I wrote this comment on a post by Dr. Stacy McGaugh’s at his Trition Station blog.
In re: <commenter’s> prediction “that the background radiation will eventually resolve to be the light of ever further sources, shifted off the visible spectrum”
This is why the JWST is incredibly exciting to me. As I understand it, the JWST will be capable of observing farther away in time and distance than previous instruments. If it sees what I predict it will see, that will be the end of LCDM in its current form. As before, I think a lot of LCDM will be recoverable, but simply turned inside out and transformed to a hypothesis of galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs (GLIM?) in an ~steady-state cosmology.
Nobel winner Brian Schmidt mentioned in a 2012 lecture that the Hubble deep field images each cover about one 32 millionth of the sky and that each image shows around 5000 galaxies.
That is about 160 billion galaxies near the surface of the observable sphere at a range of ~10B years ago. What is the proportion of galaxies that have jetting SMBH or AGN at any one time? What fraction of the galaxies mini-banging in the even more distant Planck CMB observations would be required to account for the Planck photon observations? And in particular the power spectrum — keeping in mind it is basically the banging process but distributed in locality and time (intermittenet).
Could a professional astrophysicist please explain whether CMB observations are merely consistent with a Big Bang or actual evidence of a Big Bang? Could the CMB observations also be consistent with galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs?
Another follower of Triton Station offered this helpful response.
“Could the CMB observations also be consistent with galaxy local inflationary mini-bangs?”
- If you mean, “Does red-shifted starlight average out to look like the CMB?” Then the answer is no. See here for an old (1997) understandable explanation:
- If you mean, “Do active galactic nuclei spectra look like the CMB?” Then the answer is no, there are broad categories of AGN but generally their spectra all look different and nothing like a black-body. See here for a few old examples:
- Note that adding millions of different random spectra together won’t average to give a perfect black-body.
- Also adding multiple different perfect black-body spectra together doesn’t give you a perfect black-body spectrum in total, it just gives you a smeared out curve.
- The CMB has been measured to be such a perfect fit to a black-body curve that it is a stringent test of predictions from cosmological models.
I have been examining the evidence provided and thinking about what else could be causing the CMB if the commenter is entirely right.
One idea that comes to mind is that all structures have Noether engines that are perfect black bodies. All structures meaning all generation I fermions as well as the bosons. This includes the structured particles that make the spacetime aether. All of these structures redshift, meaning their engines occasionally yield some energy. The implementation of that process is not yet known. What could possibly be issuing the photons that we detect as CMB?
- Could it be low energy spacetime aether, typical of ‘outer space,’ redshifting? I don’t know if those low energy Noether engines have enough energy remaining to generate a CMB photon.
- Do redshifting neutrinos issue CMB photons?
- Do redshifting photons issue CMB photons?
- Are there any portions of the redshift process where a CMB photon could possibly occur?
I don’t yet have an implementation model for the redshift process and whether it could emit the photons we are seeking. Once that is known, then all the photons generated and passing through the observation volume must be considered.
There are other potential root causes that are the more typical collision based reactions. I have no feel for the chance that such processes could generate the CMB photons we seek.
- photon : photon collision
- photon : neutrino collision
- neutrino : neutrino collision
- exotic results of higher energy gen II and gen III decay products.
One of the challenges for NPQG is in determining whether the physicists conclusions are correct, incorrect, or if they provided new insights. It’s time to take a closer look at the evidence provided above.
In other news, traffic to my blog is up about 100x normal. I don’t know why. It could be that I serendipitously wrote something that caused google to highly rank the link to one my posts. Another possibility is that someone is promoting a post of mine. If that is the case and the promoter’s intentions are positive then super and thank you to this anonymous person.
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts