The values of cosmological parameters such as omega(matter) is 0.266, from joint WMAP and COSMOS data. (recent arxiv:0911.0053)

Isn't it time that the 'rescaling theory' described in viXra:0908.0005 is considered by the professionals ....it naturally predicts an omega(m) of 0.25

John Hunter

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Sorry, the links are

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...911.0053v1.pdf

especially Figure 12,14 and 15 which shows omega(m) approx 0.266

and

http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf

This very simple theory gives a good match to data (apparent omega(m)=0.25) without dark energy.

John Hunter.

Thanks for the post. I'm intrigued by the idea. Actually there was a thread a while back where I asked some questions about that.

I'm not really very good at physics, so let me ask a couple of basic questions. One is, if matter is contracting, wouldn't we detect a redshift even for nearby objects, like say Pluto, or more likely, for nearby stars? Do we? If we don't, is it because they are too close and the difference is too small?

A second question is, would this have any bearing on the Pioneer anomaly? Could the Pioneer anomaly be a redshift effect? If so, why do we see it with the probe but not with orbiting planets?

And a final one, would this have an effect on galaxy rotation curves? Could it have anything to do with the anomaly?

__________________
As above, so below

Dear Jens,

Rescaling theory is the idea that everything is expanding. Atoms, people, the distance between all objects etc...

Because they expand in proportion, no change can be noticed - its a kind of symmetry principle. However there are some real physical effects

i) the redshift of light
ii) the precition of apparent omega(matter) = 0.25

Its a beautifully simple proposal - but philosophically hard to accept maybe.

The link - which works now is http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf


Big Bang theory is incorporated, as gravitational mass reduces for dense objects - another consequence straight from conservation of energy - allowing 'bounces' for collapsing matter.

Dark matter is still needed, for the galactic rotation curves
Pioneer is not dealt with by this theory.

All the best,

John Hunter.

John Hunter,
Does your model replace GR as an explanation of gravity?

Dear Fortis,

It's really a reinterpretation of General Relativity...GR is assumed to be correct on the whole, but the expansion of the universe predicted by GR is interpreted to apply to all distances and physical constants.

This makes the 'expansion' undetectable, like a static universe, and the effects of the Big Bang are due to another area where GR has been misinterpreted...the gravitational attraction towards a mass m should be proportional to m - Gm^2/rc^2 to take the internal gravitational potential energy into account. This reduces the attraction significantly for masses whose mass to radius ratio approaches c^2/G. http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0004v1.pdf Thus collapsing matter can 'bounce' giving the spherical void large scale structure, even the Big Bang with all its associated successes....element abundancies etc...

If GR does need ammendment (not just reinterpretation), then these ideas could act as a guide to what sort of ammendment should be attempted.

John Hunter.

Do you know what is included in the "source" term in GR, i.e. what the field depends on? It would be worth your while finding out.

Dear Fortis,

In the formula you highlighted above, the m is meant as the active gravitational mass and include mass (including all energies except gravitational potential) and 3*pressure/c^2.

The formula is suggested as a way to help with singularity problems of GR, where a state of infinite density and pressure is predicted....which seems to show a serious problem with GR (or the usual interpretation). If the attraction reduces to zero, as in the above formula, when m/r approaches c^2/G, collapsing matter could 'bounce' and give rise to ejection phenomenon and the observed large scale structure.

John Hunter.

I would think the Casimir effect would increase between two plates if there were more 'space' growing between them for zero point to pop up.

When you say
why are photons frequencies not also expanding?
what is providing all the extra mass to objects as the space increases between objects to keep formulas of F=G(M₁M₂/D²) working?

How does the "Rescaling idea", as it in no way even remotely approaches the criteria for a scientific theory, explain the energy levels of changes in electron shells?

In the "Rescaling idea" is the planck's constant changing with time?

