Critiques and Validation(s) of the theory of a Uniform expansion of space-time.

Over the past few years I have been fortunate to have a number of people address specific issues regarding the theory of a uniform expansion of space-time. (www.uniformexpansion.com). The postings made here will include specific critiques and validations of the proposed theory by those individuals who have been kind enough to consider another person’s ideas. Some of the critiques are from members of this forum. The summery below will be updated and extended as others evaluate the details of the theory.

Note, there are a number of topics which have been discussed here at the Bad Astronomy Forum that are the result of applying the theory to explain specific problems. It is not intended to discuss the application of the theory to specific problems here. The purpose of this posting is to evaluate specific issues others have expressed concerning the validity of the theory itself. The format I will try to follow is to first list a summary what others have said after reviewing the theory. My responses to the critiques or validations will be posted later.

1. Reviewer- George Hrabovsky, Phd. (Physics) Writer of the column “From the Mind of a Theorist” for the Society of Amateur Scientists ( http://www.sas.org/body.html. ) He is the first person to seriously review the theory by going through the math. He found that the model was mathematically consistent. The proposed rate of expansion did maintain the necessary balance between centrifugal and gravitational forces, and that the formulas proposed conformed to the geometric model. He also was not convinced that the model was right, even if the model was mathematically consistent. The major issue was the apparent violation of the conservation of energy principle. (The Society for Amateur Scientists is a non-profit organization started by Shawn Carlson, Ph.D. I am extremely grateful for the help this organization has given me. Being able to state that someone with a Ph D in physics found the proposed model mathematically and geometrically consistent represents a major step forward in having the uniform expansion of space theory at least grouped with other mathematically consistent theories and as of yet universally accepted theories, such as Quintessence or versions of String Theory.)

2. Reviewer - Pi Man - Discussion Topic – Mistakes in Astronomy November 11, 2003. Basically did not exactly agree with the equation that described how space changes and it’s relationship to time. He did allow the expression to be conceptually allowed in order to describe a relationship. Also noted an “error” in which I was careless in a using a constant that eliminated itself in the derivation.

3. Reviewer Spaceman Spiff (Also Tim Thompson) - Discussion topic -Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and Stellar Evolution - December 4 2003. Did not agree with the assertion that galaxies expand with the expansion of space. Argued that there is no observational evidence of the expansion of a galaxy. Galaxies are gravitationally bound and therefore resist the expansion of space. (Note a few others also expressed this same issue, Cougar, and Triangle Man –Discussion topic – Why are there no more Dinosaurs - December 13 2003).

4. “Reviewer” – John Archibald Wheeler – From his book “A Journey into Gravity and Spacetime” notes that if the expansion were to not stop at the boundary of galaxies and allowed to continue, the problem becomes where to stop. If the expansion includes matter itself, then if everything proportionally expands then everything remains proportionally the same. Double the size of two objects, double the distance between them, and double the size of all the rulers, nothing changes.


If anyone else has an issue or concern with the theory please respond. I will add them to the list and try to resolve your issues to the best of my abilities.

Thank you.

Snowflake

The first issue to be addressed is the point made by Professor Wheeler since the argument is fundamental to the possible validity of the proposed theory. A uniform expansion results in no observed expansion. Double the size of two objects, double the distance between two objects and double the size of all the rulers results in no change.

First, imagine that the expansion is uniform and objects did proportionally expand. How would we measure the change? There would have to be some “new” measure of distance that would allow the description of how proportional or what I call relative measures are made. The very idea of an additional dimensional measure is implied in the doubling example. If two objects doubled in size and doubled in the distance between them, and all our rulers doubled in size, how could we even imagine that such a doubling in size existed? It requires an additional reference frame outside of our relative measures. This results in the creation of two measures of reality, relative and absolute. It is from this “absolute” reference frame that proportional measures of change can be described.

There is still the problem of detecting a real change, as opposed to an imagined or hypothetical change. Where is the evidence of change actually occurring? It is argued that the effect of gravity is described by absolute measures of distance, not relative measures. Since it is argued that the effect of gravity is defined by absolute measures of distance, by doubling the distance between two objects, the effect of gravity between the two objects has been reduced by a quarter (1/R^2).

