CMBR explained in a non expanding universe

 CMBR explained using the model of a non expanding universe

In previous posts on this blog I have offered an alternative explanation to the observed temp and wavelength of the CMBR for a non expanding model of the universe, in that the source of the CMBR isn’t the hot soup of an early Big Bang. But rather the conglomerate output of stars and galaxies at certain great cosmological distances. What causes redshift in a non expanding universeAnd secondly in recent posts on this blog I have outlined how redshift itself in a non expanding model can be modelled by basing it on similar phenomena observed in emission and absorption spectra of atoms. Where the emitted light is redshifted slightly from the absorbed light. Offset between absorption and emission spectra

To test this model describing CMBR in a non expanding universe I have used the following data:

The CMBR peaks at 1.023 mm=1023000nm. 

With a measured temperature of 2.7260±0.0013 K. 

The Suns surface temp is 5778 K

The energy peak of its blackbody spectra is at approximately 500nm. 

And also assuming the following rule of wavelength to energy via Planks energy wavelength inverse relationship. (In that the energy halves with each doubling of the wavelength.)

As I have outlined in recent previous posts on this blog cited above, I have already suggested that blackbody radiation emitted from distant stars/galaxies at and around z=1023 could be the source of the observed CMBR in a non expanding model of the universe.

The following calculations use the above data:

First I test to see if rest frame blackbody radiation from 500nm (solar spectra is used as an example) from these distant Galaxies (at z=1023) could, when redshifted in a non expanding model match to that observed at 1023000nm in the CMBR. 

And the fit is very good.

To stretch the wavelength of emitted blackbody radiation from 500nm rest frame to that observed in CMBR in the microwave region of 1023000 nm I have provided the calculations below:

(Notice that blackbody emission spectrum peaking at 500nm when redshifted to observers on earth from a distance of z=1023 has a wavelength exactly 11 times longer than the initial emission peak of 500nm. Which is 1023000nm in the microwave region.)

Divide 1023000/2=511500

Repeat this 10 more times ( for a total of 11 times) to get approx 500nm

Which is equivelent to the average peak of a rest frame blackbody emmission spectrum of a star.

This gives the relationship between redshift z to distance in a non expanding universe. Which is that in a non expanding universe the CMBR is defined as the rest frame blackbody emission spectrum of star/galaxy sources redshifted over great cosmological distances to the microwave region. Or in other words: the average rest frame peak of the blackbody emission spectrum of 500nm (visible light) from distant galaxies at z=1023 in a non expanding model of the universe will be stretched, via cosmological redshifting, to 1023000 nm (microwave).

The interesting thing is that this also gives a close match to the observed temperature 2.72K of the CMBR using the inverse relationship between wavelength and energy of light. In that when the temperature of the emitted rest frame radiation from distant galaxies ( using 5770 K, the proxy spectra of the Sun as an example) is redshifted to us on earth by z= 1023 it becomes 2.81 K. 

That is 5770k is divided by 2 (11 times). This uses the same method as when calculating the stretch of wavelengths from visible light rest frame emission to microwave.

Indicating that the average stellar spectra at z=1023, and locally, must be approximately 5600 K. Seeing as 5600K redshifted from z=1023 is 2.73 K. ( CMBR being 2.72.6 K)

What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

 What causes redshift in a non expanding universe?

To follow on from previous articles on this blog describing how light and atoms are wave only and how the offset between emission and absorption spectra can be described by waves only, I would like to supply a possible explanation and mechanism for what could cause the redshifting of light in a non expanding universe. This mechanism that occurs between an atom and emr and leads to a redshifting of light between absorbed and emitted light is the same mechanism. But on a much smaller scale when light propagates through a vacuum.

Distributing higher energies received to lower energies transmitted by any point in space of the vacuum.

Offset between absorption and emission spectra

 Offset between absorption and emission spectra

Although atoms are said to emit and absorb emr at only very specific frequencies (ie. Hydrogens Balmer series), observations contradict this. And show that there is an offset between the absorbed and re emitted light. Which seems counter-intuitive, given the assumption that the atoms resonant frequency should respond to and produce the same frequencies of light. Not two slightly different frequencies

To explain this one must realise that the each of atoms resonant frequencies is actually a range of resonant frequencies clustered around a single frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve. And confirmed also in spectra by the observed width of the emission/absorption line. With the peak amplitude of resonant wavelength being at the Center of the spectral line. 

