The energy of a photon is E=hf. If Plancks constant changes with time, as the photon travels from a distant star to earth, then a redshift would result from conservation of energy.

This is described in www.gravity.uk.com/cosmological_model.html , where the 'expansion' of the universe, predicted by Einsteins equations, is reinterpreted as a 'rescaling' . In the rescaling, all physical constants rescale, according to their length dimensions, in such a way that the individual variation of each constant is not detectable.

John Hunter.

Pretty convenient, don't ya think?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

If it's not detectable, why should we complicate things with a bunch of extraneous stuff that isn't necessary to model what we see?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Large scale changes in the universe are too gradual to be detected by any presently available means. A static universe is the only model we see but a static universe hardly seems possible. Any dynamic model involves involves speculation about the extraneous un-necessary stuff that we can't see. We may speculate about an expanding universe but we can't see the universe expand so we speculate about redshifts or changes in Planck's h, or Newton's G, or Einstein's c, etc. Anything other than a static model is pure speculation.

How gradually are they changing? I have a problem with those kind of general statements without actually quantifying it, it seems too convienient. There should be, at least, some kind of quantatative estimate.

Why?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

The Hubble constant is the measured rate of change and a non-zero Hubble constant indicates a dynamic, non-static universe.

Dear TravisM, Tensor and Angstrom,

Feynman also said something like "If a theory is simple, and not obviously wrong, it is usually correct".

If the rescaling isn't detectable, it cannot easily be shown not to be happening A change which is undetectable could be called a symmetry, and as such this undetectable rescaling should be reflected in the laws of physics.

The model is for a rescaling universe, with dynamical motion 'on top' of the rescaling (i.e. extra to). A dynamical equilibrium can be obtained by 'G' reducing for dense matter causing explosions. This is the topic of another thread in the ATM section, but is predicted by the rescaling principle, straight from the conservation of energy too.

All the best,

John Hunter.

P.S The model dosn't complicate things in the long run, its actually conceptually very simple, and if it can help with any problems that cosmology faces today, it may be worth it.

If you have a time dependent h, then you also have a time dependent fine structure constant, alpha, unless you have other parameters changing such as to exactly balance the change in h.

People have been looking for a temporal variation in alpha for a long time, and though there may be a hint that it was slightly different in the long and distant past, it isn't sufficient to explain the redshifts without all of the other coincidences that I mentioned above.

Hi,

Einstein’s equations did not “predict” an expanding universe. They predicted a static universe.

Newton’s equations predicted either an expanding or contracting universe, or a static universe only if the universe were infinite in size.

Einstein thought the universe was not infinite in size and was neither expanding nor contracting, so he invented a hypothetical “hypersphere” universe based on 19th Century four-dimension space theories of Riemann, Beltrami, Cayley and several other 4-D space promoters. See Beltrami’s "Teoria Fondamentale Degli Spazii di Curvatura Costante" from 1868.

So, if the energy of everything changes exponentially, i.e., from your website, E = E₀e^2Ht, then will not the quantized energy levels in atoms & molecules be a function of their distance away from us? Because the energy dependence is exponential, the energy difference between states will not be constant, but will also appear to us to be a function of the distance from us (a function of redshift). And that is something we would readily see, but don't. So, where am I wrong here?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Hum,
This is clearly wrong.

If it were correct, then the simple act of finding a star or galaxy that shines at the edge of the cosmos would disprove it.

See hubble deep space picture...

That's exactly right, and these energy levels are generally non-trivial functions of h and alpha, to the extent that a change on alpha leads to spectral lines crossing over. (There was a nice article in Scientific American a few months ago.)

Hum,
Correct me if I'm wrong,
But, a change in alpha would mean that nuclear process in stars would not occur?
(ie. at the same rate as today - a small change either way, would mean that stars burn out too quickly or not shine at all.)

Quite probably. I'm pretty sure there are papers out there on the subject. If nothing else, nucleosynthesis would go awry if nuclear energy levels changed. (It was the existence of carbon in the universe that led Fred Hoyle to correctly predict one of energy levels of a carbon nucleus. If the carbon nucleus did not possess this value, then it could not be formed during stellar nucleosynthesis.)

I hope this is not too much of an incursion in John Hunters version of a Scalar Expansion. Many of you know I propose a similar model calling it a Uniform Expansion. I also had to explain the observed spectra from stars and allow a Cosmological Red shift. I offer my resolution to the issue since do not want the work of Hunter casually dismissed since we are basically proposing the same physical model, I just extended the expansion to one additional dimension.

The problem,

If the atom itself expands, then the energy level imparted to a photon when an electron drops from one energy level to another now becomes temporally dependent. For example, if an Atom were reduced to 1/2 its size or diameter, the density of the electromagnetic field around the atom increases four times, assuming that all proportional measures describing the orbital locations of the electrons are similarly reduced. While an electron “falling” from one energy level to another would fall only half as far, the overall effect would be a doubling of the energy imparted to the departing photon. This means that the further stars are observed in the past, the greater the energy imparted to the photon. In the past, Stars, including our sun, would produce photons that we would now consider to be “blue shifted”.

