CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]
TOPIC:
The Quasar Cluster that Kills the Cosmological Principle?
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 15:11 GMT
 |
Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan |
Thanks to John Merryman for suggesting the topic of this post. Earlier this month, a team of astronomers led by Roger G. Clowes at the University of Central Lancashire reported the
discovery of the largest structure seen in the universe, a clump of 73 quasars spanning 4 billion light years across, in data taken by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. (Our Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years across for comparison). The results were published in
MNRAS.
The cluster has been dubbed the “Huge-LQG” (Huge-large-quasar-group), and neighbors another large clump, the “CCLQG” (where the CC stands for the names of its discoverers, Clowes (again) and Campusano). This corner of the sky is apparently where all fashionable quasars want to hang out, and that’s a problem for modern cosmology, which is founded on the “cosmological principle” that
the universe should look pretty much the same in every direction, on large scales.
The image shows the occurrence of quasars (darker colors indicate more quasars) in the region. The HUGE-LQG is marked by the chain of black circles, while the red crosses mark its smaller neighbor. The map covers an impressive 29.4 by 24 degrees on the sky. (Credit: R. G. Clowes / UCLan.)
The story has been reported a lot in the
news, and you can listen to a nice NPR podcast about it
here. Taken alone, it’s a nice story about a puzzling thing that seems to defy our current theories of cosmology. But there’s a wider question: Cosmology is a relatively new science (there’ll be a bit more about that in this month’s forthcoming podcast, which I am about to upload). Cosmologists and astronomers don’t have the luxury of being able to carry out experiments to test their theories and so models are built based on the relatively small amount of data available at the time. So should we be surprised that as we push the observational boundaries, the data calls our models into question? Or do you think that each apparently startling result will eventually be brought into the fold?
Please feel free to add in other links to recent results that have been puzzling astronomers and cosmologists and to discuss what they ultimately mean for our standard model of cosmology.
John Merryman wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 15:57 GMT
Thanks Zeeya!
Adding some other links to recent...
view entire post
Thanks Zeeya!
Adding some other links to recent observations:
http://www.nature.com/news/nearby-star-is-almos
t-as-old-as-the-universe-1.12196http://phys.org/news/2012-09
-astrophysicists-spy-ultra-distant-galaxy-cosmic.htmlhttp://
phys.org/news/2012-07-earliest-spiral-galaxy-discovery.htmlh
ttp://phys.org/news/2011-12-mysterious-red-galaxies.htmlhttp
://phys.org/news/2012-06-rare-case-gravitational-lensing.htm
lhttp://phys.org/news/2011-12-spitzer-hubble-telescopes-rare
-galaxy.htmlhttp://phys.org/news/2011-12-strange-species-ult
ra-red-galaxy.htmlhttp://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pu
b/2007/9/modern-cosmology-science-or-folktalehttp://phys.org
/news190027752.html
Here is an interesting paper from the FQXi files, as to how light might be redshifted by means other than recession of the source;
http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008CChristov_Wav
eMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdfI would note that light only exists as a particle when it is absorbed, but travels as a wave. Consider the two slit experiment, that traveling through the slits, it is a wave, while it is only when it stops at absorption that it is a point "particle." So when released into space, it doesn't travel as a particular photon for billions of lightyears, so logically what is received is a sample of the wave front. This would fit with what Christov says in the above paper.
As for background radiation, if light is redshifted by distance, not recession, it would be the solution to Olber's Paradox.
This issue will eventually become a serious topic of broad discussion. It's only a matter of whether FQXi is ahead of the story, or following it.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Jan. 23, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
"Galaxy Clusters Back Up Einstein's Theory of Relativity. (...) The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. (...) The effect is known as gravitational redshifting."Does "light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field" mean "light will lose SPEED as it is escaping a gravitational field"? In other words, is the gravitational redshift a measure of the reduction in the speed of light? In 1911 Einstein said light loses speed just as cannonballs do, then in 1916, in the final version of general relativity, he informed the world that light loses speed even faster than cannonballs.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 12:00 GMT
Photons slowed down by the gravitational field of the emitter:
"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen's Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a...
view entire post
Photons slowed down by the gravitational field of the emitter:
"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen's Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away. The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar's redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause. This validates Halton Arp's theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin. (...) One likely cause of the quasar's nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light."The fact that the gravitational redshift is a measure of the slowing down of photons escaping a gravitational field is so obvious that even the Albert Einstein Institute admits it:
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
Yet there is an awful implication: the speed of redshifted light coming to Earth is lower than c. This is fatal for both physics and cosmology so the issue will never be discussed - generations of scientists will have to take
the only possible position whenever the gravitational redshift discussion shifts in the dangerous direction.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 18:33 GMT
Pentcho,
I don't think it's an issue whether light slows in various mediums and fields. The argument is that since ultimately any clock is composed of light, it will also slow in the same situation and so the measure will remain equal. The issue, as I see it, is that measures of time and space/distance are considered equivalent and are part of some foundational mathematical geometry that...
view entire post
Pentcho,
I don't think it's an issue whether light slows in various mediums and fields. The argument is that since ultimately any clock is composed of light, it will also slow in the same situation and so the measure will remain equal. The issue, as I see it, is that measures of time and space/distance are considered equivalent and are part of some foundational mathematical geometry that determines the actions of said energy. I would argue this geometry only models these relationships and space and time are not equivalent. When we measure time we measure rate of activity, as temperature is level of activity. When we measure space though, we measure space and nothing, not even geometry, underlays space. Space has two essential properties; It is infinite and absolute, as in inert, like a temperature of absolute zero. It doesn't originate in a singularity. The center point is a reference point from which we must start. The best argument for space as inertial is that centrifugal force doesn't depend on a frame external to the spin, but is spin relative to inertia.
So we have space, with energy moving around. What is gravity, if not a warping of spacetime? I would say it's a consequence of energy condensing into matter. Light travels as a wave, but is absorbed as a quantum. Witness the two slit experiment, where it travels through the slits as a wave, but is captured by the photon detector at points. Waves expand, while points are contractions. Carry this process of condensing energy down through all the layers of a galaxy, from the cosmic rays and light elements on the perimeter, down through stellar fusion into heavier elements, until these heaviest elements fall into the vortex at the center and are ejected out the poles as jets of electrons. Just as turning mass into energy creates pressure, the opposite is true, energy condensing into mass creates a vacuum, ie. gravity. That's why there is no dark matter on the perimeter of galaxies, only excess cosmic rays.
Pardon any grammatical errors. I'm having to write this on a phone and the box scroll function is beyond me.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Domenico Oricchio wrote on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 11:41 GMT
If the Universe wave function is a continuous function, then the variation of the wave function on a small scale (in terms of Universe) is small: I think that the Universe of the simultanei events is locally homogeneous: it is weaker than the cosmological principle but it is certainly valid.
Saluti
Domenico
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 20:59 GMT
John,
It's not quite true that no theory predicts these findings, including the high z quasar and complex CMB anisotropies.
Those who read my last two essays, particularly '2020 vision' (2011) may recall the simple cyclic model proposed, which predicts an axial flow in the CMBR, no great attractor but a 'great emitter' in the other direction, the helical morphology found (also in the paper I've endlessly posted links to here) and also indeed the full suite of anisotropies identified by Smoot and in this very comprehensive analysis;
Copi C. J., et al. Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB., Adv. Astron.2010; 2010:847541. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2010/847541/fig4/
http://m
nras.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/07/mnras.sts49
7.full#ref-5
I've just posted some lovely recent quotes on my essay blog, explained the basics and invited falsifications. The problem is that, as Joy has found, although all claim that major changes are needed, as soon as any are proposed all, even in supposedly fundamental forums, run and hide or group together like the 3 monkeys shouting; "nonsense - it must be wrong as it's not what we learnt at school!"
In the above essay I estimated it would be around 2020 before the reactionaries died off or matured, so physics could finally release the chains and move on. I haven't yet changed that estimate. How DO we get people to think differently? And if fQXi has now reverted to reactionary old boy 'science by beleif' what hope is there?
Peter
post approved
John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 04:15 GMT
Peter,
I think it's evident in this forum the extent to which social and political realities are very much a factor in what happens. The best I can say is to keep chipping away at the foundations of the ivory tower. Maybe it might fall one day. Maybe we are just scratching graffiti. Maybe both. There are so many bubbles in the world today, that seem ready to burst, but only keep getting bigger, that I've learned to not get emotional about any of them. Just keep scratching away at whatever catches my attention. The world doesn't take us too serious, so don't take the world too seriously.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 11:56 GMT
John,
Gold is one of the things you must bite to test but still don't have to swallow. Yet people seem too afraid to bite. So here we are, finally found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - but nobody's interested.
I now picture myself at a dusty market sitting on the pot with a pile of gold on the table as people pass and turn away whispering their belief that the pot's cracked and the wares just fools gold.
Few bite it to test, and even those that do back off and wander away as they're not familiar with such wares so don't trust what they find.!. It's human nature really. Our current state of evolution.
No worries. Most will be grabbing at it eventually. My seat's comfortable, the sun's shining, I have a good book half written and the people are very interesting to study. If you need a hand with the mallet and chisel, or perhaps the odd nugget, just let me know.
Best wishes
Peter
post approved
John Merryman replied on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 12:51 GMT
Peter,
Gold is a bit like a quantum particle. Its value is generally a function of context, rather than absolute. The point you make is valid, but is it one more symptom of a deeper disconnect? For example, how much of the current dust up over non-locality, that seems to be going on over Joy's disproof of Bell would be moot, if physics considered the wave as fundamental and the particle as simply a property of it, like a wave crest, as opposed to the current belief that particles are fundamental and waves are just statistical? Then the "entangled particles" are different crests of the same wave. Even the Higgs seems to have some extension, given the two detectors measure it at slightly different energies.
I keep making my point that time is not a vector from past to future, but the changing configuration of what is, that turns future into past and I think it is fairly foundational to why we misinterpret physics, but it doesn't get much notice from others equally convinced their particular views are more foundational. It's as much a matter of the physics of subjective knowledge as anything. We are observers of the circus.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 13:28 GMT
John,
"We are observers of the circus." So it seems, but I'm a 'do'er not a spectator. I don't expect or live off applause either.
Presenting more evidence of an AGN based recycling model, this today;
Black Holes Grow Faster than Predicted This lenticular galaxy should be about to start jetting on it's perpendicular axis any moment now (in astronomical terms, which means it probably did so about 20 million years ago and the light from that will reach us in just another 8 million years time).
