CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
Uncertainty and complementarity in the cosmological redshift by Colin Walker
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Colin Walker wrote on Jan. 9, 2015 @ 22:27 GMT
Essay AbstractThe hypothesis of tired light can be cast in terms of an elementary quantum of energy lost from a photon during each cycle. The uncertainty in time associated with the quantum of energy is the Hubble time. Given uncertainty at this cosmological scale, it is argued that complementarity between received photon energy and observed distant time dilation at the source overcomes the primary objection to tired light. Tired light would correspond to a flat pure dark energy model in the big bang. Measured supernova redshift and time dilation support this quantum interpretation of the redshift.
Author BioMuch of this essay amounts to obscure history and paths not taken in the pursuit of science. The impetus for my long interest in the cosmological redshift came from deriving the quantum which is the essay's subject some 50 years after Walther Nernst. I received a BMath from the University of Waterloo in 1970.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 11, 2015 @ 07:22 GMT
Colin,
Quite an interesting essay. I had of course heard of "tired light" (the name almost explains itself) but I knew nothing of the concepts involved. Nor had I run across the quantum Hh before. While I have not argued either side of 'red shift' I have observed that this seems to be an unresolved issue, even now. So thanks for writing up the history, logic, math, and general overview as you have done. I found your essay wellwritten and fascinating. I invite you to read and comment on my essay.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 12, 2015 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your kind comment. A universal quantum of energy Hh is an interesting and enigmatic possibility whose existence appears to be supported by supernova observations. I hope physicists today will be more inclined to investigate further than their predecessors.
Best wishes,
Colin
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 13:14 GMT
Colin,
Thanks for the interesting read. As you note in Objection 1, the argument against tired light is pretty strong, but that also relies upon having certainty regarding the luminosity of those supernovae since they are considered to be known candles.
I cannot even imagine a photon with the wavelength equal to the size of the universe, but that way of thinking does let me get the concept. Energy falls to the lowest level and is then recycled.
Perhaps you can answer a question ... Why is the following thinking not mentioned or discussed (at least that I can find)?
Let us assume that the universe is a sphere of radius R and that the distance from the center is r. Let us also assume something similar to Hubble's Law as follows:
(dr/dt) = c(r/R)
At r = 0, dr/dt = 0. At r = R, dr/dt = c.
Rearranging slightly gives
(dr/r) = (c/R)dt
If I use 13.82 billion light years (4237 Mega Parsec) as R and 299,792.458 km/sec as c, I get (c/R) = 70.75 (km/sec)/MegaParsec. The observed value for the Hubble constant is 67.80 (km/sec)/MegaParsec. So, a simple sphere of finite radius gets within 5% of the measured value. They can be made to match by making R a bit larger. Comments?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Gary,
Thanks for your comment. I see supernova data as a smoking gun in favour of quantum tired light and consistent with my argument for complementarity to counter Objection 1. The supernova luminosity vs redshift curve lies very close to where it would be expected for quantum tired light. Contrast this with the big bang which had to invent dark energy to explain unexpected observations.
As to your question, your approach seems similar to some earlier thinking on the redshift being due to recession of distant galaxies.
Best regards,
Colin
Sophia Magnusdottir wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 10:29 GMT
Hi Colin:
You write
"Black holes and an expanding universe stand out as absurd. Both arise from
the mathematics of general relativity, and require extrapolations far beyond the
range of known data."
I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you referring not to black holes and an expanding universe but to the big bang and black hole singularities? I fail to see what is supposedly absurd about the expansion of the universe and black holes, both of with is extremely well confirmed by existing data.
 Sopie
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 23:08 GMT
Hi Sophia,
Thanks for your comment. In regard to your question, what I meant was that they are each individually absurd. Had I read Robert McEachearn's essay I might have used a softer word. He points out, using the example of "reductio ad absurdum" to which I refer, that mathematical language may be inappropriate when discussing physics.
Let's just take the idea of an expanding universe which is the antithesis of my essay's theme. One has to follow the historical evolution of the big bang. The horizon and flatness problems of cosmological expansion were overlooked for 50 years until the idea of inflation was conceived to overcome these problems. The theory behind inflation requires access to boundless energy. That is where the theory crosses the line, going beyond what I consider reasonable.
