# Thread: Type 1a Supernovas and the Deceleration of the Universe

1. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943

## Type 1a Supernovas and the Deceleration of the Universe

Type 1a Supernovas and the Deceleration of the Universe

If the Uniform Expansion Theory is used to model the expansion of the Universe, then the rate that the universe is expanding is found to be decelerating at a predicted geometric rate that is “flat”. No dark energy or cosmological constant is needed in order for the observed expansion rate to conform to theory.

The “ acceleration of space”
The current “mainstream” description of the expansion of spacetime is that it is “accelerating”. This is based upon the observation that distant type 1a supernovas are dimmer than expected.

Dimmer “than expected” is model dependant
It was anticipated by physicists that the expansion of the universe would be decelerative at a specific geometric rate. (I believe it was Lemaître that made the first application of general relativity to describe the expected expansion of the universe). If the expansion were determined solely on the amount of matter in the universe and the effect of gravity, than initially the expansion rate of the universe would have to be very fast to avoid the universe from collapsing back in on itself, and over time, at a very specific geometric rate, the expansion would slow down due to the effect of gravity.

Flat or Balanced Expansion
The simplest rate for the universe to expand corresponds to what is commonly called a “flat” rate of expansion. A universe expanding at such a rate preserves parallel lines, so the geometry is the simplest. It is also a “balanced” universe in that after an infinite amount of time, the expansion of the universe would stop; the universe would be poised exactly between perpetual expansion and collapse.

Observed Expansion non-conformant to model
If one assumes that Type 1a supernovas are constant “standard candles”, then the observed brightness can be correlated to distance measures. If one 1asn were 4 times dimmer than another, it would be assumed that it is twice as far away. This distance determination corresponds to an observed cosmological red shift and if the expansion rate were “flat”, than there should be a specific distance measure correlating to a specific cosmological red shift. The discovery that Type 1a supernovas were dimmer than they should be, based upon their expected distance in relationship to the cosmological red shift, it was declared that the universe was “accelerating”.

Dark Energy
In order for the universe to be accelerating, some new energy source is necessary to provide the “acceleration” of every galaxy in the universe. This energy enters our universe from some unknown source, according to some unknown set of rules and is called “Dark Energy”. In order to achieve the proposed acceleration rates, so much energy has to be added to our universe that when the Dark Energy is translated or expressed as mass, it represents the largest mass in the entire universe, more than the total mass of everything that can be seen.

Another possibility
However, if high red shift 1asn’s are inherently dimmer than assumed, then there is no “acceleration” and there would be no need for “dark energy”, provided the predicted luminosity conformed to the expected luminosity at measured or estimated distances, given the current understanding of gravitational interaction between galaxies.

Predictions of theory, why 1asn’s are dimmer
The geometrically defined Uniform Expansion Theory predicts that Type 1a supernovas are dimmer than assumed by the current standard model used to describe the expansion of the Universe. The reason for this prediction is that the effect of mass and effect of gravity was greater in the past. This would mean that it would take less effective mass in the past to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure. This would mean that the supernovas are smaller, and hence dimmer.

Simple geometric model
If the expansion rate is defined by a simple geometric rate, (double the age of the universe and the size of the universe and everything in it increases 4 times), which includes expansion along an “unobserved” dimension (which produces the cosmological red shift, the property of inertia and explains the intrinsic rest energy of a mass as the result of velocity along the unobserved dimension), then the observed distance/brightness verses red shift corresponds to a “flat” or balanced universe.

No Dark Energy and no Cosmological Constant is required.

Observational Conformation

Continued next page due to posting limitations

2. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Observational Conformation
The following figure shows the percent brightness of a type 1a supernovas verses the cosmological red shift. According to the Uniform Expansion Theory the observed brightness should fall between the magenta and blue lines, which is observed.

http://d77591.u25.existhost.com/imag...ed%20shift.JPG

Someone more familiar than I am with the physics of type 1a supernovas could determine the exact proportional location between the two lines.

