COSMOS supports rescaling theory

[john hunter]

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

[tusenfem]

Well, you are welcome to present your ideas on it here.
And if you use archived papers, please give the link, so one does not have to search.

[john hunter]

Sorry, the links are

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.0053v1.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.

[Jens]

Thanks for the post. I'm intrigued by the idea. Actually there was a thread a while back where I asked some questions (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/33243-shrinking-matter.html) 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?

[john hunter]

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.

[Fortis]

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

[john hunter]

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.

[Fortis]

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.
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.

[john hunter]

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.

[publiusr]

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.

[WayneFrancis]

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.

When you say
is the idea that everything is expanding. Atoms, people, the distance between all objects etc...

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?

[john hunter]

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

[WayneFrancis]

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.

[john hunter]

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

[WayneFrancis]

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.

[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" .

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/pdf/0512/0512586v1.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)).


For example you say everything is shrinking because Planck's constant is shrinking and that this is why light red shifts.

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

[WayneFrancis]

...

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.

[Bob Angstrom]

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.

[john hunter]

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.

[Fortis]

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

[Bob Angstrom]

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.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.

[john hunter]

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.

[forrest noble]

john hunter,

concerning 'rescaling theory':


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 precision of apparent omega(matter) = 0.25


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


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

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:

if matter is contracting, wouldn't we detect a redshift even ...........?

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?

ii) the precision of apparent omega(matter) = 0.25

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?

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

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?

[Geo Kaplan]

Paul Dirak first proposed this model ...

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

[john hunter]

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.

[WayneFrancis]

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?

[john hunter]

Dear WayneFrancis,

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?

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.

[john hunter]

...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/0911/0911.3785v1.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

[john hunter]

Some final comments before this thread is closed:

Rescaling theory has withstood the ATM proving ground well. It shows how an apparent value for omega(matter) of 0.25 arises naturally from a solution to Einsteins equations, where the 'expansion' applies to all length scales. The 'Big Bang' and other 'explosive' events are due to a reduction in gravitational mass for matter whose mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G.

Predictions:
e.g. from the Planck satellite - apparent omega(m) = 0.25 exactly, really 1.0.
Universe is flat k=0, lambda = 0.
Supernovae relation as in link on post 3.

Almost no scientist or publisher has supported or encouraged this work, in fact they have generally ignored it, rejected it (in the case of journals) or given very brief and dismissive replies to emails. Almost every relevant professional scientist has been contacted.

There are the following exceptions:
Alexander Unzicker - gave encouragement.
Tom Kibble - who put a lot of work into trying to decide whether a reduction in gravitational and inertial mass would be detected e.g. by the orbits of binary pulsars - in the hope of disproving the theory - result inconclusive.
Some good discussion of the proposal has come from BAUT.

Apart from this, the author is extremely disappointed with the attitude of professional scientists and journals, who (despite the serious problems which modern cosmology faces).....couldn't care less.

John Hunter.

[WayneFrancis]

Some final comments before this thread is closed:

Rescaling theory has withstood the ATM proving ground well.


Only in your mind. Don't equate being ignored with passing.

[Fortis]

It shows how an apparent value for omega(matter) of 0.25 arises naturally from a solution to Einsteins equations, where the 'expansion' applies to all length scales.
Which of Einstein's equations is it a solution to? I only see variants of Newtonian gravity here on this thread.

[Nereid]

In today's physics, there are ~25 constants which need to be 'put in by hand'.

You have discussed how a few (3?) of them would always be observed to be constant, both locally and remotely, under your ATM idea. I think a section (or separate paper) explicitly discussing each (class of) constant would be a good idea.

The observational basis for the existence of dark energy (DE) is not limited to just high-z SNe Ia observations; there are also CMB ones (currently only WMAP?) and BAO (baryon acoustic oscillations) ... though they are not completely independent (wrt DE).

Have you done any analyses of WMAP and (various) BAO data, within the framework of your ATM idea? If so, what did you find? If not, do you plan to do such analyses?

What differences - if any - are there between observations using dA distances (LCDM cosmological models vs your ATM idea)?

[Nereid]

Some more questions (in no particular order):

* how would the (Integrated) Sachs-Wolfe effect differ, in a universe ruled by your ATM idea?

* can you confirm that there is nothing ATM concerning CDM in this ATM idea?

* how would gravitational wave radiation be different?

* in the early universe, when the strong force dominates (and its matter component is in the form of a quark-gluon plasma), how would physics be different?

* how does a detailed explanation of the CMB angular power spectrum differ (if at all)?

* UHECRs carry the physics of distant parts of the universe (where they originate) with them, due to time dilation. To what extent would detailed study of these test the ATM ideas presented here?