It also of course derived our pre 'big bang' state, pretty well as the picture.
Considered along with the CMB anisotropy data link I posted, Does that really sound so ridiculous?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 14, 2013 @ 09:40 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum
NATURE: "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction."The hint made by the journal NATURE leads to an extremely dangerous (for both relativity and cosmology) conclusion: since the vacuum is filled with some material, the speed of light coming to us from distant astronomical objects may not be constant, and this explains the cosmological redshift:
"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?""At present it is ascertained that vacuum is not an "empty space" - rather, it is a certain material continuum with quite definite although still unknown properties. This has been confirmed by observation of vacuum effects such as "zero-oscillations", vacuum polarization, particle generation by electromagnetic interactions. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that physical vacuum could have internal friction due to its own small but real viscosity, which in the end produces redshift. (...) ...the differential equation for the speed of light dc/dt=-Ho*c(t)"Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 08:10 GMT
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 20:24 GMT
Pentcho,
It seems you've derived cosmological blue shift. Unfortunately there isn't any. The effect you cite is the reverse of what is found. If photons (or waves) slowed down approaching the Milky Way they would 'close up' giving shorter wavelength (higher observed frequency) which is the inverse of z.
There are of course real mechanisms able to give the cosmological redshift which are not currently allowed for. In fact I've recently found one of Eckards favourites Shtyrkov guilty of anticipatory plagourism by copying one (of 5) I derived and termed expansion shift, and publishing it in Russian 10 years before I even thought of it! Link below, as recently translated (I'm writing to him to complain!).
In Coherent Forward Scattering, which is how light is transmitted by electrons, the energy of propagation comes from the particles, all re-emitting at local c, not from the emitter! Massive bodies are slowed down by interactions, as the report says, light is not.
Shtyrkov. E.I., The Evolved-Vacuum Model of Redshifts. 1999( 2008). Best wishes.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 20:45 GMT
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 21:22 GMT
Pentcho,
You err in assuming 'absolute' is the only 'background' type possible. In fact you'll find NO local backgrounds are or need to be 'absolute'.
In Smoot's Nobel winning CMBR analysis he clearly identified the implicit and independent local background media frames of a) Earth, b) The Milky Way, c) the Local Group, (within our cluster) and so on. Each then has it's own relative velocity through it's local background.
Ignoring the Earth and Galaxy etc, The Sun's relative volocity with respect to the CMBR axial flow (so NOT a 'propagation speed'!!) is 370 k/sec. I'm continually surprised by the difficulty most have in assimilating the kinetics of that data. It only takes a little effort and focus.
Then the only job is to identify the domain limits ("CMB surfaces last scattered") and the mechanism.
I'll try to explain it better and provide more links if necessary. Scott & Smoot's paper is here;
Nobel winning Kinetic CMB Analysis The only problem was he couldn't logically explain the findings without ether, but suggested 'differential expansion!! instead of the simple realtive motion now derived (see prev links).
Peter
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
doug wrote on Feb. 15, 2013 @ 13:10 GMT
The Dark Matter halo surrounding Huge-LQG should be darker than the halo of smaller surrounding galaxies, as the gravitational pullback on light in Huge-LQG slows it down to a greater degree than the smaller galaxies will, and it therefore the newly created space manifests itself as denser "New Heavy Dark Matter Space". Is the technology avaialble to confirm this?
CIG allows for the quasar cluster as it offers a vaying cosmological non-constant. These occurences (i.e. the grouping of large galaxies) are no different than the presence of a large molecule in a sea of hydrogen.
THX
doug
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 17, 2013 @ 10:25 GMT
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2013 @ 09:51 GMT
Pentcho,
Does the water in a spa pool move? of course. So as c/n for water is a constant; For an observer outside the pool, is the speed of a light pulse c/n passing through water flowing one way not DIFFERENT to the speed c/n through the water in flow heading the OTHER way?
Think carefully. Here be the pot of gold to defrock thine enemy. Yet this Holy Grail can only be seen and understood by the intelligent (and Harrison Ford).
Space as a medium was indeed the theme of my essay, and then with discrete 'fields,' each with states of motion (DFM).
Much ado about nothing. Consequences Assumption of space as a mediumPeter
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2013 @ 01:00 GMT
One more "
anomaly;"
"With a better handle on the star's brightness Bond's team refined the star's age by applying contemporary theories about the star's burn rate, chemical abundances, and internal structure. New ideas are that leftover helium diffuses deeper into the core and so the star has less hydrogen to burn via nuclear fusion. This means it uses fuel faster and that correspondingly lowers the age. Also, the star has a higher than predicted oxygen-to-iron ratio, and this too lowers the age. Bond thinks that further oxygen measurement could reduce the star's age even more, because the star would have formed at a slightly later time when the universe was richer in oxygen abundance. Lowering the upper age limit would make the star unequivocally younger than the universe. "Put all of those ingredients together and you get an age of 14.5 billion years, with a residual uncertainty that makes the star's age compatible with the age of the universe," said Bond. "This is the best star in the sky to do precision age calculations by virtue of its closeness and brightness."
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-hubble-birth-certificate-oldest
-star.html
They are unabashed about skewing every parameter toward a younger age. The power of belief is very strong. Objectivity can't get in the way.
While it isn't mentioned, the ages presented seem to refer to how long a star has been burning, not how long it took to coalesce out of cosmic gases. Not to mention this is a second generation star(metals) and those first generation stars had to coalesce as well. According to inflation theory, the universe expanded to larger than what is visible, in the inflationary stage, so the process of enough gases being gravitationally accumulated wasn't something that could have happened in the week or two these theories seem to allot for it.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 14, 2013 @ 01:13 GMT
another"Marrone, who is the principal investigator of the gravitational lensing portion of the project, explained that because only those super-distant galaxies can be discovered that happen to lie in perfect alignment with another galaxy that can act as a lens and the Earth, it is likely that they are much more abundant than previously thought. "It has been thrilling to be among the first to use ALMA to study the very early universe," added Spilker. "We are now trying to use the molecules we see to explain how and why these galaxies were so active, so soon after the Big Bang."
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-alma-monster-starburst-galaxies
-early.html
With ALMA fully up and running, this should get interesting.
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman wrote on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 12:54 GMT
I realize I'm beating a dead horse or a very stubborn mule here, but reading through the various postings on the Planck results, I can't help but comment on the primordial thermodynamic processes at work here and how time is a function of how they evolve. Thus if we insist on some form of blocktime reality, while it provides a necessary narrative structure to our ability to comprehend, it also has to somehow freeze the very processes at work here. Now most people/physicists considering this seem to compartmentalize this divergence quite instinctively, but it sticks out like a sore thumb to me and all the browbeating I get for raising the issue hasn't cured my skepticism. To quote Galileo, "Yet it moves!"
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 23, 2013 @ 19:33 GMT
John,
Planks findings; "challenge the very foundations of cosmology." You're not shouting in the dark. Things move. but only ever relatively.
I paste my post from the IOP Computational Astronomy & Astrophysics blog below;
And ~20% more Dark matter than assumed!!
This has greater implications as it finally proves or fundamental assumptions and the concordance...
view entire post
John,
Planks findings; "challenge the very foundations of cosmology." You're not shouting in the dark. Things move. but only ever relatively.
I paste my post from the IOP Computational Astronomy & Astrophysics blog below;
And ~20% more Dark matter than assumed!!
This has greater implications as it finally proves or fundamental assumptions and the concordance cosmological model are wrong. Some quotes;
"substantial asymmetry in the CMB signal observed in the two opposite hemispheres of the sky:"
"These anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background pattern might challenge the very foundations of cosmology, suggesting that some aspects of the standard model of cosmology may need a rethink."
"in particular, the large-scale isotropy might not hold when considering really large scales."
"...the extraordinary quality of the Planck data reveals the presence of subtle anomalies in the CMB pattern that might challenge the very foundations of cosmology."
"The anomalies in the CMB are telling us something fundamental: we do not know yet what this is, but we are eager to find out,"
...or so they say. They were informed of a hypothesis which required minimal change, but change to a fundamental hidden assumption, three years ago, which fully predicted and explained all these novel and peculiar anisotropies. Did they study it? , and are they doing so now? What do you think?
Now studying their 'inflation' (expansion rate) analysis - they claim to have compared 'all' possible alternative models to conclude the cold dark matter (CDM) model as best fit. I don't disagree with the 'best fit', but they used the same fundamental assumptions in all cases, so did NOT compare all possible alternative models.
Then at the same time they admit something fundamental is wrong. I suggest there is something fundamentally wrong about the 'way we do science'."
(end of post)
The peculiar 'anomalous' predictions are all specified in detail or fully implicit in my last three essays. I'm sure you won't argue John, and am equally sure they that maintain mainstream will just turn away in fright, as the likes of Tom & co here, (if that possible when their head's are buried so deep in the sand!) But it's not just they that are guilty. We all are.
My best guess for enlightenment is still ~2020. Yours?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Merryman replied on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 00:37 GMT
Peter,
That seems a long way off, but in reality it might still be too quick. Unfortunately.
It's not that their heads are buried in the sand, but in the math. There seems to be a quote of Hawking, floating around various conversation, about what "breathes fire into the equations." The foundational belief being in the Platonic/deistic nature of the math, with the physical reality as a redheaded step-child, rather than the math emerging from the "fire."
In my more pessimistic thoughts, it occurs to me that epicycles might not have lasted for 2000 years, had the dark ages not occurred. Given the eventual implosion of this current historic financial bubble, the current physics might end up being locked in place until long after our generation is gone.
As for the current round of anomalies, I'd like to think there is one to break the camel's back, but considering the patches already applied, these will only take a dab or two of plaster.