The green line The flat - limited expansion model
The green line is the deviation of the observed brightness of type 1a supernovas from their expected brightness, assuming the expansion of the universe was “flat”. The equation describing the relationship was empirically determined by looking at the lower relationship of Figure 6, which is the result of work by the High Redshift Supernova Search Supernova Cosmology Project
http://supernova.lbl.gov/
The lower line on Figure 6 is the expected brightness if the expansion were balanced; the upper line represents the best-fit curve that corresponds to the observed brightness and red shift. The empirically based formula closely matches the deviation between the two lines.

The mainstream model assumes that the expansion of spacetime is limited in that the expansion of spacetime stops at the boundary of galaxies, hence the term “limited expansion model”.

Instead of the y-axis representing the variation as a magnitude measure, which is logarithmic expression, the variation is expressed in percent deviation measure. This change allows for easier transformations and it expresses the variation more dramatically for visualization. Logarithmic graphs flatten variances.

The estimated formula used is, 100 *(2.512^((-.44(x-.5)^2 +.11 + .66x)) –1) , The “100” is for percent, the “2.512 ^ “term converts the logarithmic magnitude measures to luminosity measures , the term
“ ((-.44(x-.5)^2 +.11 + .66x)) –1)” is the empirically derived formula that describes the variation between observed brightness and a “flat” universe. The “fit” of the equation is close but not perfect.

(A few comments about a “flat universe” with the observed expansion rate)
(A “flat” or balanced universe would have an age of 2/3 x 1/Ho. Given the observed rate of expansion by 1asns, (73 kilo meters per million parsecs), the age of the universe would be about 8.9 billion years old. )

(This young age presents a problem for the standard model in that many stars will now be older than the universe. However in the uniform expansion theory the evolution of stars would be much quicker in the past due to the increased effect of gravity and the increased effect of mass).

The brown line, Red shift - distance transformation
The brown line is the transformation of the “limited spatial expansion” explanation for the cosmological red shift to the “velocity along the unobserved dimension explanation” for the cosmological red shift. There is also an adjustment for the age of the universe, which in the Uniform Expansion model is 6.32 billion years old. (This is an “absolute” measure of time, it does not describe the amount of time we would locally assume has transpired or “experienced”.)

The equation used is (((6.32(1-(x+1)^-(3))) /(8.9(1 - (x +1)^(-3/2))))^2 . The “6.32” term is the age of the universe based upon the Uniform Expansion Model. It is based upon the “Unifying Conjecture”, which is that the velocity of the universe along the “unseen” dimension is the square root of two times the speed of light. That way the rest energy of a mass becomes kenematically defined, K.E. = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 m (sqrt2 c)^2 = mcc. A very simple derivation and explanation for why E = mcc. , The term “(1-(x+1)^-(3))” is the red shift (x) to brightness -distance relationship in the uniform expansion model. The “8.9” term is the standard limited expansion model’s age of the universe, assuming the universe was balanced, the term “(1 - (x +1)^(-3/2)) is the red shift (x) to distance relationship using the standard limited expansion model. The term “^2” expresses the inverse square relationship of distance measures to observed brightness.

The magenta line - Defining an absolute maximum density - Chandrasekhar’s limiting pressure

The magenta line represents the expected dimming if the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure was “fixed” or an “absolute “ measure. If the light intensity curve closely matches this curve, it means that the expansion of spacetime has a limit at the quantum level of observation.

According to the Uniform Expansion Theory, density is a function of Absolute or Historical Time. If we “run the clock running backwards” in the uniformly expanding model, the density increases and as the age of the universe approaches a value of “0”, the density approaches an infinite value. Is there a limit to this compression? Is there a limit to which the uniform expansion of spacetime stops or changes? Based upon the close fit of the blue line to the brown line in the relationship above, the answer would have to be yes.