Dear Publiusr and WayneFrancis,

The theory is called rescaling symmetry, and the symmetry word is perhaps the most important...
It is almost impossible to detect any change by a local experiment because all lengths and physical constants change in proportion

e.g. F = G Mm/R^2
Each quantity changes depending on the on the number of length dimensions in it. F=F(0)exp(Ht), G=G(0)exp(3Ht) and R=R(0)exp(Ht), H is the rescaling constant.....so after a time the formula stays true. (masses have zero length dimensions so don't change)

F has increased, but how do we measure it??
We might time how long the force takes to move a mass over a certain distance. s = 0.5a*t^2 ,equation of motion. s= distance and has increased by factor exp(Ht), a depends on F/m and has also increased by factor exp(Ht)....the result is that the time is unchanged, and so no change in F, or any of the quantites can be measured.


Plancks constant does change with time h=h(0)exp(2Ht) and this is what causes the redshift...light from a distant star was emitted when Plancks constant was smaller. Then by E=hf light is redshifted, energy of the photon is assumed unchanged as no time passes for it.

This factor 2Ht means that the rescaling constant has the value of half of Hubbles constant and leads...due to 2 squared, to a factor 4 error in the apparent omega(m) of currently accepted theory, giving an apparent omega(m) of 0.25, when it's really 1.0

John Hunter

So in the end what prediction does your model make that an expanding universe doesn't?

The way I see it you are saying that there is a relationship between the Planck constant and all the elementary particles but in the case of the massless photon this relationship is broken but for the guon, which is also massless, it is not.

We've had this discussion before. Calling shrinking matter or any other name you have to build in all these correlations between particles and forces that isn't observed to get it to work and on top of this you have to say there is an exception with the photon where it is only partly effected by the changing Planck's constant. While with the main stream theory all you have to say is that new space is being created.

Dear WayneFrancis,

you wrote,

"So in the end what prediction does your model make that an expanding universe doesn't"......

The rescaling model predicts

i) that omega(m) = 1.0, but will be measured according to current theory as exactly 0.25

ii) It also predicts that the modulus of distant supernovae will be given by
mu = 25 + 5logdL with dL = [2*c/H(0)]*[(1+z)(sqrt(1+z) - 1)]
There is a good match as shown in the link on the third post.....this match is without dark energy and doesn't use any extra parameters such as current theory which uses omega(m) as an extra parameter and only achieves good fit with omega(m) approx 0.27

iii)it also predicts that large collapsing masses will 'bounce' due to a reduction of the gravitational mass as the mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G.

and you wrote

"with the main stream theory all you have to say is that new space is being created.".....

but you also have to say there exists dark energy, which is not understood or explained, and you also need inflation to explain the flatness problem,....both these are unnecessary with rescaling.

John Hunter

Dark energy is just a term used to explain the expansion. It happens to fill in much of the "missing energy" of the universe. Just because it is not understood yet doesn't mean much beyond "we need to learn more about it"

Essentially your model is rewriting everything in the standard model because you are showing a unification of forces that isn't currently seen.

There are other problems too.

For example you say everything is shrinking because Planck's constant is shrinking and that this is why light red shifts. But why is a photon's wave length not also shrunk? Why does its amplitude not change?

You are keeping only decoupling 1 facet of the photon from a change in Planck's constant with no rime reason or observation of this actually happening.

Why would a gluon stay coupled with the changing planck's constant but the photon would not? We don't observe any "red shifting" of a gluon ever.

It is used to explain, in an unsatisfactory way, the accelerating expansion, it's unsatisfactory because there is no understanding of why it occurs, why it appears to have varied over the history of the expansion, why it has value omega(lambda) approx 0.73 etc.. see for example http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0512586v1.pdf escpecially Figure 7. This graph shows that q(0) is approximately -1. It then varies in a perculiar way...with rescaling theory the graph would be a straight line, constant q(z) = -1, which just means constant expansion (H(z)).

No! Please read the link on the third post...

The theory is that everything is expanding in proportion, atoms, Plancks constant, people, the distance between all objects...Plancks constant is increasing with time....Plancks constant (thought of as being a property of space) increases for the photon too, as it enters regions of space, at a later time where h has increased. The energy of the photon is a considered as a property of the photon, and stays constant (conservation of energy) as no time passes for it. Hence the redshift from (E = hf).

