Big Bang
Antares 531
bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling the three dimensions we now
perceive as identifying our space?
Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within this universe, may
have been a smooth, gentle process that would not have produced the
inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.
Gordon
dlzc
Not really. Using the laws of physics we have now, and compressing
the Universe from its current temperature / size, to a much smaller
size... yields very high temperatures. Witness the CMBR radiation,
that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a glowing
hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. This (CMBR quench) was supposedly
300,000 years after the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it
was much hotter than this before.
Inferno =/= Explosion
David A. Smith
gb
I think the universe is a quantum energy pulsating quark repeating the
big bang.
That means there are small universes making up a bigger universe, and
even in the bigger universe the speed of light remains the same,
meaning
that universe is just like ours, only things go much slower there in
terms
of time. But I am not a fan believing Einstein's relativity theory is
correct
which supports this idea. Quantum universes.
gb
Based on Einstein's theory I think it is the
distortion of time that causes the big bang.
The universe cools as it expands, and eventually
reaches zero kelvin where even light comes to a
full stop. Once that happens, distortion in time
begins occurring which brings the universe to a
singularity explosion, which would be the big bang,
a time distortion.
But bringing it down to quantum nuclear physics,
we find the pulsating energy that is like a quark's
tiny big bangs occurring periodically billions of
times a second.
Jonathan Doolin
There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand. You're
saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from (or came from) hydrogen
plasma. That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
universe, and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from us at
nearly the speed of light. Wouldn't that then suggest that that
plasma is traveling away from us even faster? And whatever is beyond
that plasma is hotter still and flying away even faster still.
I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball of plasma expanding
at the speed of light in all directions is NOT an explosion.
dlzc
On Jul 16, 2:16 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 10:09 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 5:50 am, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
> > > thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
> > > the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
> > > our space?
>
> > > Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
> > > this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
> > > process that would not have produced the
> > > inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.
>
> > Not really. Using the laws of physics we have now,
> > and compressing the Universe from its current
> > temperature / size, to a much smaller size... yields
> > very high temperatures. Witness the CMBR radiation,
> > that indicates that the entire Universe was filled with a
> > glowing hydrogen plasma at about 3000K. This
> > (CMBR quench) was supposedly 300,000 years after
> > the Big Bang, and it is reasonable to expect it was
> > much hotter than this before.
>
> > Inferno =/= Explosion
>
> There is one detail of that explanation I don't understand.
> You're saying that the CMBR radiation is coming from
> (or came from) hydrogen plasma.
That is what those that know say. It is consistent with the data.
> That plasma is out beyond all of the galaxies in the
> universe,
No, the stuff-that-was-plasma is right here with us still. Some of it
captured into stars, but the rest is still scooting around in random
directions (locally).
> and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from
> us at nearly the speed of light.
See here is a problem with expressing it that way. Those distant
galaxies have relative motions to their neighbors that are similar to
us and our neighbors. The only similarity to "traveling away" is the
expansion of space between us (like the hallway in the movie
Poltergeist).
And the relative motions appear to exceed c. And so you might ask...
"how can we see the light?"
The light we are getting now, is trapped within our Rindler horizon.
We aren't seeing now, we are seeing light that made it just far
enough...
> Wouldn't that then suggest that that plasma is
> traveling away from us even faster?
z is over 1000. A small z is "departing" at c
> And whatever is beyond that plasma is hotter still
> and flying away even faster still.
But not actually moving, and had we divine vision, we could see the
back of our heads (so to speak).
> I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball
> of plasma expanding at the speed of light in all
> directions is NOT an explosion.
It isn't as you describe, but it is part of the reason why the name
Big Bang has stuck.
The Universe is finite and closed. It appears the same in every
direction, in terms of physics. The CMBR was
- the last "burp" of a self-exciting plasma that quenched when the
Universe expanded enough to drop the intensity and density enough that
recombination no longer occurred, or
- it is a multi-folded surface through a Universe-filling globular
cluster, that devolved into lots of galaxies, or
- it is the surface of one super star, or
- even more weird stuff (some of which do not agree with observation).
The key is there was no pre-existing space, and everything on the
"left" can eventually be found on the "right", and this arrangement
will be the same for all those places too.
Here is some good reading material for you:
Many ways to "travel away from"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
Why are we still getting the CMBR light...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
Some highlights of cosmology and the Standard Model.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
If'n you want to know.
David A. Smith
Antares 531
I appreciate all the very insightful responses that I've received on
this subject. I am still trying to get my thinking opened up enough to
let me conceptualize what went on when the spatial dimensions we now
perceive were in the process of being unrolled from their initial
"curled up to less than a Planck length" to their present state of
being uncurled...straight...still a bit curled...infinite radius of
curvature???
Was this dimension un-curling process actually what we now describe as
the Big Bang explosion? That is, would a meter stick, if somehow
contained within that initial point have been discernable as a meter
stick from a perspective within that initial point? Would that meter
stick now be what we perceive as one meter long, or would it be
galactic in size. That is, was that meter stick shrunk down by the
curled dimensions such that it was the same length relative to other
objects in that initial point?
What I'm trying to get settled in my mind is, was it an explosion, or
was it an uncurling of dimensions, with no actual explosion. The
uncurling effect would have produced the red shift we now observe,
just as effectively as an explosion would have.
Think of a two dimensional surface on a spherical balloon. Draw some
images on the balloon's surface. Next, inflate the balloon to a much
larger size. All those objects will have expanded by the same
percentage, and measurements of one object relative to the scale of
any other object would remain constant.
To clarify the above a bit more...draw a picture of a child one meter
tall, holding a meter stick in a vertical position, by his side. After
the balloon was further inflated, this child would still be one meter
tall, as measured by the meter stick in is hand.
Gordon
dlzc
On Jul 17, 6:00 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:50:38 -0500, Antares 531
>
> <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a
> >thermonuclear bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling
> >the three dimensions we now perceive as identifying
> >our space?
>
> >Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within
> >this universe, may have been a smooth, gentle
> >process that would not have produced the inferno that
> >most Big Bang ideas are built around.
>
> I appreciate all the very insightful responses that I've
> received on this subject. I am still trying to get my
> thinking opened up enough to let me conceptualize
> what went on when the spatial dimensions we now
> perceive were in the process of being unrolled from
> their initial "curled up to less than a Planck length" to
> their present state of being uncurled...straight...still a
> bit curled...infinite radius of curvature???
Without light, and time, distance means nothing. Radius of curvature
means nothing.
> Was this dimension un-curling process actually
> what we now describe as the Big Bang explosion?
*No* one calls it an explosion. They just call it the Big Bang.
> That is, would a meter stick, if somehow contained
> within that initial point have been discernable as a meter
> stick from a perspective within that initial point?
It would not exist, and would have self-intersected a lot of times.
> Would that meter stick now be what we perceive as
> one meter long, or would it be galactic in size.
There was no force in the world strong enough to keep it together.
> That is, was that meter stick shrunk down by the
> curled dimensions such that it was the same length
> relative to other objects in that initial point?
I don't think it can be answered. You imagine a physical object in a
very unphysical situation.
> What I'm trying to get settled in my mind is, was it
> an explosion,
No.
> or was it an uncurling of dimensions, with no actual
> explosion.
I think of it more of a "relaxation". With "clock rates"
accelerating, and distances then becoming greater. If you ask
yourself as Mach did where inertia derives from, then ask yourself why
the entire Universe has one clock rate for each successive now.
> The uncurling effect would have produced the red shift
> we now observe, just as effectively as an explosion
> would have.
More effectively, since an explosion should have had much higher "in
group" velocities than we now see, at any age.
> Think of a two dimensional surface on a spherical
> balloon. Draw some images on the balloon's surface.
> Next, inflate the balloon to a much larger size. All
> those objects will have expanded by the same
> percentage, and measurements of one object relative
> to the scale of any other object would remain constant.
The difference is "binding to the balloon", and "binding between
particles". There are force systems at work, with "conservation of
energy" at play... at least in the small.
This should help:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#SS
> To clarify the above a bit more...draw a picture of a
> child one meter tall, holding a meter stick in a vertical
> position, by his side. After the balloon was further
> inflated, this child would still be one meter tall, as
> measured by the meter stick in is hand.
He would scream, and the binding forces that held him "so high" would
restore his shape. Or he would just stay the same shape.
David A. Smith
Jonathan Doolin
First of all, thank you, David, for your detailed response. I *think*
you are representing the standard model of cosmology fairly well (not
to be confused with the standard model in particle physics.)
I think the point that you are making that is hardest to justify is
that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons from the big bang,
locally. First of all, you must say how locally. Are these hydrogen
atoms in between the galaxies, within our galaxy, or within our solar
system?
Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which those hydrogen atoms
continue to produce a thermal spectrum despite the fact that in our
local region they should be so far spread out that they cannot
possibly interact.
I don't think any proponent of the standard model has answered these
questions. But instead of giving up their notion that the light is
produced locally (maintaining ambiguity about *how* locally), they
insist there must be an explanation--only we haven't found it yet.
Dark energy, dark matter, etc.
Meanwhile they completely ignore the idea that perhaps the light is
coming from far away. I guess they can't envision the possibility
that the universe is that big, that we are on the inside of a giant
ball of plasma. A giant and infinite explosion. I will come back to
this issue down below.
> > and the most distant galaxies are traveling away from
> > us at nearly the speed of light.
>
> See here is a problem with expressing it that way. Those distant
> galaxies have relative motions to their neighbors that are similar to
> us and our neighbors. The only similarity to "traveling away" is the
> expansion of space between us (like the hallway in the movie
> Poltergeist).
>
The ability to imagine something, like the hallway in the movie,
Poltergeist; like the folding of space in L'Engle's novels, do not
make it so. Our ability to envision the stretching of space is a
testament to our creativity, but not observational astronomy. True,
light does bend around gravitational masses, and time slows in the
regions of high gravity, but neither of these represent a bending or
streching of space.
You can always map objects and events into a Cartesian Coordinate
system from afar, and after rotation, translation, and Lorentz
Transformation, those objects and events are going to look the same
from anywhere and everywhere. Whether or not proponents of the
standard model agree with this statement, the possibility should at
least be considered, before it is tossed aside--before we introduce
dark energy, dark matter, stretching of space, and a dozen other
things YOU KNOW we have no evidence for.
> And the relative motions appear to exceed c. And so you might ask...
> "how can we see the light?"
>
> The light we are getting now, is trapped within our Rindler horizon.
> We aren't seeing now, we are seeing light that made it just far
> enough...
>
> > Wouldn't that then suggest that that plasma is
> > traveling away from us even faster?
>
> z is over 1000. A small z is "departing" at c
>
> > And whatever is beyond that plasma is hotter still
> > and flying away even faster still.
>
> But not actually moving, and had we divine vision, we could see the
> back of our heads (so to speak).
>
This bothers me a lot, too. We've gone to all the trouble of
maintaining the constant speed of light with the principle of
relativity, and then proponents of the standard model say we're going
to throw away the principle of relativity. Everything is stationary,
they say. Everything is moving the same speed that we are--it's only
the streching of space itself that makes things LOOK like it's
traveling away from us.
The principle of relativity, at least in part, implies that there is
no special velocity. As such, we should expect the universe to
consist of matter that is traveling at no special velocity, which
means we should NOT expect everything to be stationary with respect to
ourselves. But the standard model INSISTS that everything is
stationary--not because of evidence, but just because.
> > I'm not sure it is justified in saying that a ball
> > of plasma expanding at the speed of light in all
> > directions is NOT an explosion.
>
> It isn't as you describe, but it is part of the reason why the name
> Big Bang has stuck.
>
> The Universe is finite and closed. It appears the same in every
> direction, in terms of physics. The CMBR was
> - the last "burp" of a self-exciting plasma that quenched when the
> Universe expanded enough to drop the intensity and density enough that
> recombination no longer occurred, or
> - it is a multi-folded surface through a Universe-filling globular
> cluster, that devolved into lots of galaxies, or
> - it is the surface of one super star, or
> - even more weird stuff (some of which do not agree with observation).
>
Finally, I think this may be the crux of the matter. You say the
universe is finite--by that, I assume you mean finite in mass. If
this were true, then I would have to withdraw most of my objections.
If the universe is finite, then that would mean there would have to be
some counteracting force to keep it from collapsing.