In other words at each resonant frequency of the atom, as illustrated by the width of the observed spectral line of the atom, the atom actually has a range of resonant frequencies clustered around that specific frequency. And described in graph form by a bell curve with the maximum frequency being at the peak of the curve at the Center of the observed spectral line.

Taking this into account one can then explain how the offset between emission and absorption occurs. Because although the frequency range of the atoms resonant frequency is a uniform bell curve above and below the center of that particular resonant frequency. The input and output energies are different on either side of the Center. 

The Higher frequency side of the bell curve will have more input energy than the lower frequency side seeing as higher frequencies have more energy. Thus the absorption spectral line appears to be stronger on the higher frequency side of the curve. And conversely when that same absorbed energy is emitted again by the atom, the lower frequencies appear brighter. Because although a larger part of the input energy to the atom was from the higher side of the frequency bell curve of the atom, the total emitted energy is split equally between both hi and low frequency sides of the resonant frequency bell curve. Resulting in a slightly lower frequency emission line

This assumption is based on the fact that the atoms resonant frequency is centered on a single hypothetical wavelength. When absorbing equal frequencies of energy on either side of the bell curve it becomes obvious the higher frequency side receives more energy and appears brighter in the observed spectra. But when this energy is emitted equally between lower and higher frequencies ...the lower frequency side of the bell curve appears brighter. Thus shifting the emitted spectral line slightly to a longer spectral wavelength. As observed.

Tired Light and cosmological redshift

Some “tired light” theorists have suggested that the reason light redshifts over distance is due, not to expansion, but to light slowing down as it travels from a distant source to an observer on earth. Although I have previously agreed in this blog with the non expanding model of the universe, unfortunately I have to find fault with the suggested cause of the observed Hubble redshift being due to light losing speed over distance.

The problem with a reducing speed of c over distance is that it would result in no observed redshifting of light! Contrary to the misconceptions made by authors in Various published papers. The reason for this is simple. If light waves reduced speed over distance then they would have to be be travelling at a slower speed then any light waves later emitted by the same source. The obvious conclusion of this model is that: Any wavefronts emitted by a source would always be slowly “catching up” with those wavefronts already emitted by the source at an earlier time. And the distance between successive wavefronts emitted would always have to decrease to accommodate the different speeds between each successive wavefront.

Taking this into account it becomes clear that even though if the speed of the wave slows, because the distance between wavefronts also diminishes...the observed frequency would still remain the same over any distance. In other words the observed frequency of light would not decay over great cosmological distances in any model where light speed is asssumed to decrease over distance. And as we know this conclusion is ruled out by the observed Hubble redshift 

So my conclusion is that although yes I agree with the non expanding model of a universe, I don’t believe a slowing of light speed over distance can explain the observed decay of frequency over distance as observed in cosmological redshift.

And here is another interesting piece from the historical record quoted below. Looks like in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge. Seeing as Albert had just won the Nobel prize for saying that light does *not* lose energy/frequency over distance!

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html

Redshifting as ‘tired light’ does not lose energy over distance

There seems to be a flaw in the assumption that cosmological redshift of galaxies first observed by Hubble and others in the 1920s cannot be explained by tired light because there is no explanation as to how light ‘loses’ energy over distance. The argument being a “photon” of light at 100nm has more energy than one at 200nm. But this seems to overlook a fundamental point which is that a light beam with a wavelength range of 100-200nm when redshifted to 200-400nm still has the same total energy as the rest frame emitted range. But just spread out across a range double that of the original rest frame emission range.

My question is: A source emits a constant amount of energy as EMR with a range of 100-200 nm. Will the measured total energy of that emission by an observor be the same for the rest frame beam of 100-200nm as it would be for the same beam redshifted to 200-400nm beam during the same observation time frame?

My assumption is that where 100-200 nm gets redshifted to a longer wavelength the energy is *still conserved*. Just spread out across a larger wavelength range. Contrary to and negating the argument used by Big Bang theorists that a tired light non expanding universe would have to explain how light “loses” energy.