I'd like to be more optimistic, but the psychological realities are as unforgiving as the physical realities.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 26, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
The idea that light interacts with the "vacuum" and so its speed changes is getting more and more popular:
"Speed of Light May Not be Constant (...) Two separate studies by scientists from the University of Paris-Sud in France and from the Max Planck Institutes for the Physics of Light in Germany are disputing the long established belief concerning the nature of a vacuum. (...) A vacuum,...
view entire post
The idea that light interacts with the "vacuum" and so its speed changes is getting more and more popular:
"Speed of Light May Not be Constant (...) Two separate studies by scientists from the University of Paris-Sud in France and from the Max Planck Institutes for the Physics of Light in Germany are disputing the long established belief concerning the nature of a vacuum. (...) A vacuum, when viewed at the quantum level at the smallest and most basic level is not empty, but instead filled with particle pairs such as electron-positron or quark-antiquark pairs that are constantly appearing and disappearing. While these particle pairs are real particles, their lifetimes are extremely short. If these findings are proved to be true, they could have an impact on current scientific theories that take the speed of light into consideration. Both studies will be published in an upcoming edition of the European Physical Journal - D (EPJ-D)."Time to remember Jean-Claude Pecker:
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les « redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de cette vision de l'univers."
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en expansion."
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi de Hubble, prédite très simplement."
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 17:15 GMT
"Speed of Light is Not Constant, Say Scientists. According to two new studies, speed of light referred by Albert Einstein as a constant in vacuum is not actually a constant. The speed of light in vacuum was said to be 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186, 282 miles per second, back in 1975. However, the studies say that the vacuum is not actually a vacuum as it comprises ephemeral particles with...
view entire post
"Speed of Light is Not Constant, Say Scientists. According to two new studies, speed of light referred by Albert Einstein as a constant in vacuum is not actually a constant. The speed of light in vacuum was said to be 299,792,458 meters per second, or 186, 282 miles per second, back in 1975. However, the studies say that the vacuum is not actually a vacuum as it comprises ephemeral particles with changing energy levels, which attributes to the fluctuation of speed of light. According to the Alpha Galileo Foundation, the belief that speed of light is constant will not be true any longer as the vacuum is not as empty as previously thought."HYPOTHESIS: As the photon travels through space (in a STATIC universe), it bumps into "virtual 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.
On this hypothesis the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):
Fr = - KV
That is, the speed of light decreases with time in accordance with the equation:
dV/dt = - K'V
Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR for short distances. For distant light sources we have:
f' = f(exp(-kt))
where f is the original and f' the measured (redshifted) frequency. (The analogy with the golf ball requires that it be assumed that the speed of light and the frequency vary while the wavelength remains unchanged.) For short distances the following approximations can be made:
f' = f(exp(-kt)) ~ f(1-kt) ~ f - kd/L
where d is the distance between the light source and the observer and L is the wavelength. The equation f'=f-kd/L is only valid for short distances and corresponds to the Hubble law whereas the equation f'=f(exp(-kt)), by showing that later contributions to the redshift are smaller than earlier ones, provides an alternative explanation, within the framework of a STATIC universe, of the observations that brought the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. The analogy with the golf ball suggests that, at the end of a very long journey (in a STATIC universe), photons redshift much less vigorously than at the beginning.
Pentcho Valev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Mar. 27, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Lubos Motl comment:
Speed of light is variable: only in junk media
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/speed-of-light-is-var
iable-only-in-junk.htm
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Mar. 29, 2013 @ 08:50 GMT
The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light, M. Urban, F. Couchot, X. Sarazin and A. Djannati-Atai: "When a real photon propagates in vacuum, it interacts with and is temporarily captured by an ephemeral pair. As soon as the pair disappears, it releases the photon to its initial energy and momentum state. The photon continues to propagate with an infinite bare velocity. Then the photon interacts again with another ephemeral pair and so on. The delay on the photon propagation produced by these successive interactions implies a renormalisation of this bare velocity to a finite value."
This is not very reasonable but still it may generate an extremely heretical thought:
If photons coming to Earth from distant astronomical objects constantly bump into vacuum constituents and slow down as a result, this could explain the Hubble redshift without recourse to universe expansion, Big Bang etc.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Mar. 31, 2013 @ 21:50 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum
Prof. E. I. Shtyrkov: "At present, vacuum has been experimentally established to be not a void but it is some material medium with definite but not so far investigated features. It was really confirmed by observation of several vacuum effects, for instance, zero oscillations and polarization of vacuum, generating the particles in vacuum due to electromagnetic interaction. Therefore, it was reasonable to assume that this real matter-physical vacuum can possess internal friction due to its small but a real viscosity to result in variation of light-matter interaction. That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down... (...) The frequency perceived by observers at any point on the light path depends on the light velocity being at the observation time."
"Paradoxalement, Hubble n'admit jamais cette théorie du Big-Bang et de l'expansion de l'univers. Il défendit la théorie de "la lumière fatiguée" reprise par Pecker, Vigier et Alton Arp. Dans cette théorie, la lumière en parcourant de longues distances perd une partie de son énergie ET DE SA VITESSE, et se décalent vers le rouge."Einsteinians and cosmologists.
Clever Einsteinians and clever cosmologists.
Pentcho Valev
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Apr. 8, 2013 @ 08:00 GMT
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum (II)
E. I. Shtyrkov: "That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down..."
Paul Davies: "The quantum vacuum may in certain circumstances be regarded as a type of fluid medium, or aether, exhibiting energy...
view entire post
Decreasing Speed of Light in a Non-Empty Vacuum (II)
E. I. Shtyrkov: "That is, vacuum can affect on the light wave because of certain resistance. This may be a reason for the redshifts observed. (...) The electromagnetic wave is gradually slowing down..."
Paul Davies: "The quantum vacuum may in certain circumstances be regarded as a type of fluid medium, or aether, exhibiting energy density, pressure, stress and friction. (...) This sort of phenomenon is at its most striking in the case of a single atom moving parallel to, but some distance from, an imperfectly conducting plate. The atom also experiences a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction."
Question: Einsteinians, do photons coming from distant galaxies experience a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction?
Einsteinians: Shtyrkov is wrong by definition but Brother Paul Davies is right by definition so... No! Help! Help! Divine Einstein! Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Brother Paul Davies speaks of an atom, not of a photon! The atom does experience a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction because Brother Paul Davies says so but the photon never experiences a velocity-dependent damping force due to vacuum friction because... well... because we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity! Crimestop! Crimestop! Crimestop!
"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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 22:10 GMT
John Merryman wrote on Apr. 17, 2013 @ 21:43 GMT
Another "
anomaly;
""Massive, intense starburst galaxies are expected to only appear at later cosmic times," says Dominik Riechers, who led the research while a senior research fellow at Caltech. "Yet, we have discovered this colossal starburst just 880 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was at little more than 6 percent of its current age." Now an assistant professor at Cornell, Riechers is the first author of the paper describing the findings in the April 18 issue of the journal Nature.
While the discovery of this single galaxy isn't enough to overturn current theories of galaxy formation, finding more galaxies like this one could challenge those theories, the astronomers say. At the very least, theories will have to be modified to explain how this galaxy, dubbed HFLS3, formed, Riechers says."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-massive-galaxy-intense-star-for
mation.html#jCp
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 01:53 GMT
Another;
heremore on the same Could it simply be two galaxies colliding?
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 16:16 GMT
John,
It sure could. But collisions are a much overrated feature due to the lack of any accepted evolutionary cycle. (You'll recall the cycle I proposed the evidence suggests?)
Analyse how many galaxies are found 'near' collision, and most of the collision thing is falsified. Quasar jetting stellar production rates are just as high.
Anyway I've just read your essay and commented. Good stuff, Well done.
Good to be back around.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jun. 4, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Peter,
Maybe just the jet pointing in our direction. Safe to say, I am not buy the whole bubble universe thing.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 20:51 GMT
Another interesting
theory:"Just such a signature might already have been found. Astronomers struggle to account for the distribution of dwarf galaxies in orbit around both the Milky Way and Andromeda. The dwarf galaxies could be explained if they were born from gas and stars ripped out of the two parent galaxies during their close encounter.
Pavel Kroupa sees this as the 'smoking gun' for the collision. "Given the arrangement and motion of the dwarf galaxies, I can't see how any other explanation works", he comments.
The team now plan to model the encounter using Milgromian dynamics and are developing a computer code at Bonn University for this purpose."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-andromeda-milky-billion-years.h
tml#jCp
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 2, 2013 @ 16:12 GMT
Another interesting finding. This related to the limits of our understand of how light relates to matter:
"In these experiments, it has been observed that light (photons) emanating from the collision zone varies in intensity depending on the direction of light emission (Fig. 1). This uneven distribution of photons is similar to the pattern expected for a quark–gluon plasma, which has...
view entire post
Another interesting finding. This related to the limits of our understand of how light relates to matter:
"In these experiments, it has been observed that light (photons) emanating from the collision zone varies in intensity depending on the direction of light emission (Fig. 1). This uneven distribution of photons is similar to the pattern expected for a quark–gluon plasma, which has surprised scientists. "Photons do not interact with the created matter and cannot be sensitive to the shape of the fireball," says Bzdak. "This is a clear paradox and so far there is no compelling explanation. Clearly we do not understand something very basic."
Although several theories, such as the role of magnetic fields, have been proposed that could explain this effect, a clear explanation has not been possible. Bzdak and Skokov have now proposed a scheme that aims to identify whether magnetic fields are indeed responsible, or whether photons are simply produced non-uniformly during the collisions. Their theoretical study compares the emission patterns of photons for different shapes of the quark–gluon plasma and different numbers of particles creating magnetic fields. If the emission pattern of the photons follows that of the different quark–gluon plasma, it would verify the direct connection between the two phenomena."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-experimental-interacts-high-ene
rgies.html#jCp
This has to do with my contention that we really cannot say that light travels as point particles, simply because it is absorbed by atomic structure as quantifiable units of measure. Nor can we say with complete certainty its relation to mass. Right now we have this increasingly fantastical cosmology, based on the assertion that the only possible explanation for redshift of distant light is recession of the source. Given all the patches required to keep it on life support and the ignorance of many of the properties of light, serious review will eventually be necessary.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 24, 2013 @ 02:01 GMT
Another galaxy, very far away"The galaxy, known by its catalog name z8_GND_5296, fascinated the researchers. Whereas our home, the Milky Way, creates about one or two Sun-like stars every year or so, this newly discovered galaxy forms around 300 a year and was observed by the researchers as it was 13 billion years ago. That's the time it took for the galaxy's light to travel to Earth. Just how mind-boggling is that? A single light year, which is the distance light travels in a year, is nearly six trillion miles. Because the universe has been expanding the whole time, the researchers estimate the galaxy's present distance to be roughly 30 billion light years away."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-universe-distant-galaxy.html#jC
p
Somehow, even though the very fabric of space is expanding, we still have good old, stable lightyears to measure the distances. Doesn't it bother anyone that "space expands" but the speed of light remains constant to a stable distance? Which is Einstein's "ruler?"