* would it be possible - in principle - to test these ATM ideas by studying the 'neutrino luminosity distance' of high-z SNe, and/or neutrino/photon time delays from such objects/events?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis and Nereid,

The Solution to Einsteins equations which naturally give an apparent omega(matter) of 0.25 is on http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf page 5.

There is some discussion about the match to omega(m) inferred from the WMAP data. The solution is a De Sitter type, where the 'expansion' or 'rescaling' applies to all lengths and physical constants as described in the paper. The value of 0.25 arises as the 'rescaling' value H is half the value inferred from the redshift distance relation using in current theory. The redshift is from 1+z = exp(2Ht). Big Bang is due to a reduction of gravitational mass for masses whose mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G.

There is very little time left now for this thread, ......all physicists are invited to join in the development of this approach! Let's see if the theory can be developed as Nereids suggests. Maybe then we can start to find a way through the maze of problems in which cosmology finds itself today.

Final thoughts:
i) Can the discrepant redshift of quasars be due to a decrease in gravitational and inertial masses for these objects?...which have been ejected from galactic nuclei.

ii) Dark matter is still required in this approach, is it in motion as in http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0004v1.pdf ?

John Hunter.

[Fortis]

Dear Fortis and Nereid,

The Solution to Einsteins equations which naturally give an apparent omega(matter) of 0.25 is on http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf page 5.

There is some discussion about the match to omega(m) inferred from the WMAP data. The solution is a De Sitter type, where the 'expansion' or 'rescaling' applies to all lengths and physical constants as described in the paper. The value of 0.25 arises as the 'rescaling' value H is half the value inferred from the redshift distance relation using in current theory. The redshift is from 1+z = exp(2Ht). Big Bang is due to a reduction of gravitational mass for masses whose mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G.

There is very little time left now for this thread, ......all physicists are invited to join in the development of this approach! Let's see if the theory can be developed as Nereids suggests. Maybe then we can start to find a way through the maze of problems in which cosmology finds itself today.

Final thoughts:
i) Can the discrepant redshift of quasars be due to a decrease in gravitational and inertial masses for these objects?...which have been ejected from galactic nuclei.

ii) Dark matter is still required in this approach, is it in motion as in http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0004v1.pdf ?

John Hunter.
You say that G scales as

G = G0.exp(3.H.t)

How does this modify the Einstein field equation (how do you even include an explicit, unique, time dependence in a theory that is coordinate independent?) When you modify the EFE in this way, is the de Sitter solution still a valid solution? Can you demonstrate this?

Finally, why did you choose the de Sitter solution rather than the FLRW solution? Do you have any observational evidence that suggests that this should be the appropriate model?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis,

You say that G scales as

G = G0.exp(3.H.t)

How does this modify the Einstein field equation (how do you even include an explicit, unique, time dependence in a theory that is coordinate independent?) When you modify the EFE in this way, is the de Sitter solution still a valid solution? Can you demonstrate this?

Finally, why did you choose the de Sitter solution rather than the FLRW solution? Do you have any observational evidence that suggests that this should be the appropriate model?

The new solution comes from a new way of looking at gravity.

With previous solutions two things are assumed
i) Gravity can change the scale factor
ii) the scale factor effects the distance between galaxies, but not the scale of galaxies themselves, or other objects.

Instead....
i) the changing scale factor causes gravity, but gravity doesn't change the scale factor.
ii) the scale factor effects all distances equally, and physical constants which contain a length dimension. (this change is an extra symmetry principle, which should be part of GR).

So there is no time dependence in G (or we can look at the solution in this way)...G (and every physical constant) always appear constant, and Einsteins equations are valid, but need to be understood with the new interpretation.

The change of scale factor H is constant (unaffected by gravity), so a De Sitter solution is appropriate. When we look at it (page 5 - link two posts above) we can see that if k=0, lamda = 0 there is the solution

p = -rho*c^2

G = H^2/8*pi*rho

This is equivalent to the more intuitive Newtonian approach

mc^2- GMm/R = 0
(for each mass m)......so G = Rc^2/M (M is the mass of the rest of the universe of radius R) i.e. the value of G is caused by expansion (or 'rescaling') such that energy is conserved during expansion. That is, any increase in rest mass due to c^2 changing, is balanced by the increase in gravitational potential energy as G and R change...no changes noticeable due to the symmetry principle. No slowing down of the expansion is required, to conserve energy, with this type of 'expansion', so H can be constant.

It leads to omega(mass) = 0.25 (apparent, really 1.0)

The solution is very simple and only requires a change in our interpretation of the De Sitter model.

