Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 282
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: Us shrinking or space expanding?

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yup, as I indicated in post #8, these models run into problems with the fine structure constant, (which we know hasn't changed over the past few billion years).
    The fine structure constant is a dimensionless ratio. If reality maintains its proportionality while matter is shrinking, as in many generic matter-shrinking models and my own, then the fine structure constant and all "constants" such as the speed of light that involve ratios must remain constant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yup, as I indicated in post #8, these models run into problems with the fine structure constant, (which we know hasn't changed over the past few billion years).
    The fine structure constant is a dimensionless ratio. If reality maintains its proportionality while matter is shrinking, as in many generic matter-shrinking models and my own, then the fine structure constant and all "constants" that involve ratios must remain constant.
    If all fundamental constant remain the same, then it is meaningless to even say that matter is "shrinking". Shrinking with regards to what ? What is your frame of reference ? How do you measure and quantify this shrinking process, if all ratios remain intact ?
    Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ? What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Did you read the article ?
    The ratios of the fission products of this natural reactor are a direct consequence of the fine structure constant, which is in turn dependent on the speed of light. If the speed of light was any different in the past than the outcome of this natural phenomenon would have been different to what it actually is. That was my point.
    Congrats, what a fast reply

    In my own model and I think in most generic matter-shrinking models, the speed of light as well as the fine structure constant were the same in the past since they are both ratios and everything accordingly would remain proportional while matter is shrinking.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 31st, 2012 at 02:26 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yup, as I indicated in post #8, these models run into problems with the fine structure constant, (which we know hasn't changed over the past few billion years).
    The fine structure constant is a dimensionless ratio. If reality maintains its proportionality while matter is shrinking, as in many generic matter-shrinking models and my own, then the fine structure constant and all "constants" that involve ratios must remain constant.
    If all fundamental constant remain the same, then it is meaningless to even say that matter is "shrinking". Shrinking with regards to what ? What is your frame of reference ? How do you measure and quantify this shrinking process, if all ratios remain intact ?
    Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ? What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
    The key point is conservation of momentum.

    If comoving space is expanding relative to space measured using atoms, and therefore, space based on atoms is shrinking view from comoving space.
    Conservation of momentum can only work correctly in one of the coordinate systems.

    Viewed from shrinking matter an object moving with constant velocity in comoving space is speeding up over time.
    An object moving with constant velocity in a coordinate system based on atoms is slowing down with time when viewed from comoving space.

    The Condensing Universe model assumes comoving space is the natural frame of reference for conservation of momentum.
    So atoms are shrinking compared to the natural reference frame for conservation of momentum.

    This gives the shrinking observer the illusion of dark matter.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The problem is the units of measurement, and are we using the universes constants or the constants as measured by matter.

    The measured speed of light is only increasing because the units of length metre/foot/mile etc are shrinking with the size of the atom.

    Us and all our instruments are made of atoms.
    So our telescopes, defraction gratings, prysms, distance between any pair of mattter connected mirrors, and wavelength of reference light source are all shrinking at the same rate.
    Right, I have to be honest with you : to me it seems you have arranged everything in just such a way as to make this whole thing completely undetectable ?
    What is it that essentially distinguishes your model from the expanding space model, in terms of experiments and observation ? Or are we dealing with something that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable ?
    You will need to point out some way for the scientific community to experimentally test this, otherwise it has little value as a scientific hypothesis.
    Also, we need some sort of avenue along which to continue this discussion in an objective manner.

    As matter shrinks with no other constants changing forces increase so, chemical reactions go faster,
    Well if that's the case then the Oklo Natural Fission Reactor would immediately contradict your model, because the ratios of the physically leftover fission products are just as expected. Note that there are no measurements of time or distance involved in this determination.

    This model has no time dialation, but the size of atoms effects the rate things happen.
    The GPS in my car would seem to suggest otherwise...?

    Please prefix averything below with "in this model", no claims about reality here
    You are the one suggesting a model that is radically different than the established one, not me. So far as I am concerned I am happy with FLRW cosmology.
    The whole argument is that matter is shrinking, and therefore so are our units of measurement.

    As for the GPS the sattalites orbit at about 42,000 km if you assume the current rate of shrinkage approximates to the hubble constant at 2.5x10-18 m/s/s then the expected vertical error is tiny.