That would also mean, that you could calculate the total momentum of
the universe. It would be a finite mass, traveling with some mean
velocity, and that velocity would then become "special" because it
would be the speed of the universe. Not particularly "relativistic,"
but if it were true, then, we'd have to accept "it is what it is," I
think.
However, if the universe is infinite, then there would be no imbalance
which would cause collapse. The universe would keep expanding
forever, and would be shaped like a sphere of incredibly dense plasma
flying out at the speed of light.
This may well be the assumption you are starting with--that the
universe is not infinite in mass, and this leads to everything you are
saying. What proponents of the standard model do is follow the
mathematical model of "Reductio ad absurdum" This is the form of
argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its
implications logically to an absurd consequence.
The absurd consequences may not seem so absurd--dark energy, dark
matter, stretching space, etc, but they have NOT been observed. Let's
at least TRY to see what the implications of infinite mass are, and I
believe we will find, as A. Edward Milne did in the mid-1930's, that
the CMBR is predicted without so much hand-waving.
> The key is there was no pre-existing space, and everything on the
> "left" can eventually be found on the "right", and this arrangement
> will be the same for all those places too.
>
> Here is some good reading material for you:
>
> Many ways to "travel away from"http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#FTL
>
> Why are we still getting the CMBR light...http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
>
> Some highlights of cosmology and the Standard Model.http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
>
> If'n you want to know.
>
> David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'll have a look at the articles later.
Again, thanks,
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
>
Excellent animation to describe the view of Standard Model. That
clarifies quite a bit thank you.
In the first frame or two, the expansion of space is much greater than
the speed of light, but then it quickly slows under light speed, and
then to a crawl.
It comes from the assumption that the matter in the universe is all
evenly distributed and stationary, and for fulfilling those
assumptions, it does an incredibly good job.
On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary, because that runs counter to our
observations. Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us. I guess Standard Model proponents would say that
is my naivete in assuming that redshift is entirely due to recession
velocity.
I don't hink I'm the one who has made a false assumption though. I
think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.
The standard model's assumption that all the matter of the universe is
comoving is a counterfactual; "If only the matter of the universe were
not spreading apart.... then..."
The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart, and if you accept the counterfactual, then the actual data must
be explained AWAY by some other mechanism (the stretching of space)
when you make the standard model's counterfactual assumption.
Explaining away the redshifts of distant galaxies, reminds me of
Ptolemy's geocentric model explaining away retrograde motion It made
reasonable predictions, but it did not really introduce a mechanism.
"each planet required an epicycle revolving on a deferent, offset by
an equant which was different for each planet. But it predicted
various celestial motions, including the beginnings and ends of
retrograde motion, fairly well at the time it was developed."
The standard model's stretching of space is, indeed, a mechanism, so
it is one better on Ptolemy's idea. However, it is a mechanism
designed to explain away data, after making an unjustified assumption,
and it is a mechanism that is only ever used to explain the Standard
Model of Cosmology--nothing else.
dlzc
On Jul 18, 7:24 am, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
Every discipline has its standard model. The one with the best fit to
observation, and maps to all known observations in the discipline.
> I think the point that you are making that is hardest to
> justify is that hydrogen atoms are still producing photons
> from the big bang, locally.
I did not claim that. No one claims that. The hydrogen stopped
releasing light 13-odd billion years ago. When a salmon swims just a
tiny bit faster than the current, it just takes a long time to get
anywhere. So with photons trying to get away from each observer's
Rindler horizon.
> First of all, you must say how locally. Are these
> hydrogen atoms in between the galaxies, within our
> galaxy, or within our solar system?
Imagined problem is not mine.
> Secondly, you must have a mechanism by which
> those hydrogen atoms continue to produce a thermal
> spectrum despite the fact that in our local region they
> should be so far spread out that they cannot possibly
> interact.
Solarsheath, stellarsheaths, the "missing normal matter"... evidence
of matter between the stars and galaxies. Sparse if you want to
breathe it.
> I don't think any proponent of the standard model has
> answered these questions.
Because they know what the theory is, because they *read* the
material. Place one hand over each ear. Between those two hands is
the finest computer and best friend you will ever have. But you need
to use it for something other than keeping your ears apart.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
... please feel free to use the links on that page, and *read and
understand*.
David A. Smith
Jonathan Doolin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your outrage and insults are noted. However, the time-stamp on this
post is also noted, 1:56 pm, vs. 10:13 am on my earlier post, where I
had already addressed this foolishness. You still need to justify
your assumption that the matter in the universe is all evenly
distributed and stationary.
Or rather you, personally, don't. Just one person among all the
standard model proponents needs to justify this assumption. I'm not
calling you an idiot, like you are calling me. I am merely pointing
out 75 years of bad science.
Jonathan Doolin
dlzc
On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your outrage and insults are noted. However, the
> time-stamp on this post is also noted, 1:56 pm, vs.
> 10:13 am on my earlier post, where I had already
> addressed this foolishness.
Good.
> You still need to justify your assumption that the matter
> in the universe is all evenly distributed and stationary.
We can see that it is uniformly distributed in the large, and we can
see that its local motion is pretty close to the motions we see in our
local cluster. Granted we can only detect "radial" components (in
many cases) with a limited number of centuries of observation time.
> Or rather you, personally, don't. Just one person
> among all the standard model proponents needs
> to justify this assumption.
The "assumption" as stated is false, and is known to be false. There
are large voids, now. And "static" is not anywhere to be found. Any
such claims as applied to the Universe at the time of the Big Bang
will be better founded, with the proviso that without distance, there
is neither "non-uniformity in distribution", or "motion".
> I'm not calling you an idiot, like you are calling me.
I did not call you an idiot. I pointed out that you did not attempt
to learn anything from the links provided. Until you posted again. I
blame texting... bad habits of "opening mouth" before thinking.
> I am merely pointing out 75 years of bad science.
Are you that old? Because it is clear you simply have not been paying
attention.
David A. Smith
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
> universe is stationary,
No one assumes that.
> Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
> moving away from us.
That's at best an oversimplification. You need to consider what
coordinate system you are using.
> think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
> that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.
No one assumes that, either.
> The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
> apart,
Better would be to say the Universe was hotter and denser in the
past. There is abundant evidence for that.
Describing modern cosmology in simple terms is not easy; you probably
want to read several different descriptions. There's a lot of sloppy
or even bogus stuff around, though, so you have to be careful about
your sources. I think perhaps some of the problem is that there's a
tendency to want to view the Universe as it might be seen by some
omniscient outside observer, but all we can actually measure is what
we see from inside. If you really want to understand it, you need to
do the math. (Peebles' _Principles of Physical Cosmology_ is one
standard textbook.) Expecting to find some monstrous logical
contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.
By the way, the standard picture is that the _observable_ Universe is
(very likely) open and of finite mass. There's no way to know what
lies outside the observable Universe.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <b080b4a2-b879-45cb-a193-12a12e0da...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
> > universe is stationary,
>
> No one assumes that.
>
You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space.
> > Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
> > moving away from us.
>
> That's at best an oversimplification. You need to consider what
> coordinate system you are using.
>
You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time. I'm not entirely sure how to put that
idea into any coordinate system. But I do know how to put things into
a coordinate system when I DON'T assume that space is stretching over
time. And in such a coordinate system, where space is not stretching
over time, our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us.
> > think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
> > that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.
>
> No one assumes that, either.
>
You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time. In any case, this lets you claim that
the bodies are not moving away *as fast* as would be indicated if you
assumed that ALL of the redshift was due to recession velocity.
> > The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
> > apart,
>
> Better would be to say the Universe was hotter and denser in the
> past. There is abundant evidence for that.
>
You assume that PART of the redshift of distant bodies is caused by
stretching of space over time.
> Describing modern cosmology in simple terms is not easy; you probably
> want to read several different descriptions. There's a lot of sloppy
> or even bogus stuff around, though, so you have to be careful about
> your sources. I think perhaps some of the problem is that there's a
> tendency to want to view the Universe as it might be seen by some
> omniscient outside observer, but all we can actually measure is what
> we see from inside. If you really want to understand it, you need to
> do the math. (Peebles' _Principles of Physical Cosmology_ is one
> standard textbook.) Expecting to find some monstrous logical
> contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.
>
> By the way, the standard picture is that the _observable_ Universe is
> (very likely) open and of finite mass. There's no way to know what
> lies outside the observable Universe.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
I have at least glanced through Peeble's Principles of Modern
Cosmology. Mainly, I remember the page on A.E. Milne's model. It was
a giant misrepresentation of Milne's whole idea, then dismissal. What
Peebles had to say about Milne's Model was that it is
"uninteresting."
In other science, you don't dismiss an idea because it's boring. If
you can find a flaw in it, then you point out that flaw and disprove
it. In "Relativity, Gravitation, and World Structure" Milne
completely demolishes Eddington's ideas. For Peebles to completely
misrepresent Milne's work, and then call it "uninteresting" is not
scientific.
The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
scale. They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
all comoving. They have not justified their assumption that the
matter in the universe is finite. They have not justified their
assumption that the redshift is caused all or in part by the
stretching of space. They have not justified their assumption that
Special Relativity is only applicable locally. They have not
justified that space is stretching over time. They have not justified
ANY of these things, but proponents of the standard model can always
retreat to around the circle to another unjustified argument, and
blame any misunderstanding on sloppy and bogus stuff.
It is all circular. For all I know, the standard model works, and if
you get rid of all the sloppy and bogus stuff, it's self consistent.
But even if it is self-consistent, you've said it yourself--"the
standard picture is the universe has finite mass." Of the many
assumptions given, this assumption SEEMS the most reasonable. From
this assumption, perhaps, everything else in the standard model
follows.
If I focus on that, maybe I can be less confrontational.
I can accept as given, that the standard model follows from the
assumption that the universe has finite mass. If I understand
correctly, this leads to predictions of the stretching of space, dark
matter, dark energy, etc. I wish to propose a counter-assumption that
the universe has infinite mass. This leads to ...
1. large scale gravitational symmetry, i.e. no need to explain why
the universe is not collapsing back on itself.
2. No need for stretching of space.
3. CMBR caused by surface of last scattering, giant sphere of plasma,
traveling away at near c. gamma approximately 1100 = 3000K / 2.73 K
4. No need to explain why CMBR is nearly uniform because It all came
from the same point as we did, it's all traveling away at nearly the
same velocity, and it's all coming from the same reaction, it's all
time-dilated to roughly 1/1100th normal speed.
5. No need to explain inflation because appropriate use of Lorentz
Transformations will show that any set of random accelerations applied
to events in the past tends to move those events further into the
past--hence, early thermal accelerations in the first instances of the
universe would be sufficient.
Please consider
mass of universe=infinity.
Let
distance = rate * time
Assume
the redshift is entirely due to recession
velocity.
Assume
Space is NOT stretching like raisins in a
muffin.
Space is NOT stretching like a balloon with
dots on it.
If the model turns out to make some kind of bad predictions about the
universe, that we can point to and say "AHA, now we have SHOWN that
Arthur Milne, Lewis Carol Epstein, and Jonathan Doolin's hypothesis is
FALSE" then so be it. I'm sure me and Epstein and Milne aren't the
only ones to think this stretching of space idea is hokey.
But to dismiss the idea out of hand because you just CAN'T BELIEVE the
mass of the universe might be infinite, or worse yet, because the
model is "uninteresting" (as Peeble's dismissed it) then you're merely
propagating the 75 ears of bad science.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
> contradiction in the standard picture, though, seems a bit naive.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
... and I have been naive. I have been expecting to find a
contradiction in the standard model, based on its incompatibility with
my own ideas.
However, I am becoming more and more convinced that the standard model
IS internally consistent, and is probably the ONLY logical conclusion,
once you assume the mass of the universe is finite.
So I no longer expect to find a logical contradiction in the standard
model. I only think that if you assume, instead, the mass of the
universe is infinite, you will find another internally consistent
model, but one with completely different conclusions--conclusions I
outlined in last night's post
The infinite mass assumption should not be rejected out of hand, but
should be explored with just as much care as the finite mass
assumption.
Thank you,
Jonathan Doolin
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
> justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
> scale.
It's the simplest assumption, and so far, it's consistent with the
data. Other ideas have been proposed.
> They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
> all comoving.
No one assumes this.
> They have not justified their assumption that the
> matter in the universe is finite.
