Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 5/25/14 at 8:00am UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IX "New evidence, based on detailed...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/30/13 at 16:32pm UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VIII Non-standard Models and the Sociology...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/28/13 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VII Paul Davies: "I have argued that a...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/20/13 at 15:10pm UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VI Philosophers help science to die: ...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/18/13 at 16:04pm UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light V Eugene I. Shtyrkov, The Evolved-Vacuum...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/17/13 at 11:10am UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IV Einsteinians also consider energy loss...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/15/13 at 22:20pm UTC, wrote Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light III A combination of texts that confirms...

Peter Jackson: on 11/15/13 at 18:24pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, Space seems to treat objects as objects with no barrier to race...



FQXi FORUM
November 24, 2017

ARTICLE: Video Article: The Destiny of the Universe [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 21, 2011 @ 22:10 GMT
This article led me to Discover Magazine (Kalmbach Publishing). A Beyond Einstein Section sparked my interest: "Is the Search for Immutable Laws of Nature a Wild-Goose Chase?" Editors of more serious journals including Phys. Rev., nature, Science, and PNAS will perhaps prefer a more factual style. The reason for me to look into "Back from the Future" was to learn more than revealed in the article about the three steps in the mentioned laser experiments. I cannot even confirm an attempt to present possibly convincing data in a style I am used to accept.

Admittedly I am not familiar with Yakir Aharonov and the effect he is renowned for, "in which particles can be affected by electric and magnetic fields, even in regions where those fields should have no reach". Doesn't this assume that particles behave like points rather than spatially extended wave fields? Anyway, I would prefer abstaining from speculations and from questions that lack any basis for a convincing answer.

What about the mentioned three steps, I wonder if they do not overlap. I see the solution to "mysteries" not in boring wild guesses but in hard work that does not shy back from examination of really foundational issues including FOM.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 22, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
Incredible interesting subject Julie,

Our perceptions become awareness and then we become conscious of the universe around us and the causality that is fabricating our life-line. This causality seems logic when you look into the past, and the only thing we can do until now is evaluating the past, in doing so we can create expectations about possible futures, probabilities that can become realities. In the double slit experiment there is a final moment to decide to open or close the second slit (maybe a Planck-time duration), this is the very moment that or the particle form (one slit) or the wave form (two slits), if we assume that it takes place at the very last moment (Planck time) at a distance of the Planck length before the screen, then our wave/particle enters for that little moment a non-causal universe, where both the “realities are present, in our life line it does not matter if there is one slit or if there are two, it is the momentum action that is the the decisive following point in our life-line, that is constituted of one of the probabilities of the non causal universe inside the Planck-scale. The same counts in my opinion for the laser experiment, our intention is to amplify the results even if in the “past” (step 1) we WERE not aware of the multiplication, but is this third step is a causal logical step is what I wonder. In theory all the futures are possible and existing, so also the one in which step 3 leads to the amplification is already a reality, thiunk of this a little further and it counts for the whole history of our universe and so accounts for all the constants that we think that are so peculiar (see my essay. Testing Times arrow can only be accomplished in our 4D causal deterministic universe, we can observe only one aspect of the infinite possibilities of time’s arrows .

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 05:02 GMT
Superimposing absurdities and wasting huge money in the process. Davies & Company should first solve the expanding/static universe dilemma. If they had discussed this dilemma in a biased way, that would still be normal. But if they add backward causation to the already sufficiently absurd accelerating expansion, and if they don't even mention the arguments for a static universe, and if FQXi pays for that - this could only mean that theoretical physics is dead, perhaps irreversibly.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2011 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

Yakir Aharonov has been an internationally established Professor and member of FQXi. Even if his strange idea of backward causation did not find general recognition, there might be several FQXi members with similar putatively foundational ideas, and the effort to provide experimental support was published in PRL.

If you consider dealing with what you called absurdities a wast of money, I would like to remind you of bestselling literature that is appealing to laymen, not just Harry Potter but already science fiction by Jules Verne and to some extent some books by Paul Davies.