As for the gluon, it may happen for that too, but as far as I know we haven't observed gluons that have travelled so far.

John Hunter

I understand you claim everything is scaling in proportion and I'm saying unless you do this with decouple only part of Planck's constat from the photon then you won't get redshifting in the model you describe. Saying that photon's don't experience time as other particles do doesn't help because of glouns which also travel at c.

So it doesn't matter how far the gluon has traveled.

Fact when we look out 11 billion years into space we see the exact same physics we do now minus the red shift. But a gloun is a boson like a photon. If 11 billion years ago the glouns energy was almost 2x as high we would be able to see that manifest itself. The actual gluon doesn't have to travel 11 billion ly for us to see its properties.

So to get around this you have to figure another way that a photon would not be coupled but gluons which have much the same properties, including the key no rest mass property, remains coupled.

I think I get exactly what you are saying and I'm pointing out a key flaw in the idea.

Would a decline in the energy level of gluons over time due to a rescaling of Planck's h manifest itself as an increase in particle size and a reduction in gravitational mass? As the gluon mediated strong force grows weaker, the gluon flux tubes grow longer allowing the distance between quark particles to elongate. And as particle energy levels decline their mass grows smaller.

Dear Bob and WayneFrancis,

The apparent decrease in energy for a gluon in motion would occur according to rescaling theory....although it is a new challenge to the theory, and a good point.

However, due to the small timescale (t) of a typical gluon journey the apparent decrease would be by factor exp(2Ht), if t is of order 10^-23s it would be about 1 + 10^-41 which is negligible.

The gluons are presumably continually recreated with the usual energy, after their short journey. So a large change in apparent energy wouldn't build up.

But there are lots of unknown problems if you want to show rescaling isn't happening with your argument...do the gluons count as real particles anyway, or virtual ones? How could we ever test it experimentally?

John Hunter.

John Hunter, how do the energy levels of, say, the hydrogen atom scale with time in your model?

I agree that gluons can not be observed over time and the whole concept of virtual particles is more than a little speculative but, assuming that gluons do exist and they are the glue that holds all matter together, I would think a rescaling of the constants over time should also produce changes in the nature of gluons (a weakening of the glue) and this should be visible as changes in matter such as an apparent increase in size. Your rescaling of Planck's h and a decline in Newton's G sounds environmental so these changes should also effect the nature of gluons if we compare gluons created and annihilated billions of years ago with gluons of today.

Gluons may be imaginary particles used to explain what is really wavelike interactions but I would think a change in the Planck scale should effect the nature of the strong force however we choose to explain it.

Dear Fortis and Bob,

Energy levels have the dimensions of energy i.e. the length dimension is 2. Energy levels therefore rescale as E = E(0)exp(2Ht), the same as Plancks constant h = h(0)exp(2Ht).

Rescaling symmetry means there can be no local detection of energy levels on earth changing, although if we look at the energy of photons from distant starts they are lowered (redshift)..... which could be regarded as evidence for the energy levels between the atoms in a distant star being lower in the past than now.

Bob,

It's all getting quite speculative to try and prove or disprove rescaling using gluons.
We would need to know what fraction of the rest mass of e.g. a proton is contained in moving qluons as opposed to quarks or fields which are not moving at c. We would need to know what fraction of their time the gluons are moving at c.
We would also have to decide whether virtual particles can be used...very doubtful...and whether gluons which are continually recreated can be recreated with their original energy....also what time passes for virtual particles....already a difficult fundamental question for physics (there is cosmological time, atomic time, thermodynamical time...do antiparticles move backwards in time etc...) all these complications make it too speculative to convincingly rule out rescaling.

P.S. the gravitational constant is increasing in this model, having length^3 for its length dimension, it would increase as G = G(0)exp(3Ht) ...still not measurable locally due to the symmetry principle.

John Hunter.

john hunter,

concerning 'rescaling theory':

It would seem that your proposal (OP) is in regards to validity of "rescaling theory," and your conjecture involves changes in omega, the universe-density parameter.