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 19:05 GMT
John M,
In order to possibly support your doubts, I would like to ask the auditory how the radius of the universe has been measured. I imagine that only in case of not so far remote sources of light there are spectral lines of some elements which can be identified as to safely separate the Doppler effect. What about the accelerating expansion of the universe, I wonder if the experimenters are not happy if they found something rather imprecise that can be interpreted with good will to agree with theories and religious beliefs.
Your argument that we are perhaps in the middle of what we can observe is more convincing to me. Augustinus explained the creation of the world. What did God do before? Mockers meant: Then he made the hell for those who rise such questions.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 16, 2013 @ 20:02 GMT
Eckard,
Generations have built their cosmology on these ideas. Tradition is its own argument.
It is like fighting small fires, only to create the conditions for a large fire. Anytime a small fire breaks out, such as observations that don't match theory, there is quick settlement on whatever patches the anomaly the best and the little fire is put out, before it raises too many questions.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
John M, Peter,
May I compare the CMBR with the warming effect of clouds or a foggy atmosphere? As a bloody layman in cosmology, I could even speculate that the putatively gravitational effect of a star on the direction of light could possibly also be explained by matter in the vicinity of that star, e.g. the sun, which makes the refraction index n a bit larger than one.
The more distant a source of light is, the higher I expect the probability that it gets deflected out of its path to us. On the other hand, the effect that is similar to the effect of tiny droplets of a liquid could reflect light to us. Let me stress again, I am not an expert in optics.
However as someone who dealt a lot with spectral decomposition, I feel a bit ashamed because I confirmed Schroedinger's reasoning as reasonable. Was he really careful? In case of 14/16 years young Itha he promised utterly cautious sex. He treated his lover respectfully. Itha was even introduced to Einstein. Anyway, she got nonetheless pregnant.
Is it true that the universe must be finite because atoms correspond to discrete frequencies? I don't think so. On the contrary, spectral analysis yields absolutely discrete lines of frequency only if the assumed window extends infinitely. Look at the spectra delivered e.g. by MATLAB. They always show bellshaped spectral "lines" with nonzero values around the peak as a consequence of the finiteness of the chosen width of window.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 10:57 GMT
Eckard,
Then this goes to just what is gravity?
Currently we either treat it as an effect of mass and look for dark matter to explain the excess gravitational effects, or we are looking for its own quanta, gravitons, or gravity waves.
Now when mass is turned to energy, it creates pressure. Everything from heat to atomic shock waves, but what happens when energy turns to mass? The "particle' being absorbed by the detector occupies less space than the wave passing through the slits. What if gravity is simply a vacuum effect of radiation coalescing into mass? Then galaxies are the massive vortices they appear to be, drawing in intergalactic gases, which might have coalesced out of the background radiation in the first place, explaining why it is so smooth, as a form of dew point at 2.7k. Then this infalling gas first forms first generation stars, like those mostly found on the perimeter of galaxies and so on. The excess gravitational effects on the perimeters of galaxies would be due to what all those excess cosmic rays, etc are doing.
So then the curvature of light waves through this medium would make sense, since the medium is light being pulled together. Just as the intergalactic medium is light expanding away and so any light passing through it is stretched. Obviously this would cause us to further examine the properties of light, but given the evidence points toward a dichotomous relationship between mass and light, it might be worth considering.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Eckard, John,
Well done. That's Quantum Gravity. There have been a few apparently insurmountable theoretical bars to that logic, but the whole point of the DFM has been to expose those as wrong to allow the new logic giving unification (SR/QM/GR).
The main problems were; 1. CSL, 2. The ruling out of an 'absolute' background frame for simultaneity, and 3. Stellar aberration (light is bent so observed star positions are AHEAD of Earth's orbital path.
These were considered to 'rule out' the refraction based solution. However much other evidence supports it. You may now however perhaps understand the logic behind and reasons for my last 4 essays. We can only 'see' new things when we know what we're looking for. The resolutions to those issues may now make perfect sense, as should my 2010 paper on
Stellar Aberration here; The last 3;
2020 Vision, Much Ado about Nothing, The Intelligent Bit, You should find those clear the way theoretically for the solution you describe. But it'll still be unfamiliar. Remember the words of Bragg and Szent-Gyorgyi;
"Discovery consists in seeing what everybody else has seen and thinking what nobody has thought."
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 22:45 GMT
Peter,
Have to say my mind boggles after awhile. It is an impressive body of work. I still have my two minor issues though. One, I do think under all those co-moving fields, there is an elemental nature of space that has to be included, even if all we can directly observe are the effects of local fields. The issue more germane to this discussion, is the cosmic redshift, whether it is a doppler effect of recession, or there is some as yet unexamined optical cause. For one thing, you seem to be doing away with the 'fabric of spacetime' basis for relativity and that is the excuse given for why we appear at the center of this expansion, a situation that would be quite normal, if it is an optical effect.
You do an impressive job of cataloguing all the various effects of light crossing and interacting in these various fields, yet it seems all these fields, while in motion and interacting with one another, are stable. So what would happen to light, if it were crossing a field where the medium, like a gas, is expanding to fill a vacuum created by other fields contracting and what would happen to light in those fields that are contracting? Keeping in mind that gravity describes just such a contracting field.
Keeping in mind that I certainly haven't read all this, so you may have covered it.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 17, 2013 @ 22:51 GMT
Pentcho, Peter, experts,
I naively imagine that it might be possible to use experimental results to decide whether a refraction index larger than one or gravity can explain observed effects on light.
If photons behave like particles that have mass, as Pentcho claims, then they should be attracted by the gravitational field of earth: blueshift?
If the increasing with decreasing hight density and accordingly also increasing refraction index n of air is responsible for the data measured by Pound and Rebka, then I imagine a repelling effect and a tiny decrease of the speed of light: redshift?
In the latter case no speed in excess of c is required.
While I admit that the probability is high that I am wrong in this field, I feel pretty sure that Schroedinger's argument for the universe to be finite is wrong. Any reasonable objection?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 08:30 GMT
John M,
My command of English is perhaps still not yet good enough. I failed to exactly understand your questions.
1) "What if the 'boundary' is more immediate and universal, that space is elementally inert?"
Maybe you referred to a conjectured boundary of space. I don't understand what a MORE immediate boundary means, and I also wonder how "universal" or "more universal" (?) refers to the or a (?) universe. After "if" I did expect "than" rather than "that". Being inert is a property that usually refers to something in space or to the kinetic energy stored in the magnetic field in empty space. If EEs like me speak of the (real valued) wave impedance of free space (377 Ohm) then we don't refer to space as an entity.
2) Then this goes to just what is gravity?
This seems to be a comment rather than the question "Does this go to ..."
Sorry, I feel not in position to answer such question, and my point was a different one. While I am hesitating to agree on how you interpreted e.g. "mass is turned to energy" and vice versa, I don't intend to discuss anything that detracts from what I consider new: Schroedinger was presumably wrong with his argument against the infiniteness of space. Because you argued it is unlikely that we live in the center of a finite universe, I did expect you to appreciate my criticism.
Regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 10:54 GMT
Eckard,
I think space is both infinite and absolute, in that lacking any physical mechanism, all these elements occupying space must contend with an inherent equilibrium, or inertia. Such as that the speed of light is simply the rate at which this radiation can spread out over a stable, otherwise empty volume of space. If you do away with the concept of spacetime, by reducing time to an effect of action and measure of change, this leaves space alone as that absolute background, "telling mass what to do."
Radiation spreads out, as though it were pulled to infinity, while mass coalesces, as though it were seeking equilibrium. Neither can quite reach their goal, before turning and going the other direction. The result is a perpetual cycle.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 13, 2013 @ 21:21 GMT
Astronomers reveal contents of mysterious black hole jets "Until now it wasn't clear whether the positive charge came from positrons, the antimatter 'opposite' of electrons, or positively charged atoms. Since our results found nickel and iron in these jets, we now know ordinary matter must be providing the positive charge."
Positively charged atoms are much heavier than the positrons astronomers thought might make up the jets, and therefore the jets can carry away far more energy from the black hole than previously confirmed."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-astronomers-reveal-contents-mys
terious-black.html#jCp
It seems much of what falls into these vortices is being shot out the poles. Doesn't leave much to accrete into any other dimension, etc. More likely one part of a larger cycle, not a singularity.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
John,
Cyclic model verification keeps pouring in, fractal, so at all scales including the universe. I noticed recently that Friedmann's 1922 paper supported and pointed out that GR allowed a cyclic universe cosmology. The most consistent model, of a 'big blast' is now becoming very well developed and evidenced.
I have a stack of interesting papers, such as this;
Akzenov et al, MNRAS 2013.Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 16:21 GMT
Peter,
How do you explain the point I keep raising, that if space is expanding relativistically, wouldn't the speed of light have to increase proportionally, in order for it to remain constant to this expanding space? Otherwise the theory just seems to use a stable speed of light to measure the increased distance between galaxies, which is not expanding space, only increased distance in stable space. As Einstein said, space is what you measure with a ruler and it seems the ruler/denominator is based on the speed of light, not on the redshift/numerator.
We do appear to be at the center of the universe, but if redshift is some form of as yet undiscovered optical effect, this would make sense, since we are at the center of our view of the universe.
As an optical effect, it would compound on itself, creating a parabolic curve of redshift, which would explain the shifting frequency that dark energy is inserted to explain. The background radiation would be the light from sources redshifted over the horizon line of visibility.
As of yet, inflation and dark energy raise more questions than they answer.
Regards,
John M
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 19:54 GMT
John,
Schrodinger's 1939 paper re expansion is fascinating. I don't agree with a 'relativistically expanding' or accelerating universe and have pointed out the evidence is pretty weak, is based on many assumptions, and 'accelerated' expansion is a self defeating proposition (waves must expand with space).