About eighty five years ago, your Pragmatic Physicist was faced with a choice to model the cosmological redshift: exponential decay of photon energy versus an expanding universe. It has taken the relatively recent advent of supernova observations to be able to make a choice on the basis of reliable data.
Best regards,
Colin
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:13 GMT
The Scalar ToE suggests a type of tired light model that has a 88% correlation coefficient versus the lower values in other accepted models. That is, it fits the data better.
Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift and
Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics .
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:19 GMT
The New Astronomy doesn't seem to work. Here is another link
Scalar potential model of the CMB radiation temperature Scalar potential model of redshift and discrete redshift
report post as inappropriate
John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:23 GMT
John C Hodge replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 18:24 GMT
Author Colin Walker replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 04:26 GMT
Hi John,
I see you have arrived at similar conclusions to Walther Nernst via your scalar field theory. Nernst thought of the ether as a heat sink. I find your explanation of the Cosmic Microwave Background very interesting because it is framed in terms of cells as sources and sinks. I will have to study this some more.
Thanks for the links.
Best regards,
Colin
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 13:58 GMT
Dear Colin,
I read your essay with interest, because I too have been trying to find alternative interpretation of the 'cosmological redshift'.
I agree with you that the energy h H (The product of Planckconstant and Hubble's constant) has some deep significance.
What I have found so far is: Energy of the inter galactic photons get branched out into gravitational potential energy part, and electrostatic potential energy part; and gravitational potential energy part gets subtracted from the photon's energy. As derived in a manuscript titled: "Some criteria for shortlisting the cosmological redshift's explanations", placed at:
http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0193
We need to find out the exact mechanism for this branchingout of energies.
With my best regards,
Hasmukh K. Tank
N.B. I will start rating the essays after 15th of February, when most of the essays are posted.
report post as inappropriate
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Jan. 31, 2015 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Colin,
I forgot to add one more interesting point, that: As explained in a paper by me, titled, "WaveTheoreticalInsight into the Relativistic LengthContraction and TimeDilation of SuperNovae LightCurves" (Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics Vol7, 2013) any mechanism, which can cause the cosmological redshift, will also cause the timedilation of supernovae lightcurves. So, it is not an UNsurmountable difficulty. The paper is available at:
dx.doi.org/10.12988/astp.2013.39102
Please express your views.
One more point comes to my mind, Dear Colin, that: If we want to propose a fresh explanation for the 'cosmological redshift', then can we talk of 'Hubbletime' ? We should explain 'Hubbletime' first, and then find the UNcertainty in energy during this 'Hubbletime'. Please correct me, if I am making a mistake.
Yours sincerely,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 20:07 GMT
Dear Hasmukh,
Thank you very much for your comments and the interesting links. We clearly share some skepticism about the big bang, and have investigated similar possibilities.
I particularly like your illustration of supernova time dilation being related by Fourier transformation to the lowering of frequency in the redshifted photon. That is an intriguing possibility.
Regarding your last point, the Hubble time has a specific meaning in expansion cosmology as the time since the beginning of the universe (although Hubble radius as used in the essay is not supposed to be the present radius of the universe). For tired light, I suppose you could start with the Hubble time as the time required for photon energy to decay by a factor of 1/e. For tired light, it seems easier to start with the energy lost per photon cycle, Hh, and then deduce the Hubble time from the uncertainty relation.
Best wishes,
Colin
Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 15:48 GMT
Dear Colin,
Interesting essay, and to some extent I agree to your arguments about tired light. Also we need to consider the fact that explanations for some physical observations by math can be different, e.g. compare “postNewtonian gravity and general relativity”, also Einstein argued for point coincidences in this regard.
Furthermore, if we consider general relativity for spacetime curvature around mass (stellar bodies) that causes gravitational lensing, then I would argue for the plasma or dust that exists around luminous stars, and this plasma or dust regardless of its charge would bend the electromagnetic wave as the density of the plasma gets higher when getting closer to the star, which in its turn causes refraction of the light. This was not even touched in general relativity and no corrections are considered either. This means that explaining a physical phenomenon by math doesn’t necessarily tells us the whole story. This is also addressed in my article.
