Re: Missing Matter

In message <jMZH7lAio$jDFwah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes 
Yes. But the age of the universe at that density is completely
different. The amount the universe has expanded since is much less, so
current density must be much greater.

Decoupling happens at a TEMPERATURE.

Yes. 

[Nb that post was written several days ago.]

The question is, how big was the universe at that temperature
(equivalently how old was it?).


How big?
Well it could be infinite of course....
Or do you mean what was the density or curvature?

I mean the size of the scale factor, as compared to now. This is sometimes called "the radius of the universe" (prob only in old books) but that only makes sense as a radius in a closed universe. 

Working from the spectrum of the
microwave background, the square law will give a different result
compared the standard model.


Hang on, I'm not sure quite what you are trying to say.

The spectrum of the CMB is that of a black body. I don't think that is
important or interesting as far as you are concerned.

What is important is that when redshifted it remains black body, but at lower temperature. 

The H-He concentration is (IIRC) broadly consistent with the amount of
baryonic matter seen in the universe. I believe this is determined by
the temp-density at a very early stage. I don't think it is very
critical.

It's very critical, particularly when deuterium is taken into consideration. 

The H-He-Li (IIRC) is highly critical of the exact conditions and rate
of expansion. Its the *only* way Li can be made in astrophysical
situations. ISTR the result is NOT well modelled by current (when I read
about it) paleoastronomical processes but is sort of about OK if you
fiddle it a bit.

I think Li is pretty good. But it is near a minimum. D gives the tightest constraint, measured from quasar processes. Otherwise He3 gives a lower bound, and Li gives an upper bound, just below the He3 upper bound. 

Then, because it also happens at a
particular density, determined from the relative occurrence of light
elements, we can work out how this density relates to critical mass.


Yes.

OK, so what you say is using your method roughly:

1) The intergalactic distances are as conventionally accepted. 

Yes.

T

hese are trigonometry.

Or at least based on trig, for near enough stars.

2) The recession is half conventionally accepted. 

Yes

Doppler velocities are halved.

Except expansion isn't really doppler.

3) The age is twice that conventionally accepted.


One should be more precise, because one is dealing with different models. A conventional closed universe with zero cosmological constant would be around 8bill years (not acceptable, due to ages of known processes). I have it as 16bill years (acceptable). The standard model with cosmological constant and accelerating expansion is around 14bill years. Just acceptable, but very red galaxies appear in it a touch early, which they would not in my model.

4) The density is, well you say 4x. However we must remember that this
is density 'taking expansion into account'.

What we have is a known density NOW.

No. Because we can't measure what we can't see. We can only infer from gravitational forces using CDM. But Mond calls that whole approach into questions.

We do have a known density at decoupling. 

=======

So where is the problem?

The problem was that I thought I had a much bigger universe at decoupling. Same density, hence much more matter. Only not a factor of 10, or even 30, but 30,000. Way off. But I have changed my mind. I was 

Of course your co-moving observer 'density' IS different because at any
given time you have a co-moving sphere of only half the radius so your
'density' is in fact 8x that of the conventional.

If I could really get 8x, that would be parfick. I am rereading, in hope. 

--
Best regards

Charles Francis



.

Relevant Pages

  • Quantum Gravity 154.7: Gravity Overtaken by Expansion Above a Certain Radius
    ... similarly of the Universe, ... F_expansion is the Expansion Force for inflation and/or the ... accelerations, but at least for the earliest Universe it expresses an ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Origin of The Universe / S D Rodrian
    ... >> Internet technology is good technology, ... that I have some grievance against quantum theory, ... QED and The Standard Model are impeccably tested/proven facts. ... the universe, it being), from a single/singular principle (of ...
    (sci.math)
  • Physicists question model of the Universe
    ... Physicists question model of the Universe ... The standard model is horribly ugly. ... But physicists are increasingly questioning the model itself. ... cosmic microwave background), the distribution of galaxies and the ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: Questions about the expansion of space
    ... I> universe, and in doing so have been reading about the expansion of ... In the standard model, space is expanding continuously, and is ... Since the expansion of space is occuring everywhere, ... I> measures the maximum distance in any direction we can receive data ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Taking Apart Standard Model or extending it?
    ... >Should the Standard Model be extended or taken apart? ... All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should ... >matter in the universe. ... >that cannot be particles of the Standard Model. ...
    (sci.physics)