The Proper Vibrations of the Expanding Universe. Physica, 6, 899. 1939Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 14, 2013 @ 23:58 GMT
Peter,
I have an observation that might apply in this situation; That while it takes serious time and effort to gain the expertise to become proficient in most fields, it doesn't always take the same level of expertise to get the sense when matters have gone seriously amiss. Witness finance. Obviously that paper by Schrodinger requires far more context than I possess. I'm not trying to cover every detail, even the experts can no longer do that. I am simply trying to make the point that an old pattern is emerging here, where the big picture is not clear and all the experts respond by doing what they were doing, even more strenuously. Witness supersymmetry. While I'm putting out what I think are some basic questions and observations, I certainly accept I may be wrong. The whole fabric of spacetime thing, on which an expanding universe is based, might be real, even if I think time is an effect of action, not the basis for it. It is just my opinion that a lot of details and measurements have been cobbled together over the last several generations, some of which fit better than others and that the proofs of this model are not happening as planned and there is much patching going on. It might well take another generation to begin to sort out it all.
Then again, some Tunisian fruit peddler might set himself on fire.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 10:23 GMT
Peter and John M,
I suppose that Schroedinger quoted correctly. This means the accelerated expansion was his idea, and those who discovered it did actually search for it. Despite of some disagreement between Einstein and Schroedinger, the latter took Minkowski's metric, curvature of space and all that for granted. He reasonably explained why space - not spacetime? - must be closed: because of the existence of discrete atoms.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 11:52 GMT
John,
I agree; patches on patches, beliefs on assumptions. But I feel I've now removed all patches and exposed a beautifully simple reality, but one which seems invisible to everybody else! As a level headed non-indoctrinated guy could you tell me if it's me going crazy or if this is as logically impeccable as I think;
1. Fist, we must remember we're considering 'rate' of time...
view entire post
John,
I agree; patches on patches, beliefs on assumptions. But I feel I've now removed all patches and exposed a beautifully simple reality, but one which seems invisible to everybody else! As a level headed non-indoctrinated guy could you tell me if it's me going crazy or if this is as logically impeccable as I think;
1. Fist, we must remember we're considering 'rate' of time passing (tick rate).
2. Second, we know that proper time (rate) is represented by regular emissions by all clocks at rest wrt an observer, whatever state of motion the clock/observer system has wrt any other clock/observer systems.
3. So let's now reconsider the sequence of (tick) emissions from all
other (co-moving) clocks. I believe it's clear those emissions will be Doppler shifted, just like sound, light and all EM emissions.
4. The effect is then of a faster apparent rate of time if the clock is approaching, and a slower apparent rate if the clock is receding. It matters not if we consider the clock or the observer to be in motion wrt any background frame, all propagation is at c, and the Doppler shift remains.
5. This effect precisely produces all the effects we are confused about. It's consistent with GR and the postulates of SR, and even Minkowski's conception but not all the 'interpretive' nonsense confusing everyone.
6. The propagation limit c is implemented by the physical minimum wavelength limit gamma, which we know as the Lorentz factor, via simple quantum mechanism of atomic scattering at c (subject to normal stochastic uncertainties). There is no mysticism, paradox or anomalies.
The key is; no observer moving in a medium has access to any information about a received sequence over and above it's frequency on interaction, (so not the different wavelength
before the 2nd peak arrives - DFM).
Do please tell me where any error is in the above. All are invited. (Scientifically not by comparison with your beliefs please Tom). 1000 questions may be raised and all answers await (many in my essays).
So I disagree it will take a generation to 'begin' to sort it all. That was the easy bit (unless I really am crazy!). But I agree it may take some time for those who see can only things a certain way to realise some of their assumptions may be wrong. Perhaps to learn the new way of thinking Bragg, Einstein et al told us we'd need. Was 2020 too optimistic?
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 12:17 GMT
Peter,
I don't have any problem with that. The issue is the expanding, finite universe and given I see time as effect, not part of the 'fabric of spacetime,' there is no conceptual basis for this expanding universe. The fact is that I only came into this idea about time, when considering that if space is overall flat, with expansion balanced by gravity, it is logically some form of convection cycle and we are just missing an expansion factor in the naturally expanding nature of radiation, that creates the opposite effect of gravity contracting mass. We know mass turns back into energy, so the cycle is pretty much there, its just a few gaps that need filling in.
Aeon magazine did an
article by Tim Maudlin, in which he brings up the issue of homeostasis as an explanation for why we miss ways of making sense of situations we don't have a clear view of and it quite aptly describes this situation. I wrote on comment on it, in the comment section.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 19:35 GMT
John,
Having sifted through the 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle pile for many years I did find a way it all fitted together. It may be wrong, in the same way a solution to a Rubics cube with all sides the same colour may be wrong, but it is a beautifully simple picture. The exact process we see happening to stars and galaxies is a fractal process that also happens to universes;
The matter is accreted to the central AGN ('SMBH'), is rte-ionized, blasted out in two opposed jet outflows, then the 'column' starts to rotate again on a new axis, gradually blending the arms into a disc, and building the central bulge.. The cycle repeats eternally, possibly also at many other universes, and even at greater scales!
Once we know what to look fro we can see the Milky Way is in it's 3rd iteration, the last one being with most others during the 'quasar era' peaking at z=1.7.
There would then be both directional expansion and contraction. I'm trying to squeeze all the unique evidence into a paper but it's hard to get it all in! i.e. We know galaxies have 'grown' by 4-10% in the last 11Gyr, assigned to 'mergers' but few can be found! It's because new matter is ionised from the QV by the outflows.
As I say, the solutions appear as simple and very apparent once we know what to look for. The real problem is showing those blinded by 'science' how to see nature.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 15, 2013 @ 22:33 GMT
Peter,
I'm not questioning whether there are fractal levels larger than galaxies and galaxy clusters. My argument is against those other universes and structures being in some alternate dimension of space. They are simply out there somewhere else. I see space as elementally neutral, so the opposites are positive and negative energies in space. As I see it, space is absolute(inert) and infinite.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 11:26 GMT
John,
'Elsewhere' agreed, 'Absolute' not as it implies an 'absolute' state of motion which is the assumption which caused all the problems in the first place. A different word is then needed to avoid misunderstanding.
From my observations the 'Dark Energy' background (2.7 degrees with known permittivity/permeability etc.) exists and acts as the condensate for condensed matter. (This pair production process is perfectly 'visible' and we may now popularly call it the Higgs mechanism.) The most important aspect of this is at first more subtle; It is that the particles condensed are condensed WITH A 'STATE OF MOTION' (Rest frame) with respect to any and all OTHER condensed matter.
I agree this is in a 'ground state' with positive and negative fluctuations.
Considered locally this is what CANNOT BE 'ABSOLUTE' (i.e. the particle systems can move, which is as observed). Once that fundamental kinetic hierarchy is visualised the rest is then easy. The dark energy field may indeed have some ultimate centre of mass for each universe, but that has no direct relevant to local relative states (frames) wrt local backgrounds. Propagation of light and time signals is c in all, so is changed by the interactions when moving between them.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 12:10 GMT
Peter,
It's not that 'absolute' is a ground state that can be physically reached. We can't 'reach' infinity either.
It is just that it is a state of reference, like infinity, that makes sense of those other ambiguities, such as there being no universal center of mass, but that anywhere can be a center of mass, depending on all forces affecting that locality. In essence, the basis of locality.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 00:19 GMT
Eckard,
What if the 'boundary' is more immediate and universal, that space is elementally inert?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 18, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Eckard,
You asked what 'datum' for propagation at c. Local backgrounds are essential, and all of equivalent status, so each is background to smaller ones. This is Galilean relativity but with Local Reality.
Nothing magical like anticipating observers existence and speed is needed. Just consider
everything as a medium, dense or diffuse. Often the bigger the medium the more diffuse, but the exact same resultant effect on moving between media just takes more distance and time to implement (see J.D Jackson; extinction distances).
The evidence of this evolving change is found in 'scintillation' of starlight and accompanying birefringence (some apparent source positions changed, some not). The overall effect of this is an apparent gently curvature of light paths, increasing with particle density.
This is as you discussed elsewhere, called other names such as 'quantum gravity', 'curved space-time', 'aberration' and 'diffraction'.
See also my post to John above. On arrival at all matter speed is simply localised to c. Is that not entirely logical?
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey wrote on Dec. 9, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
It's an interesting blog discussion on a fascinating find which finally puts a nail in the coffin of a "cosmological principle", which is the crux of the alternative world view given in my essays. Newton's principle that "all matter attracts each other equally in all directions" will be next on the list, which ultimately is the foundation of the cosmological principle.
In response to...
view entire post
It's an interesting blog discussion on a fascinating find which finally puts a nail in the coffin of a "cosmological principle", which is the crux of the alternative world view given in my essays. Newton's principle that "all matter attracts each other equally in all directions" will be next on the list, which ultimately is the foundation of the cosmological principle.
In response to Zeeya's last sentence "Please feel free to add in other links to recent results that have been puzzling astronomers and cosmologists and to discuss what they ultimately mean for our standard model of cosmology." I'm making a link to this fascinating new find in cosmology:
Enormous alien planet discovered in most distant orbit ever seen[quote]An enormous alien planet, one that is 11 times more massive than Jupiter, was discovered in the most distant orbit yet found around a single parent star.
The newfound exoplanet, dubbed HD 106906 b, dwarfs any planetary body in the solar system, and circles its star at a distance that is 650 times the average distance between the Earth and the sun. The existence of such a massive and distantly orbiting planet raises new questions about how these bizarre worlds are formed, the researchers said.
"This system is especially fascinating because no model of either planet or star formation fully explains what we see," study lead researcher Vanessa Bailey, a fifth-year graduate student in the University of Arizona's department of astronomy, said in a statement. [The Strangest Alien Planets (Gallery)]
In the most commonly accepted theories of planet formation, it is thought that planets that orbit close to their parent star, such as Earth, began as small, asteroid-type bodies that clumped together in the primordial disk of gas and dust around the burgeoning star. Yet, this process operates too slowly to explain how giant planets form far away from their star, the researcher said. [end quote]
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Leo Vuyk wrote on Dec. 19, 2013 @ 14:59 GMT
We need a new Big Bang Theory: the Splitting and evaporating Black Hole theory leading to a fractal multiverse. for this phenomenon. see:
Two or Three Large Quasar Groups (LQGs) Located at the Start of Two or Three Lyman Alpha Systems and a Part of the Raspberry Multiverse?
http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0088
According to Quantum FFF Theory, the Big Bang can be compared with a splitting Dark Matter Black Hole, also evaporating into Dark Energy Higgs vacuum.
This should lead to a fractal shaped raspberry multiverse with mirror quantum entanglement without a Schrödinger Cat paradox because there are always two Cats observing each other by entanglement between these universes.