Paul Dirak first proposed this model concerning expanding matter and space to explain the meaning of galactic redshifts first being observed at that time, other than by an expanding universe. The idea was the everything was expanding in time including space. As space expanded we would see the presently observed redshifts. His idea of the expansion of space was the first, and this idea is used by the standard model today. Although some claim evidence for matter expanding, there are few if any practitioners that presently discuss this possibility.

In your answer to Jens you said:

Rescaling theory is not a formal name of a cosmology -- as you mentioned by saying 'rescaling theory', without capitalization. The term 'rescaling theory' (concerning cosmology) could seemingly apply to any kind of rescaling model of the universe.

Jen's question:

This shows the other possibility of 'rescaling theory'. If matter were contracting, or is becoming smaller by some means, then relatively speaking space would also appear to be expanding and we would also get the same observed redshifts. The point is that 'rescaling theory' could propose any continuing change in the relative size of matter and/or space over time. Does that seem right to you?

How does your conjecture concerning omega in your OP relate to your rescaling model since the expansion of everything would seemingly leave omega (universe density) unchanged?

Are you proposing a known model of this theory, or is this your own model/ version of the theory? By what means does this 'rescaling theory' (expansion theory) naturally predict a constant omega of 0.25 to start with?

Do you mean Paul Dirac? Or are you referring to someone much more obscure?

Dear forrest noble,

please read http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf carefully, most of your questions are answered there.

In particular please note (and and other posters too, who have not properly understood the theory)

Space and objects expand in proportion in this model. It is not a proposal that objects are shrinking. It is also not a proposal that space and objects expand or contract at different rates! They expand at the same rate....so this model is close to a static universe model......there is a solution of Einsteins equations in the paper, where the changing scale factor is interpreted to mean a change of all length scales. It shows a constant omega(m) of 0.25.

John Hunter.

Ok, lets shift this from what is causing the red shift to the other implications this would have. In this model how are the abundances of various elements explained? How is the CMBR explained? How is the light cones from Type 1A SN explained?

Dear WayneFrancis,

In the model, due to conservation of energy, the gravitational mass of a collapsing mass reduces. This allows 'bounces'. It is proposed that the Big Bang took place...the largest of many such bounces that also give rise to the foam like large scale structure. So in this model the Big Bang occurred, the element abundancies and CMBR arise in the same way as for the Big Bang model. The differences are that 'time' did not begin at the Big Bang, and there was no state of infinite density or pressure.

Detail:

For each mass m the total energy due to it is mc^2 - GMm/R ,where M represents the mass of the rest of the universe, of radius R = c/H
During rescaling this energy rescales as (mc^2 - GMm/R)exp(2Ht), so due to conservation of energy mc^2 - GMm/R = 0 ...the interpretation is that gravity is caused by the rescaling (which is of constant rate) and the value of G is determined by

G = Rc^2/M ....equation (1), simple alternative to inflation for flatness problem.


For a dense mass, mc^2 - GMm/R - Gm^2/r = 0 where r is the radius of the mass....
This gives G(effective) = c^2/(M/R + m/r) ,and so from (1)

G(effective) = c^2/(c^2/G + m/r) equation (2), i.e. a reduction in effective G for masses of high m/r ratio.


As an alternative with constant G, the inertial and gravitational mass (energy of) reduces to mc^2 - Gm^2/r,...(and so approaches 0 if m/r approaches c^2/G)....singularities can be avoided with this approach as discussed more in http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0004v1.pdf

John Hunter

P.S. There is a good fit to supernovae data without dark energy, in paper already linked on third post.

...so to summarise,

The effective value of G reduces for masses whose mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G.

This allows 'bounces' of collapsing matter and can give rise to the large scale structure and even Big Bang.

There is an interesting paper posted on arxiv today http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...911.3785v1.pdf

It shows a spiral pattern for clusters of galaxies, as well as for single galaxies....it makes you wonder whether matter is periodically ejected from the centres of clusters of galaxies (as well as for single ones, AGNs). This type of thing could be connected to the observed large scale structure (voids).

John Hunter