Cosmology papers infodump

[LifeIsStrange]

Figured I might dedicated a thread to new papers of non major importance and I'll edit it instead of making new comments in order to not spam this forum too much (since new comments but not edits makes a post go up in the daily list)

So apparently (via the indirect proxy of light isotopes) there is a detection of liquid water 500 millions years earlier than previously thought.
This should allow to rule out many candidate explanations for the extreme problem of the faint young the paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
Candidates are:

1. The expanding earth hypothesis (including the decompressing variant)
2. The idea that the sun size is static or cyclic.( consistent with a universe that recycle matter, more precisely that recycle the lost energy of the tired light, e.g via neutrinos ) this explanation however is difficult to conciliate with the diversity of stars and the main sequence. (I still believe the universe is in equilibrium but this probably involve destructive and creative cycles of stars formation at a constant or self stabilizing cosmic rate)
3. the Gaia hypothesis or sylurian. (not very credible)
4. the idea that contrary to the standard model, the universe expansion apply also to gravitationally bound objects aka the distance between de sun and earth was much shorter.
5. effects via modified theory of gravity or modified inertia.
6. greenhouse gases theories (mostly ruled out)
7. orbit change via foreign object interaction (e.g a foreign star or nebulae)

Imo the gravitationally decompressing earth or expansion via serpentinization is the most likely explanation and the static or cyclic sun size comes in second place, local expansion in third. As for modified gravity or inertia I have no idea.

https://www.curtin.edu.au/news/media-release/fresh-findings-earliest-evidence-of-life-bringing-fresh-water-on-earth/

[LifeIsStrange]

@ExpEarth pinging you because you have studied expanding earth

[Francois-Zinserling]

May I add some speculation?

On the sun_paradox page there is a link to the 'Hadean' earth.
Hadean

During formation earth would have been hot and lava-like. The proposal is put forth that it cannot contain hydrogen, so no water can form (too hot and still too low gravity), but what if it could?

This idea came to me when I was studying an online 'Introduction to Astronomy' course many years ago with Prof. Ronen Plesser. ... here goes ...

Known science first:
During the settling of the solar system, dust gravitates toward the sun, slow at first and then faster later as the sun's gravity increases. Once the sun has enough mass, fusion starts, and some of what is still falling in starts getting pushed back by radiation of the sun.
T-Tauri winds

Then, by the time T-Tauri starts from the sun, the lighter gases - read: including lots of Hydrogen - is pushed back from the sun. This will be in the form of a thick shell around the sun, like a dust cloud in a strong wind, being slowly pushed back and the shell at first thickening, then much later gradually depleted until it is cleared, either fallen in to the sun, or collected by planets, or ejected out of the solar system from solar ray collisions.

Speculation:
This T-Tauri shell may also have been the cause of 'faint early sun' more than the reason the earlier paradox article refers to. But that's another point.

Back to earth. During the infall of dust toward the sun, earth would have collected mass including at some point $O_2$, once it had enough gravity to retain it. Even though earth is 'hot', it is no longer a giant fireball, so oxygen remains mostly in gaseous form.

When this T-Tauri shell has been pushed back to the earth's orbital distance, earth will have maybe a few thousand (million?) years of hydrogen rich orbit. Earth will also have cooled off a bit more by now, and also gained some mass to have increased gravity. The T-Tauri shell itself will also have assisted with cooling earth's atmosphere.
Then with the more massive earth, already oxygen rich atmospere, hydrogen rich shell in the earth orbit, and earth with still some hot pockets from original forming, the recipe is complete to add water to earth. Lots of it. It was probably raining for a very very long time. No, not for 40 days, a few million years maybe.

To add to the speculation; Let's say the shell made it to Jupiter and Saturn.
By the rules of planet formation (from infalling dust) far-out planets like Jupiter and Saturn should more likely have been small and rocky, yet there they are large and gaseous .. If the T-Tauri pushed the shell to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, they would have had much longer time in the disk and accumulated a lot more of it. More hydrogen than anything else and since they were cooler for longer, gases were easily retained.
/end of hand-waving speculation

[ExpEarth]

The faint young sun paradox is not one I have studied much. While I am sure the physics of the argument is sound, there is always the possibility of something having been missed. The very creative speculation by @Francois-Zinserling gives a hint of the many possible scenarios that could be in play. Are astrophysicists being a little too over-confident on this one?