Matter in the _observable_ Universe is finite. (The adjective is
important.) Otherwise the density would be infinite, which is
contrary to observation (as you may have noticed!). There are, in
fact, quite good measurements of the average density of the
observable Universe.
As to the rest, there are quite a few observational constraints that
any theory has to meet. The evidence that the observable Universe
was hotter and denser in the past is overwhelming.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <39eb7e7f-ef4f-4f4e-a237-a85c56626...@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The simple fact is, proponents of the standard model have not
> > justified their assumption that the universe is homogeneous on a large
> > scale.
>
> It's the simplest assumption, and so far, it's consistent with the
> data. Other ideas have been proposed.
>
> > They have not justified their assumption that the matter is
> > all comoving.
>
> No one assumes this.
>
Steve,
Yes. I think it was referred to as the "Dust" model, or something
along that line. I wish I could remember where I read it, but
unfortunately most of what I know came from library books, which have
long ago been returned. It may have been in "Space-Time Physics"
Whatever the book was, it did an excellent job of talking about
spacetime diagrams, until it got to the juicy part about doing a
Lorentz Transformation on a space-time diagram, which was apparently
deemed uninteresting, unworthy, or impossible, and then it all of a
sudden introduced this infinite homogeneous comoving matter
distribution, just completely out of the blue, called "Dust"
I expected it to be one of perhaps several matter distributions, at
least one of which should be described by the matter all coming from a
single point, and flying out at inertial velocities. However, the
book did not come around to that obvious example. Nor did it did not
introduce any other examples at all. It gave the "Dust" model, and
then, without explanation or justification, started to use that model
as the *actual* model for the universe.
> > They have not justified their assumption that the
> > matter in the universe is finite.
>
> Matter in the _observable_ Universe is finite. (The adjective is
> important.) Otherwise the density would be infinite, which is
> contrary to observation (as you may have noticed!). There are, in
> fact, quite good measurements of the average density of the
> observable Universe.
>
The adjective is important, of course. In the standard model, It
would seem there is more and more matter popping into the observable
universe over time. (If the "outrun.html" animation referenced
earlier was representative of the standard model, then the constant
speed of light is overtaking the slowing stretching of space, bringing
more and more of the cosmos into view as time passes. I actually have
some misgivings about accepting this part of the standard model. The
temptation is to point to this as one of the examples where "Reductio
ab adsurdam" should apply. But being that as it may--I can't really
pinpoint, for now, exactly what internal inconsistencies might be
related to matter popping into the observable universe as the light
finally reaches us.
On the other hand, you're making the claim that infinite density is
impossible.
I can see this idea bugs you, but are you sure it is internally
inconsistent? Assuming that the redshift is due entirely to recession
velocity, you cannot say that infinite density is contrary to
observation, because we know perfectly well we cannot see past the
surface of last scattering. Presumably, beyond that surface, the
universe gets more and more dense. Because there is no limit to the
gamma factor, but there is a limit to the speed, the matter would
become length contracted and time dilated. So the density of the
universe would tend to infinity as you look out toward the outer
surface..
> As to the rest, there are quite a few observational constraints that
> any theory has to meet. The evidence that the observable Universe
> was hotter and denser in the past is overwhelming.
>
You've brought this up twice now, but I don't see how this is under
debate.
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Thanks for your time,
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/bad.html#CDM
Quote: ["dust" means any form of matter which does not exert a
pressure which is comparable to its energy density, or in other words
any form of matter which is cool enough that its particles are not
moving at relativistic speeds. Most cosmologists think of entire
galaxies as constituting the "grains" of this dust!]
In the referenced animation:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
According to the standard model, the entire universe is constituted of
"grains" of dust that are all moving at nonrelativistic speeds. In
the grand scope of possible speeds, there is verrrry little difference
between saying "nonrelativistic motion" and saying "comoving."
> > Or rather you, personally, don't. Just one person
> > among all the standard model proponents needs
> > to justify this assumption.
>
> The "assumption" as stated is false, and is known to be false. There
> are large voids, now. And "static" is not anywhere to be found. Any
> such claims as applied to the Universe at the time of the Big Bang
> will be better founded, with the proviso that without distance, there
> is neither "non-uniformity in distribution", or "motion".
>
> > I'm not calling you an idiot, like you are calling me.
>
> I did not call you an idiot. I pointed out that you did not attempt
> to learn anything from the links provided. Until you posted again. I
> blame texting... bad habits of "opening mouth" before thinking.
>
> > I am merely pointing out 75 years of bad science.
>
> Are you that old? Because it is clear you simply have not been paying
> attention.
>
> David A. Smith
I'm old enough to read a book written by Milne in 1935 and to see that
75 years of cosmologists have completely misrepresented or ignored it.
Regards,
Jonathan Doolin
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> On the other hand, you're making the claim that infinite density is
> impossible.
I'm making the claim that it's not what we observe the Universe to be
like here and now. What happened in the first couple of Planck times
is far beyond our current knowledge.
If you want consider a model of the Universe as an explosion
expanding into pre-existing, fixed space, you need to look at how
observations would differ from the usual model. The first thing I'd
think of is the redshift-distance relation (which in the standard
model is _not_ a velocity-distance relation), but perhaps there are
other observables. For example, should we observe higher densities
in some directions (looking towards versus away from the explosion)?
Are the predictions of an "explosion model" consistent with
observations?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <73e3ed17-6e6f-429e-91f1-b78d38da9...@r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, you're making the claim that infinite density is
> > impossible.
>
> I'm making the claim that it's not what we observe the Universe to be
> like here and now. What happened in the first couple of Planck times
> is far beyond our current knowledge.
>
> If you want consider a model of the Universe as an explosion
> expanding into pre-existing, fixed space, you need to look at how
> observations would differ from the usual model. The first thing I'd
> think of is the redshift-distance relation (which in the standard
> model is _not_ a velocity-distance relation), but perhaps there are
> other observables. For example, should we observe higher densities
> in some directions (looking towards versus away from the explosion)?
> Are the predictions of an "explosion model" consistent with
> observations?
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Yes, I would like to consider a model of the Universe as an explosion
expanding into pre-existing, fixed space!
"Towards versus away from the explosion" actually becomes pretty
counter-intuitive in the model. If every particle follows an
unaccelerated path then every particle, in its own reference frame, is
AT the center of the explosion.
However, if a particle accelerates in one direction, then it is a bit
counterintuitive. If you were to accelerate forward, then an event in
your future, would move backward. But an event in the past--for
instance, the big bang, would move to your forward. So whatever
acceleration you perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
move in the opposite direction from what you would expect.
My own hypothesis is that most of the structure of the universe is
leftover from early Brownian Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of
Planck Times, perhaps thereafter. This is almost pure conjecture, but
I think that if super-massive particles were accelerated by collision
out of their original reference frame, they could have flown through a
fairly large region, leaving chaos in their wake. For instance,
matter momentarily accelerated by the passing high-gravity particle
begins to swirl and form into galaxies.
A modern day example of a particle outside its frame, would be the
muon's half-life increasing, and passing through much more of the
earth's atmosphere than expected. Consider if some monstrosity from
pre-Planck-time were accelerated to insane speeds through post-Planck-
time space, and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
or billions.
I would expect that such phenomena could cause streams of matter,
tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that would show up throughout the
universe. I admit that this is an explanation, not a prediction.
Knowing there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
explanation, and I think this one makes some sense, even though it may
seem a little fantastical.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
I thought maybe a little bit of ASCII art might help this
explanation: In the following diagrams, the * represents the big bang
event. The edge diagonal lines are the speed of light. Event a is
the event where a particle is struck, accelerating by a change in
rapidity of 100. (Using rapidity to keep the math linear.)
Frame A: particle is stationary then is struck by a force which
accelerates it to rapidity = 100
\ / /
\ a/ /
\ | /
*
Frame B: particle is moving with rapidity=-50, then is struck by a
force which accelerates it to rapidity 50
\ / /
\ / /
\ / /
a\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
*
Frame C: Particle is moving with rapidity = -100, then is struck by a
force which accelerates it to rapidity = 0.
\ |
\ |
\|
a\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ /
\ /
*
Frame A describes a very short period of time; perhaps the Planck Time
or less. Frame C could show a significant history of the universe,
depending on the accleration involved.
In between, with frame B is a very hot and dense era. You can see the
possibility that a super-particle with a very short half-life could
travel at nearly the speed of light through a long distance of very
dense material.
dlzc
On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Yes, I would like to consider a model of the
> Universe as an explosion expanding into
> pre-existing, fixed space!
There appears to be no unique center:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
There appears to be no pre-existing space
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN
(... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)
> "Towards versus away from the explosion"
> actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
> model. If every particle follows an unaccelerated
> path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
> is AT the center of the explosion.
Not possible with a fixed space.
> However, if a particle accelerates in one direction,
> then it is a bit counterintuitive. If you were to
> accelerate forward, then an event in your future,
> would move backward. But an event in the
> past--for instance, the big bang, would move to
> your forward. So whatever acceleration you
> perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
> move in the opposite direction from what you
> would expect.
No. You are talking about moving yet-to-be encountered interactions.
And we can see no center. There is no "smoking remains" in any
direction we can see.
> My own hypothesis is that most of the structure
> of the universe is leftover from early Brownian
> Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of Planck Times,
> perhaps thereafter. This is almost pure conjecture,
> but I think that if super-massive particles were
> accelerated by collision out of their original reference
> frame, they could have flown through a fairly large
> region, leaving chaos in their wake. For instance,
> matter momentarily accelerated by the passing
> high-gravity particle begins to swirl and form into
> galaxies.
Except for your belief in pre-existing empty space, and your belief in
an explosion, this is not significantly different from the standard
model of cosmology.
> A modern day example of a particle outside its
> frame, would be the muon's half-life increasing,
> and passing through much more of the earth's
> atmosphere than expected. Consider if some
> monstrosity from pre-Planck-time were accelerated
> to insane speeds through post-Planck-time space,
... accelerated by... what?
> and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
> or billions.
Nothing new to the particle, however.
> I would expect that such phenomena could cause
> streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
> would show up throughout the universe. I admit that
> this is an explanation, not a prediction. Knowing
> there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
> explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
> even though it may seem a little fantastical.
Just unsupported by observation is all.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 9:33 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> > > You still need to justify your assumption that the matter
> > > in the universe is all evenly distributed and stationary.
>
> > We can see that it is uniformly distributed in the large,
> > and we can see that its local motion is pretty close to
> > the motions we see in our local cluster. Granted we can
> > only detect "radial" components (in many cases) with a
> > limited number of centuries of observation time.
>
> http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/bad.html#CDM
>
> Quote: ["dust" means any form of matter which does
> not exert a pressure which is comparable to its energy
> density, or in other words any form of matter which is
> cool enough that its particles are not moving at
> relativistic speeds. Most cosmologists think of entire
> galaxies as constituting the "grains" of this dust!]
>
> In the referenced animation:
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
>
> According to the standard model, the entire universe
> is constituted of "grains" of dust that are all moving at
> nonrelativistic speeds. In the grand scope of possible
> speeds, there is verrrry little difference between saying
> "nonrelativistic motion" and saying "comoving."
None of which says "stationary". None of which speaks to
distribution / density variations in-the-large.
> > > Or rather you, personally, don't. Just one person
> > > among all the standard model proponents needs
> > > to justify this assumption.
>
> > The "assumption" as stated is false, and is known
> > to be false. There are large voids, now. And "static"
> > is not anywhere to be found. Any such claims as
> > applied to the Universe at the time of the Big Bang
> > will be better founded, with the proviso that without
> > distance, there is neither "non-uniformity in
> > distribution", or "motion".
>
> > > I'm not calling you an idiot, like you are calling me.
>
> > I did not call you an idiot. I pointed out that you
> > did not attempt to learn anything from the links
> > provided. Until you posted again. I blame texting...
> > bad habits of "opening mouth" before thinking.
>
> > > I am merely pointing out 75 years of bad science.
>
> > Are you that old? Because it is clear you simply
> > have not been paying attention.
>
> I'm old enough to read a book written by Milne in 1935
> and to see that 75 years of cosmologists have
> completely misrepresented or ignored it.
If that is what got you these clear misunderstandings, and
difficulties in comprehension, is it any wonder it was "ignored"? We
keep trying to bring your eyes back to the heavens, for the
observations to be had, yet you focus on your internal models
instead...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed as a place in
the "terrain" between knowing nothing and the very little we still
know and guess at today. It is a place that must be left, in order to
see all that can be seen.
Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. But broken
models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
them.
We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
in 1905. Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? Nature has taken him out
too...
David A. Smith
Jonathan Doolin
Here. Let me quote the Wikipedia article to you:
"Besides lacking the capability of describing matter Milne's universe
is also incompatible with certain cosmological observations, in
particular it makes no prediction of the cosmic microwave background
radiation."
...and now let me quote Arthur Milne:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Milne_Model.jpg
"The particles near the boundary tend toward invisibility as seen by
the central observer and fade into a continuous background of finite
intensity."
To say that Milne's universe, "in particular, makes no predictionof
the cosmic microwave background radiation" is an out and out lie.
>
> Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. But broken
> models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
> them.
>
> We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
> in 1905. Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? Nature has taken him out
> too...
>
> David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jonathan Doolin
No? If not, then why is there never consideration of the distribution/
density variation which is consistent with Special Relativity? Why do
we not consider a density which is the smallest in the center, where
the galaxies are comoving, and density increasing toward infinity as
you move out toward the region where galaxies are, relative to us,
moving near the speed of light?
Can you give me a meaningful reason that this is never considered,
anywhere, in the popular texts? As far as I know, only Milne and
Epstein have published it, and these texts are indeed maligned by the
proponents of the standard model--but to my knowledge, no honest
criticism has ever found fault with them.
Yes, it is a wonder why it was ignored. Your contemptuous attitude
toward Milne and myself still do not amount to an honest criticism of
the model.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model
> ... it clearly was not ignored, and is in fact discussed as a place in
> the "terrain" between knowing nothing and the very little we still
> know and guess at today. It is a place that must be left, in order to
> see all that can be seen.
>
Yes, it was ignored. First of all, I really doubt if the Milne Model
article would be there at all if I hadn't written the original draft.
Also, if you go to the discussion page for that article, you can see
that I find the Wikipedia article to be a massive misrepresentation of
Milne's Model.
Tim Shuba notes: "A central tenet of this encyclopedia is that
content is supposed to be mainly based on reliable, secondary
sources."
Unfortunately, there are no such reliable, secondary sources for
Milne's Model. Because it was generally ignored and/or
misrepresented.
> Nature is showing us the truth, not always clearly. But broken
> models, when retained, only serve to blind us to the facts that broke
> them.
>
If you gave some example of what those facts that "broke" the Milne
model, I would be interested in hearing them. From what I can tell,
it is your assumption that the total mass of the observable universe
is finite that creates the difference between the Milne Model and your
own. But it is unfair to measure a model that admits infinite
densities, and infinite mass in the observable universe (at t=0, and
x=ct) , using quantities that come from the assumption that the mass
in the observable universe is finite.
Address some internal inconsistency of the Milne Model, or some
specific observation of nature that is incompatible with the Milne
Model, and then you have earned the right to scoff at it all you
want.
> We've got a fellow in s.p.r. that can't get past the works of Einstein
> in 1905. Are you so stuck on Milne in 1935? Nature has taken him out
> too...
>
> David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ability of nature to kill a man does not make that man's theories
invalid.
Thanks,
Jonathan Doolin
dlzc
On Jul 22, 10:59 am, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 12:05 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 7:05 am, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> radiation" is an out and out lie.
The CMBR "temperature" has been changing with time. We have several
indications that it too has been red shifting, We have data points
clustered around 9K from just a billion or so years ago, to 25K at
very great distances. Milne's background radiation is *clearly* not
the CMBR that Nature is showing us, and the Wikipedia entry is exactly
correct on this point.
Your religious fervor nothwithstanding...
David A. Smith
Jonathan Doolin
> Dear Johnathan Doolin:
>
> On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Yes, I would like to consider a model of the
> > Universe as an explosion expanding into
> > pre-existing, fixed space!
>
> There appears to be no unique center:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> (... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)
>
> > "Towards versus away from the explosion"
> > actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
> > model. If every particle follows an unaccelerated
> > path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
> > is AT the center of the explosion.
>
> Not possible with a fixed space.
>
By "fixed space," I mean not stretching over time, as you would expect
in the Standard Model. However, this does not mean that you cannot
perform either a Lorentz Transformation, around any event in
spacetime.
If this was your space-time diagram of seven paths through spacetime,
performing an LT around point (0,0) so that the one on the left was
not moving would make the paths on the right move over to the right.
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\ \ \ | / / /
\\\|///
*
If instead of seven paths, we considered an infinite set of paths,
with rapidity from -infinity to infinity, and performed LT's around
the origin, we can make any path we want vertical. And in this
reference frame where a particular particle's path is vertical, it
would be AT the center of the explosion.
David, I've seen your work in topics about Special Relativity, so I
know you have a fairly good understanding of LT's. I really recommend
you set up a set of events along these paths and verify what I am
saying. Use events such as (t=1,x=c) and (t=1,x=-c) to represent
events along the path of the outer edge of the universe. Perform a
Lorentz Transformation around (x=0,t=0) and see that every particle
would indeed see itself at the center of the universe.
I gather that the standard model does not allow such simplistic use of
the Lorentz Transformations on a large scale. But remember, in this
model, the scale of space is constant in time, so you CAN use the
Lorentz Transformations Equations. THAT is what I mean by "fixed
space."
> > However, if a particle accelerates in one direction,
> > then it is a bit counterintuitive. If you were to
> > accelerate forward, then an event in your future,
> > would move backward. But an event in the
> > past--for instance, the big bang, would move to
> > your forward. So whatever acceleration you
> > perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
> > move in the opposite direction from what you
> > would expect.
>
> No. You are talking about moving yet-to-be encountered interactions.
> And we can see no center. There is no "smoking remains" in any
> direction we can see.
>
Yes, we see the remains of the explosion. The earth under your feet,
the sun, the Milky Way Galaxy.
You are thinking of an explosion that happens in the distance, and you
are looking at it from afar. From that explosion, stuff moves toward
you, and hits you, and leaves smoking remains in the distance. But if
you ARE the matter in the explosion that's not the way you see it.
What you see instead is yourself, stationary, while everything else
moves away from you.
> > My own hypothesis is that most of the structure
> > of the universe is leftover from early Brownian
> > Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of Planck Times,
> > perhaps thereafter. This is almost pure conjecture,
> > but I think that if super-massive particles were
> > accelerated by collision out of their original reference
> > frame, they could have flown through a fairly large
> > region, leaving chaos in their wake. For instance,
> > matter momentarily accelerated by the passing
> > high-gravity particle begins to swirl and form into
> > galaxies.
>
> Except for your belief in pre-existing empty space, and your belief in
> an explosion, this is not significantly different from the standard
> model of cosmology.
>
Well, good. I would hope that this model is similar enough to the
standard model to predict, for the most part, the same observations.
> > A modern day example of a particle outside its
> > frame, would be the muon's half-life increasing,
> > and passing through much more of the earth's
> > atmosphere than expected. Consider if some
> > monstrosity from pre-Planck-time were accelerated
> > to insane speeds through post-Planck-time space,
>
> ... accelerated by... what?
>
One possibility is simple thermal collisions. A second possibility is
that a decay reaction of an even larger particle could send out two or
more particles in opposite directions.
> > and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
> > or billions.
>
> Nothing new to the particle, however.
>
Hmmm?
> > I would expect that such phenomena could cause
> > streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
> > would show up throughout the universe. I admit that
> > this is an explanation, not a prediction. Knowing
> > there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
> > explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
> > even though it may seem a little fantastical.
>
> Just unsupported by observation is all.
>
> David A. Smith
I don't understand what you mean by "unsupported by observation". I
believe the large scale structure of the universe is well known to be
tendril-like or cobweb-like:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ta/lssf.html
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
There's nothing in Milne's description that suggests the background
radiation's should stay at a constant frequency--only that it would
have a finite intensity.
If you were in a section of the universe that had just cooled below
3000 K, then that background radiation would appear at a frequency
resembling 3000 K. It would be from the gas nearest you, which would
be almost comoving. As you wait a thousand years, the gas in your
immediate environment cools enough to see through, but there would be
gas nearly 1000 light years away which would just be cooling to 3000
K. However, that gas is traveling relativistically, and maybe Gamma ~
10. So it will appear to 10 times cooler.
Wait another few billion years, and you'll be able to see through that
gas. The gas that is now just cooling to 3000 K has a gamma factor of
about 1100. So the color of the light resembles about 2.73 Kelvin +/- .
0035.
So, yes, if you would take it seriously, and were honest with Milne's
Model, you should realize that the model is consistent with the
observations that you brought up. In fact, you would have predicted
the observations you bring up.
But in Milne's time, I doubt he spent a lot of time thinking about
that. Put yourself in his shoes--his model predicted a background of
finite intensity. He knew such a thing had never been observed,
though, and he may well have felt a bit like it was the one
troublesome bit that might have got it thrown out completely. The
lack of any evidence of the CMBR which his model predicted at the time
may well have made him doubt his own theory.
As for whether I am religious, or Milne was religious has absolutely
nothing to do with the quality of this theory. If you can find an
internal inconsistency, or some area where the model does not fit
reality, that would be a valid criticism. Also, lying and saying that
Milne's model does not predict the CMBR is not a valid criticism.
Jonathan Doolin
dlzc
On Jul 22, 3:32 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
Milne's model does not predict / describe the CMBR we are presented
with, except in some cartoonish way. That you refuse to see that,
that you refuse to see that his theory has been considered (even
recently) and found fundamentally limited in applicability, is not my
problem. You accuse others of lying at will, and wear Milne like
armor.
It does not matter that a theory is self-consistent. Phlogiston /
caloric was self-consistent in its day. It matters how well it
describes Nature.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Jul 22, 1:47 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:53 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
>
> > > Yes, I would like to consider a model of the
> > > Universe as an explosion expanding into
> > > pre-existing, fixed space!
>
> > There appears to be no unique center:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> > There appears to be no pre-existing space
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN
> > (... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)
>
> > > "Towards versus away from the explosion"
> > > actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
> > > model. If every particle follows an unaccelerated
> > > path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
> > > is AT the center of the explosion.
>
> > Not possible with a fixed space.
>
> By "fixed space," I mean not stretching over time, as
> you would expect in the Standard Model. However,
> this does not mean that you cannot perform either a
> Lorentz Transformation, around any event in spacetime.
Then how do you get the acceleration of expansion, amazingly fast,
slowing to nearly a standstill, then acceleration of the matter in the
Universe? Where did the necessary energy come from, and how did it
get distributed so evenly?
> If this was your space-time diagram of seven paths
> through spacetime, performing an LT around point (0,0)
> so that the one on the left was not moving would make
> the paths on the right move over to the right.
>
> \ \ \ | / / /
> \ \ \ | / / /
> \ \ \ | / / /
> \ \ \ | / / /
> \\\|///
> *
>
> If instead of seven paths, we considered an infinite
> set of paths, with rapidity from -infinity to infinity,
> and performed LT's around the origin, we can make
> any path we want vertical. And in this reference
> frame where a particular particle's path is vertical, it
> would be AT the center of the explosion.
Doesn't cover the acceleration history.
> David, I've seen your work in topics about Special
> Relativity, so I know you have a fairly good
> understanding of LT's. I really recommend you set
> up a set of events along these paths and verify what
> I am saying. Use events such as (t=1,x=c) and
> (t=1,x=-c) to represent events along the path of the
> outer edge of the universe. Perform a Lorentz
> Transformation around (x=0,t=0) and see that every
> particle would indeed see itself at the center of the
> universe.
I won't waste my time performing an exercise that does not model
*this* Universe.
> I gather that the standard model does not allow such
> simplistic use of the Lorentz Transformations on a
> large scale. But remember, in this model, the scale
> of space is constant in time, so you CAN use the
> Lorentz Transformations Equations. THAT is what I
> mean by "fixed space."
The toy Universe you seek to describe does not fit what I see.
> > > However, if a particle accelerates in one direction,
> > > then it is a bit counterintuitive. If you were to
> > > accelerate forward, then an event in your future,
> > > would move backward. But an event in the
> > > past--for instance, the big bang, would move to
> > > your forward. So whatever acceleration you
> > > perform, it causes the center of the explosion to
> > > move in the opposite direction from what you
> > > would expect.