It is only by the passage of time that the change in the effect of gravity can be detected. By looking off into space, it becomes possible to observe gravitational relationships in the past. One of the predictions of the theory is that an increased effect of gravity should be observed, the further one looks to the past. The application of this theory allowed an explanation of the energy output from quasars without resorting to black holes. It also explained how it could be possible for our sun to explode about 5 billion years ago without destroying the solar system. (Those who wish to respond to these specific topics should refer to “Did our Sun blow up 5 billion years ago”, and “Quasars and supernova fires”. Related to the prediction that the effect of gravity should vary according to Cosmic time is the posting called “Dirac and Gravity”, which addresses in part the dark matter issue).


This addresses the issue expressed by Professor Wheeler in detecting a uniform expansion, but it opens up the bigger issues expressed by Hrabovsky. This concern for fundamental constants or principles, such as conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum, will be discussed in the next posting.

Snowflake

The Constants of Nature.

There are fundamental constants that describe the nature of reality. There are fundamental relationships that appear to be absolute, Conservation of Angular momentum, conservation of charge, conservation of energy and it’s kin, conservation of matter. Any threat to these principles amounts to heresy. Proposing that the expansion of space is uniform seems to threaten these principles upon which our understanding of Physics is based. This is not the case, and in fact it is the expansion of space-time that assures that these principles are a consistent property of the entire universe. It will be shown that while the absolute energy of a system decreases with the passage of time, our relative measure of energy remains the same. While the absolute momentum of a system decreases with the passage of time, our relative measure of momentum remains the same. Fundamental constants such as the speed of light and Plank’s constant, describe a specific dynamic relationship between distance and time. Just as a snowflake conforms to a particular pattern, so too does reality conform to particular dynamic patterns described by physical constants.

Those who dismiss this theory of a uniform expansion of space-time on the grounds that it violates fundamental principles have not considered the theory fairly. This inadequate review is not the fault of the reader, but of my own inadequate skills of communication. It is hoped that the reader can compensate for my own short fallings.

As part of the original presentation of the uniform expansion of space it was previously shown that celestial stability was preserved www.uniformexpansion.com . If orbiting systems are expanded, the energy of the system is reduced exactly in the right proportion to maintain orbital stability. In that presentation it is not clear in regards to how relative and absolute measures are to be compared. In an attempt to help clarify that situation, a few sample problems will follow. The problems are based upon the Ratio of Times Formulas, which were derived in the development of the uniform expansion of space-time theory.

Ratios of Time

D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)
V2/ V1 = (T1/T2) ^(1/3)
E2/ E1 = (T1/T2) ^(2/3)
"G2/G1" = (T1/T2) ^(4/3)

(The numbers 1 and 2 demarcate earlier and later measures of cosmic time respectively (Rather than Cosmic time, which is standard nomiclature for measuring time on a cosmological basis, A more concistent name would be to call this measure of time, Absolute time) , All terms followed by a 1 or 2 refer to absolute measures. D# = absolute distance, V# = absolute velocity, E# = absolute energy, G# = absolute acceleration or gravitational effect or electromagnetic effect.

An example was given in a posting called “Dirac and Gravity” in which the absolute distance of the two orbiting systems doubled. (All relative or local measures of distance remained the same). It was shown that the formulas predicted a reduction in the absolute velocity of the stable orbiting objects that was exactly what would be expected to maintain celestial balance. What was not done is to see what kind of changes would be observed by those on or near the rotating objects. This leads to the following problem.

If the orbiting bodies involved were the Earth Moon pair, what kind of changes would be observed if the absolute distances doubled. (Again, relative measured distances would remain the same.)

One critical measuring tool we would need on Earth to evaluate what is happening is an instrument to measure time. All timepieces are based upon an oscillating process. The swing of a pendulum, or the oscillation of an atom or crystal. Since it is proposed that the expansion is uniform, including matter itself, it makes no difference what repeating or oscillating process is used. For simplicity, a simple pendulum clock will be used to measure time.

