straight and are thus an evident dissonant in observed nature. If they curve the universe would be dark. So given this alternate explanation you may not take it into evidence for a non Euclidean universe.

 

And you assume only either a Euclidean or a non-Euclidean. Why not both one in the other? Say a Non-euclidean Higgs field universe in a Euclidean graviton fielded universe?

 

And you assume that photons don't interact with say the Higgs field even though they curve and red-shift holding c in the curve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should read his paper these are his assumptions, the universe is not contracting and not expanding according to his paper and his model specifically states

 

"with the proposed cosmological model which is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding universe"

 

Please I would definitely be curious as to a Higg's model that shows a valid interaction. Considering how many models I've read on the Higg's field which happens to be my favorite area of research this would be of particular interest to me

 

as far as assumptions go no I don't assume

here is a brief coverage of the local guage violation with the U(1) term. and the photon So please feel free to post a reference showing otherwise

 

http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lsfrey/teaching/archiv/sose_09/rng/higgs_mechanism.pdf

 

the other problem is that a flat universe is approximately Euclidean and it is expanding, A static universe is a positive curved and closed universe. Ours is a flat universe (approximately that may or may not be closed).

Einstein’s static universe

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0706v2.pdf

 

"The model is static, with positive spatial curvature (closed), therefore, spatially bound in other words, finite."

 

please read how universe geometry affects light paths, this is well studied in cosmology

 

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry

page 2 with the FLRW mtrics.

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

 

if you prefer a more professional paper than my rundown

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your model is based upon a Euclidean non-expanding and non contracting universe model.

 

Ever hear of Olber's paradox? its in every introductory cosmology textbook, a static and non expanding universe is an infinite universe and would be completely bright

 

"The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the Big Bang model. If the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night."

 

"After recalculating and plotting these cosmological distances from redshifts using the alternative model equations, there is no indication of universal expansion or the acceleration or deceleration of expansion of the universe based upon hypothetical dark energy"

 

this statement is complete bunk if you have cosmological redshift you have expansion, so your statement of recalculation is a non existent calculation, it is the same thing as stating there is no redshift period a static universe, would not have a cosmological redshift to calculate, the only redshift you would have is Doppler redshift and gravitational redshift, gravitational redshift requires a gravity well and curved spacetime which you also state doesn't exist so you only have the doppler shift

 

Wow I'm only on the second page of your article and I've found mistakes and incongruities, but I'm bored lets see how many others I can find.

 

well before we go any further lets look at the numerous tests of general relativity which your paper doesn't mention How convenient......

 

how do you explain the deflection of light tests, your universe is Newtonian, and does not cover why light is deflected as it passes by a star, but I guess that's wrong too according to your model. Yeah right, considering the mountains of data and the mountains of tests of GR that your paper makes no mention of.

 

oh yea you state the deflection of light is wrong....

 

by the way why didn't you mention stellar parallax methods your paper acts like the standard candles of supernova is the only measurement too that exists in the cosmic distance ladder, that is also plain wrong. The stellar parallax measurements can only be used up to a certain distance but that distance is sufficient to show that there is expansion. type 1a SNe is one type of standard candle a standard candle is any system whose properties are well understood enough to to be used. It is not restricted to type Sn1a supernova.

 

there also the Tully Fisher relation, the The Faber Jackson relation, Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, spectroscopic parallax, Wilson–Bappu effect, D–σ relation,

 

Your paper also cannot explain why the CMB temperature is higher then than the universe is now... a static universe would stay at the same temperature if not increase in temperature with all the stars emitting radiation. See Olber's paradox................................................................................................................................

 

the redshift formula that people generally know is only valid up to a certain distance that distance is the Hubble sphere, that's mentioned in this paper

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg ..............................................................................................................

 

a key note here is that redshift is not the only piece of evidence for an expanding universe, you also have the CMB temperature and the temperature of the universe today, the first generation stars which is a result of a higher density of material due to a higher density of hydrogen in the past. The CMB itself is evidence that the universe has a beginning and is the result of big bang nucleosynthesis, which your model does not consider...................................................

 

Thanks for your time and interesting comments. I want to stay on topic so I'll try to explain what I can from that perspective.

 

One of the two themes of the subject OP paper is the the universe appears to be "too bright" for known light sources. As to Olber's Paradox, I think it can be readily explained for most any cosmology. The first reason is that galaxies are so far away that we can only see a few of the very closest galaxies with the naked eye, and then they are very dim and barely visible in the night sky. The second and most important reason IMO is that galaxies become redshifted with distance. After a certain distance all of a galaxy's light will be redshifted to the infra-red, microwave and radio frequencies so they would not be visible using normal telescopes.

 

As to the subject news article, I think they are over-estimating present brightnesses based upon the Hubble formula, if the Hubble distance formula is wrong. There could be one or more reasons for what they are observing but as they say in the article, the difference between what is calculated and what is being observed is off by a factor of four.

 

"After recalculating and plotting these cosmological distances from redshifts ................................................."

 

This quote from the paper I posted relates to the supernova data calculations of the paper only and nothing else. There are no Doppler shifts or expansion of space in this model so redshifts accordingly would be caused by the diminution of matter.

 

"type 1a SNe is one type of standard candle a standard candle is any system whose properties are well understood enough to to be used. It is not restricted to type Sn1a supernova."

 

Your quote above: Yes, this is true, but there would seem to be less possible variables with type 1a supernova.

 

I cannot weave your other comments into the topic but if you are interested in specific replies/answers to any questions please PM me, thanks.

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for your time and interesting comments. I want to stay on topic so I'll try to explain what I can from that perspective.