>
> > No. You are talking about moving yet-to-be
> > encountered interactions. And we can see no
> > center. There is no "smoking remains" in any
> > direction we can see.
>
> Yes, we see the remains of the explosion. The
> earth under your feet, the sun, the Milky Way Galaxy.
Most of which was NOT present in the CMBR glow, so it was created
later. Perhaps in energetic quasars and supernovae similar to ones
that we can see over billions of light years.
> You are thinking of an explosion that happens in
> the distance, and you are looking at it from afar.
> From that explosion, stuff moves toward you, and
> hits you, and leaves smoking remains in the distance.
> But if you ARE the matter in the explosion that's not
> the way you see it. What you see instead is yourself,
> stationary, while everything else moves away from you.
Yes, and you look back, and see the center, the place you were
accelerated from by the explosion. THERE IS NO CENTER.
> > > My own hypothesis is that most of the structure
> > > of the universe is leftover from early Brownian
> > > Motion, in, perhaps the first couple of Planck Times,
> > > perhaps thereafter. This is almost pure conjecture,
> > > but I think that if super-massive particles were
> > > accelerated by collision out of their original reference
> > > frame, they could have flown through a fairly large
> > > region, leaving chaos in their wake. For instance,
> > > matter momentarily accelerated by the passing
> > > high-gravity particle begins to swirl and form into
> > > galaxies.
>
> > Except for your belief in pre-existing empty space,
> > and your belief in an explosion, this is not significantly
> > different from the standard model of cosmology.
>
> Well, good. I would hope that this model is similar
> enough to the standard model to predict, for the most
> part, the same observations.
Except for the points I have already made, and probably more that it
diverges from...
> > > A modern day example of a particle outside its
> > > frame, would be the muon's half-life increasing,
> > > and passing through much more of the earth's
> > > atmosphere than expected. Consider if some
> > > monstrosity from pre-Planck-time were accelerated
> > > to insane speeds through post-Planck-time space,
>
> > ... accelerated by... what?
>
> One possibility is simple thermal collisions. A
> second possibility is that a decay reaction of an even
> larger particle could send out two or more particles in
> opposite directions.
Consider then that such a massive particle would define the background
or static "time rate", and we'd be able to detect a preferential
direction from that. As it is, our motion agrees with our motion wrt
the "CMBR rest frame", agrees with the average rest frame of the
galaxies we can see.
So your particle must have decayed before the CMBR quenched, or
perhaps not been all that massive, but either way still be outside our
Rindler horizon. Basically it no longer matters.
> > > and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
> > > or billions.
>
> > Nothing new to the particle, however.
>
> Hmmm?
The particle's halflife does not change to the particle. Only to a
"rest" observer.
> > > I would expect that such phenomena could cause
> > > streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
> > > would show up throughout the universe. I admit that
> > > this is an explanation, not a prediction. Knowing
> > > there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
> > > explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
> > > even though it may seem a little fantastical.
>
> > Just unsupported by observation is all.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by "unsupported by
> observation". I believe the large scale structure of the
> universe is well known to be tendril-like or cobweb-like:
>
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ta/lssf.html
How we got the minor variances in density that unfold into "tendrils
and cobwebs", variances that are observable in the CMBR, is not worse
than some other's guesses.
I was refering to your failure to describe gravitation, via curvature
of spacetime, which model describes expansion of space without any
other modifiers (albeit with the incorrect value). I was referring to
your ignoring that we can see no center of the Universe, such as would
be left behind by an explosion. I was referring to your ignoring that
we can see no empty space "ahead" of us in any direction, but that
there are galaxies there that are moving away with "speeds"
proportional to their distance. You have to put us in a special
place, and have a very unusual explosion, to obtain such a result.
David A. Smith
Jonathan Doolin
Now you are being more reasonable.
Your statement "Milne's model does not predict / describe the CMBR we
are presented with, except in some cartoonish way." is not a lie, but
acknowledges the fact that Milne's model DOES predict the CMBR, and
then follows it with an opinion, that the prediction is "cartoonish."
Milne did *not* know the size or the age of the universe, for
instance, so he had no idea whether the background would ever be
observed or what frequency of light it would be. He probably didn't
know exactly what the surface would consist of, that it would be a
blackbody spectrum; etc. He didn't know whether the light be time-
dilated to 2.73 K or if it would be time-dilated to .0000002K, so he
didn't know if it would be ever measured. He didn't know our relative
speed so he didn't know the anisotropy would be 2.73 +/-.0035 K.
All he knew was it would definitely be a finite intensity. With the
knowledge he had at the time, that's all he predicted.
Cartoonish or not, he did predict it.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
> Dear Jonathan Doolin:
>
> On Jul 22, 1:47 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jul 22, 11:53 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 21, 5:46 pm, Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > ...
>
> > > > Yes, I would like to consider a model of the
> > > > Universe as an explosion expanding into
> > > > pre-existing, fixed space!
>
> > > There appears to be no unique center:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
The claim is made that there is no unique center. Neither A, nor B in
the diagram can make the claim that they are at the center. They are
both equally justified. However, If you trace their motions back to
where they met, they will both agree that that event occurred at their
present positions. They will agree that that event, where they were
both together at (r=0, t=0) is at the center.
So in this way, there IS in fact a unique center, but it is an event;
not a position.
> > There appears to be no pre-existing space
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN
>
> > > (... and if there were, how could mass "curve" it?)
>
> > > > "Towards versus away from the explosion"
> > > > actually becomes pretty counter-intuitive in the
> > > > model. If every particle follows an unaccelerated
> > > > path then every particle, in its own reference frame,
> > > > is AT the center of the explosion.
>
> > > Not possible with a fixed space.
>
> > By "fixed space," I mean not stretching over time, as
> > you would expect in the Standard Model. However,
> > this does not mean that you cannot perform either a
> > Lorentz Transformation, around any event in spacetime.
>
> Then how do you get the acceleration of expansion, amazingly fast,
> slowing to nearly a standstill, then acceleration of the matter in the
> Universe? Where did the necessary energy come from, and how did it
> get distributed so evenly?
>
>
Using the Milne model, the overall distribution of the universe, as
measured from the initial event, r=0, t=0, is symmetrical around the
big-bang event. I would presume either an equipartition of radial
momentum, or an equipartition of rapidity of the original matter. If,
as I suggested earlier, the original matter consisted of
superparticles which underwent quantum decay, then this would be a
source for the accelerations that kept the universe from being so
perfectly uniform that it would never form galaxies.
These accelerations, if they occurred anywhere other than the origin,
(the big-bang-event) (r=0, t=0) would cause the "acceleration of
expansion" as you call it, or "inflation" as it is often referred.
I diagrammed this effect with ascii art in another post in this
thread.
>
>
>
> > If this was your space-time diagram of seven paths
> > through spacetime, performing an LT around point (0,0)
> > so that the one on the left was not moving would make
> > the paths on the right move over to the right.
>
> > \ \ \ | / / /
> > \ \ \ | / / /
> > \ \ \ | / / /
> > \ \ \ | / / /
> > \\\|///
> > *
>
> > If instead of seven paths, we considered an infinite
> > set of paths, with rapidity from -infinity to infinity,
> > and performed LT's around the origin, we can make
> > any path we want vertical. And in this reference
> > frame where a particular particle's path is vertical, it
> > would be AT the center of the explosion.
>
> Doesn't cover the acceleration history.
>
Since I was discussing the case where "every particle follows an
unaccelerated path."
Right. Since all the LT's I suggested you do here are at (r=0, t=0)
there cannot be any acceleration history, since that would involve
accelerations at different times, t.
If you want to consider the acceleration history, you *should*
consider accelerations at later times, and verify that such later
accelerations would indeed cause "inflation" from the perspective of
the accelerated particles.
> > David, I've seen your work in topics about Special
> > Relativity, so I know you have a fairly good
> > understanding of LT's. I really recommend you set
> > up a set of events along these paths and verify what
> > I am saying. Use events such as (t=1,x=c) and
> > (t=1,x=-c) to represent events along the path of the
> > outer edge of the universe. Perform a Lorentz
> > Transformation around (x=0,t=0) and see that every
> > particle would indeed see itself at the center of the
> > universe.
>
> I won't waste my time performing an exercise that does not model
> *this* Universe.
>
I am snipping a few paragraphs, because I feel that I have addressed
most of your objections, above. Most of it focused on the "No Unique
Center" objection. There is no unique center *position*, however, all
inertial bodies should be able to trace back to a unique central
*event* where everything was close together.
>
> Consider then that such a massive particle would define the background
> or static "time rate", and we'd be able to detect a preferential
> direction from that. As it is, our motion agrees with our motion wrt
> the "CMBR rest frame", agrees with the average rest frame of the
> galaxies we can see.
>
> So your particle must have decayed before the CMBR quenched, or
> perhaps not been all that massive, but either way still be outside our
> Rindler horizon. Basically it no longer matters.
>
> > > > and it's half-life were extended by a factor of millions
> > > > or billions.
>
> > > Nothing new to the particle, however.
>
> > Hmmm?
>
> The particle's halflife does not change to the particle. Only to a
> "rest" observer.
>
I discussed this in the post with the ascii art. Considering the
frame B, in that diagram, I outlined the idea in more detail. Frame
B showed the frame where the particle is moving to the left with
rapidity=50, and then was struck and began moving to the right with
rapidity = 50.
I probably should have chosen larger numbers, say for instance,
rapidity = +/- a million or a billion, or 10^47. Who knows. But the
point is, that any rest frame, the particle is traveling through a
large swath of dense space, while it's half-life is extended greatly.
> > > > I would expect that such phenomena could cause
> > > > streams of matter, tendril-like, or cobweb-like, that
> > > > would show up throughout the universe. I admit that
> > > > this is an explanation, not a prediction. Knowing
> > > > there are these "Fingers of God" out there, I sought an
> > > > explanation, and I think this one makes some sense,
> > > > even though it may seem a little fantastical.
>
> > > Just unsupported by observation is all.
>
> > I don't understand what you mean by "unsupported by
> > observation". I believe the large scale structure of the
> > universe is well known to be tendril-like or cobweb-like:
>
> >http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ta/lssf.html
>
> How we got the minor variances in density that unfold into "tendrils
> and cobwebs", variances that are observable in the CMBR, is not worse
> than some other's guesses.
>
> I was refering to your failure to describe gravitation, via curvature
> of spacetime, which model describes expansion of space without any
> other modifiers (albeit with the incorrect value).
I, personally, have no explanation for gravity. Ostensibly, Milne
introduces a rationale for gravity in the latter half of Relativity,
Gravitation, and Cosmology, but I did not have the mathematical
background to follow it. For now, you can call me ignorant and
uneducated on this particular topic.
On the other hand, I don't think that the curvature of spacetime is as
universally applicable as you want to make it. "All coordinate
systems are in principle, equivalent, and the choice of a special
system is purely a question of expediency. Just as in three-
dimensional space for a problem with spherical symmetry one would use
spherical coordinates, so for example for a static metric one will
favour time-orthogonal coordinates." (Hans Stephani, General
Relativity)
If all coordinate systems are in principle, equivalent, why *not* use
a static metric to describe the universe at large? Why is this not
expedient?
> I was referring to
> your ignoring that we can see no center of the Universe, such as would
> be left behind by an explosion.
The center of the universe, according to all non-accelerated observers
would be in their own location.
> I was referring to your ignoring that
> we can see no empty space "ahead" of us in any direction, but that
> there are galaxies there that are moving away with "speeds"
> proportional to their distance.
The center of the universe, according to "accelerated" observers,
should indeed be "ahead" of them. Yes, there should be a slight
decrease in density in that direction, toward the center, and then, an
increase in density as you go beyond that center. But I doubt that
such a thing would be noticed unless you were very carefully looking
for such a thing.
> You have to put us in a special
> place, and have a very unusual explosion, to obtain such a result.
>
> David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
I think the explosion would quite likely be, as I said above, an
equipartition of rapidity, or an equipartition of momentum. The
kinematics of this "toy model" as you call it, should at least be
given a fair shake.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <b080b4a2-b879-45cb-a193-12a12e0da...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Managed to find my copy of Peebles--I'm able to make a little more
sense of it now than I did six years ago. Here is what I'm troubled
by today.