Kind Regards
Koorosh
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2015 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Koorosh,
I am hopeful that a mission like LATOR (Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity) will be able to provide guidance in considering the "truthiness" of competing gravitational theories which satisfy firstorder tests. I expect general relativity will fail a secondorder test, but as outlined in the Endnotes that does not necessarily mean the end of the theory if it can be suitably modified.
I think LATOR's very high precision measurement of the deflection of laser light could be affected by the mechanism you suggest. I am not familiar with the technical details involved, but it would be unfortunate if the effect was significant. Good point. Definitely something to consider beforehand.
Thanks for your interest.
Colin
report post as inappropriate
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 08:32 GMT
Arranged measured thoughtprocess which circumvents on the subject of quantised redspace light, which is an imposing interest.
Great job!
Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 18:55 GMT
Dear Sujatha
Thank you!
Colin
basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 04:02 GMT
Dear Sir,
Though your essays is not exactly on the required topic, you have brought it in at the end. We thoroughly enjoyed your well written essay and like to suggest some extensions.
Mathematics describes only the quantitative aspect of Nature  how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or nonlinearly in interactions involving similar or partly...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
Though your essays is not exactly on the required topic, you have brought it in at the end. We thoroughly enjoyed your well written essay and like to suggest some extensions.
Mathematics describes only the quantitative aspect of Nature  how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or nonlinearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics.
Time dilation, like length contraction, flow from SR. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Thus, length contraction is only apparent. Time dilation (including that noticed in GPS) is caused due to refraction caused by changing density of local medium (what you call tired light). Time dilation, like light, is density variant and not uniform everywhere. This affects redshift data also.
Still there is much confusion over the precise value of the Hubble Constant. The expanding universe concept was introduced to explain galactic redshift. But now blueshift and galactic mergers have also been confirmed. What if the measurements of the last sixties are also true? Further, it is linked to inflation. It is assumed that it is an open universe that is expanding since big bang 13.7 billion years ago. Ancient Indian astronomers give a much bigger date for it. What if the universe is closed? If you throw a pebble into a circular pond, the waves reach out to the boundary and then reverse. Ancient Indian astronomers described the evolution of the universe like that repeatedly, which can explain the current rate of ‘expansion’ without inflation. They believed that the universe is rotating on its axis with galaxies like planets around Sun. The orbits are all circular, but appear elliptical because of the moving center. Just like the planets appear to be receding at times to come close at other times, we may be seeing redshift at some stage and blueshift at other times. Thus, the galaxy rotation curve needs to be relooked.
All the objects in the universe radiate far more energy compared to the cosmic microwave background. The ancient Indians classified bodies into five categories based on albedo. According to that classification, the CMB is without reflectivity (ajyoti called Parameshthi). It is the universal background structure. It is well known that light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant, but which requires one point to be fixed (tied) to be generated. Sound is a longitudinal wave, which cannot travel without a dense medium. Electromagnetic radiation exhibits both characteristics and the intersection point of the electric and magnetic planes with the medium in the direction of motion (they called it agnisomaatmaka) shows up as photon. Since the background structure does not move, it does not radiate light. But the reflected waves from the big bang interact with each other, which leads to not only evolution of forces (15 types), but also all material formation. It should be noted that though proton and neutron both are said to consist of up quarks and down quarks, in reality, each is a pullulating mass of countless quarks, antiquarks, and gluons. It is so messy that physicists cannot say exactly how it’s most basic properties, such as its mass and spin, emerge from the tangle. We have written about these, dark matter and dark energy variously.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 01:45 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
Thanks for your comment and suggestions. The link between mathematics and physics is sustained by experimental and observational data. My approach to the essay topic was to deal with a specific example, the interpretation of supernova data.
These data are commonly considered to be evidence of accelerating expansion. I did notice considerable scatter in the luminosityredshift data shown in ref 6 which might be due to some of the effects you discuss. An examination of outliers (misfit data) could be interesting.
