The latest WMAP5 figure for omega(matter) is 0.249,

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...5yr_params.pdf , table on page 16

the rescaling model ,
www.rescalingsymmetry.com gives 0.25....Isn't this close enough for the 'experts' to consider this more seriously??

John Hunter

Thanks for the links John.

I'm not sure why rescaling is unexpected in an accelerating expansion but from the rescaling link I can’t tell how it could be detected. And even this new WMAP figure of .249 is not much changed is it? How does that make the.25 Omega at the rescaling site encourage experts to reconsider rescaling?

With Omega of ~.25 and presumably Lambda ~.75, plus throw in a little Baryon density of .04 and you get a pretty flat picture. Does the current thinking re. rescaling consider that there is some interaction between dark energy density and matter density? Or some revised calculations of the effects of gravity?
A little more information or discussion would be helpful to put this into perspective for me.

Dear Bogie,

In rescaling, there is no dark energy, and omega(matter) is really 1.

The value of 0.25 calculated by scientists, is due to them using a value of the rescaling constant which is twice the real value (Hubbles constant).

Because it is squared in the calculations they conclude 0.25, but the real value is 1.

John Hunter.

Thank you.

Then let me try to understand. From our reference frame rescaling is real time, but the time delay for light to reach us from distant galaxies reveals only the rescaling that had taken place at the origin when the photons were emitted? So the redshift is a combination of rescaling at the source and the recession of the source?

I had a look at the recalculation site but the slight problem is if there is uniform expansion then the photon energy would map differently to expanded matter.

Wouldn't the need for a recalculation be if the rate of expansion of space and of matter were increasing (or changing) in a non linear fashion?

To explain the first line if matter was increasing and yet staying uniform as we feel it the space for the electron to jump would grow and require more than the current 4*10^-19 ev to raise an electron to activate a photon receptor.

Perhaps by sliding along the scale the unique spectral lines would appear in a different part of the visible light range in a non linear shift which could be a red shift indicator because the natural thing to do here on earth as we receive light would be to apply the known spectrum of light and see the change in position of the lines of absorption.

Again it is off the top of my head so if I am wrong please feel free to correct me regarding size change and electron volt energy requirements. But that is what I would probably do ... assume light is the same as light produced here on earth and map against line of spectral absorption if I hadn't realised it was the actual spectrum that was changing due to energy requirements for a photon to excite an electron to higher orbit.

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

interesting. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

John, I have had a read of your site, and I have a few questions.

You assume on this page that the energy of the photon is conserved. The problem is that in your model it appears that, in the general case, energy is not a conserved quantity. For example you say that energy scales as e^2Ht, and hence is a function of time.

Another way to look at this is to consider two identical atoms in an identical excited state. Because emission is a probabilistic thing, one atom will emit a photon before the other atom. According to your claimed derivation of redshift, by the time the second atom emits a photon, the frequency of the first photon will be lower than the frequency of the second photon, and hence they will now possess different energies. How can this be consistent with your view that energy is conserved in your model? And if energy is not conserved, what does that mean for your derivation of the redshift?

Dear Bogie and Fortis,

Bogie: The redshift is caused by conservation of energy in a rescaling universe and E=hf. Because Plancks constant rescales according to h=h(0)exp(2Ht), then for energy to be conserved for a photon of light, its frequency must reduce as time passes.

Fortis: Good question. Energy does rescale according to E=E(0)exp(Ht), in the model. For ordinary masses the total energy remains zero. Gravity is the result of the conservation of energy in a rescaling universe, as follows.

The total energy due to any mass m is mc^2 - GmM/R, where the second term represents the combined contributions from all other masses up to the Hubble radius. So for conservation of energy mc^2 - GmM/R = 0

G=Rc^2/M and there is a natural solution of the flatness problem.

The photon was treated differently. It conserves its energy by changing frequency, no time passes for it, so its energy remains constant.

John Hunter.

P.S for Fortis, On the point about two atoms emitting photons at different times, I agree with you that they would emit photons of different energies. But this is what we see. Two photons arrriving from different stars, one emitted later (from further away) than the other, arrrive with different redshifts.

Are you all dazzled by the brilliance of the theory! and how well it matches the data?

John H.

Where do you put the balance point between light being emitted and rescaling to a larger less energetic frame and matter in a later time frame receiving light rescaled to a larger frame where it requires a more energetic light to see it in the correct frame?

Surely there is at least an asymmetry to the rescaling of energy and matter or is there a straight doubling effect due to equal rescaling?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

OK, that is your answer to my question: What if I don't see how that answers my question? Can you tell me if the redshift in the rescaling cosmology has two components, one being real expansion causing a Hubble type change in frequency, and one being the change in frequency as time passes due to rescaling? Thus the frequency observed when light reaches us is a combination of the time that has past since it was emitted (rescaling), and the recession of the source (Hubble)? Or is there just one component, rescaling?