    My last comment was for the moderator who must be thinking some of the content of this thread does not belong in this section.
    Last edited by PetTastic; January 31st, 2012 at 09:51 AM. Reason: added last line
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    As for the GPS the sattalites orbit at about 42,000 km if you assume the current rate of shrinkage approximates to the hubble constant at 2.5x10-18 m/s/s then the expected vertical error is tiny.
    Ok, I get that - actually what I meant was time dilation; you were saying that time dilation does not exist in your model. Since GPS technology incorporates an adjustment for the ( expected ) time dilation, this appears to contradict your assertion...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    The key point is conservation of momentum.

    If comoving space is expanding relative to space measured using atoms, and therefore, space based on atoms is shrinking view from comoving space.
    Conservation of momentum can only work correctly in one of the coordinate systems.

    Viewed from shrinking matter an object moving with constant velocity in comoving space is speeding up over time.
    An object moving with constant velocity in a coordinate system based on atoms is slowing down with time when viewed from comoving space.

    The Condensing Universe model assumes comoving space is the natural frame of reference for conservation of momentum.
    So atoms are shrinking compared to the natural reference frame for conservation of momentum.

    This gives the shrinking observer the illusion of dark matter.
    I don't really understand what conservation of momentum has to do with shrinking matter - can you explain that a little more ?
    Also, if you say it works only in one of the frames of reference, then something is seriously wrong. Remember, the laws of mechanics are expected to be independent of the frame of reference ( I take it the matter shrinkage is a linear process, and not accelerated in some way ).
    So then, with reference to "comoving space", what exactly is it that is shrinking ? Is it the space within atoms ? The elementary particles themselves in terms of volume/radius ? Or the mass of the particles ? Or all of the above ?
    With regards to comoving space - what is its geometry and topology ? Is it static ? If so, that would mean that matter was massively large a long time ago, am I right ?
    This is the real core of this model, so I would appreciate a further explanation. Once this is clarified it will be much easier to discuss this.
    Also, you have not answered my question with regards to strong and weak nuclear forces - another crucial point in this model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Speedfreak,

    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Yup, as I indicated in post #8, these models run into problems with the fine structure constant, (which we know hasn't changed over the past few billion years).
    The fine structure constant is a dimensionless ratio. If reality maintains its proportionality while matter is shrinking, as in many generic matter-shrinking models and my own, then the fine structure constant and all "constants" that involve ratios must remain constant.

    Markus Hanke,

    If all fundamental constant remain the same, then it is meaningless to even say that matter is "shrinking". Shrinking with regards to what ? What is your frame of reference ? Your frame of reference is the past.
    Matter accordingly was larger in the past as evidenced by galactic redshifts. Instead of space expanding to explain galactic redshifts, matter instead is shrinking. Larger atoms in the past would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation (redshifted). My frame of reference and measuring stick is in the present which makes relative comparisons concerning sizes in the past.

    How do you measure and quantify this shrinking process if all ratios remain intact ?
    In my own shrinking-matter model the rate of shrinking is calculated in this manner: If matter were shrinking and this causes the observed redshifts then there would have been a time when matter was exactly twice its present size. All protons, electrons, and atomic matter would have been twice there present size and volume. Maintaining the same density, if the diameter of matter doubles its volume increases by a factor of 8. To find the time when matter was only twice as big then its diameter would have been 1.26 times larger (the cube root of 3). Space also would appear to have been larger by the same factor. So to calculate the redshift when matter was exactly twice its present size the redshift would have been 1.262 , or 1.5874. This is 2 2/3 ; two to the power of two thirds.

    At a redshift when z+1 was 1.5874, this would have been about 5.9 billion years ago using a Hubble calculator. So accordingly every 5.9 billion years matter would double in size. This explains the observed galactic redshifts rather than the expansion of the universe or space.

    Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ?
    As to mass in this model, it can only be compared to its own time frame. This is truly a different kind of relativity since size would have been relatively larger, but mass accordingly is a function of field interactions such as the presently believed Higgs field, and since this field constituents would also have been larger in the past, therefore mass as well as density would have been the same as it is now. And for the same reason ratios in general would have been the same then as they are now.

    What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
    This subject is different in my model than it is in generic matter-shrinking models such as the discussions in this thread: How can you tell the difference between us shrinking and space expanding?