 

One of the two themes of the subject OP paper is the the universe appears to be "too bright" for known light sources. As to Olber's Paradox, I think it can be readily explained for most any cosmology. The first reason is that galaxies are so far away that we can only see a few of the very closest galaxies with the naked eye, and then they are very dim and barely visible in the night sky. The second and most important reason IMO is that galaxies become redshifted with distance. After a certain distance all of a galaxy's light will be redshifted to the infra-red, microwave and radio frequencies so they would not be visible using normal telescopes.

 

As to the subject news article, I think they are over-estimating present brightnesses based upon the Hubble formula, if the Hubble distance formula is wrong. There could be one or more reasons for what they are observing but as they say in the article, the difference between what is calculated and what is being observed is off by a factor of four.

 

"After recalculating and plotting these cosmological distances from redshifts ................................................."

 

This quote from the paper I posted relates to the supernova data calculations of the paper only and nothing else. There are no Doppler shifts or expansion of space in this model so redshifts accordingly would be caused by the diminution of matter.

 

"type 1a SNe is one type of standard candle a standard candle is any system whose properties are well understood enough to to be used. It is not restricted to type Sn1a supernova."

 

Your quote above: Yes, this is true, but there would seem to be less possible variables with type 1a supernova.

 

I cannot weave your other comments into the topic but if you are interested in specific replies/answers to any questions please PM me, thanks.

 

well your certainly correct we should keep the subject on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It could have been that there was much more neutral hydrogen than we thought, and therefore there would be no light crisis," says Kollmeier. "But that loophole has been shut."

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329782.700-strange-dark-stuff-is-making-the-universe-too-bright.html#.U9QHYzd6MQ4

 

The quote above from the subject link could be the simple answer to their "problem." Neutral hydrogen comes in a number of different forms. Only a single hydrogen atom is relatively easy to observe in the intergalactic medium (IGM) because of its numerous spectral emissions. The other forms of hydrogen are very difficult or impossible to observe in the IGM and afterwords give a very accurate estimate of their overall quantities. Thinking that "that loophole has been shut" (much more neutral hydrogen) may be their problem.

 

Other common forms of hydrogen are neutral H2 and H3 along with their ionized forms. From what I have read, an estimate today of the quantities of molecular hydrogen in intergalactic space is speculative, more a matter of theory (probably Big Bang) than of observation. Relying on theory when accurate estimates of quantities of molecular hydrogen based upon observation could be off by many factors, may be the source of their accounting problem. The two links below explain these other forms of hydrogen.

 

http://iso.esac.esa.int/science/SSR/Habart.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trihydrogen_cation

 

Fourteen years ago, right or wrong, Marmet speculated on the possibilities, link below. .

 

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

Edited by pantheory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

From what I have read, any estimate today of their quantities in interstellar or intergalactic space is speculative

 

As usual, all you do is demonstrate how limited your reading is.

 

 

Relying on theory may be the source of their accounting problem.

 

So presumably you din't actually read the article in the OP. (Or, quite possibly based on past form, you just ignored the bits you don't like.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you might want to read physics of the intergalactic medium, detection of h2 is in the [latex]2.12 \mu m [/latex] band h3 is in the 3.89 and [latex]4.09 \mu m[/latex] band

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3358

 

spectral indexes uses the Rydberg formula, the [latex]ly\alpha[/latex] is part of the spectral index but not the only portion, there is other portions to the hydrogen spectral series

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

 

here is a paper on detection of h3 on Uranus

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...405..761T

 

this paper is more the case of the % detected and the associated thermodynamic influences at low redshift, it has no disagreement at high redshifts inferred by the paper

 

this is a related paper as to what the posted paper means by METAGALACTIC IONIZING RADIATION FIELD

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9907123v1.pdf

 

the paper is specifically discussing a possible discrepancy in the hydrogen photoionization rate. this line in particular is of note

"background spectrum is strongly modified by absorption and re-emission"

 

the posted paper is stating that there is an unaccountable amount of absorbtion and re-emission essentially that there is a reaction taking place that is not properly accounted for properly it could be the quantity or an unknown process.

 

here is the related QSO absorbtion lines and what it means, note it is the amount of intervening material, not quasars themselves

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~ay216/05/NOTES/Lecture15.pdf

 

. this is a discrepancy at low redshift only. It is also not conclusive enough in the why the discrepancy to draw any conclusions

 

z=6 when the universe is roughly 0.93 billion years old and forward to today which is the time period the paper discusses, its in agreement with the CMB data till that time. You can lock down exactly when z=6 with the light cone calculator in my signature

which gives the value 0.9316 billion years old

 

one of the possibilities is AGN active galactic nucleus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus

 

in other words there could be more of them than we originally thought (also keep in mind this paper is based on its simulations, the simulations could also be in error)(although its discusses the errors in the HMO1 and HM12 but doesn't mention FG09 UVB (different UVB models)

 

here is the charts on page 5

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.7808.pdf

 

this info should help everyone better understand the paper itself

 

edit forgot to add there is also other models other than HM1 and HM12, there is also HM0.5, no UVB,optimally thin UVB,OTUV (optimally thick UVB). In essence the paper is discussing model errors in only 2 models HM1 and HM12, it doesn't discuss the errors in the other IGM models

 

(I'll apologize in advance if this takes all the fun out of all the speculative solutions)

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unless I missed some details I can find no correlation between these papers

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2933v1.pdf (OP paper)

 

papers I posted as a conjecture

 

"Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

and "An unidentified line in X-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy and Perseus galaxy cluster"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119

 

the details between the papers simply do not match up from what I can tell, granted I'm restricted by knowledge and a calculator and scilab (similar to mathlab) so I my have missed something in my home calc's However I doubt that is the case (though it is possible lol)

 

ah well it was a fun try >:D always fun to test your abilities with datasets lol

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.