As a consequence, the so called inflation epoch after the Big Bang is NOT the creation of all the plasma like Hydrogen ions needed to form the first giant Stars and Galaxies, but the splitted Black Hole created the plasma by themselves by a new paradigm repelling Horizon!!! See;.
Black Hole Horizon Curvature Dependent Balance Between Plasma Creation and e-e+ Annihilation in Quantum FFF Theory.
http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0061
attachments:
Kopie_van_11_HUGE_LQG_QUASAR_GROUPS_2.jpg,
Kopie_van_12_Huge_Q_Gr_3e.jpg
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Leo Vuyk wrote on Dec. 20, 2013 @ 09:49 GMT
For a more extended description of the LQG or:Navel Cord Multiverse, see:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1312.0143v1.pdf
report post as inappropriate
guillermo alejandro pussetto wrote on Dec. 25, 2013 @ 08:18 GMT
"The Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is an immense superstructure of galaxies that measures more than 10 billion light years across. It is the largest and the most massive structure known in the observable universe. This huge structure was discovered in November 2013 by a mapping of gamma ray bursts that occurs in the distant universe. The astronomers used data from the Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission."
"The structure also poses a problem to the current models of the universe's evolution. At a distance of 10 billion light-years means that we see the structure as it was 10 billion years ago, or roughly 3.79 billion years after the Big Bang. The current models of the universe's evolution, however, do not allow the said structure to form in just a mere 3 billion year framework. The structure was itself too big, and too complex, to exist so early in the universe. There is currently no idea of how such a structure has evolved."
Source : Wikipedia
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
guillermo alejandro pussetto replied on Dec. 26, 2013 @ 03:58 GMT
Something is wrong and, whatever it is, points to new physics.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 8, 2014 @ 02:43 GMT
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 9, 2014 @ 18:17 GMT
Just had to add
this. "Among other cosmic parameters, says White, the BOSS analysis "also provides one of the best-ever determinations of the curvature of space. The answer is, it's not curved much."
Calling a three-dimensional universe "flat" means its shape is well described by the Euclidean geometry familiar from high school: straight lines are parallel and triangles add up to 180 degrees. Extraordinary flatness means the universe experienced relatively prolonged inflation, up to a decillionth of a second or more, immediately after the big bang.
"One of the reasons we care is that a flat universe has implications for whether the universe is infinite," says Schlegel. "That means – while we can't say with certainty that it will never come to an end – it's likely the universe extends forever in space and will go on forever in time. Our results are consistent with an infinite universe."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-baryon-oscillation-spectroscopi
c-survey-universe.html#jCp
Safe to say, an infinite universe is very much compatible with steady state models and needs rather large fudge factors to be shoehorned into an expanding model.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 19, 2014 @ 02:35 GMT
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 17:23 GMT
What is the difference between
intergalactic gas and plasma, other than one is supposedly inert and the other is electromagnetic?
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT
John,
Plasma is basically just ionized gas; so the molecules/atoms of gas become electrically charged, rather than electrically neutral.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT
John, Robert
Ooooch! plasma is rather more than just that. Pair production also produces pure plasma, which is a free electron positron and proton diffuse dielectric medium. We're finding it's density much higher than anticipated, and significant. i.e. commonly 10^15/cm^-2 even in the IGM, more dense at 'shocks'.
The small number that don't cancel can bind (evolve) into protons, CO and more complex molecular gases; first H He and Lithium, whereon they start to become detectable spectroscopically (pure plasma n=1). (They're already detectable kinetically,
VLBA finding 2013. contrary to present theoretical assumptions, and of course gravitationally).
For some reason plasma science is not in the mainstream areas normally taught. It's at the heart of nuclear fusion has the highest coupling with EM energy, and is the most common state of matter by a massive (lol) margin.
Hope that gives a better glimpse.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 20:51 GMT
Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 20, 2014 @ 22:39 GMT
Rob,
Oh dear. God save us from Wikiscience. With respect Rob that's pretty historic dogma. In the field the proton fraction in various cases is being better constrained all the time, and much plasma does NOT come from splitting electrons and protons! Pair production is matter condensed through the field. We now have the Higgs process to condense conjugate fermion pairs in mainstream so no longer need to be afraid of truth. Most cancels out (electron/positron) very quickly, but the small surfiet of electrons remains to evolve.
Much seems to come from quasar jet outflows, which sure enough starts from re-ionization of accreted matter, but propagates and mixes with a generous helping of new stuff in the collimation shear hypersurfces. It's not yet assimilated into theory why galaxies after the quasar periods have 'grown' in mass and volume by 4-10%. (the growth is not isotropic as assumed). The most precise calculations of outflow proton number density is 27% of the electron fraction.
your link text Also look up the recent AMS probe findings. They were very little like the historic assumptions which seem to hang on against all real evidence! It's as if time imposes an increasing and impervious 'truth factor'.
It's very important plasmas and quantum induction are properly understood at last and old assumptions are expunged as plasma coupling holds a lot of answers about underlying physical mechanisms.
Peter
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 00:04 GMT
Rob,Peter,
I knew I was tossing a bit of a grenade with the plasma comment, given these filaments were predicted by the plasma cosmologists some decades ago, (the obit of Arp, linked above, had a picture with his hand on a plasma globe)but what I found more interesting and would like some feedback on, was the
link prior to that. It sounded quite interesting, even if posted on the Graham Hancock site. So I was hoping to get some professional opinion.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 01:14 GMT
John,
Science Fiction can be quite interesting too, but it's still fiction.
The problem is reasoning from bad analogies. Consider this quote, from your link:
"Another big question about these theories on gravity is the tidal bulge which is created by the moon as it moves through its orbit. When observing the tidal bulge in an illustration it is easy to see that high tides are on both sides of the Earth as the moon moves through its orbit. If the moons gravity only pulls in one direction how can it push the tide on the opposite side of the Earth? If gravity worked as Newton said the tide should be low when it is actually high."
Here is a better analogy to explain the tidal bulges:
Imagine three balls, floating in space above the moon, arranged upon a line extending from the moon's center, through each of the three balls. Each ball is at a different distance from the moon, hence, they each are accelerated towards the moon, by a different amount, since the strength of gravity is a function of distance. Now imagine sitting on the central ball, between the other two, and watching what happens; both of them accelerate away from you (the first leaves you behind, while you and the second ball leave the third behind), Now repeat the observation from the center of the earth, with two balls of water on opposite sides. Same result - the water balls appear to be pulled away from the center, even as the center is accelerated towards the moon. But due to the velocity components perpendicular to the earth-moon line, the two do not collide, instead, they orbit each other.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 02:43 GMT
Rob,
That's a good description, but is it an explanation of how gravity is actually doing the pulling?
Since I see General Relativity as descriptive, rather than causal, that leaves Quantum Mechanics, so what/where are the wave patterns? Could they be standing waves buried in/emergent from the other forces?
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Robert H McEachern wrote on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 05:50 GMT
John,
"That's a good description, but is it an explanation of how gravity is actually doing the pulling?"
No, of course not. It's a bitter pill for almost all physicists to swallow, but, as far as "information" is concerned, ALL of science is merely descriptive. Theories are merely sophisticated information compression algorithms. They enable long sequences of raw measurements to be symbolized with shorter sequences of mathematical symbols. But any "interpretation" of the theory is nothing more than metaphysical speculation; the only thing that can be either verified or falsified is that the decompressed math symbols either do, or do not, accurately match the original raw measurements.
Science cannot "know" either what it means or why it works. You can guess, you can speculate, you can intuit, you can consult oracles, but you cannot KNOW, at least not via science.
The reason is simple: bad "interpretations" of good theories (ones that accurately fit the data) have no effect upon whether or not the theory is "good", any more than a good "interpretation" does. There is simply no fool-proof way to test interpretations. Occam's Razor provides one criteria for testing, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, or even most of the time.
As a simple example, suppose you had two theories about what was happening inside a black box:
1) X= a*(b+c), i.e., the box contains one multiplier and one adder.
2) X = a*b + a*c, i.e., the box contains two multipliers and one adder.
Since the two theories produce identical results, observations of the box's inputs and outputs cannot distinguish between them. But even if you could open the box to see what is inside, there are several different ways that multipliers and adders can be implemented, that all yield the same result.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 11:12 GMT
Rob,
One of the points I keep making is that information is necessarily static. Dynamic information would be an oxymoron, since it would be changing. Reality is necessarily dynamic. So information is descriptive, but if I'm looking for cause, it is a simple matter of the energy input. Such as if I want to explain how waves can form on still water, I refer to the air across the surface, because that gives the energy input, the basic cause. I don't need to go back to some theoretical starting point of the universe, or refer to all the complex molecular interactions. They can be just assumed. So the cause for gravity isn't some mathematical model that reduces time to a static dimension, because that reduces the the actual physical dynamic to a mere measure. So the issue is what is the source of energy to create the effect of gravity and how does it fit into the larger cycle. By that, I mean we see radiation expand and mass contract, so the logical assumption is some form of convective cycle, since the overall effect is flat, ie. they balance out. I have previously, simply been observing that releasing energy from mass creates pressure, so the opposite, energy coalescing into mass, would be a vacuum. Yet obviously the mechanics need explanation and further description.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 15:32 GMT
John,
My point is that it cannot be that "it is a simple matter of the energy"
In the example I gave, the number of "things" being symbolized differs. Consequently, if these "things" have energy, then the mathematical relations, that yield identical observational results about the behavior of that energy, nevertheless imply very different amounts of energy (two vs. one multipliers), "light", "dark", or otherwise. So the amount of that energy cannot be learned from observations of its behavior.
"They can be just assumed" Of course they can. They are. That is the problem.
You assumed that "I refer to the air across the surface, because that gives the energy input, the basic cause." But I assumed that the waves were caused by a rock thrown into the water. There is no "basic cause". There are just assumptions about a basic cause.
"energy coalescing into mass, would be a vacuum" No, it would be mass. Pressure is not the opposite of vacuum. High-pressure is merely the opposite of low-pressure.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 17:02 GMT
Rob,
I realize it becomes complex very quickly. Think calculating three body systems.
Yes, the waves can be created by any number of causes, but not by what amount to measurements/descriptions. As the old children's taunt goes, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This goes to my argument that blocktime eliminates the dynamic process in favor of...
view entire post
Rob,
I realize it becomes complex very quickly. Think calculating three body systems.