With respect, if I was to associate something with a "universal background structure" it would not be the CMB, but accumulated zeropoint energy (Hh/2) associated with the photon.
Best regards
Colin

Theodore St. John wrote on Feb. 24, 2015 @ 12:33 GMT
Dear Colin Walker,
Excellent work on your essay. I am glad to read “Black holes and an expanding universe stand out as absurd”. I completely agree about black holes but don’t have the mathematical wizardry to challenge those who decree the “authorized version” of physics (quoting Jim Baggott in his excellent book, “Farewell to Reality: How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth”). I’m not sure I fully understand it, but thanks for bringing up the idea of tired light, which I was not familiar with. I may want to reference it and your essay in my research, but I humbly disagree about expansion of the universe. I think I have a good model, called the spacetimemotion model, (posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045), that represents space and time as mathematical, conformal projections of motion onto 2 dimensions (also mathematical conceptual models). As such, space is potential that is being transformed into actual units of energy, which give rise to expansion of consciousness. You may enjoy it if you get a chance to read it.
I went a different route for this essay and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist  sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring  The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my spacetimemotion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.
Respectfully,
Ted St. John
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 22:38 GMT
Dear Ted,
Thanks for giving it a read and commenting. At least we agree that black holes are dubious. My attempt in the Endnotes at exposing a flaw in general relativity is fairly primitive, but hopefully someone more skilled than I would be able to incorporate an improvement which avoids black holes.
By the way, your essay really was entertaining, and a welcome relief.
Best regards,
Colin
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 13:24 GMT
Dear Colin,
I just want to bring to your attention that the energy ratio (hH /me c^2), where me is mass of the electron, = (Compton wavelength of the electron / radius of the universe)= (G me mp / h c). This may be found useful. May be you are already aware of these relations.
Best regards,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 21:55 GMT
Dear Hasmukh,
A formula relating the Hubble constant to wellknown physical constants would be interesting, but something is wrong. Here is a printout showing that the quantities (in MKS units) are far from equal.
h: 6.626070e34 .... c: 2.997925e+08 .... G: 6.674230e11 .... H: 2.280000e18 .... me: 9.110000e31 .... mp: 1.670000e27
H*h/me/c/c: 1.845147e38
G*me*mp/h/c: 5.111629e43
They are both dimensionless, so it is not a matter of units. I took mp to be proton mass. Inverse of Hubble constant corresponds to about 14 billion years.
I hope this helps. Best to you,
Colin
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 20:56 GMT
Colin,
See the attached .pdf file. I made a very simple identity to relate conjugate derivatives.
Hope it is useful.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
attachments:
ColinWalker.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 23:41 GMT
Thanks Gary. That is an interesting observation. I don't have an application for a quaternion derivative yet, but I can see it would be a requirement for your Calculus 2.0.
Best wishes
Colin
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 05:39 GMT
Good work Colin!
You make a very unconventional claim sound quite plausible. Of course; I've heard some of the stories firsthand, or already know about the evidence. I got to hear Paul Steinhardt give the 'Inflationary Cosmology on Trial' lecture at FFP11 in Paris, half a year before his article appeared in Scientific American. I heard Prof. Assis speak at CCC2 in Port Angeles  as well as Paul Marmet and others who explained a bit about quantum tired light. But you make a good case for Hh being a fundamental constant of sorts.
I have read that one proposed mechanism involves the production of virtual particle pairs possessing unequal velocity, as a quantum relativistic correction for local gravity fields. Perhaps there is a mechanism where this occurs quasi periodically, as an effect of traversing great distances. This would respect the coherency or monotonicity of quantum mechanical systems (a single frequency), but allow for the degradation of energy over time.
Regards,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 05:46 GMT
I wanted to add this..
I wrote a song lyric after CCC2 about the Big Bang. Here's the first verse:
There was a man named Hubble, who said he had his doubts,
but all the other scientists said 'you've got it figured out.'
A universe expanding; that's the way it's gotta be.
At least that is the picture that we think we want to see.
Have Fun!
