I found on this forum a proposition by Scaramouche (Big Bang ...Big Schmang: Redshift is an Artifact of Distance) which according to my calculations (presented in http://geocities.com/jim_jastrzebski/sci/3270.htm ) is a right proposition for our universe.

I couldn't join the thread since it was closed and so I'm opening a new one under the more appropriate name of "Einstein's universe". According to my calculations existence of such a universe that might look exactly as ours is the result of inability of nature to create energy from nothing. Which unfortunately is against the mainstream but fortunately might be discussed here and hopefully bringing into the discussion people who are supporting the mainstream view (others don't need to apply).

Presently I'm doing my PhD work in Warsaw University, Poland, proposing in it that we live in Einstein's universe, and consequently I need a lot of criticism regarding my work preferably from smart pople. Unfortunately all the cosmologists in my university, despite being extremely smart, maintain that since energy is not conserved they aren't going to discuss the subject with me unless I switch to something more reasonable as e.g. a supprt for the Big Bang.

However I don't believe in creation of energy from nothing and so I can't agree to switching without any good proof that energy can be created. I made a bet with one of the cosmology students who mainains that it can be easily created and he promissed to deliver a proof. So far he didn't. So I count on someone from this forum to deliver such a proof.

-- Jim

Isn't the Casimir Effect an example of something (energy) from nothing (space)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

In physics, the Casimir effect or Casimir-Polder force is a physical force arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small.

Someone needs to define "nothing" before this thread continues....I personally do not consider space to be nothing.

"Nothing" is defined as a part of space that contains no real energy (e.g. niether photons nor real particles).

So, since the real universe contains no examples of 'nothing', per this definition*, does this take this ATM idea from physics into philosophy?

* all those photons and neutrinos, for starters ....

No, since in physics "nothing" is an empty idea we don't need to be concerned with it while talking physics only.

Another parameter that needs to be discussed, are the spatial coordinates for the Planck Length (which is in our dimension), or beneath the Planck Length (outside our dimension) where nothingness (no space and no time) could reside.

This way we might discuss for a month all our illusions instead of physics. And then after a month the thread gets closed by moderators and we don't even get to the main problem, which is whether it is right to give up the principle of conservation of energy that prevents the expansion of the universe. Then we might stay with the illusion of expansion not even knowing whether it is only an illusion or real physics, since we had no time to discuss it.

So my advice is to cut the c... and start discussing the main problem first. The main problem being why do we think that the universe is expanding while it requires only 2.3 times bigger density than (apparently) observed now, to see the expansion as illusion.

As I've already explained in my paper, the explanation of phenomenon of expansion might be the old principle of conservation of energy. And the conservation of energy is built into the Einsteinian gravitation (through the vanishing divergence of stress-energy tensor). So the physics and math might be already there.

When did the astronomers gave up the conservation of energy and was it even discussed by them? I know one mathematical physicists and not even an astronomer, John Baez, who maintains that mathematical physicists discussed it between themselves, and they are sure that energy is not concerved in gravitation but can't discuss it again since it is against the rules to discuss the same subject twice. Well, I didn't see this discussion and I have a suspicion that not only math has to be right but also the physics, and I can't imagine how physics in this case is going to be right.

That's why I'm asking about the physics and if astronomers discussed the issue between themselves as well, please tell me how they came to the conclusion that the energy is not conserved.

Sending me to the literature won't do since I've already know the theory behind the expansion and I don't believe it I'v seen much more c... in it than I care to talk about without being asked about it. So please just ask me about things that indicate the non conservation of energy in gravitation or expansion of the universe (which one comes form another) so I can respond to the questions and I can ask questions as well. In short, I propose to discuss the non conservation of energyagain even if it was alrady discussed and astronomers are convinced that there is no such thing.

I don't se any place except cosmology done by mathematicians (and therefore based on assumptions not on the observations) where the energy is not conserved (e.g. the assumption of globally curved spacetime which has yet to be proved since it is not even observed, but according to Noether theorem prevents energy from being conserved). Despite that conservation of energy is built into gavitation automatically and so the spacetime must be globally flat. Despite that J. A. Wheeler imagines it as "curved" (while only the space is curved) to fit his assumption of exactly zero cosmological constant (which I hope even the astronomers don't take seriously any more).

