{"title":"光谱线红移的速度解释与天文数据相符吗","authors":"L. Marosi","doi":"10.4236/IJAA.2017.74021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current progress in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy measurements opens up the possibility of determining Hubble’s constant (H0 = h × 100 km s−1 Mpc−1) from the CMB power spectrum radiation temperature anisotropy. The results show that, besides the Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, much simpler Einstein-de Sitter (EdeS) models without the cosmological constant can fit the data as well, or even better, than the ΛCDM model. Calculations with EdeS models yield unexpectedly low values for Hubble’s constant of h = 0.30 and 0.46, respectively. These values are completely inconsistent with the direct determination of h ~ 0.70 from the redshift (RS) of spectral lines. In the present paper I consider whether the gap between h = 0.3 and h = 0.7 could be explained using conventional physics without introducing further hypotheses, or whether the RS of starlight and the RS of the CMB could stem from different physical origins.","PeriodicalId":434427,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the Velocity Interpretation of the Redshift of Spectral Lines in Accordance with Astronomical Data\",\"authors\":\"L. Marosi\",\"doi\":\"10.4236/IJAA.2017.74021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Current progress in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy measurements opens up the possibility of determining Hubble’s constant (H0 = h × 100 km s−1 Mpc−1) from the CMB power spectrum radiation temperature anisotropy. The results show that, besides the Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, much simpler Einstein-de Sitter (EdeS) models without the cosmological constant can fit the data as well, or even better, than the ΛCDM model. Calculations with EdeS models yield unexpectedly low values for Hubble’s constant of h = 0.30 and 0.46, respectively. These values are completely inconsistent with the direct determination of h ~ 0.70 from the redshift (RS) of spectral lines. In the present paper I consider whether the gap between h = 0.3 and h = 0.7 could be explained using conventional physics without introducing further hypotheses, or whether the RS of starlight and the RS of the CMB could stem from different physical origins.\",\"PeriodicalId\":434427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4236/IJAA.2017.74021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/IJAA.2017.74021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
目前宇宙微波背景(CMB)各向异性测量的进展使得从CMB功率谱辐射温度各向异性中确定哈勃常数(H0 = h × 100 km s−1 Mpc−1)成为可能。结果表明,除了Lambda冷暗物质(ΛCDM)模型外,没有宇宙常数的更简单的爱因斯坦-德西特(EdeS)模型也可以拟合数据,甚至比ΛCDM模型更好。用EdeS模型计算得出的哈勃常数h值出人意料地低,分别为0.30和0.46。这些值与光谱线红移(RS)直接测定的h ~ 0.70值完全不一致。在本文中,我考虑了h = 0.3和h = 0.7之间的差距是否可以用传统物理学来解释,而无需引入进一步的假设,或者星光的RS和CMB的RS是否可能来自不同的物理起源。
Is the Velocity Interpretation of the Redshift of Spectral Lines in Accordance with Astronomical Data
Current progress in cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy measurements opens up the possibility of determining Hubble’s constant (H0 = h × 100 km s−1 Mpc−1) from the CMB power spectrum radiation temperature anisotropy. The results show that, besides the Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, much simpler Einstein-de Sitter (EdeS) models without the cosmological constant can fit the data as well, or even better, than the ΛCDM model. Calculations with EdeS models yield unexpectedly low values for Hubble’s constant of h = 0.30 and 0.46, respectively. These values are completely inconsistent with the direct determination of h ~ 0.70 from the redshift (RS) of spectral lines. In the present paper I consider whether the gap between h = 0.3 and h = 0.7 could be explained using conventional physics without introducing further hypotheses, or whether the RS of starlight and the RS of the CMB could stem from different physical origins.