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 23:45 GMT
Thanks Jonathan! And thanks again for pointing out Paul Steinhardt's lecture in your 2013 essay blog. Without that link, it would not have occurred to me that a secondorder failure of general relativity would also undermine inflation. It was about that time when I made the plot of supernova models versus representative data and concluded tired light could not be ruled out, and then finding consistency with observed time dilation of supernova light curves.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program "Quirks and Quarks" recently featured particle physicist Jon Butterworth talking about the search for the Higgs boson and how the search now is for the smallest particle. If matter is composed of ever smaller turtles, what is the smallest turtle? If we follow the redshift energy, it could be a pair of turtles whose energy adds up to Hh, each perhaps with energy Hh/2. The smallest particle would be the ultimate wave. Beyond that, there is not much more I can guess about the mechanism.
Maybe someday you can work Fritz Zwicky and Walther Nernst into the song. Zwicky was one of the first to propose energy loss. Anyway, let's see how it goes.
Best wishes,
Colin
Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 11:37 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you very much for correcting me; i am very poor in numerical work.
Would you please veryfy the third ratio: whether the energy ratio is correct? i.e. whether (hH /me c^2), where me is mass of the electron, = (Compton wavelength of the electron / radius of the universe) ? By taking: Radius of the universe R = c / Hubble Constant.
With my Best Regards,
Hasmukh K. Tank
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 12, 2015 @ 23:39 GMT
Dear Hasmukh,
This one is fine numerically (ratios are the same) but you would get equal ratios for any mass instead of electron mass. It is a tricky business looking for hidden relations among the physical constants.
Best wishes,
Colin
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Colin,
Your essay is excellent, innovative and original. I was not involved in explaining the redshift, because it is explained, from you and others, without any expansion of the universe. On irrational explanations, of course I did not waste my time. In your essay also has perhaps the most useful information from all the others. So it is not surprising that there are errors that I would like to draw your attention, in good faith.
In (6) and (7) the value of Planck's not good which a misprint is probably.
Beyond that is the sentence "The mass of spherical universe ..." which for me is greater mistake than to say that the Earth is flat.
In (8) is the result of c^2/2G which means that in natural units (c = 1, G = 1), matching an unnatural value ½.
In my essay is just 1. I also have no need for the Hubble parameter, but I use the time cycle of the universe 4.30849E Tu =10^17 sec. This way I get the mentioned "four hundred octaves" value 2^401.976959236=1.01653490569 * 10^121, not like you close to 10^120. I call 2*pi times bigger value: the number of Planck's oscillators.
I would like especially, if you write a comment on my essay.
Sorry for poor translation.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Branko,
Thank you for your encouraging comment. I tend to agree with your assessment of expansion, but it is important to try to point out the difficulties.
I am glad that you noticed the discrepancy with eqs (6)(8). That was not a misprint but a clumsy attempt on my part to show the symmetry of scale by redefining the Planck scale as the geometric mean of the largest and smallest mass assuming they were known. Unfortunately, I could not arrive at the usual expressions for Planck units by assuming a mass of the universe given by a steady state cosmological model. As well, I wanted (8) to be the same as for Einstein's original cosmology, but I do not know whether these models are compatible or applicable.
Taking the inverse of your cycle time as Hubble parameter, I see you get 2*pi times the number of oscillators, and mass of the universe twice what I get. That would make each oscillator have energy Hh/(2*pi) instead of Hh/2 which is what the zeropoint energy would be in a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the 2*pi was missing in your eq (16) for the number of oscillators, your Planck oscillator would have energy Hh. This would seem more reasonable to me than either of the above, since it would be the smallest energy transition.
You have an interesting way of addressing the symmetry of scale, among other things. Please give me a day or two to comment on your essay.
Best regards,
Colin
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Colin,
You write:
If the 2*pi was missing in your eq (16) for the number of oscillators, your Planck oscillator would have energy Hh. This would seem more reasonable to me than either of the above, since it would be the smallest energy transition.
I say:
Then it is quantum mechanical oscillator.
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 10:42 GMT
Dear Colin,
Your views on the photon and the normal distribution are interesting. Require a complete separate article. The rest of the text, refer to my place. Best regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 30, 2015 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Mr. Walker
I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.