Now with our rules and timepiece what are the observed changes that happen as we “double” in size?

It was determined earlier that orbiting systems that have doubled in absolute size should have the absolute velocity reduced by .707, (which is the square root of two) and that the orbiting systems would now have to travel twice as far with reference to an absolute reference frame. Would we detect this change? Initially it seems that we should be able to measure this increase in the time it takes for the Moon and Earth to rotate around each other. Based on our present measure of time it should take 2 x square root of two times longer. ( Time of orbital period = velocity x distance).

Affecting our measure of time is the fact that our clock is also influenced by the expansion of space-time. If the measure of a second is also increased by 2 x the square root of two, then there would be no locally observed change in the time it takes for the Earth Moon pair to rotate around each other due to the uniform expansion of space time. If this were the case, our observed principles of conservation of energy and momentum would be preserved. Locally there would be no observation of a change in length or of a change in velocity.

For a simple pendulum the period is T = 2 pi x square root of (L/G)

Since the absolute length has been increased by a factor of 2 and the effect of gravity has been reduced by a factor of 4 since our clock is now twice as far from the center of gravity, the period of our clock is now.

T = 2 pi x square root of (2L/ (G1/4)) = 2 x (square root of 2) x 2 pi x square root of (L/G) . The period is 2 x the square root of two times greater than before.

Our clock now measures time more slowly, not that we would notice, even biological processes are slowed down. The same amount of increased time it takes for the Earth Moon pair to rotate around each other is exactly the amount our clock runs slower. Our relative clock is slowed exactly enough to not be able to detect the observed increase in the absolute distance and reduced absolute velocity of our rotation. The lunar cycle will remain the same measured interval of time and a second will still be a second and a year will still measure to be a year.

Notice also that the observed conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are maintained on a relative scale of observation. No change in velocity or energy would be measured from a relative reference frame.

If the proposed expansion occurs as proposed, all observed constants of nature appear to remain constant. All the feared disruption of the foundations of physics are not effected. All relative relationships measured locally to remain the same.

While gravitational systems have been used as examples, the expansion of space-time is a uniform effect and is effect on relationships is universal.

For example, E = hv = hc/ lambda h and c are perceived to be constants in our relative measure of reality, Do they remain relative constants in a uniformly expanding space-time field?

E x lamda = hc = Constant ?

E2/ E1 = (T1/T2) ^(2/3)
D2/D1 = (T2 /T1) ^ (2/3)

E2/E1 x D2/D1 = h2c2/ h1c1

(If h2c2 = h1c1 (meaning that their product is constant) then that requires E2/E1 x D2/D1 = 1
(T1/T2) ^(2/3) x(T2 /T1) ^ (2/3) = 1

The product of planks constant and the speed of light remain constant.

All the observed relative measures of constants remain constant. Relative conservation of Energy is preserved, Relative conservation of momentum is preserved, Relative measures of Planks constant, the speed of light remains constant and the relative measures of the Gravitational constant remain constant. All the important foundations of physics remain in place.

But if we look at orbiting objects in the past, they will appear to be rotating too fast for the amount of mass we will be assuming that they possess. In order to resolve this apparent discrepancy one would normally assume that there must be more mass in the system than we can observe. Thereby we end up with “dark matter”. Also since it is not realized that the expansion of space-time extracts energy from our universe, it is assumed that there is also an enormous amount of dark energy in our universe.

One other important point to note is that while relative measures remain the same, the absolute measures are changing. The absolute energy of all systems is being reduced. The implications of this are particularly sobering when the effect on biological beings is considered. This was discussed in some detail in the topic “Why are there no more dinosaurs?” The increased energy associated with events in the past also significantly alters the evolution of the universe. One specific example was the explanation of the energy output of quasars without using black holes. (Discussion Topic - “Quasars and supernova fires”).