It is similar (but only in some ways, there is a redshift) to a static universe. Motion of matter (relative to other matter) is an 'extra' motion not described by the above. 'Bounces' and even 'Big Bang' is the result of a decrease in gravitational and inertial mass, as collapsing matter's mass/radius ratio approaches c^2/G....reasons to expect this follow from mc^2 - GmM/R - Gm^2/r = 0 for dense masses, as discussed in previous posts.

John Hunter.

[Fortis]

Dear Fortis,



The new solution comes from a new way of looking at gravity.

With previous solutions two things are assumed
i) Gravity can change the scale factor
ii) the scale factor effects the distance between galaxies, but not the scale of galaxies themselves, or other objects.

Instead....
i) the changing scale factor causes gravity, but gravity doesn't change the scale factor.
ii) the scale factor effects all distances equally, and physical constants which contain a length dimension. (this change is an extra symmetry principle, which should be part of GR).

So there is no time dependence in G (or we can look at the solution in this way)...G always appears constant, and the De Sitter solution is valid, but needs to be understood with the new interpretation.
So G(t) is not given by

G(t) = G0.exp(3.H.t)

Is that correct?

In your model, what does the Einstein Field Equation look like?

Under what conditions is the de Sitter solution valid, e.g. is it a valid solution for a universe that is matter dominated?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis,

We can look at this in two ways, both are valid.

i) G is constant and Einsteins equations are valid. This is a useful way.

ii) G is changing as G=G(0)exp(3Ht) and every other length and physical quantity is simulataneously changing according to Q= Q(0)exp(nHt) where n is the number of length dimensions in the quantity. No change is measurable, but has occurred nevertheless....it's a symmetry.

To take a similar example of symmetry.
Imagine there is an equilateral triangle, which is then rotated by 120 degrees.

Has the triangle changed?

i) no it's the same

ii) yes it's been rotated.

We can look at it in two ways as well, both are valid.

John Hunter.

P.S in the new interpretation of the De Sitter solution, it is a non empty universe.

[Fortis]

Dear Fortis,

We can look at this in two ways, both are valid.

i) G is constant and Einsteins equations are valid. This is a useful way.

ii) G is changing as G=G(0)exp(3Ht) and every other length and physical quantity is simulataneously changing according to Q= Q(0)exp(nHt) where n is the number of length dimensions in the quantity. No change is measurable, but has occurred nevertheless....it's a symmetry.

To take a similar example of symmetry.
Imagine there is an equilateral triangle, which is then rotated by 120 degrees.

Has the triangle changed?

i) no it's the same

ii) yes it's been rotated.

We can look at it in two ways as well, both are valid.

John Hunter.

P.S in the new interpretation of the De Sitter solution, it is a non empty universe.
So it is still the same EFE as we have had for many years. In that case, what are the conditions required for the de Sitter solution to be a valid solution to the EFE? Is the universe matter dominated? Energy dominated? Dominated by the cosmological constant? Do you know what thise conditions are, and can you provide observational evidence that these conditions actually pertain to the universe that we live in?

[Nereid]

One can imagine many different distances, in addition to dL and dA. Most would not be of any particular interest ... except as possible means to test this ATM idea. Here are a few:

* CMB temperature distance (measure the temperature of the CMB, as it appears in some distant galaxy; compare it to what it should be in a {insert cosmological model here})

* SZE distance (measure the SZE for some distant cluster, compare it to what it should be in a {insert cosmological model here})

* time-dilation distance (measure the apparent duration of a standard event - from the light curve of a Ia SNe, say - compare it to what it should be in a {insert cosmological model here})

* lensing distance (this may be quite boring ... simple geometry is ... or not: because the photons travel different paths in a lensed object, and because the paths scale as L (length), geometry in this case isn't so straight forward. Also, perhaps the different images should have different z's?).

One new question: If omega(m) were found to be (statistically) significantly different from 0.25, would that mean this ATM idea had failed an observational test?
Let's see if the theory can be developed as Nereids suggests.
Some of my comments, and questions, certainly require more work (developing the ATM idea, it's hardly a 'theory' ... yet), some do not.

For example, if indeed scaling affects only L (length), then there will be quite different - and easily estimated (at the 0-th level) - differences between the various distance measures, just as you showed for dL.

How about it?

[john hunter]

Dear Nereid and Fortis,

(Fortis) The reinterpreted De Sitter solution is for a matter dominated universe, cosmological constant = 0. The observational evidence for this is being provided nowadays, by WMAP and others....i.e. omega(m), apparent, is (so far) compatible with 0.25

(Nereid) The idea would be falsified if omega(m) were statistically different from 0.25, there is a prediction for the magnitudes of supernovae too in the paper. If these predictions are wrong, rescaling theory is wrong.

If, however the predictions seem to be reasonable, by Planck and future supernovae surveys, then maybe other scientists would like to get involved....

Thanks for the suggestions for further work.