In my private opinion finding the missing 60% od the universe might be much simpler project than proving the global non conservation of energy so why don't we try the simple things first. We are obliged to do it also by the Occam's principle. Until we can prove that Occam's principle doesn't work in this case.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

The sufficient connection is the symmetry of metric tensor of spacetime. If this metric is symmetric then in a stationary universe the photons have exactly zero redshift. It allows the cosmologists to assume that Hubble redshift is a result of the expansion of the universe (Doppler redshift). It contradicts though the conservation of energy that necessarily causes the dynamical friction of photons and a non vanishing value of redshift also in a stationary universe.

The mainstream cosmologists justify their assumption of non conservation of energy by assuming that it would have a "negligible" effect on redshift of photons in stationary universe. My calculations show that it would produce Hubble constant equal sqrt(4*pi*G*rho), where (G) is Newtonian gravitational constant and (rho) is density of the universe, which for the presently estimated density of the universe 2.6x10^-27kg/m^3 it would produce an illusion of accelerating expansion with Hubble constant H_o=46km/s/Mpc and dH/dt=-H_o^2/2. Surely neither a negligible value.

Furthermore, if the universe happened to be Einstein's (stationary) uiverse its illusion of expansion would have to be with Hubble constant H_o=c/R_E, where c is speed of light and R_E is "Einstein's radius of the universe" which migh have also some aesthetic value which cosmologists value so much in Einstein's gravitation despite that Einstein himself advised to leave the elegance to a tailor.

While I agree the universe may be “stationary”, I’m not of the opinion redshift at the Hubble constant is due to “time dilation”, which may be another way of saying that light redshifts over great distances when adjusted for time. In your referenced Observational evidence for general time dilation and stationary universe, you wrote: However, according to Wikipedia, the Cosmological Constant is not same. Einstein’s Cosmological constant is: Λ = 8π G ρ / 3c2

Labeling light "dilation" as "time dilation" is one way to look at it, but it may not explain it other than recasting the same problem with a new problem. Viz: Why "time dilation" over great distances? Why not "gravitational light dilation" over cosmic distances, for example?

I will read your paper in more detail, since you may have already answered this, but thought to ask it here. Thanks.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

It might be better to ask since I know my paper and may show you the answer if it is there.

Einstein's cosmological constant is a constant in Einstein's equation that might have various values that then determine a particular Friedmann's solution of Einstein's equation. Assuming Λ = 0 produces as a solution a "cycloidal" universe that is expanding from the Big Bang singularity, decelerating all the time, and after reaching maximal radius, it is shrinking back to a singularity. It was a "standard model" before 1998. Between 1998 and 2000 the observations meant to measure the rate of deceleration to prove that cosmology is science and so it is able to predict something, revealed that the observations instead of decelerating expansion as predicted showed accelerating expansion. So Λ got adjusted to (8/3)π G ρ / c^2 according to the new hypothesis about the expansion of the uiverse. The value Λ = 4π G ρ / c^2 (which I'm using) produces a Friedmann solution that is stationary (a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting), so called "Einstein's universe", and this value of Λ is called "Einstein's value of Einstein's cosmological constant". Any ohter value i not "Einstein's value" however the cosmological constant is always "Einstain's cosmological constant".

I don't know what "light dilation" might mean. The "time dilation" has a meaning that the time slows down along the distance without specifying how. If it is "gravitational time dilation" it would be time dilation that is inversly proportional to square of distance and for this reason it can't simulate the Hubble redshift which is exponential with the distance. I didn't have any choice in specifying the character of the time dilation since I take it from conservation of energy and it produces automatically an exponential relation between the "time dilation" and the distance to the object that emits the light. Just as it is observed in the Hubble redshift and I named it "general time dilation" since it applies to any space that contains matter that curves that space. The effect produces an illusion of accelerating space expansion with Hubble constant H_o=c/R wher R is the radius of curvature of space (and dH/dt=-H_o^2/2, about as it is observed).

Well, creative illusions, are not as boring as your mathematical equations.
Here's a good example of c... "through the vanishing divergence of stress energy tensor".

You're talking about Dark Matter, here?
You're going to find the answer to the expansion, in a mathematical equation? Good luck.