Either we accept a model that allows expansion in an unobserved dimension, according to specific algebraically defined rules, that produces no locally observed changes, or we accept a model for the universe that has unobserved dark matter and unobserved dark energy that has so far not been expressed in accordance with any kind of theoretical model that is simple with any hope of being universally accepted as valid. Either we accept a model that uses only elementary algebra with a dash of Calculus, or we pick a mathematical model that is extreemly complex, with “fixes” here and there to make the relationships work.

The Ptolemaic system with Earth as the center of the Universe could be made to work simply by adding additional offsets and circles, but it was abandoned since the relationships were becoming too complex. It is ironic to think that by making every location the center of an expanding universe one ends up with a much simpler description of our Universe.

Snowflake

This posting will deal with the following issues

1. Direct observation of the expansion of our galaxy.
2. Direct observation of the expansion of the atom.
3. Should gravity stop the expansion of galaxies?

Astrophysicists today typically describe the expansion of the universe with two examples, the balloon - button model or the rising bread with raisins model. The balloon – penny model is typically shown as an expanding balloon with buttons (or pennies) taped to the surface, and the other model has rising bread dough carrying raisins as the dough rises. The buttons or raisins are fixed in size to illustrate how galaxies do not expand with the expansion of space-time.

The proposed uniform expansion of space-time theory does not stop the expansion at the boundary of galaxies. One voiced criticism of the proposed uniform expansion of space-time theory was that there is no evidence of galaxies expanding. This is an important issue to address for if there is no observational evidence then the proposed theory could be invalid.

Unfortunately, it is not that easy to measure the expansion of our galaxy. The expansion is very slow, only observable over distances larger than an entire galaxy. This results in a situation where neither model can be ruled out. An advocate of the standard model can’t say “aha, see there is no expansion”, and I can’t say “na na, see there is expansion”.

The observed expansion rate observed based upon the recessional red shift of galaxies is about 20 kilometers per second per a distance of million light years. (Usually the standard rate is given as something close to 70 kilometers/sec per a distance of 1 million parsecs, parsecs being a distance measure astronomers use based upon their measuring tools, 1 parsec = 3.26 light years. A theoretically more appealing expression of the Hubbell’s constant is expressed with consistent dimensional measures, ie m/s per meter, Ho = 2.1 x 10^-18 m/s per meter). Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, so the theoretically observable expansion across our galaxy would be 2 kilometers per second. Unfortunately we cannot see directly across our galaxy due to intervening dust in the galactic plane. Compounding the situation is that any observed recessional expansion could be attributed to evolutionary development of our galaxy (At some point the advocates of the fixed sized galaxy have to relent their position since the expansion of space time, according to their own model, has the entire universe located at a single point at the beginning of the universe. (Although they usually assume an inflationary period before galaxies are formed)).

The localized variation of the relative “random” speed among local stars in our galaxy is in the order of 20 kilometers per second. The recessional red shift for local stars within 100 light years, where we measure the typical “random” variation in speed, is only .002 kilometers per second. The random variational speed among local stars is 10,000 times greater than the recessional shift. It would just get lumped with the assumed variational speed of stars relative to each other.

Even if we look to the nucleus of our galaxy and note some small change in our local group of star relative to the core, (which would be less than 1km/s) would we properly ascribe the motion to cosmological recession or to the evolutionary characteristics of our Galaxy? Unfortunately there is no easy or obvious way to tell. (It may be possible to detect the cosmological expansion of our galaxy. If one were to group stars that are similar in type with similar radial locations in the disk of our galaxy, it may be possible to statistically derive some measure of the expansion of our galaxy.)


Do atoms expand?


It is not the intent here to divert into a lengthy discussion of Quantum Physics. “Proving” the proposed relationships on the Cosmic scale of observation is much easier than the quantum scale of observation. Any arguments explaining the quantum scale expansion of space-time requires the use of two dimensions of time, relative time and cosmic time. Since the arguments for a cosmic dimension of time is best made from a cosmological basis, this is where the focus must first be placed.