I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.
All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.
Joe Fisher
report post as inappropriate
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Colin,
You have written a thoughtprovoking essay. Here are my comments:
"Black holes and an expanding universe stand out as absurd."
i think having such a strong assertion at the beginning of your paper may turn off some readers from reading the rest, which I think would unfortunate because you present the subject matter sensibly. I think it would have been better to soften the statement a little, for isn't possible that the apparent absurdity of these notions merely reflects our incomplete understanding?
"The objection is founded on the classical notion of causality." Thank you for pointing this out, it implies that this would be considered a very strong objection, since causality is one of the sacred principles of physics. If I wanted to address this objection I would probably try to do more than quote a couple of (albeit wellrespected) physicists and philosophers of science and appeal to a quasiphilosophical principle to support my argument. Could you, for example, have given examples of other situations in which are analogical to the one you discuss? Is there any remotely analogous situation in condensed matter physics, for example?
"Scattering would be detectable as smearing of images"
Wouldn't scattering also affect the speed of light? I'm surprised I could not find a discussion of this, for this might potentially suggest a way of falsifying the idea. If you can derive values for the fluctuations in the speed of light, you could compare it to some recent experimental results. See, for instance
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n4/full/nphy
s3270.html
(Although they were not testing the tired light hypothesis it seems their experiment might be relevant to it)
"Readers who are willing to reconsider their faith in the
basis of inflationary cosmology may suspect they have been tricked, seduced..."
Well, based on what you wrote it seems a commitment to the tired light hypothesis entails more than just abandoning inflationary cosmology, namely a commitment at least to:
1. A particular interpretation of the complementarity principle which I'm not sure is mainstream
2. A particular process for matter creation for which I am uncertain to what degree it is supported by established physics
3. A particular mechanism for circumventing the second law of thermodynamics.
So, I would say that for a mainstream physicist that is quite a lot to swallow. If you really believe this, then finding more evidence and stronger evidence along all these fronts would be helpful to your cause.
"It can be shown that a reformulation of potential energy using special
relativity provides an exponential potential energy function that can be appropriately
normalized to the rest energy of a test object, thus setting a limit to the
energy available from changing elevation in the gravitational field of a massive
object".
I don't remember if we had ever talked about it, but there is a paper I wrote a while back and revised more recently about the relation between gravitational and kinetic Energy you might find interesting:
http://xxx.tau.ac.il/abs/1003.4824
All in all, you offer an intriguing alternative to the way we currently frame our cosmological observations in terms of Dark energy. But to be very frank, I'm afraid that more will be needed to sway people toward this paradigm.
Best wishes,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Armin,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, links and questions. And for your frank assessment.
Yes, the word "absurd" might be a bit strong. The context is "reductio ad absurdum" but the use of the word in logic does not translate well to physics. If saying that black holes and inflation are absurd stops people from reading my essay then I have probably done them a favour by saving their time. Attitudes have hardened since Kip Thorne's book on black holes came out in 1994 subtitled "Einstein's outrageous legacy". Not so outrageous these days, it seems. Considering accelerating expansion requires unlimited energy, there is no cosmology which is not absurd.
Complementarity is part of quantum mechanics that physicists have admitted to being unable to understand. This aspect of quantum mechanics apparently presents an exception to the demand for causality. Complementarity at astronomical scale is the only pill that needs to be swallowed for quantum tired light, which is after all exponential decay of light. Commitments to matter creation and balancing entropy are not needed if the universe ends in heat death, which is to me a far less interesting possibility than Nernst's vision of an ageless universe.
Physics is reactionary in the sense that new theories supplant old ones as a reaction to new evidence. I believe a paradigm shift in cosmology ought to come about from the failure of a second order test of general relativity in an experiment such as the proposed LATOR mission. The evidence from supernova presented in the essay are merely consistent with quantum tired light, and do not demonstrate a failure of the present theory.
I think deflection of light does not involve a change in light speed. I expect that the speed of light is presumed to be unaltered. Under this assumption, arrival times would vary because of differing path lengths. The variability of arrival times might be interpreted as variability in the speed of light. The speed of light is supposed to change in a gravitational field as in the Shapiro experiment. Making an observational test is an excellent idea.