John Hunter.

[Fortis]

Dear Nereid and Fortis,

(Fortis) The reinterpreted De Sitter solution is for a matter dominated universe, cosmological constant = 0. The observational evidence for this is being provided nowadays, by WMAP and others....i.e. omega(m) is (so far) compatible with 0.25
Isn't the de Sitter solution the solution for the case where you have a positive value of the cosmological constant?

Can you explain how you take the EFE, add in the condition of homogeneous matter distribution, zero cosmological constant, and end off with the de Sitter solution rather than the FLRW solution?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis,

The proposed solution is a new one, different to others. The phrase 'De Sitter' model was used for a model with constant H, like the new one, but it has zero cosmological constant. The Friedmann models have p=0, so the new solution seems closer to de Sitter, than to others.

John Hunter

[Fortis]

Dear Fortis,

The proposed solution is a new one, different to others. The phrase 'De Sitter' model was used for a model with constant H, like the new one, but it has zero cosmological constant.

John Hunter
Can you explain how you derived your solution from the EFE, using your assumption of homogenous matter and a zero value for the cosmological constant?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis,

From text books (all the mathematical complexities will not be relevant)....

The Einstein Field equations, in covarient form, give 2 equations.

These are used with the assumption that H is constant to give the equations on page 5 of http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf

This is compatible with the idea that the 'expansion' or 'rescaling' causes gravitation and not the other way around, which is central to the understanding of the new approach.

Different solutions may be possible at this stage...the one which is most appealing due to its simplicity and fact that omega(matter) = 1, is k=0, flat universe and lambda = 0.

It is shown how the apparent value of omega(m) is 0.25

John Hunter

[Nereid]

Dear Nereid and Fortis,

(Fortis) The reinterpreted De Sitter solution is for a matter dominated universe, cosmological constant = 0. The observational evidence for this is being provided nowadays, by WMAP and others....i.e. omega(m), apparent, is (so far) compatible with 0.25

(Nereid) The idea would be falsified if omega(m) were statistically different from 0.25, there is a prediction for the magnitudes of supernovae too in the paper. If these predictions are wrong, rescaling theory is wrong.

If, however the predictions seem to be reasonable, by Planck and future supernovae surveys, then maybe other scientists would like to get involved....

Thanks for the suggestions for further work.

John Hunter.
I'm a little disappointed that you didn't at least comment on some of the things I posted; after all, at least you could have pointed out which should be (very) straight-forward to address (and give a 0-th order answer) - and why - and which not (and also why).

Never mind; if, as would seem likely, you'll be back, I do hope that the OP of a future thread on this ATM idea contains a detailed response to all the points I've raised, either in the OP itself or in available external material.

FWIW, I think the time dilation distance idea is one you could work on immediately ... naively I can't see how, in a rescaling universe, there would be any time dilation (time has no Length component), so the fact that high-z SNe have time dilated light curves would seem to be a (fatal?) inconsistency ...

One more: how can there be BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) in a rescaling universe?

[Fortis]

Dear Fortis,

From text books (all the mathematical complexities will not be relevant)....

The Einstein Field equations, in covarient form, give 2 equations.

These are used with the assumption that H is constant to give the equations on page 5 of http://vixra.org/pdf/0908.0005v1.pdf

This is compatible with the idea that the 'expansion' or 'rescaling' causes gravitation and not the other way around, which is central to the understanding of the new approach.

Different solutions may be possible at this stage...the one which is most appealing due to its simplicity and fact that omega(matter) = 1, is k=0, flat universe and lambda = 0.

It is shown how the apparent value of omega(m) is 0.25

John Hunter
I still don't see it I'm afraid. In the paper that you reference you do not start off with the EFE (or any field equation, for that matter), plug in the assumptions about the cosmological constant, matter distributions, etc, and show that this leads to the de Sitter solution.

Have you ever done this?

[john hunter]

Dear Fortis,

The equations (7) and (8) in the paper are from the Einstein Field Equations.

The main assumption is that H is constant....so equations (7) and (8) arise straight from that. The assumption of constant H is because, with the new interpretation, the changing scale factor causes gravity, but gravity dosn't effect the rate of change of scale factor.

As you can see there is the very simple solution k=0, lambda = 0. It has equation of state of -1, similar (in only this respect) to the dark energy model. This means that the universe can also be regarded as static with total active gravitational mass rho + p/c^2 = 0 (it's rescaling of course, in a symmetrical way, such that it only appears static).

Collapsing regions of matter bounce due to the attractive gravitational mass approaching zero as mass/radius approaches c^2/G.

Main prediction which can be used as a test: omega(matter) as measured by Planck will be apparently 0.25 exactly.....although the real value is 1.0 (no dark energy).

John Hunter.