On a philosophical basis only, expanding space-time at the quantum scale of observation results in a physical explanation for quantum physics. While quantum physics is conformant to specific, probabilistically described rules, the reason small regions of space-time acts as it does is a mystery. If the proposed theory is valid, then a real physical explanation for quantum behavior is realized. As each quantum piece of reality integrates itself to the established reality, a small distortion is caused. If an electron is located where a quanta sized piece of reality is forming, the electron must “move aside” to make room. This results in the observed probabilistic description of reality at the quantum scale of observation.


Does gravity stop the expansion of galaxies?

One of the standard explanations justifying stopping the expansion of space-time at the boundary of galaxies is because gravity resists or prevents the expansion. This is an assumption that should not be so readily accepted without some thought.

Physicists use what are generally called field formulas to describe forces or relationships between objects separated by a distance. Those who have spread iron filings on a piece of paper with a magnet under the paper have some kind of sense as to how field relationships for a magnetic field actually look. The forces associated with gravity and electromagnetism can both expressed by field relationships.

(Einstein’s theory of General Relativity changed our interpretation of field relationships, at least in terms of gravity. It is the curvature of space-time itself that is purportedly responsible for the effect of gravity. Physicist John Wheeler, (who was quoted earlier regarding the problem of a uniform expansion of space-time) states that "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." The distinction between a field relationship to a curving of space-time is subtle but important for developing the concepts of general relativity. It is hoped the reader will allow some generality in the use of the term “field relationships” to describe relationships separated by a distance. Irregardless of the exact association one wishes to make regarding the term field relationships, there is in all cases a uniform transition in the relationship of objects between points in space, be they a the result of a curvature of the space, or from a typical field expression.)

Field relationships are additive in nature. An electron is bound to the atom by the electrostatic field, what is commonly called the attraction between positive and negative charges. The force of gravity on an electron is the result of the field effects of gravity on an electron (or curvature of space, if you insist). Because field effects are additive and not exclusionary, it is possible to determine the weight of an electron by suspending small droplets of oil between two oppositely charged plates. (Robert A. Millikan’s famous experiment). This is despite the tremendous difference in the magnitude of the field effects between gravitational fields and electrostatic fields.

If the expansion of space-time were a field type of expression, it’s effect would be in addition to other field expressions. This traditionally has been excluded as a possibility since it was thought it would destroy the stability of celestial and atomic structures, but as has been shown previously, if the expansion were to occur at the specific rate, this would no longer be a problem.

Over 99.99 percent of the universe is expanding. Doesn’t it make sense to consider a model that allows the expansion to include the last fractional part of a percent?


Snowflake

Hi Lyndonashmore

It is my belief that fundamental constants are conformant to geometric relationships. This is also indicated by your reference to Ashmore’s paradox. Philosophically there is common ground in our thinking. I would like to respond to your posting first with this.

Lets look at the amazing discovery of Ashmor, as illustrated in the following quote from your web site.
http://www.lyndonashmore.com/pressrelease.html

‘If we convert the Hubble constant into SI units, 64 km/s per Mpc becomes 2.1exp(-18) per sec.
But what Ashmore found was that the quantity ‘hr/m per cubic metre’ (h is the planck constant, m is the mass of the electron and r is the classical radius of the electron) is also equal to 2.1exp(-18) per sec! Or, to put it another way, ‘hr/m per cubic metre’ in astronomical units is 64 km/s per Mpc – the Hubble constant.’

Ashmore’s relationship
H = hr/m / meter^3
H = Hubbell’s “constant” (present rate of expansion. Dimensions- velocity/ distance away)
h = Plank’s constant (measure tied to quantum relationships. Dimensions – mass velocity distance)
r = classical electron radius. Dimensions - distance
m = rest mass of the electron. Dimensions – mass