Incidentally, I do not expect much of interest to me from the announced panel discussion with Davies on the topic time. Nonetheless, I see it a challenge to provide alternative arguments. Admittedly, this is often not easy.

Read my essay 833 as to get aware of my attitude: Time will tell what was really foundational. I do not exclude that there are still fallacies in seemingly proven most basic tenets of mathematics (FOM) and its careless interpretation.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 04:10 GMT
Sorry Eckard but I find detrimental any activity within a DEDUCTIVE science if the fundamental axioms remain suspicious:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_detail
s.php?id=5538

Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Is the Great Revolution in Science still around the corner or the money now comes from another corner? That is the fundamental question.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 14:45 GMT
Speaking of the next Great Revolution in science will be understood as attribution of Great Revolutions perhaps to G. Cantor and also to Einstein. Even B. Russell praised Cantor's set theory: "The solution of the difficulties which formerly surrounded the mathematical infinite is presumably the greatest achievement of which our age has to boast!"

When Wilhelmus wrote "incredible interesting subject" I see him in company with the many who are potential readers of most sensational stories.

I am not sure whether I understand you Pentcho correctly. Do you support the idea that c is not the maximal speed of light? FQXi and in particular Paul Davies seem to be open for dealing seriously with almost any deviation from mainstream physics on certain conditions. Shouldn't we highly appreciate this attitude?

The 2nd FQXi contest asked what is ultimately possible in physics. My credo was: There are very few indispensable preconditions for successful science. Perhaps the foremost important one is to assume objective reality and causal relations no matter whether or not we may completely reveal it. In other words, there is no room for mysticism and mere speculations in science.

Wasn't the Aharonov-effect called the seventh world wonder of quantum physics?

While I agree on that funding is fundamental to researchers who benefit from it, I do not see physics based on axioms. I am suggesting to look for logical flaws in deductive science. Isn't this a necessary and comparatively cheap activity?

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


John Sulman wrote on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 18:16 GMT
As Eeckard suggests, it need not cost anything more than time to look for logical flaws in deductive science. Likewise I agree that physics should not be based axioms, particularly if derived from mathematics without regard to causes.

Mathematical constants are ratios between idealised values, most often stated in irrational numbers, whereas physics deals in ratios between quantities with integral values which seldom coincide with idealised constants. The result is a battle between opposing forces creating instability as the standard condition, though fortunately there is a self-regulating tendency among all interacting forces to keep chaos within bounds to allow steady development.

Because of this equations in physics can have no universal validity in numeric terms. They can only express dimensional equivalence which tells a very different story from standard theory.

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 24, 2011 @ 18:44 GMT
John Sulman wrote: "As Eeckard suggests, it need not cost anything more than time to look for logical flaws in deductive science."

We can start right now (the procedure is called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM).

Premise: The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (Einstein's 1905 light postulate).

Conclusion 1: Arbitrarily long objects can be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/
SR/barn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

Conclusion 2: A bug can be both dead and alive:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bug
rivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

If the conclusions are absurd, then the premise is false.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
Why did experiments fail to refute Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? Imre Lakatos has given the answer:

http://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html

"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

In the absence of any protective belt, the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes the hard core of Einstein's special relativity and confirms the hard core of Newton's emission theory of light. Already the first element of the protective belt - the ad hoc length-contraction hypothesis advanced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz - reversed the situation: the Michelson-Morley experiment started to support the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 04:28 GMT
In the presence of a gravitational field, the protective belt is called "gravitational time dilation". However the VARIABLE speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light cannot be camouflaged so efficiently as in the field-free situation:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Sulman wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 11:20 GMT
My apologies to Eckard Blumschein for the excess of 'e's in spelling his name. My fingers go at different speeds when using the shift key!

In picking up my approval of the economy in seeking logical flaws, Pentcho Valev demonstrates the flaw in using mathematical theory to resolve a physical problem rather than examining physical causes.