One limit as to how much matter can be compressed, was verified by the brilliant physicist Chandrasekhar. His application of quantum mechanical relationships to the explanation of what are called Type 1a supernovas is illuminating. At the core of Chandrasekhar’s work is the application of the Pauli Exclusion Principle which states that no two electrons can have the same quantum number.

What does this mean that “no two electrons can have the same quantum number? Why not? What is often lost in describing quantum relationships is the physical structure underlying the words. The 4 quantum numbers of an electron around an atom are physical relationships, which can be described by a spherical coordinate system, one quantum number is a measure of the distance away, the other quantum number is a measure of the vertical angle, the other quantum number is a measure of the horizontal angle, and the last quantum number an electron can have is “spin” which is a clockwise or counter clockwise rotation. These measures are “discrete” meaning that the transition from one quantum number to another occurs in fixed intervals, although the probabilistic relationship involved with measuring distance and time using these intervals makes the associated physical measures of distance and time appear to be “fuzzy”. The following link gives a good drawing and explanation. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/qunoh.html

Chandrasekhar considered an outlandish idea, what if the “rules” were “broken”. If sufficient pressure were placed on matter, the electrons would be forced into the lowest possible quantum states available and if the pressure was increase even further, the structure defined by the quantum “rules” would collapse. Electrons would fuse to protons producing neutrons and a flood of neutrinos. The shock wave of neutrinos and energy liberated is tremendous, resulting in a supernova.

One aspect of this physical structure at the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure is that the object is incompressible. This “incompressibility” characteristic is in stark contrast to all previous applications of the uniform expansion theory. The structure around the atom can be compressed because the spatial measure of distance between the nucleus and the electron were not defined entirely by quantum relationships but the field like spatial attractions defined by an inverse square law. The same inverse square law associated with spatial field type interactions is found in gravitational relationships. If the Chandrasekhar’s limiting pressure defines an “absolute” maximum density, then a limit to the uniform expansion would be found.

While the spatial expansion would be prevented, the effects of the Uniform Expansion model would still be at work since the velocity along the unobserved dimension also defines the property of inertia or mass. This increase in the effective mass of a star in the past would reduce the size of the “degenerate” star, and by reducing the size, the luminosity is diminished.

The expression describing the distance/brightness - red shift relationship is 100(1 -(1/(x +1) )^(4/3)), The “100” is for a percent relationship and the “(1 -(1/(x +1) )^(4/3))” term is based upon the application of a uniform expansion theory that assumes the expansion stops at the boundary of a fixed size that is determined by the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

The assumption that the core is “solid” or completely “degenerate”, meaning all the electrons are all in the only available quantum defined locations, is a bit extreme. As one progresses from the core, the pressure is reduced and some electrons would be “free” to occupy additional quantum mechanically defined possibilities. This extra freedom for electrons results in spatial freedom, which is going to allow a certain amount of “sponginess’” within the star. The addition of spatial freedom to the relationships in the star would introduce the characteristics associated with the uniform expansion of space.

The blue line
If the expansion extends to the quantum scale of observation, then the structure defined by quantum relationships would have been “compressed” more in the past. If this were so the size of the core necessary to reach the Chandrasekhar limiting pressure would be much smaller since it is still field based relationships conforming to the inverse square law that determine the pressure effects. If this were the case , the blue line and the blue line would be a better fit since they are based upon extending the uniform expansion beyond the quantum scale.

The blue line is the predicted dimming based upon the increased effect of mass and gravity in the past. The
expression of percent dimmer per red shift z is 100(1 -(1/(x +1) )^4 ). This relationship does not include the faster clock rate expected in the past. (If this were included the percent dimmer would be scaled up to an even greater amount).

Somewhere in between
Since the entire core of a carbon white dwarf star is not at the limiting pressure, there will be some spatial distance that is not fixed by quantum mechanical relationships. The extra spatial distance between electrons and the cores of atoms would allow some of the characteristics of the associated with the Uniform Expansion Theory to apply, such as the increase effect of gravity, which depends upon the centroidal distance between the masses. Given this assumption one would anticipate that the “true” expression describing the expected dimness verses red shift to be somewhere in between the two relationships. This is what is exactly observed.