Yes, the waves can be created by any number of causes, but not by what amount to measurements/descriptions. As the old children's taunt goes, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." This goes to my argument that blocktime eliminates the dynamic process in favor of what is really an inert measurement.
The issue of gravity is not just measuring the range and amount, but figuring out the source of that energy. Is it 'the fabric of spacetime,' gravitons, gravity waves, etc?
"Pressure is not the opposite of vacuum. High-pressure is merely the opposite of low-pressure."
That would be like saying 5 is the opposite of 1, rather than -1 being the opposite of 1.
The point is that a comparable amount of energy occupies more space than its equivalent mass, so when the mass is converted to energy, the resulting pressure is the effect we use for work. So if we figure out how energy is coalescing into mass, would there be a form of vacuum, since it requires less space?
If we view galaxies as vortices, then it isn't something building up from a gravitational core, but a dynamic process of energy coalescing into a vortex and feeding that energy into a broad variety of processes whose effect is to create ever more dense concentrations of mass, all the while radiating out the energy being shed by this process. Eventually this process feeds the complex structures into the core and the resulting energy is jetted out across the cosmos, powering other processes.
Keep in mind they can't find that dark matter holding the outer edges of galaxies in and rotating them at rates that would seemingly spin the material further out. Yet there are lots of cosmic rays, plasma, first generation stars and other light but energetic material. Now if we think of it as a process of condensing mass, then this would be the first stages of this process and it would be logical that it is all pulling inward and not being spun outward. So there would be no need for the mass to provide gravity, as that is the pull between massive objects much further in the process and the part of the spectrum with which we have experience.
Regards,
John M
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT
John,
"The point is that a comparable amount of energy occupies more space than its equivalent mass" No it doesn't. You are confusing the densities of things with the things themselves.
"Keep in mind they can't find that dark matter..."; Keep in mind that they could not find it if it is in the form of large numbers of asteroid size objects. As the recent discovery of exo-planets has demonstrated, such small, dark masses are undetectable. Gas can be detected. Plasma can be detected. Dust can be detected, Planets can be detected. Stars can be detected. But masses much smaller than planets, but much larger than dust, cannot. "They" have simply ASSUMED that the dark matter is not in that form.
When I was in graduate school, one of the undergrads that I taught in my introductory physics lab class came into my office one day and asked me what Energy IS? I have been thinking about the question ever since. My best answer is this: Energy is that combination of "variables", which always yields a constant value. Energy is significant precisely because it is has this constant value - it is easy to predict the future value of a constant. NOBODY would care about those combinations of variables if they were not CONSTANT.
In other words, ENERGY is an emergent phenomenon, that has emerged into our consciousness, as being significant, ONLY because it is predictably constant - the ultimate in data compression.
Why do such constants exist? That question is just another way of asking why is there something rather than nothing? Science can answer neither.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 23:57 GMT
Rob,
(Lost this in a power outage..grr)
"You are confusing the densities of things with the things themselves."
The density is the point. Lower density requires more space and vice versa. So getting from one to the other is a function of increasing or decreasing space/volume.
"But masses much smaller than planets, but much larger than dust, cannot. "They" have simply ASSUMED that the dark matter is not in that form."
Given there is presumably four or five times more dark matter, than visible matter, that's an awful lot of astroids just floating out there. Why would they form in that band on the outer perimeter of galaxies, when the sorts of activity to throw out large amounts of that sort of debris would be further in, with the second generation stars?
" Energy is significant precisely because it is has this constant value - it is easy to predict the future value of a constant."
Isn't the reason its constant is that as a physical force, whether its diverted, dispersed, stored, accumulated, etc, it is conserved? Not only is it the base of data compression, but data storage as well? How is data stored, without some form of energy? It would seem to be the medium for which data/information is the message. Those "variables" are the forms energy takes.
If it is emergent, wouldn't that compromise it as a constant? What would be the cause of energy, if not some other form of energy?
"Science can answer neither."
Science is reductionistic, while reality is not. Reality is whatever it is. Effect is the solution to cause.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 13:55 GMT
John,
"Lower density requires more space and vice versa" No. If I drink the coffee in my mug, the mug will then be filled with a much lower density fluid - air. Same volume of space, less mass, lower density.
"Given there is presumably four or five times more dark matter, than visible matter, that's an awful lot of WIMPS just floating out there. Why would they form in that band on the outer perimeter of galaxies..." A rose is a rose, and so is an assumption; asteroids, WIMPS - same assumption.
"Conserved" is merely a synonym for constant. The question is not what energy is, but why do we consider it to be significant. It is energy's "significance to us", not energy per se, that is emergent. We would not care about what it is, if it were not conserved. By trial and error, we discovered certain combinations of variables that are constant. We gave these constants names like energy, momentum, angular momentum. But there are many other combinations are variables that have just as much "observable truth", but much less "significance to us" than those constants. Later, we discovered that
conservation laws are associated with forms of symmetries, so those symmetries seem to justify our sense of significance. But why assign significance to symmetry?; because it signifies low-information-content, and thus high data compressibility. Physics is merely cherry-picking low-information-content phenomenon as the phenomenon of significant to physics.
There is nothing wrong with that - you have to start somewhere. But why are there symmetries rather than no symmetries? Why is there something rather than nothing. A rose is a rose.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 14:43 GMT
Rob,
"If I drink the coffee in my mug, the mug will then be filled with a much lower density fluid - air. Same volume of space, less mass, lower density."
The constant is the amount of mass/energy, not the volume, so if you evaporate(break down the atomic structure) of the coffee, it would require a much larger volume of air to hold the same amount of moisture/energy.
" It is energy's "significance to us", not energy per se, that is emergent."
Yes, but when we forget that information about the underlaying energy is emergent and treat it as foundational, such as considering measures of duration more foundational than the dynamic processes which are being measured, the result is confusion. We need to distill signals out of the noise. That is information, but how can this emergent effect be considered as more foundational than what it emerges from? It seems completely backwards.
Regards,
Johnm
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 15:54 GMT
John,
Evaporation does not "break down the atomic structure" of a liquid, or even it's molecular structure: water is H
2O, and so is steam. Evaporation merely breaks the bonds holding molecules together, not the molecules themselves.
As a first approximation, the volume of a gas, V, is given by the Ideal Gas Law: V=nRT/P, where "n" is the amount of substance (proportional...
view entire post
John,
Evaporation does not "break down the atomic structure" of a liquid, or even it's molecular structure: water is H
2O, and so is steam. Evaporation merely breaks the bonds holding molecules together, not the molecules themselves.
As a first approximation, the volume of a gas, V, is given by the
Ideal Gas Law: V=nRT/P, where "n" is the amount of substance (proportional to mass). This law means that, by changing the temperature, T, and the pressure, P, you can cause a constant-mass of gas, to occupy whatever volume you want, at least as a first approximation.
The problem is that you are trying to use your intuition, to deduce how things behave, just as people tried to say that it is "intuitively obvious" that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe. But intuition is deceptive. It may seem intuitively obvious that the fireball from an exploding hydrogen bomb is going to expand. But it only expands because the high-temperature, high-pressure fireball is surrounded by low-temperature, low-pressure air and dirt. If you put it inside a neutron star, the fireball would collapse, due to the vastly greater pressure of the surrounding neutrons.
"how can this emergent effect be considered as more foundational than what it emerges from? It seems completely backwards." By Misinterpreting Reality and Confusing Mathematics for Physics, which is what I discussed in my 2012 FQXI essay. My point is, that no amount of study of the math "describing how stuff behaves" can ever tell you the "final cause" for that behavior. Believing otherwise, is what has caused Mathematical Physicists, to spend the past half-century, fruitlessly contemplating metaphysical speculations, rather than physical reality.
The validity of a logical conclusion, deduced from some starting assumption, can never prove the validity of the assumption. The validity of the conclusion that "the theory fits the data", cannot prove any of the assumptions, axioms, or postulates upon which the theory is based. Nor can it prove that the theory "means" what you think it means. The "interpretation" of the meaning (usually accomplished by assuming a one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in the equations, and some aspect of reality) is an assumption of the theory, not a deduction (Like the one multiplier vs. two multiplier example I gave earlier - they both fit the data, but it is not possible for both to have a one-to-one correspondence with whatever is inside the black-box)
Rob McEachern
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 19:31 GMT
Robert,
I realize the steam example wasn't applicable to the atomic structure, because it does require additional energy to turn it into a gas, but I only used it to reference your coffee example. The point remains that there is a lot of energy stored in mass, E=mc2 and releasing it in a situation where there isn't enormous external energy/pressure, such as your neutron star example, does create pressure. So the question remains; does the process by which energy coalesce into mass create some attractive contraction.
I think we are in general agreement that physics has become obsessed with its symbology. Almost as if there was a mentally magnetic attraction to several interesting insights and they became the center of gravity for all that followed. Given epicycles amounted to the same conceptual error, assigning agency to the pattern, as you put it, "The "interpretation" of the meaning (usually accomplished by assuming a one-to-one correspondence between the symbols in the equations, and some aspect of reality). Where the motions of the stars were assumed to have a one-to-one correspondence with giant cosmic gear wheels. You would think there would be some caution in making similarly physically fantastical assumptions, like the 'fabric of spacetime.'
Regards,
John M
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 20:08 GMT
John,
"does the process by which energy coalesce into mass create some attractive contraction."
We call it gravity. You seem to be confused about the nature of pressure. Pressure is not a fundamental force - it is an emergent property that emerges as the result of entities with momentum slamming into something and thereby "pushing" it. So the opposite of pressure is not attraction, it is the lack of entities with momentum pushing on something. When mass is converted into energy, it results in entities (particles, light) with increased momentum, with more "pushing power". If you convert some of that energy back into mass, it creates entities with less momentum, with less "pushing power". There is no attraction other than gravity.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 21:14 GMT
Rob,
" Pressure is not a fundamental force"
I realize that pressure is not fundamental, but that's my point. Could it be an essentially watered down magnetism, where the attraction/repulsion of magnetically complex bodies in a distributed field result in the effect. That's why I found that paper interesting, since the it was tying the various forces together, in terms of wave action.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 23, 2014 @ 02:47 GMT
Rob,
The point remains that gravity is unexplained, except as the 'curvature of spacetime,' so it is geometry come to life. Meanwhile effects like pressure and vacuum could well lend themselves to geometric modeling, without underlaying physical features.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 23, 2014 @ 03:00 GMT
Rob,
" If you convert some of that energy back into mass, it creates entities with less momentum, with less "pushing power"."