Only waves travel at speeds relative to the background around that of radiation, particles of matter can only vibrate at a comparable speed which is regulated by the ratio of locally available energy to mass at any point constituting a photon. Sufficient energy to accelerate a solid object to such speed could induce a change of phase shrinking it to small fraction of its former size, rather more than the Lorentz Contraction!

report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 15:13 GMT
I read an article from Yonatan Sivan and John Pendry " Time Reversal in Dynamically Tuned Zeo-Gap Periodic Systems (Physical Review letters 106, 193902 (2011), it is about to efficiently time-reverse ultrashort electromagnetic pulses, time reversal eliminates any distortions or scattering that occored at earlier times, regardless of the medium the pulse has propagated through. Are we talking about the same object ? is it not quite sensational Eckard?

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 25, 2011 @ 18:05 GMT
A time-reversed pulse evolves as if time runs backwards: as if! They used a switchable crystal mirror. This is an old hut to those who are familiar with waves.

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Aug. 26, 2011 @ 14:29 GMT
Thanks Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT
I have given one of the author papers a quick reading, which I hope to follow up with a more thorough reading. The basic concept is that quantum mechanics is blind to space and time. A quantum wave function has a representation in space or spacetime, but the wave function is a distribution over a Hilbert space. It is not something intrinsic to space or spacetime. As a result the configuration of a quantum system in the future can be nonlocally associated with some configuration in the past.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 29, 2011 @ 06:24 GMT
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


RAY OLIVER - RAYOLIVERESQ wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 01:35 GMT
Professor Aharonov's theory that the future affects the past is an interesting adaptation of quantum physics. After many years of thought and notations, which was first generated for me by reading Wheeler-Planck theories on Black Holes in space in 1969, I reached my own cosmological interpretation of the genesis of known and unknown sub atomic structures of our known and unknown universe. It is what I call, "TIME, SPACE & RELIGIOSITY" (c)oliver. I agree that time and space are finite. Rather than a model of an expanding universe, it is am "imploded" universe within a vacuum, a Big Bang, which created everything for a few seconds and ended all existence as we now know, within a few seconds or a millisecond. Everything we know to exist, was created and ENDED within that millisecond. However, the creation of time and space places us in a slow component of time, in between the beginning and end. Our known universe is a slow moving slide show of what happened from beginning to end, after that millisecond phenomenon. What is observed as an "expanding universe," appears to be an expansion from within the matrix of time and space. However, what appears to be an expansion is the "constriction" of everything after the implosion within a vacuum. Time & space are finite. Time, space & matter were created on implosion, with the matrix of what was created being stretched in a constriction (expansion from our observation) and had ended within a few seconds after the Big Bang. Time and space are the slowest components of what was created and quickly ended. We are the slow moving components now in between the beginning and the end. We are like a time lapse video of inside a light bulb which blows out when you turned on the light switch. The phenomenon took a second. What happened inside the bulb, within that moment of blast of light is taking millenia to play out for us, because of "time and space" lapses within it. I'd appreciate comments on my theory. google: rayoliveresq

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 10, 2011 @ 23:53 GMT
Balanced attraction and repulsion that involves balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity is the requirement of fundamentally unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Both gravity and inertia must [necessarily] be at half strength/force for such a union to occur. This is required of quantum gravity as well. This can only be done by making space equally (and both) visible and invisible. Opposites must be combined, included, and balanced. Gravity enjoins and balances invisible and visible space. Space must be contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in an equivalent and balanced fashion.

Mathematics cannot fundamentally and ultimately combine, include, and balance opposites. That is obvious. The ultimate understanding of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. Do you agree or disagree? Dreams fundamentally combine and include opposites. Dreams generally and fundamentally unify physics.

Gravity and inertia are both fundamental to distance in/of space. The visible AND YET INVISIBLE (equivalency and balancing) of inertial/gravitational space in dreams even allows for vision, as this is evident in the invisible and visible space of/inside the body/eye while waking. (Vision begins invisibly inside the body/eye.) HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA ARE EQUALLY (AND BOTH) VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE IN DREAMS in keeping with the middle distance in/of space and middle force/energy. Indeed, the space [as a whole/generally] IS semi-visible/semi-invisible in dreams. The space in dreams is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible.