Peebles Chapter 1. "The metric tensor for a flat space time... is the
unique nonsingular spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's field
equations in the absence of any matter... This solution allows us to
postulate that a particle can move arbitrarily far from all the rest
of the matter in the universe, to regions where the matter density
makes a quite negligible contribution to Einstein's Field Equations...
But this metric tensor defines definite inertial frames for the
particle. That is, we have a solution to the field equation that
defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest of the matter in
the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's ideas. The way
around the dilemma within general relativity theory is to add boundary
conditions to eliminate the unwanted anti-Machian solution."
Now, Einstein adopted, as Mach's principle, the idea that inertial
frames of reference are determined by the distribution and motion of
matter in the universe. Like myself, Milne rejected Mach's principle,
simply based on the fact that it just doesn't seem right. My inertial
frame is based on my inertia. When I look out into the stars, I see
them based on where they are related to me, but in MY frame of
reference, not some weird combination of my frame and all the other
matter in the universe. So on the face of it, I would say Mach's
Principle is false, and to eliminate the unwanted anti-Machian
solution is premature.
There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model. The Milne
model represents Peeble's "unwanted solution" when you reject Mach's
Principle.
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> Peebles Chapter 1. "... That is, we have a solution to the field
> equation that defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest
> of the matter in the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's
> ideas."
> My inertial frame is based on my inertia.
Why is your frame _inertial_? It certainly isn't if you happen to be
attached to the Earth.
> There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the Milne model." If it's the one you
suggested earlier, with galaxies expanding from a central point into
pre-existing space, the reason for rejection isn't that the model is
illogical, it's that it contradicts observations.
More generally, what observation do you think would differ depending
on whether Mach's principle is true or false?
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <144af493-98b7-4bbe-80ba-5f12f551e...@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Peebles Chapter 1. "... That is, we have a solution to the field
> > equation that defines inertial frames arbitrarily far from the rest
> > of the matter in the universe: That certainly is contrary to Mach's
> > ideas."
> > My inertial frame is based on my inertia.
>
> Why is your frame _inertial_? It certainly isn't if you happen to be
> attached to the Earth.
>
> > There isn't any logical reason to discount the Milne model.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the Milne model." If it's the one you
> suggested earlier, with galaxies expanding from a central point into
> pre-existing space, the reason for rejection isn't that the model is
> illogical, it's that it contradicts observations.
You and David keep repeating this mantra, that the Milne model
contradicts observations, but I hope I've made clear already that the
Milne model is consistent with the CMBR. And then the redshift of the
CMBR is on the order of 1100, with apparent temperature of 2.73 K +/-.
035 K from the dipole anisotropy.
In some surveys it appears that there are cobweb-like superstructures
of galaxies. I have already argued that none of this is inconsistent
with Milne's Model. So if you disagree, point to some specific
detail.
Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
at about 0.96c.
Look at the space-time diagram below. The outermost cone represents
the big-bang, and would be the source of the CMBR. The second
outermost cone represents the region where galaxies are forming. The
vertical line towards the center represents our galaxy's timeline.
This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
observations.
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
>
> More generally, what observation do you think would differ depending
> on whether Mach's principle is true or false?
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Okay. First of all, Mach's principle is more along the line of "no
one is competent to predict what would happen." So instead of giving
an example of what Mach's an observation that would be different, let
me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are "out of
bounds."
The Twin Paradox. One regularly hears of the twin paradox, where one
twin goes away and comes back, and is much younger than the stay-at-
home twin. This paradox is ultimately solved by the fact that the
traveling twin does something that the stay-at-home twin does not:
accelerate.
A fine resolution to a problem, but very rarely do we find in the
literature a description of what the traveling twin actually sees. We
do not describe in detail how the stay-at-home twin's image departs at
less than half the speed of light, and then returns superluminally.
We don't examine the fact that in the accelerating twin's reference
frame, the stay-at-home twin lurches away from him. We don't bother
having a revelation that the events associated with the stay-at-home
twin actually shot further away.
What Mach's Principle does is, it gives us permission to ignore these
profound implications of Special Relativity.
So Lorentz Transformation equations would say "Yes, all those events
have moved, from the very nearest, out to infinite distance." Mach's
Principle would say that the effects inertial frames are dependent on
the distribution of mass of the whole universe. As I've heard other
people say it, "General relativity applies globally, but Special
Relativity should only be applied locally."
What I would say is that both apply globally, but where gravitation is
concerned you've got that inverse-square distance law, so in the vast
majority of cases, you can ignore it.
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> I hope I've made clear already that the
> Milne model is consistent with the CMBR.
You haven't. Why would this model predict an isotropic CMBR? Or
even any CMBR at all in directions away from the center? But that
wasn't my main objection.
Have you worked out the redshift-velocity relation for the Milne
model? Is it even isotropic? For small velocities, everything will
be linear, but what about at redshifts from 0.5 to 2?
> Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
> survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
> at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
> at about 0.96c.
The record redshift at the moment is a bit over 6.
> This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
> observations.
I'm afraid you need to put in some numbers. Don't forget to consider
all possible directions.
> let me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are
> "out of bounds."
I'm afraid none of that makes any sense to me. There are certainly
written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway. And special
relativity (which amounts to a prescription for coordinate
transformation) answers any question within its domain (basically any
situation where space curvature is unimportant).
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
On Jul 22, 11:53 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> And we can see no center. There is no "smoking remains" in any
> direction we can see.
I replied:
"Yes, we see the remains of the explosion. The earth under your
feet,
the sun, the Milky Way Galaxy. You are thinking of an explosion that
happens in the distance, and you are looking at it from afar. From
that explosion, stuff moves toward you, and hits you, and leaves
smoking remains in the distance. But if you ARE the matter in the
explosion that's not the way you see it. What you see instead is
yourself, stationary, while everything else moves away from you."
I wanted to repeat and stress this, because it is an extremely
important point, and I think it got buried in my lengthy response.
If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
the center, because you ARE the center. What you will see instead is
calm at the center, where the particles are swirling and forming into
galaxies. We are looking at the Big Bang from inside--not from
outside. At the outer edges of the big bang, there is a surface of
plasma we can see. Because this plasma is moving away from us at
nearly the speed of light, it has not aged much from the beginning of
the universe, and it is redshifted from about 3000 K to about 2.73
Kelvin.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <61230711-37fc-48fd-b75b-95774f1dc...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I hope I've made clear already that the
> > Milne model is consistent with the CMBR.
>
> You haven't. Why would this model predict an isotropic CMBR? Or
> even any CMBR at all in directions away from the center? But that
> wasn't my main objection.
>
If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
the center, because you ARE the center. What you will see instead is
calm at the center, where the particles are swirling and forming into
galaxies. We are looking at the Big Bang from inside--not from
outside. At the outer edges of the big bang, there is a surface of
plasma we can see. Because this plasma is moving away from us at
nearly the speed of light, it has not aged much from the beginning of
the universe, and it is redshifted from about 3000 K to about 2.73
Kelvin.
You would expect isotropy because it all came from the same singular
event.
> Have you worked out the redshift-velocity relation for the Milne
> model? Is it even isotropic? For small velocities, everything will
> be linear, but what about at redshifts from 0.5 to 2?
>
It would be isotropic or have a dipole anisotropy. It is easiest to
explain through the use of a space-time diagram--this one is similar
to the others I've drawn, and I have events labeled (*, x, a, b, n)
n
\ | /
\ | /
a\ | /
\| /
x\ /b
\ /
*
* is the big bang
n is the event we are experiencing now
a is the event we see when we look toward the near part of the CMBR
b is the event we see when we look toward the distant part of the
CMBR.
The plasma at a is receding faster than the plasma at b , and so will
appear cooler. (As David pointed out the temp of the CMBR is reducing
over time. I explained to him why this was happening--that the
visible surface is continually cooling, and revealing a faster-moving,
more time-dilated surface beneath. The more time dilation, the less
the apparent temperature. So all the way up the cone the visible
surface of the plasma is moving faster, and so the temperature will be
decreasing, and hence, the temp at event a will be less than the temp
at event b.)
As for redshifts between 0.5 and 2, I used z+1 = sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
and found that corresponds to velocities of .384c, and 0.8c, and to
gamma factors of 1.083 and 1.67. In my previous reply, I drew a
rather contorted space-time diagram where our local galaxy undergoes
many sudden unexplained relativistic accelerations. This one is
slightly different because the inner cone and outer cone are
symmetrical.
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/\ / /
\/ \/
\ /
\ /
All the accelerations are speculative. The first acceleration due to
a massive quantum decay. The second and later accelerations due to
either friction, collision, or gravity. The point I was trying to
make, though, was that because all of the particles in the universe
can be assumed to take part in such motions, this needs to be taken
into account when doing the modeling.
But for the moment, let me ignore all those accelerations to address
your question of redshifts between 0.5 and 2. There are three effects
that are of interest here. Time dilation, length contraction, and
propagation time delay. My first inclination is to say that length
contraction--which would make that region more dense (in the radial
direction) is going to somewhat cancel for time dilation and the time-
delay, which both cause us to look into an earlier time in the
universe.
I think, though, that there is a more robust means to approaching this
problem, is to model a symmetric Big Bang model by hyperbolic arcs in
space-time. For instance one hyperbolic arc represents the events
where recombination takes place. Another hyperbolic arc represents
the events where galaxies first begin to form. Rays can be drawn to
intersect those arcs to identify what we are seeing, and what we
should be seeing in every direction. Then by determining what our
position is within each hyperbolic arc, we can triangulate and
position ourselves in the universe.
Of course, we may find that the universe is not symmetrical like I've
drawn it above, but perhaps a-symmetrical, like this
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
> > Also, if I understand properly, according to the Hubble Deep Field
> > survey, there are galaxies going out to about 12 billion light years,
> > at a redshift of about 6, suggesting galaxies that are traveling away
> > at about 0.96c.
>
> The record redshift at the moment is a bit over 6.
>
> > This is a very rough sketch of how Milne's model is consistent with
> > observations.
>
> I'm afraid you need to put in some numbers. Don't forget to consider
> all possible directions.
>
(In my previous reply, I drew a rather contorted space-time diagram
where our local galaxy undergoes many sudden unexplained relativistic
accelerations.)
As I said, it is a very rough sketch. Even without any numbers, the
point I was trying to make was that any large acceleration along the
way has a large effect on our final view of the universe. There are
some simplifying parameters that can allow you to do a few things
without considering all directions. For instance, within a sphere,
you can recognize your final position within it using only one
direction. By looking at the CMBR dipole anisotropy we should be able
to establish our absolute position relative to the Big Bang event,
using only one direction.
After you've got that absolute position, one might be able to use some
variation on the "hyperbolic arcs" method I described above to
establish the motion of the other galaxies within the sphere.
> > let me give examples of predictions Mach's Principle might say are
> > "out of bounds."
>
(I must have said something here that didn't make sense to you. Were
you unfamiliar with the idea that when you make a relativistic
acceleration toward a body, that it lurches away from you, then
appears to approach superluminally?)
> I'm afraid none of that makes any sense to me. There are certainly
> written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
> see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway. And special
> relativity (which amounts to a prescription for coordinate
> transformation) answers any question within its domain (basically any
> situation where space curvature is unimportant).
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Are you saying, then, that as soon as gravity is involved, you no
longer apply special relativity? Are you saying that the coordinate
transformations are somehow only prescribed, "locally," in the region
where gravitation is constant, or not present at all? Where is your
"cutoff" where you no longer apply the Lorentz coordinate
transformation?
For that matter, where is your "cutoff" to stop applying the ROTATION
coordinate transformation? Is there some level of gravity where it no
longer works to turn a map in the direction you are facing? Or are you
saying that there is some absolute maximum limit to the scale of the
map, so if you draw the map so one inch equals 100 billion light
years, is rotation transformation no longer valid?
Claiming that a "prescription for coordinate transformation" is only
applicable in some undetermined "domain" is an application of Mach's
Principle. Mach's Principle says that we are not competent to
determine the nature of motion of bodies 100 billion light years from
here, so indeed, neither rotation nor Lorentz Transformation should
work.
But common sense says that if I turn 30 degrees to the left or right,
every object in the universe turns at the same angle. It is a simple
coordinate transformation.
Likewise, my relative rapidity with objects 100 billion light years
away changes just the same as my relative rapidity with the objects
right in front of me, when I accelerate toward them. Thus it will all
be subject to the same prescription for coordinate transformation.