I believe that energy was conserved at the BB. The universe is not an isolated system. It's a quantum system, and it's a global astronomical system. The conservation of energy is conserved, because the energy did change from a virtual (vacuum) energy to a real energy at the moment of the BB.

[quote]
In my private opinion finding the missing 60% od the universe [quote]

Really? I thought it was 73-74% missing.
I can tell you for a fact, that Occam's principle won't work for the universe at large, because as I stated before, the universe is not isolated.

This is a shortcut for those who like to use shortcuts (specifically the mathematicians). It means in a more precise language that what gets in has to get out and nothing can stay inside since then it would have to burst eventually. If the energy is the thing that got in, and it also must get out, then it expresses the "law of conservation of energy" that mathematicians understand without long explanation. That's why some c... is useful at least for mathematicians.

Mathematical equations are sometimes usefull since 2+2=4. So when you look for something and (something)+2=4, then with no more trouble you may say that your something is 2. Of course you can't do the same thing when your "theory" say that c... + another c... = even more c... (as e.g. the Big Bang "theory" says, and so the pure mathmaticians and physicists don't call it a "theory" but a "hypothesis". Yet cosmologists who call themselves "mathematical physicists" call even the Big Bang a "theory" and we repeat after them since we have to use the same language to keep the communication lines opened).

Now look who is using second of those 2 theories described above :-).

Of course what is missing depends on your theory. Einstein's theory (Einsteins stationary universe) requires the density 6.0 (in uits of 10^-27kg/m^3), what is seen is 2.6, so it is only about 57% according to Einstein's and it might be more according to others.

In Einstein's theory it is isolated and was always like this (Einstein's universe happen to be eternal).

Fair enough. Getting back to the question at hand: "Is it correct to give up the principle of the conservation of energy, when considering the expansion of the universe"?

You say Yes (I think).

I say No. In the real world (as opposed to mathematical world) the energy is conserved from the BB, as I stated previously. Energy is going to be diluted in an infinite universe, forever. No possibility of escape, UNLESS another dimension (low density, low energy, Brane) collides with our dimension in some far off future. This is the Orthodox view.

However, I am open to other views: The Static Einstein Universe, redshift illusion to accelerated expansion, etc. But you'll have to address many variables (not just the conservation of energy), and sell your idea, along with your equations. This will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve. Good luck-you'll need it.

The same as you, I say "No" to the lack of conservation of energy but for a slightly differnt reason. I'm also opposing the math but only the part that is based on an assumptions that the mass we see is all that is there.

I also know (which you might have missed) that it may lead to a result that the universe is expanding and to another, that because of this the energy is contstantly created. The latter result isn't so widely advertised so it isn't generally known unless to mathematical physicists, who exchange the information only among themselves. Which I consider wrong since I think that knowledge of no aspect of Big Bang should be kept only to specialists and so neither the fact that the Big Bang requires constant creation of energy.

If the density of the universe were really (6.0+/-0.5)x10^-27kg/m^3 (as indicated by present value of Hubble constant (70+/-3)km/s/Mpc) then the accelerating expansion of the uiverse could be explained as an illusion just with Einstein's gravitation and the principle of conservation of energy. It would then contradict the hypothesis that the cosmological redshift is due to the Doppler shift.

Furthermore the illusion of expansion includes also the acceleration of this expansion in the amount that is observed within accuracy of observation, and the Big Bang hypothesis so far can't explain it without introduction of unobserved phenomena ("dark energy"). Which would mean that Einstein's intuition about the universe migh have been right.

Of course, lack of real expansion of the universe, besides showing that there was no event like the Big Bang in the history of the universe, requires explaining a lot of things that till now were explained with the Big Bang hypothesis. But it maybe even more fun than looking for the "dark energy".

JimJast, how does your work deal with the measured increase in the apparent angular diameter of galaxies with redshifts of z>1.6?

I imagine that the angular size of galaxies have to be bigger than it would be in Euclidean space because of the curvature of space and it is rather easily predicted effect for a given radius of curvature of space (which Einstein's physics predicts it to be 4.3 Gpc for "Einstein's universe") but I didn't do any work on it yet. Do you know what curvature this increased diameter predicts?

This wiki link combined with this section of Neds Cosmology Tutorial</