This is the fundamental and general unification of physics in/as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing (both at half strength energy/force) is required of any fundamental unification in physics. It is so fascination that, in dreams, this is inseparable from combining, including, and balancing larger and smaller space as the same space -- FUNDAMENTAL INSTANTANETY! Indeed, the space is entirely inertial and gravitational -- in keeping with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion -- in an equivalent and balanced fashion. Accordingly, the space is both, and it is equally, visible and visible -- and it may or may not be touched in keeping with such fundamental middle strength force/energy (and inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing). The space is both potential and actual in keeping with instantaneity and the fact that the space is equally (and it is both) visible and invisible. (Remember that vision begins invisibly inside the BODY/EYE.) VICTORY!

report post as inappropriate


Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:07 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 11, 2013 @ 15:50 GMT
"Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong (...) So for now the standard model [of cosmology] remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

The standard model of cosmology may be totally wrong but this is Divine Albert's world: Dangerous alternatives (e.g. the "tired light" hypothesis) are not even...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 12, 2013 @ 15:45 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light II

"Vacuum has friction after all (...) But what if the vacuum itself creates a type of friction that puts the brakes on spinning objects? (...) Now, Alejandro Manjavacas and F. Javier García de Abajo of the Institute of Optics at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid say these forces should slow down spinning objects. Just as a head-on collision packs a bigger punch than a tap between two cars one behind the other, a virtual photon hitting an object in the direction opposite to its spin collides with greater force than if it hits in the same direction. So over time, a spinning object will gradually slow down, even if equal numbers of virtual photons bombard it from all sides."

It takes a Divine Albert's world to draw the above analogy and conclude that vacuum friction slows down spinning objects, and at the same time purge any thought that vacuum friction could in the same way slow down photons that we find Hubble redshfted:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 14:33 GMT
Petcho,

Space makes things spin not stop spinning. It's a gyrokinetic effect which is well verified and quantified, yet with a cause no better understood (generally) then any other fundamental of nature. Of course there is a limiting factor, which the stuff the Madrid guys identify will contribute to, but space has the exact opposite effect than the one they describe. Things always keep spinning, as observation shows. Their science is as well thought through and evidenced as most! But crimestop seems to make all look away from evidence (including you so far I'm afraid!).

Put any matter in space and it will start to rotate on a virial radius. You only need to look into space to see the evidence. Even probes we place in space would do so without stabilising provisions. There are scores of papers on it. This is probably as good as any;

Spontaneous Intrinsic Rotation, 2011.

I hope that helps.

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 12:24 GMT
Pentcho,

Slowing light produces blue shift. It does so in a medium of higher refractive index, which equates to Polarisation Mode Dispersion (PMD) which slows the bulk propagation speed due to interaction density.

A GRIN lens shows this by having an effective graded density, producing curved light paths and non-linear blue shift. When light re-emerges from the denser medium it reverts to local c and reverts (redshifts) back to it's original wavelength. All this is irrefutably proved in optical science experimentation.

I agree cosmic redshift does not prove accelerated expansion, but you have again wrongly identified the cause of the redshift. That does not aid the task of getting physics back on track so more care is needed not to give dissent a worse reputation than it already has.

Consider; If space with a wave embedded within it expands, what might you expect to happen to the wavelength? In an intelligent approach accelerated expansion can be shown to be self defeating.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 22:20 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light III

A combination of texts that confirms the idea of the Hubble redshift as an expression of the slowing down (or tiring, to use an euphemism) of light by vacuum friction (in a STATIC universe):

Paul Davies: "As pointed out by DeWitt, the quantum vacuum is in some respects reminiscent of the aether, and in what follows it may be helpful to think of space-time as filled with a type of invisible fluid medium, representing a seething background of vacuum fluctuations. Although the mechanical properties of this medium can be strange, and the image should not be pushed too far, it is sometimes helpful to envisage this "quantum aether" as possessing a type of viscosity."