Assuming that its energy does not rescale.
Are you assuming that

Gm.Sum(M_i/r_i) = GmM/R

where M_i is the mass of the ith mass, and r_i is the distance to the ith mass? If so, what is M and what is R, in terms of the quantities on the left hand side?
This point is very important. In the exponential scaling factor, does the time t correspond to some sort of universal time coordinate, or is it the proper time experienced by the particle, i.e. the negative value of the spacetime interval integrated along the particle's worldline?

If it is, then that would be consistent with what you say about the photon experiencing no time. If it isn't then your treatment of the photon is inconsistent with your treatment of everything else.

Dear Michael,

Can you explain what you mean please?

John H.

Dear Bogie,

There is one main component, the rescaling.

That reply is the best way for us to discuss things for now, although there may be a secondary (smaller) component caused by a reduction of G for masses of mass/radius ratio approaching c^2/G....which can cause explosive phenomenon e.g. AGNs and the Big Bang.

These explosive events are quick and short, in between there are long periods (in this model) where the redshift is caused mainly by the rescaling. At the moment we are in one of these long periods.

Motion of matter can take place in addition, but totally seperate to, a rescaling, the motion of matter dosn't effect the rescaling and visa versa.

John Hunter.

Dear Fortis,

On 1) yes, the GmM/R is really a shorthand to represent what you wrote.

M and R don't really have seperate exact values but we can imagine M=mass of universe approx 10^53kg, R is approx 10^26m. But M/R does have a definite exact value, c^2/G.

on 2) the treatment of time is a difficulty for rescaling theory as presented so far, maybe a future version can improve on it. For now however, the time t represents the time passing for an object as observed by us, the observer. So for a photon travelling towards us no time passes, for everyday nearby objects and galaxies etc, not fast moving, time passes at 'our' normal rate.

If a common cosmological time is assumed for all such objects, they rescale at the same rate. As for the slight differences which must occur for the time passing for them (due to their different relative speeds), who knows? One suggestion is that the discrepent redshifts of fast moving quasars, observed by Arp, may eventually be explained by different rescalings.

John Hunter.

Does that means that as I observe a photon for 1 second, then one second passes for the photon?

My other reading is that you do mean the proper time of the photon, i.e. if there was a clock (of some sort) attached to the thing being observed then it is the time as measured by that clock.

Is it this latter view that you hold?

Dear Fortis,

Yes, it's the time that would be measured by a clock on the object, moving with the object. The photon has no rest mass, so it can't conserve energy by gravitation, if no time passes for it, its energy remains constant, which manifests itself as a change in frequency.

John Hunter.

A couple of things.

1) If it's energy does not change then how does gravitational redshift work?

2) Due to random motion, there will be a spread in the proper times. Why do we not observe this spread in the spectral lines from distant objects?

Dear Fortis,

1) The frequency of a photon does change in the gravitational redshift, which shows that energy changes can cause a redshift.

In the rescaling model the redshift is a different (but similar) effect. Due to all other energies rescaling (on earth), when a photon arrives from a distant star its apparent energy (as measured by us) is lower than photons from the same element on earth...and its frequency is lowered.

2) The correlation between redshift and distance isn't precise, there is variation which may be due to the objects 'velocity history'. The discrepent redshifts of apparently nearby objects, as measured by Arp, may be due to this effect too.

Any variation must be quite small. For an object travelling at 0.1c for the last 13.7 billion years (T)... (P.S. in this model, the main reshift isn't due to velocity, but the rescaling)... the time that passes for it may vary only by approx 0.01*T and the change in exp(H*T) is approx 0.01, giving a change in redshift of that order too. So it probably hasn't been ruled out.

John Hunter.

Hello john hunter,
I have that effect on people. Do you support the adding of space to assist the explanation of some red shift or fully covered by a rescale of matter?

The reason I ask is that expansion is seemingly far greater in the voids and so a minor rescale of matter and a major rescale of space if some sort of asymmetry point could be determined gives a greater longevity to the system.

There is an abundance of space within matter and the example I have heard is if the proton is the size of an orange the electron would be about a mile away so I am not struggling with that aspect.

The adding of space in any form would indicate increasing the spread of energy and thereby lowering the frequency giving a redshift. Pure rescaling indicates a matter only solution. A combination rescale of space without adding to space (yes it is the aether concept) greater than matter rescale means the same force would achieve the effect. It would require that matter reacts less than space.

It would also change gravity as larger matter using the inverse squared rules would explain how the dinosaurs might have been able to sustain such size due to not incurring such weight penalties.

Michael

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."