Still, supposing the sun really was much fainter when the Earth began, I would go with the expanding Earth explanation (no surprise there!) There are two aspects of this. The Wiki article mentions the recent evidence by Křížek et al that the orbits of planets around the sun and of moons around their planets that I mentioned in a another thread: (https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.05311), (https://doi.org/10.1134%2FS0202289322020086). Vavrycuk also wrote on this. This idea is usually expressed as a local Hubble expansion running parallel with the cosmic expansion. I have argued that it is only the local expansion that is happening, by virtue of the Hubble luminosity. Basically, all objects are emitting energy in relation to their gravitational potential energy, U. This energy causes repulsive forces within systems, leading to a local expansion. On the cosmic scale, however, this force perfectly balances with gravity and so there is no cosmic expansion.

The second aspect relates to the direct heating effect of the Hubble luminosity on the primitive Earth. The Earth would be smaller then and so the heating effect would be relatively greater than today. On this topic, you may have seen all the recent evidence for planets and moons having more internal heat than can be explained. Saturn recently came up again: https://phys.org/news/2024-06-scientists-massive-energy-imbalance-saturn.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter.

Note added: This is a complex topic and I just scratched the surface of it. If the Earth was originally only 2/3 the size of present, then the surface area would only have been 4/9 of present, less than half. The atmosphere would thus have been doubled in thickness, other factors being the same. The surface gravity would also have been more than double. This means that this thicker Earth's atmosphere would have been held twice as strongly. The greenhouse effects would have been enhanced.

Here is an interesting paper by Kragh on the early days of the static universe and how it connected up with the expanding Earth model:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.08040

[ExpEarth]

Sure. The 'Hubble luminosity' term was perhaps not wisely chosen, as it leads to Google search results like you found. Other names are welcome.

It is the simplest thing you can imagine. Just take a body's internal gravitational potential energy (eg, for the Earth, U = - 0.6 GM^2/R) and multiply that by the Hubble constant, or L = -UH . This simple relationship can explain the luminosities of diverse classes of objects, as can be seen in the graph a few posts earlier. It does not explain stellar luminosities well, as fusion processes release much more energy. It only works well when other sources and sinks of internal heating (fusion, tidal, radioactivity) are negligible. For the Earth, I have suggested that a lot of this energy goes into tectonic processes rather than emitted radiation. On the cosmic scale, I link a reverse process of energy absorption to the Hubble redshift and gravity

[mikehelland]

If you were to replace H with any other value, say 1 inverse second, wouldn't a similar line appear, just with a different slope?

[ExpEarth]

You would change the value for the Hubble luminosity that way, but it would no longer be equal to the bolometric luminosity of these objects. The point of the graph is to show they are within an order of magnitude of each other over a huge rate of values.

[HanDeBruijn]

We shall continue our calculations the way we did for the Hubble Luminosity of the Earth. But our goal is a lot more ambitious now: to calculate for the whole Observable universe. All according to (our version of) the Variable Mass Theory (VMT) of course.
Previous calculations can be summarized as $U_G + U_{CMB} = 0$, with the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the radiation energy density of the CMB.

$$ U_G = - \frac{G M_O^2}{2R_O}.W.\mbox{VMT} .e^{-W}\quad ; \quad U_{CMB} = 4\pi.wW \left(\frac{c}{H}\right)^3 \frac{4\sigma}{c}\Theta^4 $$

Mass and radius of the Observable universe are given by

$$ M_O = \frac{W}{2}\frac{c^3}{G.H} \quad \mbox{;} \quad R_O = W\frac{c}{H} $$

Gravitational constant $G$, lightspeed $c$, Hubble parameter $H$ are recognized. Other constants ( w , W , VMT ) are purely mathematical.

Another approach - the one employed by @ExpEarth, albeit with a @HanDeBruijn twist - is different from what I've done so far and can be summarized as $\mbox{ } 4\pi R_O^2.\sigma\Theta^4 + U_G.e^{-W}.H = 0$ . In words: [ CMB power times area + Hubble luminosity of redshifted gravitational self-energy = 0 ] at the rim of the observable universe. A calculation shall further clarify the meaning of the maths.

W := 3.383634283; # pure math
w := (2-exp(-W)*(W^2+2*W+2))/W; # LATER
G := 6.67408*10^(-11);
Mpc := 3.08567758*10^22;
H := 70.5; # Mike Helland value
H := H*1000/Mpc;
c := 299792458;
VMT := int(exp(-x)/x^2,x=W..infinity);
M_O := W/2*c^3/(G*H);
R_O := W*c/H;
U_G := G*M_O^2/(2*R_O)*W*VMT; # self-energy
U_G := U_G*exp(-W)*H; # times redshift and Hubble Luminosity
sigma := 5.670374419*10^(-8);
Theta := evalf((U_G/(4*Pi*R_O^2*sigma))^(1/4));

         Theta := 2.230197141

This outcome is close to the one with radiation energy density, as previously calculated.
It is possible to establish a simple pure mathematical connection between the two models:

$$ \frac{\Theta_{Han}}{\Theta_{Matt}} = \left(\frac{W}{4w}\right)^{1/4} \approx 1.214821788 $$

[ExpEarth]

This will look like Greek to most of ACG, Han. I will try to discuss within the confines of my model. I don't see your model clearly enough (remember, I am not mathematical like you. I prefer words!)