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

Mario Cosentino: "Nous savons que l'espace inter-galactique est loin d'être vide et nous ne connaissons pas toutes les interactions que les photons, nous venant des supernovae, subissent au cours de leur très long parcours. Si les photons en interagissant avec le vide quantique viendraient à perdre de l'énergie, sans diffusion, alors toutes les interprétations seraient fausses et l'Univers ne serait pas en expansion accélérée. Ainsi la théorie de la "lumière fatiguée" d'Einstein, et d'autres, garde toute sa pertinence."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 11:10 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IV

Einsteinians also consider energy loss of photons caused by vacuum friction but insist that their "model of dissipation" has nothing to do the tired light model, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "What is the viscosity of space-time? (...) If space-time was viscous, the photons would lose energy during their travel. (...) Yeah, Einstein was right, again. (...) Our model of dissipation and the tired light are different in two ways. An obvious one is that in our case this emergent spacetime induced effect could be there in principle for any particle not just for photons. The second, and more important point, is that the energy dissipation is in our case an energy dependent effect (mainly effective only for very high energy particles) which as such would give a very different signature w.r.t. tired light."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 16:04 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light V

Eugene I. Shtyrkov, The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts: "There are also alternative models of redshifts which obey the redshift-distance relation and based on an idea of gradual change of light parameters due to interaction between light and matter while the light is traveling gigantic distances through space for a very long time. There are two candidate...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 20, 2013 @ 15:10 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VI

Philosophers help science to die:

"Popper's purpose with his letter in Nature was to discuss the generally accepted expansion of the universe in relation to theories that explained Edwin Hubble's redshift data on the assumption of special mechanisms operating in a static universe. According to one alternative the speed of light decreased with time, while another alternative (the class of "tired light" hypotheses) assumed that light gradually lost energy during its journey through empty space from the nebulae to the Earth. Clearly inspired by Milne, Popper examined two alternatives to the relativistic theory of cosmic expansion, arguing that they agreed in regard to observable effects, that is, they led to galactic redshifts of the kind predicted by the expansion theory. "The three theories are logically equivalent," he wrote, "and therefore do not describe alternative facts, but the same facts in alternative languages." But does the universe really expand? Or does the speed of light instead decrease? Or is it rather the case that the frequency of photons changes with the distance they travel? According to Popper, the question was "not more legitimate than, when prices of goods fall throughout the economic system, to ask whether 'in reality' the value of money has increased or the value of the goods has decreased."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 28, 2013 @ 18:00 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VII

Paul Davies: "I have argued that a heuristic way to regard dynamic vacuum energy effects is by appealing to a sort of vacuum friction. This leads to mechanical back-reaction effects, such as the slowing of rotating black holes or the viscous drag between moving plates. It also leads to particle creation from the vacuum."

Question: Does vacuum friction lead to the Hubble redshift as well?

Einsteinians:

"No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

"We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe. Yes we all live in an expanding universe, expanding universe, expanding universe."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 30, 2013 @ 16:32 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light VIII

Non-standard Models and the Sociology of Cosmology, Martin Lopez-Corredoira: "Cosmologists do not usually work within the framework of alternative cosmologies because they feel that these are not at present as competitive as the standard model. Certainly, they are not so developed, and they are not so developed because cosmologists do not work on them. It is a vicious circle. The fact that most cosmologists do not pay them any attention and only dedicate their research time to the standard model is to a great extent due to a sociological phenomenon (the "snowball effect" or "groupthink"). We might well wonder whether cosmology, our knowledge of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other fields of physics or a predominant ideology. (...) Alternative theories die because they are being killed by the same people who say that they are dead."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on May. 25, 2014 @ 08:00 GMT
Hubble Redshift = Slowed Light IX

"New evidence, based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies, indicates that the Universe is not expanding after all, says a team of astrophysicists led by Eric Lerner from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. (...) Therefore if the Universe is not expanding, the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena - something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space."

As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into vacuum particles and as a result loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.