I realizethere are 75 years of Standard Cosmology proponents who all
disagree, but they have built their science up from this foundation of
Mach's Principle--i.e. no foundation at all.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
> There are certainly
> written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees, and I don't
> see how that relates to Mach's principle anyway.
I am looking over the article in Wikipedia on "Twin Paradox" and
either you have been reading a reference that is not in the popular
literature, or you are mistaken. Wikipedia attempts to keep to
"reliable third-party published sources."
In the article, there are three space-time diagrams, but all of them
are in the reference frame of the stationary twin. There are two
other reference frames which should be shown as well--that of the
traveling twin on his outbound journey, and that of the traveling twin
on his inbound journey. While it is possible that Wikipedia has
missed these sources you have read, I think it more likely that most
"reliable third party sources" have decided, instead of applying the
Lorentz Transformations honestly, they've fallen for this pithy
"Principle of Equivalence" hogwash, that pretends acceleration and
gravity are the same thing, and they can simulate the whole of Special
Relativity by calculating the path integral of ds^2.
The only discussion on Wikipedia of what the traveling twin "sees" is
what the traveling twin "sees" when he looks at his own clock. There
is no discussion of what the traveling twin sees if he actually
watches the stay-at-home twin. Except at one point they make the
contorted proposition that "the traveling twin may analyze the
turnaround phase as if the stay-at-home twin were freely falling in a
gravitational field and as if the traveling twin were stationary."
Whatever the results of such a contorted physics revisionism, you
still have to deal with the fact that there are basically three
inertial reference frames involved, and in those three reference
frames all the events have explicit nonambiguous locations.
If you don't take into account those explicit nonambiguous coordinate
locations as predicted by Lorentz Transformations, that means you are
REJECTING the use of Special Relativity. And what this all has to do
with Mach's Principle is that apparently, all Einstein wanted to do
once he figured out the special theory of relativity is to find some
excuse to reject its use. Mach's Principle and the Principle of
Equivalence were two means to that end.
Jonathan Doolin
Jonathan Doolin
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
> the center, because you ARE the center.
I'm afraid I don't follow this at all. Your model, as I understand
it, has galaxies expanding from a fixed point into pre-existing
space. That implies, to me, a definite center.
> As for redshifts between 0.5 and 2, I used z+1 =3D sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
That's a redshift-velocity relation. What I asked you to compute was
a redshift-*distance* relation. In particular, you need the
luminosity distance, which is not the same as the proper distance.
(Both are a little tricky to compute.) I'm not convinced the
relation isisotropic, and I doubt very much it will agree with
observation (principally the supernova results).
> As I said, it is a very rough sketch. Even without any numbers, the
> point I was trying to make was that any large acceleration along the
> way has a large effect on our final view of the universe.
I suggest you consider an unacellerated model first.
> (I must have said something here that didn't make sense to you. Were
> you unfamiliar with the idea that when you make a relativistic
> acceleration toward a body, that it lurches away from you, then
> appears to approach superluminally?)
I don't know what a "relativistic acceleration" is, and I am most
certainly unfamiliar with the idea that a body "lurches away" if you
accelerate towards it. Please show me the math.
What any of this has to do with Mach's Principle is also a mystery to
me.
> Are you saying, then, that as soon as gravity is involved, you no
> longer apply special relativity?
If space curvature is significant, you have to take it into account.
For most purposes, it only matters if gravity is very strong or
measurements are very precise.
> Mach's Principle says that we are not competent to
> determine the nature of motion of bodies 100 billion light years from
> here,
That's certainly news to me.
> Likewise, my relative rapidity with objects 100 billion light years
> away changes just the same as my relative rapidity with the objects
> right in front of me, when I accelerate toward them. Thus it will all
> be subject to the same prescription for coordinate transformation.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that, and I don't see that it
has anything to do with Mach's Principle.
> I realizethere are 75 years of Standard Cosmology proponents who all
> disagree, but they have built their science up from this foundation of
> Mach's Principle--i.e. no foundation at all.
Once again, I invite you to identify a single observation that would
differ depending on whether Mach's Principle is true or false.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Darwin123
> Was the "Big Bang" an explosive event, similar to a thermonuclear
> bomb, or was it a matter of unrolling the three dimensions we now
> perceive as identifying our space?
>
> Unrolling the dimensions, from a perspective within this universe, may
> have been a smooth, gentle process that would not have produced the
> inferno that most Big Bang ideas are built around.
>
It depends on what you call smooth and gentle process.
The conventional Big Bang does not contain a shock front. There was
no shock wave, as seen when an explosive on earth goes off. On a large
scale, the process was smooth.
On the largest scales the universe seemed isotropic soon after the
Big Bang. Thus, the process could be pictured as being extremely
smooth, the way the surface of the earth seems "smooth" if the earth
is show in true scale. Just because the mountains look large to us
doesn't mean they are significant relative to the entire earth. A
"small" anisotropy on the scale of the earth means a major
geographical feature on the scale of human beings.
The universe couldn't have been completely smooth, or else we
wouldn't have galaxies. There must have been small scale anisotropy. I
think the nature of this anisotropy is the main issue in cosmology,
astronomy, and physics.
However, the process seems to have been high turbulent. There
seem to have been a large number of eddies early in the universe.
These "eddies" would have been small compared to the radius of the
universe, but they have a significant effect on galactic history.
I think the words "Big Bang" are misleading since there is no
shock wave that constitutes a front. Perhaps the "Big Blending" would
be more descriptive. When you try to whip up a fluid with a blender,
the fluid may puff up due to air bubbles. However, the effect is still
smooth.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <4a89e4c7-2395-43e7-866b-c3f7c45c6...@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > If you have a literal "big bang" you will not see smoking remains at
> > the center, because you ARE the center.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow this at all. Your model, as I understand
> it, has galaxies expanding from a fixed point into pre-existing
> space. That implies, to me, a definite center.
>
Not a fixed point--a fixed event. A fixed "point" in space is
stationary in only one reference frame. On the other hand, a fixed
event can be the center of an expanding sphere in any and every
reference frame.
> > As for redshifts between 0.5 and 2, I used z+1 =3D sqrt[(1+v/c)/(1-v/c)]
>
> That's a redshift-velocity relation. What I asked you to compute was
> a redshift-*distance* relation. In particular, you need the
> luminosity distance, which is not the same as the proper distance.
> (Both are a little tricky to compute.) I'm not convinced the
> relation isisotropic, and I doubt very much it will agree with
> observation (principally the supernova results).
>
I don't have access to much of that data. I'd need to have the data
categorized by type, luminosity, redshift, direction (relative to the
dipole anisotropy), etc. But they don't have that! They have the
Hubble Deep Field in two extremely narrow paths HDF North and HDF
South, I think they call it. It might be possible to get an idea and
triangulate from three or four directions, but not with just two.
> > As I said, it is a very rough sketch. Even without any numbers, the
> > point I was trying to make was that any large acceleration along the
> > way has a large effect on our final view of the universe.
>
> I suggest you consider an unacellerated model first.
>
The unaccelerated model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milne_Model.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Milne_model#correction
> > (I must have said something here that didn't make sense to you. Were
> > you unfamiliar with the idea that when you make a relativistic
> > acceleration toward a body, that it lurches away from you, then
> > appears to approach superluminally?)
>
> I don't know what a "relativistic acceleration" is, and I am most
> certainly unfamiliar with the idea that a body "lurches away" if you
> accelerate towards it. Please show me the math.
>
What I meant by a relativistic acceleration is one where the change in
velocity is close to the speed of light. The math is shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
What you should do is apply the transform to an event in the past
(x=0, t<0). That event will move further into the past, and away from
x=0. If that event represents the origin of an expanding sphere, the
sphere will be larger, in direct proportion to how far the event moved
into the past.
As for objects "lurching away," to see it in the usual sense, you have
to accelerate toward a receding body. I don't have a neat copy of
"the math" anywhere, but some time ago, I did create a java applet
that might help.
http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/LT.html
> What any of this has to do with Mach's Principle is also a mystery to me.
>
> > Are you saying, then, that as soon as gravity is involved, you no
> > longer apply special relativity?
>
> If space curvature is significant, you have to take it into account.
> For most purposes, it only matters if gravity is very strong or
> measurements are very precise.
>
> > Mach's Principle says that we are not competent to
> > determine the nature of motion of bodies 100 billion light years from
> > here,
>
> That's certainly news to me.
>
I might be overgeneralizing whatever Mach's Principle is. There was
an experiment (of Newton's I think) involving water in a spinning pail
of water, and Mach said that we are not competent to predict results
for the experiment if the walls of the vessel were made several
leagues thick.
To be honest, I don't think there is a precise way of stating Mach's
Principle--it isn't a Principle by which you can actually predict
anything--It is a only a principle by which you justify ignorance.
> > Likewise, my relative rapidity with objects 100 billion light years
> > away changes just the same as my relative rapidity with the objects
> > right in front of me, when I accelerate toward them. Thus it will all
> > be subject to the same prescription for coordinate transformation.
>
> I don't think anybody disagrees with that, and I don't see that it
> has anything to do with Mach's Principle.
>
Hmmm, I'll have to track down some quotes for you. But I've heard
people say
"Most physicists believe Special Relativity is only valid locally,
while general relativity is valid everywhere."
"The effects of Lorentz Transformations are not really real."
"You are introducing this lurching away effect which is totally non-
physical; only mathematical."
> > I realizethere are 75 years of Standard Cosmology proponents who all
> > disagree, but they have built their science up from this foundation of
> > Mach's Principle--i.e. no foundation at all.
>
> Once again, I invite you to identify a single observation that would
> differ depending on whether Mach's Principle is true or false.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
> Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swill...@cfa.harvard.edu
> Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
I can't identify a single such observation, because Mach's Principle
is in the "not even wrong" category. As far as I know, it is just
used as an excuse for ignoring the Lorentz Transformations--They only
pretend to use Mach's Principle as a mathematical or logical
motivation in any scientific discourse.
Jonathan Doolin
Steve Willner
SW> > written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees
In article <a224d466-fdf7-4c15...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> I am looking over the article in Wikipedia on "Twin Paradox"
That's hardly the only reference around. One article I particularly
remember was in _Mercury_ magazine at least 20 years ago, and I'm
pretty sure I've seen the same treatment in textbooks.
> In the article, there are three space-time diagrams, but all of them
> are in the reference frame of the stationary twin. There are two
> other reference frames which should be shown as well--that of the
> traveling twin on his outbound journey, and that of the traveling twin
> on his inbound journey.
You really only need the first of those reference frames to see
what's going on. It has to be an inertial reference frame, so it
keeps going when the travelling twin turns around. The travelling
twin is now moving faster in this reference frame than the stay-at-
home twin and thus ages slower.
You can also think about each twin sending clock pulses that
propagate at the speed of light. If you count the pulses each twin
receives from the other, you'll get the right answer.
Once you understand it, feel free to improve the Wikipedia article.
I think your suggestions for additional explanation have merit.
> ... "Principle of Equivalence" hogwash
Which experiment does this "hogwash" predict incorrectly?
> apparently, all Einstein wanted to do
> once he figured out the special theory of relativity is to find some
> excuse to reject its use.
That's certainly news to me! General relativity leads to special
relativity when space curvature can be neglected.
Jonathan Doolin
> SW> > There are certainly
> SW> > written descriptions of what the "traveling twin" sees
>
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I am looking over the article in Wikipedia on "Twin Paradox"
>
> That's hardly the only reference around. One article I particularly
> remember was in _Mercury_ magazine at least 20 years ago, and I'm
> pretty sure I've seen the same treatment in textbooks.
>
> > In the article, there are three space-time diagrams, but all of them
> > are in the reference frame of the stationary twin. There are two
> > other reference frames which should be shown as well--that of the
> > traveling twin on his outbound journey, and that of the traveling twin
> > on his inbound journey.
>
> You really only need the first of those reference frames to see
> what's going on. It has to be an inertial reference frame, so it
> keeps going when the travelling twin turns around. The travelling
> twin is now moving faster in this reference frame than the stay-at-
> home twin and thus ages slower.
>
> You can also think about each twin sending clock pulses that
> propagate at the speed of light. If you count the pulses each twin
> receives from the other, you'll get the right answer.
>
> Once you understand it, feel free to improve the Wikipedia article.
> I think your suggestions for additional explanation have merit.