I also use both methods to determine the CMB temperature in my model (see section 4 of my preprint in discussion #204 ). Here is how I would express things simply in my model. The observable universe arose as a black hole-like structure. During the formation process, the gravitational energy released with the infalling matter got trapped inside the exterior 'shell'. (I have since modified my model to have a much thicker shell). When you do this and assume the energy ends up as CMB radiation, you get a CMB temperature of 27 K. Now this CMB radiation is constantly being redshifted and regenerated. The CMB redshift causes gravity. The rate of energy loss is u x H . CMB regeneration comes from the Hubble luminosity, -U x H . Since u is about equal to -U , as you say, with our above assumption the two rates are equal. With the Hubble luminosity coming mostly from the outer shell, the temperature of the shell is a bit higher, at 29 K. My model thus predicts 29 K as a maximum CMB temperature. I think you assume like everyone else here that the CMB is constant at 2.7 K. How you got the numbers to square with 2.7 K is not clear to me. I would need to understand your model better.

[LifeIsStrange]

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.06280
First DESI milky way release which is slightly larger than the state of the art H3 study that is key to understand wether the Milky Way rotation curve is flat or not.
Sadly they only release the early data release that is ten time smaller than the dataset they already have collected but keep proprietary..

[mikehelland]

Your link is to a "value-added catalog". It takes time to produce those. I don't think the DESI team is hiding anything, just taking their time to produce the extra data required for a comparable data set. Hopefully we get something like SDSS's quasar catalogs from DESI. They don't simply fall out of the raw data though. It takes some effort.

[LifeIsStrange]

I disagree, it takes time to produce a paper and analysises but the times it takes is roughly independent of the sample size of the dataset, otherwise if it has taken them 1 year to produce this paper and that their next one contains tens as much data will it take them ten years?
No they have not manually inspected their 400000 stellar spectras.
My conjecture is that the team behind what is one of the most important DESI survey (the only milky way DESI survey) is not a member of the official DESI consortium for inept bureaucratic reasons.
A tentative indication of this, is that their paper is not affiliated with the official DESI arxiv account
https://arxiv.org/search/astro-ph?searchtype=author&query=DESI+Collaboration
The consequence of this conjecture is that we would otherwise be already able to rule out either MOND or DM with near certainty.

[mikehelland]

With all due respect, I think you're looking at the project as more of monolith than what it is in reality.

The "I" in DESI stands for instrument. The DESI team works on the instrument.

What you think is important (Milky Way Survey) is not what I think is important (quasar survey).

The people that work on the instrument should be focused on making the instrument and the data that comes directly out of it.

Other teams take that data and compliment them with more analysis (which are often model dependent), and we get these value added catalogs. It's kind of like blaming the Linux kernel developers for not updating the icons on the desktop. It's not really how that works.

Personally, I wouldn't want model dependent analysis at the "kernel" level.

[LifeIsStrange]

partial evidence for matter regeneration https://phys.org/news/2024-07-discovery-early-universe.html
stars gain vertical orbit with age
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad61e8
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ad596e

https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.45.7729
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-05529-w
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360992789_Can_a_Michelson-Morley_Experiment_Designed_with_Current_Solar_Velocity_Distinguish_between_Non-Relativistic_and_Relativistic_Theories

nice citations cf emitter theory
https://www.scilit.net/publications/cited-by-search/7266377?qa=%5B%7B%22id%22%3A%22common%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%2C%7B%22id%22%3A%22cited_id%22%2C%22value%22%3A%5B%227266377%22%5D%2C%22operator%22%3A%22AND%22%7D%5D&sort=newest&facet=%7B%22no-filters%22%3A%5B%22true%22%5D%7D
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14820
variable speed of light ???????????????????????????????????
https://journals.jps.jp/doi/10.7566/JPSCP.1.014019
https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08043
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300147117_Measurement_of_the_speed_of_light_from_extraterrestrial_sources
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275320370_Is_the_Speed_of_Light_Independent_of_the_Velocity_of_the_Source?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHVibGljYXRpb24iLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ
https://www.scilit.net/publications/0018dc256b384aca1e3c8e60eda4352b
https://www.scilit.net/publications/61d4beb37814da6fccc0d12733a030b5
NEW EMITTER THEORY!!!
https://www.scilit.net/publications/034c9268b99696a4d048c64b777e2b80

