I thought that title might get your attention. What do the experts think of this piece of creationist trite? It appears that not even CRSQ would even publish it. Which is, of course, saying a lot.

"[C]osmological expansion on the atom" suggests to me that either a bizaire hypothesis was being cited or it is a misuse of a citation since anyone who has read anything about the Big Bang should know that atoms are not exanding but that space is. I suspect that "selective" might be the most generous thing that can be said about it, but I will allow the astronomers here but in their two cents worth.

That guy simply applies the idea of space expansion to all space available, including that inside the atoms. That's quite a logical approach, btw. Old light would appear blueshifted then. So the original idea needs ad hoc patching. But that's the ugly nature of the entire BB-theory...

We discussed this "paper" before here.

But don't worry, because we didn't address the point you brought up. I'm looking forward to hearing what the knowledgeable types can say about this. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

It isn't reasonable to apply the expansion to the atomic level, and no "ad-hoc patching" is required. As mentioned in the thread I just posted, the strong and weak forces inside the atom are many, many times stronger than the force of expansion at that level. This alone is sufficient to hold atomic structure together against the expansion of space.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

That "explanation" is utter rubbish. Atomic energy is EM in nature, and nuclear forces have nothing to do with that. Furthermore, creation of new vacuum "outside the matter fields" requires energies far greater than whatever's there in average matter density. So, essentially, all the "explanations" employing references to "forces" are of uniformly junk quality.

Rubbish? It seems like quite a reasonable explanation to me. We know the strength of the strong and weak forces to a high degree of certainty. We can estimate the Hubble expansion, if not to a great degree, at least to within a reasonable range. It then becomes a simple matter of subtracting one from the other and seeing just what the net force on the atom is. I'd bet that even if we were off on the Hubble measurement by a factor of 100 or more, we'd still see the nuclear forces come out on top.

As for the rest, what does it matter what the nature of the force is, as long as it holds the atom together against the expansion? And what is this about needing energy to create new vacuum? Vacuum is vacuum. Expanding space doesn't need the creation of something, since it isn't anything in the first place. If anything, I'd think there would be a loss of energy due to entropy. Are you perhaps referring to the "zero point energy" that's been hypothesised to exist? If that's the case, then what's keeping this ZPE from simply expanding to fill the new space created? Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding your post here?

This is about as far as I can go with this discussion. I tend to stay out of cosmology debates because I know I don't have the required expertise. I'm just an interested layman. But this just seems to me to be too clear-cut. I'll leave it to the physics experts to counter this more expertly.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Strong and weak forces have almost nothing to do with the atomic structure. Atoms are built elecromagnetically.The force itself is affected since the its medium is affected.In that case, the "density of vacuum" must be changing divergently between the local and "free" vacuum. In the "rarefied" vacuum, the speed of light would be higher, and rarefication wouldn't be noticeable.

They very well take part in atomic formation, unless you don't consider the nucleus a part of the atomic structure. I guess you mean the interaction of nucleus and electrons, but then say it that way. At this point, are you talking about a Dirac vacuum or some ether with magical properties? Unless you want to introduce such a medium, your argument is nonsensical.

I will say the way I choose as correct. And don't you tell me you haven't understood my point.Nonsensical is inflatable space without creation of new quantum vacuum. Nonsensical are the speculations based upon nonsensical assumptions, you better track that nonsense to its source. Creation of new quantum vacuum requires oodles of energy. Having "spacetime" apart from vacuum requires magic or acts of god or a blur of nonsense in oneself's mind - you choose.

Perhaps I haven't understood your point. Are you saying that you don't believe in the strong and weak forces?

On 2002-10-13 08:31, AgoraBasta wrote:
[quote]On 2002-10-13 06:59, David Hall wrote:

2-10-13 8:08 A.M. PDT
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...#20020929.7:25

{another link later}

I already said i was an ETR while onboard 7
not a Left handed ERT whatever those are

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-13 11:32 ]</font>

Now that is (in your words) utter rubbish.

EM forces determine the interaction between the nucleus and the electrons of the atom.

Atomic energy is the result of the weak (beta decay) and strong (fission and fusion) nuclear forces.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I am saying that strong and weak forces have nothing to do with energy states of electronic orbitals (discounting instances of magnetic resonances).That's "atomic energy" in the tabloid sense. Normal people call it "nuclear energy" when talking to laymen.

Well, you seem to be getting it.. almost, I should say. The speed of light does not get higher, its frequency goes down. Which leads us to your beloved redshift Agora [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

To get freq down and speed constant you need more vacuum at constant density along the path. Otherwise - speed goes up as permittivity/permeability of the medium go down with density. (It's back to school for you...)

And I might add that the EM forces too are far stronger than the expansion of the universe.

What exactly is your problem with that?

Maybe this is true in Russia, but in most of the world, "atomic energy" and "nuclear energy" are synonymous. The bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII are called "atomic bombs" not "nuclear bombs".
The EM forces between the nucleus and the electrons are responsible for chemical energy.

_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-10-13 14:16 ]</font>

I have explained my point in my earlier posts. Sorry, I kinda presumed you read them before replying, stupid me!
Anyway, here goes again - that would be a huge inflow of energy, and why should that inflow be so selective - it escapes me completely.

Agora brings up the interesting point that if the Hubble Expansion really were occurring for all reference frames cosmology would be in a bit of a pickle. The point of the matter is it only occurs on the cosmological scale.

This is actually a very deep statement. It says that the expansion of the universe, while being a seemingly intrinsic property, is actually an extrinsic a priori condition. In otherwords, the expansion is "fixed" (by the Hubble Parameter) and the rest of physics works itself AROUND it in the local frame which does not experience any Hubble Flow! This is a rather bizarre view of the universe but is totally consistent with present observations.

It is true that space is what is expanding, but it's not as simple as that. When we talk about space "expanding" we need to talk about what "kind" of space we're looking at. The "kind" of space we're looking at is space on the scales of megaparsecs. Below that scale the Hubble Flow is inconsequential compared to other energies.

That's exactly what seems inconsistent to me. If ALL the physics builds around "the expansion", then the travelling photons are the part of the same physics and must be just as unaffected by that. The rest must be magic...
See, there are features populated with matter at every size scale in our universe - so if only the "cosmological" distances are affected then smaller parts of those distances are affected as well within those features all the way down in size.

[edit in]
Forgot to mention one exotic possibility - distances, the way we know them, may turn out non-additive on larger scale...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-13 16:52 ]</font>

But expansion is <u>not</u> the same for all reference frames, including ours. All global observations of the BB radiation spectrum have observed a dipole component, which indicates that we are moving "relative" to the expansion of the universe. I don't know if the effects of this dipole are put into the calculations for determining cosmological distances, but it should. I can't remember the value of the calculated velocity, but I think it comes out to .01-.05 c