I just read your paper on gravitational and kinetic energy, and appreciated the straightforward treatment. The section on gravitons was particularly interesting. I can't help wondering if gravitons might involve the quantum energy Hh.
Best regards,
Colin
Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 21:29 GMT
Dear Colin,
Thank you for your response. Just a couple quick comments:
1. "I believe a paradigm shift in cosmology ought to come about from the failure of a second order test of general relativity in an experiment such as the proposed LATOR mission."
I hope that a second order test of GR will be performed soon. I suspect that most people are too tied to the expectation that any new test will just end up confirming GR, but since at this point we really do not know where its boundary lies, I would be more flexible in my expectations.
2. "Under this assumption, arrival times would vary because of differing path lengths. The variability of arrival times might be interpreted as variability in the speed of light. "
This is exactly what I meant when I was asking about a "change in lightspeed". My expression was sloppy and I thank you for correcting me. Like you, I would not expect the constant c itself to change based on what you presented. Again, I mentioned this because it seems to me that it might be a way of testing the tied light hypothesis.
3. "The section on gravitons was particularly interesting. I can't help wondering if gravitons might involve the quantum energy Hh."
Yes, this interpretation of gravitons is totally unexplored since it completely goes against the current paradigm. If I did not already have all my hands full with my current research program, this subject matter is what I would work to develop. While I do have some ideas about how I would go about exploring this, I must admit that the connection to Hh is not obvious to me (unless perhaps you mean the connection to gravitons as usually conceived, spin 2 particles traveling in space at c?). Care to elaborate?
Best wishes,
Armin
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Apr. 6, 2015 @ 03:21 GMT
I don't have a specific graviton model in mind, but it is among some possibilities for the redshifted energy. If in each photon cycle pairs of "particles" are emitted, each with energy Hh/2 and opposite spin, then any spin is possible. Spin zero could fit well with a role as the smallest Higgs boson.
For spin 2, Clifford Will gave a formula for the speed of a graviton as a function of the ratio of graviton equivalent "rest energy" to graviton energy. If they are the same, the graviton speed is zero. That is an interesting possibility if one thinks of the redshifted energy that would accumulate around sources of radiation as dark matter. On the other hand it is likely that the concepts of zeropoint energy and rest mass are fundamentally incompatible in which case it would be reasonable to take the graviton mass to be zero with speed c.
That's about all I've got.
Best to you
Colin
sherman loran jenkins wrote on Apr. 18, 2015 @ 05:51 GMT
Dear Colin Walker,
Your essay is over all the most important that I have read so far. And it is well spoken. My following comments are meant to be constructive. The negative you have already addressed for the most part.
Concerning your comment, “MacMillan’s ether, Nernst’s zeropoint energy, and perhaps all potential energy including the Higgs field can be identified as being the same thing. The demon, it might be said, is in the details.” I would like to offer some critical details.
I do believe that ‘MacMillan’s ether’, ‘Nernst’s zeropoint energy’, and the ‘Higgs field’ are more or less about the same “stuff.” I am convinced that the vacuum is constructed of charged matter which produces the Higgs field configuration at the background temperature which standard theory attributes to ‘a big bang.’ And that this solid structure, the Higgs field, and temperature are locked in a permanent phase state by pressure of surrounding charge. We become aware of this dark matter where it is warped or drawn toward large collections of mass in stars and galaxies. And a final bit of detail: This solid universal structure yields normal matter when excess energy dislodges even a few of the bits of charged stuff to cluster together with the “holes” left in the vacuum.
I addressed this and the relationship with time in my essay for the first FQXI contest,
The Nature of Time.Thanks,
Sherman Jenkins
report post as inappropriate
Author Colin Walker replied on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Sherman Jenkins.
Thank you for your interest and helpful comments. It had not occurred to me that the microwave background radiation might be associated with the Higgs field. The idea of charge leading to mutual repulsion seems like a natural way to account for the rigidity of the vacuum. Also, the idea of dark matter as concentrated Higgs field is appealing. Many good ideas!
Best wishes,
Colin
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.