This “blue shifting” is not observed because as the photon travels through an expanding spacetime field, energy is drained from the traveling photon, which is a physical process predicted by general relativity. As it turns out the “extra” energy a photon starts off with is exactly removed by the photon traveling through an expanding spacetime field. The net result is that everything is a wash. No blue shift. However, now there is another problem, there is no cosmological red shift either.

My solution, a new explanation for the Cosmological Red shift

To explain the Cosmological Red shift I decided to extend the basic physical process of expansion to one additional dimension. Just as we can imagine a Flatland universe moving in an unobserved dimension, similarly we can imagine our spacetime moving in an unobserved dimension. Since it is desired and appealing to have all the physical processes conform to the same basic set of “rules” I decided that the velocity along the unobserved dimension is the result of expansion along an unobserved dimension that is described by the same set of geometric rules describing the expansion of space time. (The volume of absolute space varies to the square of the absolute time elapsed). The expansion of spacetime draws of energy, similar to how kinetic energy is “drawn” off from atoms and molecules in a balloon which has the balloon’s surface tension reduced. This means that in the past the velocity of spacetime was greater. The greater the velocity along the unobserved dimension, the longer the imparted wavelength. Since the velocity of spacetime was greater in the past than the present, the further in the past the star is observed, the longer the wavelength of the spectra.

The Unifying Conjecture
I also decided to make the velocity along this unobserved dimension directly and geometrically tied to the speed of light. If Va = velocity along unobserved dimension = square root of 2 times the speed of light, then the Kinetic Energy of a “rest mass” moving along the unobserved dimension would be KE = 1/2 M Va^2 = Mcc. The result is a very simple derivation and explaination of what Einstein called the "intrinsic energy of a rest mass".

I call this assumption the “unifying conjecture”. This conjecture also resulted in the ability to transform the formulas using absolute measures of distance and time, (which are fixed, un-alterable measures as “seen by the Eye of God”) to be transformed to the relationships very similar to the relationships established by Hunter and Masreliez using relative measures of time.

John Kulick
AKA Snowflake

In terms of what can be observed, even if only in principle, how do the predictions from ideas such as these differ from those from standard astrophysics and cosmology?

Dear Fortis,

Sorry I couldn't intervene sooner. The discussion seems to be too concerned with a change in alpha. However the rescaling principle dosn't predict a change in alpha, in fact it means that alpha would always be constant (as it has no length dimensions).

The change of each physcial constant is dependent on its length dimensions in this model.

John Hunter.

The redshift can be thought of as being caused by the rescaling.
If I can rewrite your quote.

If the energy of everything changes exponentially, i.e. E = E₀e^2Ht, then the quantized energy levels in atoms & molecules will be a function of their distance away from us. Because the energy dependence is exponential, the energy difference between states will not be constant, but will appear to us to be a function of the distance from us and cause a redshift of light from distant objects, and that is something we do see.

John Hunter.

Dear Nereid,

The main difference, is that the whole theory predicts a reduction in the strength of gravity, for objects with a high mass/radius ratio.
(approaching c^2/G).
This has been the subject of another thread in ATM, and I'll try to answer the questions on that thread from Nereid soon.

But real consequences from this reduction of 'G' would be the 're-explosion' of collapsing objects e.g. superclusters.

John Hunter.

I thought this comment was regarding :
The expansion of spacetime draws of energy,
I don't see any difference between your redshift and mainstreams "cosmological" redshift.
Are you saying, the (expansion of) Universe is deccelarating?
This is your conclusion, are your sure in your logic?
How would you accomodate your model, Snowflake, if it turns out to be true that Universe is expanding at even accelerating rate?

Hi Svemir

I am stepping on John Hunter’s thread by talking about my work, so in an effort to not be ruder than I already have been, I will stop. I only wanted to respond to the topic of red shift as a property of a uniform or scalar expansion.

I will address your comments and questions in a separate thread.

Thank you for your interest in our work.

Snowflake

The more people that are interested in this type of model, the better.

However, in the rescaling model originally proposed, www.gravity.uk.com/cosmological_model.html the problem above disappears. I agree that at first sight, (since atoms were smaller in the past), then it seems that a blueshift might result. But in this model all physical constants rescale including e^2/(4*PI*epsilon), so the energy emitted by an atom in the past, by an electron dropping energy levels, is less in the past.

In fact the quickest way to get the result is just to look at the length dimensions of energy, which are m^2. So all energies vary as E=Eexp(2HT), and the energy emitted by an atom in the past would be less.

On the intervening journey of the photon from a star to earth, the earth 'rescales' and when the photon arrives Plancks constant is larger. If the assume the energy of the photon has not changed (no time passes for the photon), then from E=hf, the photon would be redshifted.

All the best,

John Hunter.