https://www.scilit.net/publications/5f8ac434b957e101209444af5219e385
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-new-paradox-and-the-reconciliation-of-Lorentz-and-Guo/d3366e23364a875346390fd56da3488bae37957b
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-circular-twin-paradox-Cranor-Heider/cd9d5e063fd870fc613b32f836a16540c22caa05
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/547d8e81cc02d0c132966c6420bc5c80d8c04dca
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f9280849f96d4b474fef6405410c0e07800efd2b
https://web.archive.org/web/20120902083928/https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/RitzEinstein.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07824-z
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41607781

Little red dots found unlikely to be quasars:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18208

Previous lense thirring tests have fake empirical constraints hence the necessity of GINGER
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370380205_Limitations_in_Testing_the_Lense-Thirring_Effect_with_LAGEOS_and_the_Newly_Launched_Geodetic_Satellite_LARES_2
https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-77950342083&src=s&imp=t&sid=3ba40602c8996427053c33daeb7fae39&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=fa96a49f7066552ef6e7e539c1858eee

anomalous moon gravity? allais?
https://phys.org/news/2024-09-lunar-gravity-hint-partially-molten.html
kuiper belt https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/solar-system/a62325415/second-kuiper-belt/

Nice competitor for next gen black hole imaging
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12917

key paper about dust https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00619
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00495
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00091
gaia https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00088
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00654

particle physics https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19421

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=14144
https://phys.org/news/2024-11-black-hole-early-universe-consuming.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-11-future-space-telescopes-thin-membranes.html

the CSST will not enable the
high resolution studies like those illustrated in Fig. 3–7 here for the fainter and smallest galaxie

First time I see this crucial argument for the need of a dedicated point source UVOIR
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.01187

mock gravity
https://preprints.opticaopen.org/articles/preprint/Light_induced_Mock_Gravity_at_the_nanoscale/24671673/1?file=43355184

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989ApJ...346....3W/abstract

google corpuscules theory of light
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411110

photoelectric effect
also wiki aberattion page astronomy shows partial aether drag evidence.moreover gaia aberattion measurement as new probe for mond

til https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_helicity
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA%26A..52....1F/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...394....7S/abstract

critiques but intriguing https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Astronomical-evidence-concerning-non-gravitational-Newton/667f874b2db3b65dc8f4335780ace8974b41382c
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Observational-Evidences-of-the-Cosmological-of-Time-Taganov/0c84d5d4149ccdc3c4d15237a0e10d8c5bddb718

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42076537
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06945
also the zigzag lens
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53363-6

https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04935
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42220155

[AngelBlanco19]

@LifeIsStrange
With deep sadness I can confirm that the only "hypothesis" that has NOT been taken into account is the Absolute Truth, established, demonstrated and recognized about 2518 years ago or so. Matter must necessarily be infinite and eternal, because any other variant inevitably leads us to necessarily postulate the existence of non-existence, which is a logical aberration that does not even deserve to be taken into account.
Indeed, the Earth, the Moon, just like the Sun and their respective finite, determined and countable Gravitational Fields, intrinsically infinite each and every one, like every celestial body with Gravity and its respective Gravitational Field, EXPANDS AND GROWS. And it will do so up to the finite, determined and countable strict limit established by the Matter.
Our observable Universe, also finite, determinate and countable, grows and expands constantly and eternally, being as it is intrinsically infinite, so the theoretical limit of its radius, depending on the direction of said measurement, will remain Constant and will depend only on the antiquity of the celestial bodies with Gravity and therefore of dimensions of their respective Gravitational Fields in said direction. It will change only the names of new celestial bodies and those that go beyond this theoretical limit of the radius of our observable Universe.
Therefore, each Observer in the Universe, intrinsically infinite, will have his own and unique, exclusive, observable Universe, of finite, determined and countable dimensions, even the direction of measurement, and therefore the maximum antiquity in the "confines" of it. Therefore, every observable Universe is an infinitesimal part of the infinite Universe.
When the light emitted by a certain celestial body before passing the theoretical limit of our observable Universe and that has already passed said theoretical limit is exhausted, we will never receive information or light from said celestial body. However, as long as this light does not run out (the last emitted one does not finish reaching a certain observer), we will continue to perceive a light from a celestial body that is already outside the limits of our observable Universe, which gives rise to the so-called microwave background "radiation”.
https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/253
https://github.com/orgs/a-cosmology-group/discussions/252