Dimensionally the relationship becomes with T = time, M= mass and D = distance
1/T = (mass velocity distance / mass) / volume of space
1 = (M/M x D^2 x T/T)D^3
1 = distance distance /volume of space.
By special relativity we can correlate a distance measure to a temporal measure, a physical distance corresponds to a temporal distance between points. (The physical interpretation of this substitution will be described shortly) Substituting Time for distance results in
1 = Time Time/ Volume. = T^2/D^3 which can also be written as
1 = D^3/T^2
The substitution of a measure of time for a distance measure is allowable since the radius of an electron physically corresponds to not only a distance measure, but a measure of time, it takes so long for light to transverse the radius of an electron, it is a real measure. In fact a time description associated with the radius of an electron in certain respects makes more sense than a spatial size. An electron exists in a region defined by time. The physical connection between distance and time are real. The corresponding substitution for time associated with the uncertainty in a distance location associated described by plank’s constant (which is the basis for the uncertainty principle) not only describes a spatial uncertainty, it also describes a temporal uncertainty. It is these two measures of distance that are being replaced by measures of time. The D^3 is preserved to maintain the concept that the properties of a region of space is under consideration.

When actual values and common measures are used, the constant 1 would be replace by some scalar number, that is dependent upon convention.


k1 = D^3/T^2

This is a very interesting dimensional relationship.

In my uniform expansion of space time theory the volume of absolute space varies to the square of the Absolute or Cosmic time. Double the age of the universe the volume of absolute space increases 4 times. D^3 = T^2
For a specific region of space the relationship would be
k2 = D^3/T^2 (Since rulers also proportionally expand, relative measures remain the same.

Note this is the same dimensional form derived from Ashmore’s relationship. They are dimensionally similar.

This becomes even more intriguing when the dimensional properties of space time are assumed also describe matter.
Matter = D^3/T^2?
Matter = Space time = D^3/T^2

F = MA = D^3/T^2 x D/T^2 = D^4/T^4

Newton’s law of gravity

F = g MM/DD lets get rid of the g term since it carries dimensions (not a scalar number) lets see if we find a dimensional relationship that is viable.

F = (D^3/T^2)^2 /DD = D^4/T^4

Dimensionally equivalent! Does this mean that a theoretical model predicts Newton’s experimentally derived laws?

Lets look at energy, Force times distance

FxD = D^5/T^4

Lets look at Einstein’s theoretically derived energy equation for matter.

E = mcc = D^3/T^2 (D/T)^2 = D^5/T^4 Dimensionally equivalent!

The theoretical dimensional structure of space time, can correlate to matter and there is still dimensional symmetry preserved.

This is too nice a fit to be an accident.

Note that this is purely a dimensional analysis. The geometric structure is not provided. Applying such structure to the region of space around an atom is something I have not had much of an opportunity to work on (other than a dimensional check for quarks and leptons which conforms to observation. Also a short paper on how the probabilistic expansion of space results in the pattern observed in the periodic distribution of the elements). Ashmore’s relationships provide a means to begin to establish a real geometric structure to the region of space-time that describes the electron.

Snowflake.

Another Confirmation of theory.

I recently have had the opportunity to present my uniform expansion theory to another group of Advanced Placement High School Students. (Canton, Connecticut High School). These students can receive college credit for the course, which includes cosmology.). Again the students have determined that the theory makes sense and that others with more information than they presently have should review the theory.

Will anyone from the “mainstream” take the challenge?

The expansion of space-time does not stop at the boundary of galaxies but includes matter itself.

Snowflake

The following is a site by another person also proposing a “scalar expansion”.
www.estfound.org/m/header.jpg it is by J Masreliez, Ph.D

Another is by John Hunter, from York University. http://www.gravity.uk.com/cosmological_model.html

Hunter’s work is the closest to mine. The major difference is that I have expressed the relationships geometrically utilizing extra dimensions of distance and time. When transforming my “absolute” measures of time to local measures of time the proposed relationships are remarkably similar.

(It is interesting to note that Lyndon Ashmore also received his education at York and has also used the age of the universe as a fundamental constant deriving properties of an electron http://www.lyndonashmore.com/pressrelease.html . This is not a coincidental relationship but is a property, I believe, that is the result of the geometrically described nature of the expansion of space-time. )

I have been trying to contact J Hunter through his web site for the last couple of weeks. Does anyone have any other way to contact him other than through his web site?

This proposed model represents the biggest advance in theoretical physics in a hundred years, if it is right. Doesn’t it deserve at least some discussion?

John M. Kulick aka snowflake.