This then gets to where some degree of possibly electrostatic connectivity would pull the objects of measurement back together in the absence of that 'pushing power.' Especially with dark energy, the issue is as to what is holding those outer bands together. If you have clouds and filaments as the base state and the planets and other bodies forming from and in them, it would make sense these bodies are riding his tide, not holding it together with their own geometric properties.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 21:05 GMT
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jun. 12, 2014 @ 01:10 GMT
Another small crack in the shell:With computers, the researchers simulated mock observations of thousands of Milky Ways using the same data as the three previous papers. They found just one of a few thousand simulations matched what astronomers actually observe around the Milky Way.
"But we also have Andromeda," Pawlowski said. "The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000."
When the researchers corrected for flaws they say they found in the three studies, they could not reproduce the findings made in the respective papers.
"The standard model contains various putative ingredients— such as dark matter and dark energy —which were introduced because the model wasn't consistent with observations," said Benoit Famaey, a senior research associate at the University of Strasbourg in France, and co-author of the study.
Famaey and the other authors are among a small but growing number of astrophysicists who find the standard model fails to replicate what's observed and therefore they seek alternatives.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-universe-dwarf-galaxies-dont-st
andard.html#jCp
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 10:21 GMT
Another mystery."Everywhere we looked we saw this strangely coherent coordinated motion of dwarf galaxies. From this we can extrapolate that these circular planes of dancing dwarfs are universal, seen in about 50 percent of galaxies," said Professor Geraint Lewis.
"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-07-mysterious-dwarfs-cosmic-rethin
k.html#jCp
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 11:25 GMT
John,
That's as predicted by the 'kinetic decoupling' model in the preprint here.
www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_
WITH_BARS.
I just flagged it up on the 'Quantum...' blog. along with another anomalous finding this week which the cyclic model predicted; Large (Hubble 'early type') galaxies ETG's) in the early universe. They've been coming thick and fast.
If you revert to my 2011 '2020 Vision' and the Fig of the HH34 jet heads you'll see how the dwarf sattelites arise. The 'quasar era/peak' evidence suggests the recycling has changed the axis approx 5 times now, at slowing rates.
Unfortunately such 'big picture' papers and non academia authors can't get published in the main journals.
Best wishes,
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 22, 2014 @ 13:29 GMT
I get a kick out of these sorts of discoveries...dark matter is a patch for galaxy motion, dark energy a patch for the cosmos, now we just need a grey matter patch to fix the in betweeners.
Look, cold dark matter makes very little sense as a theory in the first place, and then to have contradictory information from dwarf galaxies should really not be too surprising. On top of everything, the fact that science does not yet have a quantum gravity is enough to explain lots of odd things. Why not just blame all of this loose gravity on as yet undetermined quantum exchange forces and leave it at that for the time being?
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Jul. 26, 2014 @ 09:56 GMT
John
Thanks for the link.
The Scalar Theory of Everything suggests
Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift also New Astronomy, Volume 11, Issue 5, March 2006, Pages 344-358]Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics] Photon diffraction and interference] proposes changes frequency as it travels through space – a type of tired light model. It better correlates with Cepheid distances than Doppler redshift.
I’m still working on the interference of single photon.
I plan to look at QSRs following Arp’s model of where they are using the tired light model (redshift higher near spiral galaxies).
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Sep. 24, 2014 @ 21:42 GMT
Here is an interesting conclusion:Researcher shows that black holes do not exist
"In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.
But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.
Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole."
Regards,
John M
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp
report post as inappropriate
Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 00:41 GMT
"Here is an interesting conclusion:"
John, it's critical that one understand the difference between a conclusion and an alternate theory. You apparently do not.
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 25, 2014 @ 09:51 GMT
John,
I see her conclusions are indeed conclusions, but as "there are no 'facts' in physics" (Freeman Dyson) Tom's also correct, there are only 'theories', but ALL challengable.
I'm relieved that what Mersini-Houghton and Pfieffer conclude, and precisely demonstrate, is that only the toroidal Helicoils and AGN's described in my Cyclic Evolution paper can exist, and for exactly the reason I invoke; that the 'Hawking radiation' IS the jet outflows (quasars) we see, which KEEP GOING until the disc matter is re-ionized (solving that problem too). The close look at the centre of the Crab Nebula I gave in my earlier paper shows the stellar scale version of the fractal dynamic.
Perhaps only another 5 years until somebody notices!
Best wishes
Peter
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Oct. 27, 2014 @ 16:59 GMT
Another interesting note: While the overall premise is a bit of a patch, it does consider the need for space as absolute and infinite, per the last paragraph:
""The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is expanding. If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis. That "medium" is of infinite size and lies at absolute zero, thus acting as a thermal sink for the universe, which is a thermally radiating source lying within the sink.'
What they overlook is why the notion of this expansion occurring within such an overall spatial frame was discarded in favor of the argument that it is an expansion of space. In that we appear as being at the center. So they inadvertently re-introduce this problem.
I'm not sure if this whole situation is funny, sad, or ridiculous.
Regards,
John M
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 9, 2015 @ 16:51 GMT
One more to the collection of cosmic anomalies:
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2693-5-billio
n-light-years-across-the-largest-feature-in-the-universe
"The gamma ray bursts that make up the newly discovered ring were observed using a variety of space- and ground-based observatories (the sample is listed in the Gamma Ray Burst Online Index). They appear to be at very similar distances from us – around 7 billion light years – in a circle 36° across on the sky, or more than 70 times the diameter of the Full Moon. This implies that the ring is more than 5 billion light years across, and according to Prof Balazs there is only a 1 in 20,000 probability of the GRBs being in this distribution by chance."
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Aug. 10, 2015 @ 10:22 GMT
And another;
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-nova-centa
uri-2013-lithium-03073.html
"Using the MPG/ESO 2.2-m telescope at the La Silla Observatory and the ESO 0.5-m telescope at the Observatory of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile near Santiago, Chile, astronomers have detected the chemical element lithium in the material ejected by a nova, a star that suddenly increases in brightness by several magnitudes. The finding could help explain the mystery of why many young stars seem to have more lithium than expected.
Lithium is one of the few elements that is predicted to have been created by the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago. But understanding the amounts of this element observed in stars around us today in the Universe has given scientists headaches."
So why couldn't all lithium come from super novae?
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Dec. 7, 2017 @ 23:47 GMT
Haven't been by in awhile, but thought I'd add this;
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-alma-massive-primordial-g
alaxies-vast.html
My guess is the Big Bang theory will only last until the James Webb is functional.
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Dec. 7, 2017 @ 23:57 GMT
And another;
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2017/12/-were-r
e-thinking-the-evolution-of-the-universe-13-billion-year-voy
age-of-the-light-from-oldest-most.html
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman wrote on Nov. 3, 2019 @ 14:28 GMT
Just thought I'd stick this here;
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-ancient-gas-cloud-stars-q
uickly.html
"The analysis showed that the cloud's chemical make-up was not chemically primitive, but instead the relative abundances were surprisingly similar to the chemical abundances observed in today's intergalactic gas clouds. The ratios of the abundances of heavier elements were very close to the ratios in the modern universe. The fact that this gas cloud in the very early universe already contains metals with modern relative chemical abundances poses key challenges for the formation of the first generation of stars.
So many stars, so little time
This study implies that the formation of the first stars in this system must have begun much earlier: the chemical yields expected from the first stars had already been erased by the explosions of at least one more generation of stars. A particular time constraint comes from supernovae of type Ia, cosmic explosions that would be required to produce metals with the observed relative abundances. Such supernovae typically need about 1 billion years to happen, which puts a serious constraint on any scenarios of how the first stars formed."
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 3, 2019 @ 15:42 GMT
Hi John,Happy to see you again,hope you are well ,friendly
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 3, 2019 @ 19:38 GMT
Hi Steve,
Still above ground and breathing, so I guess that's what counts. The world keeps getting interestinger and interestinger though.
Hope all's well on your end.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 3, 2019 @ 20:41 GMT
Lol well said,yes that Counts indeed.I am better ,I had a bad moment due to very serious problems in belgium but I am alive ,it is the most important,thanks,take care.Friendly
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Nov. 4, 2019 @ 11:15 GMT
Hang in there. Best of luck.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 4, 2019 @ 16:28 GMT
Hi John,Have you seen the datas of this day,a team of scientists has proved that Universe was a sphere with 99 percent of certainty.I am happy ,that proves my theory :)
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 4, 2019 @ 19:47 GMT
This article in fact proving that universe is a sphere
https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-shape-is-the-universe-cl
osed-or-flat-20191104/?fbclid=IwAR3plfBB6fxx7UVdRu4oT5IRIr3h
e06delJR1-Y2dgJY9jbZrer0ZUQpTyI
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Nov. 5, 2019 @ 12:09 GMT
Hi John,here are some general thoughts correlated. A little bit of philosophy about our main cause of our reality ,it is so complex to encircle this main structure of God if I can say,I beleive strongly that we have two aethers,one luminiferous and one gravitational with the gravitational one like primordial essence,coded from this infinite eternal consciousness,in my model I consider like you know an universal sphere in optimisation and a central cosmological sphere sending these finite coded series of spheres permitting to create our spacetime and its topologies,geometries,matters and properties,so the photons are series coded too like a fuel permitting this electromagnetism,the life Death ,our heat and thermodynamics,like a fuel in fact.But they don t seem to be the main essence of our universe.I am happy that a team of scientists have proved that universe was a closed sphere.All this is very philosophical about the main cause of our reality inside this universe.I don t consider these strings,waves fields implying our particles but the opposite ,spherical particles implying the Waves,the relevance is that this can converge respecting tthe wave particle duality because I consider this gravitational aether with series finite of spheres where space disappears,because we have series the same than the cosmological number of spheres and we take a central sphere after we decrease the volumes aand increase the number with primes for example and so the space disappears and so we have a superfluid coded for this gravitational aether.These series from God are coded between the zero absolute and the planck temperature and God beyond is without space,time,matters,it is only pure infinite conscious energy,so this infinity needs to transform all this to imply our reality,that is why the cosmological spheres are like transformators,the luminiferous aether can be better understood with this gravitational one at my humble opinion.God has not only created photons and waves simply.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.