Conclusion
The Uniform Expansion Theory, when applied to Type 1a supernovas, results in a correlation in the observed brightness verses cosmological red shift that corresponds to a “flat” or balanced universe. No Dark Energy is needed.

Snowflake

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,445
The only problem I can see is that current thinking is that a type Ia supernova is a carbon burning flash, not a degeneracy failure.

Also: the quantum numbers are: energy, vertical angular momentum, total angular momentum, and spin.

4. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Thank you Korjik

I hope I do not put you on the spot, but if you are familiar with the physics Type 1a supernovas, do you think you could explain what is the physical cause for beginning the carbon cycle of fusion? I guess I was wrong to think it was the result of crossing of the Pauli Exclusion Principal. If this is so, I am glad you corrected me on this point.

I am a bit out of my element regarding the physics of 1a supernovas. All I could do regarding applying the Uniform Expansion theory to 1a supernovas is look at two cases. One is where the present quantum limit establishes a fixed size that is consistent over time, the other is to allow the same physical relationships to be “scaled down” in the past. Each case would be scaled by the relationships derived from a uniformly expanding spacetime field. The physically correct relationship should be somewhere between the two, which it is graphically shown to be.

Also, thank you for putting more of a physical meaning to the 4 quantum numbers. Your explanation provides an even more concrete verification of the concept that quantum numbers are physical measures and not just some “rule”.

Snowflake.

5. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
Just a quick note
The correlation of the predicted luminosity verses the cosmological red shift is very good, even if it looks like there is variation, the variation is comparatively small since it is expressed in percent and not magnitudes. Also the variation is in the direction one would expect the variation to diverge from the relationships expressed in the model.

Not only is the brightness conforming to a reasonably accurate correlation to the model, the general shape or curvature of the relationship is similar.

There have been discussions in this Forum that there is no model that correlates observed brightness of 1a supernovas to the cosmological red shift. This model does, and it does so with no Dark Energy.

Snowflake

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Sep 2004
Posts
5,445
If I remember right (I dont have my book here) The carbon and oxygen start to fuse just before the chandrasekar limit. the rather extreme temp dependence of carbon burning leads to an immense runaway reaction before the temp actually gets high enough to lift degeneracy and allow the star to cool. By that point, so much energy has been released that the whole star is destroyed (as in no longer gravitationally bound)

To be honest tho, I doubt that it makes any difference to your topic. Either way a type Ia sould still be a pretty standard candle as long as high mass white dwarfs have similar composition.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2003
Posts
943
HI Korjik
Thank you
Snowflake

8. Established Member
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
121
I recall to have read that computer simulations of type I supernova explosions indicated that the intensity of the radiation at such an explosion is not the same in every direction.
If these simulations give a correct description of what happens when a supernova type Ia occurs, the observed brightness of that supernova will be a different one at various locations which lie at the same distance from the supernova, but in various directions from the supernova.

Does any one know a paper on that matter? I read it, but I don´t recall where.

Regards,

Günther

9. Member
Join Date
Jan 2006
Posts
73
Originally Posted by GBendt
I recall to have read that computer simulations of type I supernova explosions indicated that the intensity of the radiation at such an explosion is not the same in every direction.
If these simulations give a correct description of what happens when a supernova type Ia occurs, the observed brightness of that supernova will be a different one at various locations which lie at the same distance from the supernova, but in various directions from the supernova.

Does any one know a paper on that matter? I read it, but I don´t recall where.

Regards,

Günther

Gunther,

Type 1c SNe (hypernovae) apparently beam energy away in a relatively narrow jet. If they were emitting this much energy over the whole sky and not just in a direction toward us, Einstein's E=mc^2 would be violated if that much energy were involved.

I know of no such speculation of jets of energy, or preferred directions of energy emissions from SNe type 1a. To the best of my knowledge, they are thought to be uniform over the whole sky.

buzz

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•