>
It's a work in progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twin_paradox#Three_Reference_Frames
> > ... "Principle of Equivalence" hogwash
>
> Which experiment does this "hogwash" predict incorrectly?
>
Based on what I have read, I am actually not able to determine whether
the Principle of Equivalence is "hogwash." I shouldn't have said
that, perhaps.
However, what I have heard *about* the principle of equivalence is a
great and grave overgeneralization; primarily that gravity is
equivalent to acceleration.
I would be prepared to acknowledge that it is highly likely that the
behavior of free-falling bodies in the region where F=m*g would be
effectively equivalent to the behavior of inertial bodies as viewed by
an observer on an accelerated platform accelerating at a rate of a=g
on the approach.
Of course, once the accelerating platform PASSES the inertial body,
you have the acceleration going the WRONG WAY, and any resemblance
between acceleration and gravity is now gone.
Also, if you are in a larger region, such that F= G m1 * m2 / r^2, the
motion of bodies falling in this volume is NOT equivalent to the
motion you would see if you were on a platform accelerating toward
them.
On the other hand, I could imagine trying an approach to determine the
speed of the clock of an observer on an accelerating platform, and
somehow relating this to the speed of a clock of an observer standing
on the ground in a gravitational field. In this one small way, (speed
of clock), gravitational field and acceleration may be equivalent.
But to whom?
You need to produce the inertial observer from whose viewpoint the two
clocks give this ratio. You need to have an initial velocity and a
final velocity of the accelerated clock in the frame of reference of
this inertial observer. You need to have a particular scale of time
between the initial and final velocity.
I may have the opportunity to work on this question some more and come
to a better conclusion than "hogwash."
Jonathan Doolin
> > apparently, all Einstein wanted to do
> > once he figured out the special theory of relativity is to find some
> > excuse to reject its use.
>
> That's certainly news to me! General relativity leads to special
> relativity when space curvature can be neglected.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
I have re-posted much of this comment along with some additional
thoughts and mathematics at
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2855214#post2855214
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> However, what I have heard *about* the principle of equivalence is a
> great and grave overgeneralization; primarily that gravity is
> equivalent to acceleration.
Some of your questions will take more time than I have to answer, but
the above is easy. The equivalence principle says that no _local
experiment_ can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. If you
do non-local experiments -- which means using a large enough
"laboratory" that tidal forces are measurable -- of course the two
can be distinguished.
This is analogous to the principle of relativity, which says that no
_local experiment_ can distinguish any constant velocity. Of course
if you "look outside the window," you can measure velocity with
respect to something else.
I haven't checked the Wikipedia article(s), but I'll be surprised if
there's any disagreement with the above.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <161a6ef7-266b-46b2-be20-2dacff3c5...@q1g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > However, what I have heard *about* the principle of equivalence is a
> > great and grave overgeneralization; primarily that gravity is
> > equivalent to acceleration.
>
> Some of your questions will take more time than I have to answer, but
> the above is easy. The equivalence principle says that no _local
> experiment_ can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. If you
> do non-local experiments -- which means using a large enough
> "laboratory" that tidal forces are measurable -- of course the two
> can be distinguished.
>
> This is analogous to the principle of relativity, which says that no
> _local experiment_ can distinguish any constant velocity. Of course
> if you "look outside the window," you can measure velocity with
> respect to something else.
>
> I haven't checked the Wikipedia article(s), but I'll be surprised if
> there's any disagreement with the above.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
That all sounds reasonable.
And at least I've got the question out there:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2855214#post2855214
Either someone will come along and answer it, or one morning I'll wake
up with the wherewithal to solve it myself. It's challenging my own
preconceived ideas (not enough to give up Milne's model, but enough to
wonder about some other things.)
Jonathan Doolin
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> Not a fixed point--a fixed event. A fixed "point" in space is
> stationary in only one reference frame. On the other hand, a fixed
> event can be the center of an expanding sphere in any and every
> reference frame.
OK, I see what you mean, I think. There may still be a difficulty
with the cosmological principle -- that the Earth is not in any
special place -- but I'm not sure the model is ruled out on that
basis by existing observations.
SW> What I asked you to compute was
SW> a redshift-*distance* relation
We can do that now: the Hubble law distance is just proportional to
velocity, and I don't see why the luminosity distance (in a flat
Universe) wouldn't have the same 1+z correction as in the standard
model. This is not the same distance law as the standard model
gives, but perhaps you could put in curvature or something to make it
agree. Of course you also have to find agreement with such things as
the fluctuations in the microwave background.
Basically, either your model will give the same predictions as the
standard model -- in which case why bother? -- or it will give
different ones. If the latter, it would be rather surprising for
them to agree with observations, given how well the standard model
fits everything. But I've been wrong before, so feel free to do the
math and compare with observation.
SW> I doubt very much it will agree with
SW> observation (principally the supernova results).
> I don't have access to much of that data.
The supernova data, at least a good quantity to work with, are online
in nicely calibrated form.
> They have the Hubble Deep Field in two extremely narrow paths HDF
> North and HDF South,
I'm not sure there are _any_ SNe in the deep fields, but there are
surely not many.
Other than the above comments on the astronomy, I'll suggest that if
you want to learn relativity, you should get a textbook. Or more
than one. One of the best suggestions I was ever given was that
(special) relativity is tricky the first time you see it, and it's
very helpful to have the same equations explained in different words.
As I recall, some of the books I personally found most helpful were
written by Minkowski in the 1930s, but my memory may be faulty about
the author and/or the date. Anyway _for me_, the older books were
more helpful than newer ones, but it could easily be the reverse for
someone else.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <0887b041-04d0-4f1e-931b-bd1c397a7...@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Jonathan Doolin <good4us...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Not a fixed point--a fixed event. A fixed "point" in space is
> > stationary in only one reference frame. On the other hand, a fixed
> > event can be the center of an expanding sphere in any and every
> > reference frame.
>
> OK, I see what you mean, I think. There may still be a difficulty
> with the cosmological principle -- that the Earth is not in any
> special place -- but I'm not sure the model is ruled out on that
> basis by existing observations.
>
> SW> What I asked you to compute was
> SW> a redshift-*distance* relation
>
> We can do that now: the Hubble law distance is just proportional to
> velocity, and I don't see why the luminosity distance (in a flat
> Universe) wouldn't have the same 1+z correction as in the standard
> model. This is not the same distance law as the standard model
> gives, but perhaps you could put in curvature or something to make it
> agree. Of course you also have to find agreement with such things as
> the fluctuations in the microwave background.
>
What I would probably be interested in is developing a directional
model, which would be in line with the dipole anisotropy; I guess that
would be a simple rotation trasform, so right ascention and
declination became a polar and azimuthal angle in line with the dipole
axis.
Then I would look for explanations of a couple of anomolies:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html
Please, click on the link and look at the top graph. There appears to
be an outlier around 7 GPc, and then there is an extremely wide error
bar between 9 and 12 GPc. This particular chart seems to top out at
c*z=500000km/s, which is z=5/3.
With a high variation of distance, and a very low variation of
redshift, This would seem to indicate that there is a thick shell of
supernova that are all traveling away from us at essentially the same
speed.
I think that is consistent with some of the ascii space-time diagrams
I drew earlier, if we have scattering from multiple events, then the
shell of constant velocity would be fairly symmetrical.
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/\ / /
\/ \/
\ /
\ /
...whereas if we have scattering from a more singular event, that
shell will be thinner on one side than the other:
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ | / /
\ \ / / /
\ \/ / /
\ \ / /
\ \/ /
\/ /
\ /
\ /
For an explanation of the outlier at the 7 GPc mark; you have a region
where you have a fast-moving surface of supernovae--all much closer
than would otherwise be expected. That points to a recent event; an
explosion which "created" our local universe. Those events would
probably constitute the latest division in either of my space-time
diagrams above.
With data compiled by others, though, all I can really do is speculate
on what it means, but it still kind of seems to fit with this model.
> Basically, either your model will give the same predictions as the
> standard model -- in which case why bother? -- or it will give
> different ones. If the latter, it would be rather surprising for
> them to agree with observations, given how well the standard model
> fits everything. But I've been wrong before, so feel free to do the
> math and compare with observation.
>
> SW> I doubt very much it will agree with
> SW> observation (principally the supernova results).
>
> > I don't have access to much of that data.
>
> The supernova data, at least a good quantity to work with, are online
> in nicely calibrated form.
>
Ostensibly, that data is available here:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/SNarchive.html
If I were a computer hacker, maybe I would be able to access it.
Jonathan Doolin
> > They have the Hubble Deep Field in two extremely narrow paths HDF
> > North and HDF South,
>
> I'm not sure there are _any_ SNe in the deep fields, but there are
> surely not many.
>
> Other than the above comments on the astronomy, I'll suggest that if
> you want to learn relativity, you should get a textbook. Or more
> than one. One of the best suggestions I was ever given was that
> (special) relativity is tricky the first time you see it, and it's
> very helpful to have the same equations explained in different words.
> As I recall, some of the books I personally found most helpful were
> written by Minkowski in the 1930s, but my memory may be faulty about
> the author and/or the date. Anyway _for me_, the older books were
> more helpful than newer ones, but it could easily be the reverse for
> someone else.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> What I would probably be interested in is developing a directional
> model, which would be in line with the dipole anisotropy; I guess that
> would be a simple rotation trasform, so right ascention and
> declination became a polar and azimuthal angle in line with the dipole
> axis.
Doing the coordinate rotation is easy.
> Then I would look for explanations of a couple of anomolies:
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html
>
> Please, click on the link and look at the top graph. There appears to
> be an outlier around 7 GPc
Only two sigma, if you look at the data table below the graph.
> and then there is an extremely wide error
> bar between 9 and 12 GPc.
Because there are few SNe observed at these distances.
> This particular chart seems to top out at
> c*z=3D500000km/s, which is z=3D5/3.
Bin centered at z=1.55 according to the table.
> With data compiled by others, though, all I can really do is speculate
> on what it means, but it still kind of seems to fit with this model.
I think you are way over-interpreting a statistical outlier, but I've
been wrong before. The question is whether the model you propose
fits the data at all. As you see on Ned's graph, there are eight
lines representing models, and only four fit the data. Where does
your model fall in the graph?
> http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/SNarchive.html
This is the raw data, which you probably don't want. Instead, look
at Table 11 of Kowalski et al. (2008) here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4142
The published version of the paper at
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/686/2/749/fulltext should become
public next month and has a machine-readable version of the table,
and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the table is already on the web
somewhere. However, Ned's compilation and averaging of the data
should be good enough to tell whether your model has a chance of
working or not.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner
> at Table 11 of Kowalski et al. (2008) here:
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4142
I see there's an update at
http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/
with the full descriptive paper at
http://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/hst-2001_arXiv.pdf
I haven't looked at it in great detail, but the outlier seems to have
gone away with more data. The data tables are available via the
first link above.
Jonathan Doolin
> In article <i669fp$dv...@news.eternal-september.org>, I wrote:
> > at Table 11 of Kowalski et al. (2008) here:
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.4142
>
> with the full descriptive paper athttp://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/hst-2001_arXiv.pdf
>
> I haven't looked at it in great detail, but the outlier seems to have
> gone away with more data. The data tables are available via the
> first link above.
>
> --
> Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Hi Steve.
Question. In table 11. what do z, m, s, c, and mu represent? I'm
hoping they are related to right ascension, declination, redshift, and
luminosity distance.
Steve Willner
In article <2b2d1f65-1968-406c...@g10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Doolin <good4...@gmail.com> writes:
> Question. In table 11. what do z, m, s, c, and mu represent?
You really need to look at and understand the paper because there are
some subtleties. In particular, you will need to check what velocity
system the authors use and make sure the distance modulus refers to
luminosity distance. If you have trouble with this, let sci.astro
know how far you got, and I'm sure people will try to help.
You realize, don't you, that for a basic test of your model, you
don't need the SN data? All you need to do is calculate the
redshift-distance relation and plot it on Ned Wright's diagram. Also
check out the diagrams on the Union web site.
> I'm hoping they are related to right ascension, declination,
> redshift, and luminosity distance.
You get (in effect) the last two but not positions. For those you
can do a batch query at NED or SIMBAD. I'm don't see why you need
positions, though.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Jonathan Doolin
I've produced a much better diagram at
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2887692#post2887692
Post #94