Re:Universe May Contain “Tardis” Regions Bigger On The Insid...
by yk on Monday September 09, 2013 @01:23PM
(#6354756)
We measure spectra. So there would be no way to measure the redshift of a single wavelength, e.g. a laser, but since we have the full spectra, we can measure the relative position of spectral features and the wavelength of these features to compare them with laboratory measurements.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Universe May Contain “Tardis” Regions Bigger On The Insid...
by pdonis on Monday September 09, 2013 @01:46PM
(#6354929)
we can measure the relative position of spectral features
That will only tell us about redshift/blueshift; it won't tell us anything about what path the light took to get to us.
Re:Universe May Contain “Tardis” Regions Bigger On The Insid...
by yk on Monday September 09, 2013 @11:18PM
(#6357955)
Yes, but that is a rather general problem. Best you can do is to look at the so called Lyman-alpha forest, which gives you essentially the mass distribution along the path. And this gives you a good estimate for the deflection.
Re:Universe May Contain “Tardis” Regions Bigger On The Insid...
by pdonis on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @12:16AM
(#6358138)
The mass distribution isn't necessarily a good proxy for the deflection. Lyman alpha lines are from absorption by hydrogen gas clouds; the average effect of those on the path of light is likely to be close to zero, because the clouds are diffuse and more or less homogeneous (i.e., their average density on large length scales is pretty much the same everywhere). The "Tardis region" model requires large deflections of light at the boundaries between the "Tardis" regions and regions of normal density, which will not average out since there aren't enough such boundaries between us and the distant supernovas that are our main line of evidence for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Re:Universe May Contain “Tardis” Regions Bigger On The Insid...
by yk on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @01:26AM
(#6358339)
I did not read the tardis paper, but the mass distribution gives you at least a upper limit, in the sense that if there is not much mass in one direction, then there is also not much deflection. At least in more or less normal models.