    In my own model, there are no such things as pulling forces or forces at a distance. Accordingly forces of nature do not exist, therefore there are no a priori forces at all to explain. Instead nuclear forces are explained as physical/ mechanical connections which resist separation, and gravity and magnetism are explained as mechanical pushing forces based upon particulate field interactions.

    If you wish further discussion concerning any aspects of my own matter-shrinking model, it should be discussed here. In this thread we must stay with: How could we tell the difference between matter shrinking and space expanding? -- my opinions/ answers concerning how one could tell the difference, were given in posting #72 and expanded in posting #78.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 31st, 2012 at 12:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Matter accordingly was larger in the past as evidenced by galactic redshifts. Instead of space expanding to explain galactic redshifts, matter instead is shrinking. Larger atoms in the past would have produced longer wavelengths of EM radiation (redshifted). My frame of reference and measuring stick is in the present which makes relative comparisons concerning sizes in the past.
    Wait just a minute now. If matter shrinks, but the spatial distance between emitter and receiver remains the same, then no redshift would occur at all, and most certainly not at values of z=5...10 or even more as observed. A larger atom does not imply longer wavelength light, especially not since you content that the ratios between the fundamental constants remain the same !

    So accordingly every 5.9 billion years matter doubles in size. This explains the observed galactic redshifts would the universe or space expanding.
    Actually it wouldn't. Because all other physical processes remain the same, light emitted from these photons would contain the same energy, i.e. would exhibit no redshift at all.

    This is truly a different kind of relativity since size would have been relatively larger, but mass accordingly is a function of field interactions such as the presently believed Higgs field, and since this field constituents would also have been larger in the past, therefore mass as well as density would have been the same as it is now.
    No that makes no sense whatsoever. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with "size". Total mass must have been the exact same, because total energy must be conserved. For the same reason, light emissions could not have taken place at different frequencies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    I have to go out and about now, will get back to you this evening. In the mean time answers to all your questions can be found in my book at pantheory.org. So that you don't have to look anything up, I'll give you the answers to your questions when I get back this afternoon PST but when it concerns just my model I will provide my answers in the other thread, the link supplied in posting #108.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    The key point is conservation of momentum.

    If comoving space is expanding relative to space measured using atoms, and therefore, space based on atoms is shrinking view from comoving space.
    Conservation of momentum can only work correctly in one of the coordinate systems.

    Viewed from shrinking matter an object moving with constant velocity in comoving space is speeding up over time.
    An object moving with constant velocity in a coordinate system based on atoms is slowing down with time when viewed from comoving space.

    The Condensing Universe model assumes comoving space is the natural frame of reference for conservation of momentum.
    So atoms are shrinking compared to the natural reference frame for conservation of momentum.

    This gives the shrinking observer the illusion of dark matter.
    I don't really understand what conservation of momentum has to do with shrinking matter - can you explain that a little more ?
    Also, if you say it works only in one of the frames of reference, then something is seriously wrong. Remember, the laws of mechanics are expected to be independent of the frame of reference ( I take it the matter shrinkage is a linear process, and not accelerated in some way ).
    So then, with reference to "comoving space", what exactly is it that is shrinking ? Is it the space within atoms ? The elementary particles themselves in terms of volume/radius ? Or the mass of the particles ? Or all of the above ?
    With regards to comoving space - what is its geometry and topology ? Is it static ? If so, that would mean that matter was massively large a long time ago, am I right ?
    This is the real core of this model, so I would appreciate a further explanation. Once this is clarified it will be much easier to discuss this.
    Also, you have not answered my question with regards to strong and weak nuclear forces - another crucial point in this model.
    Consider the extreme case, two galaxies so far apart that they are moving away from each other beyond the speed of light.

    In comoving coordinates these two galaxies are stationary relative to each other, because comoving coordinates expands with the universe.
    If we call the distance between them in comoving coordinates d.

    An object (spaceship, particle or photon) traveling between them with constant velocity v in comoving coordinates will arrive after time d/v.

    Viewed from the BBT coordinate system it will appear to increase velocity as space expands in order to do it.

    An object traveling with any sublight constant velocity in BBT space will never get closer to the destination.

    At the human scale we can't tell the difference between comoving space and space measured using matter the hubble constant is too small.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Very good, thank you. We have now established that the relative positions of comoving space and shrinking matter are equivalent, and both are seeing the same laws of physics. Thus both also observe the same natural constants, right ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Markus Hanke,

    I have to go out and about now, will get back to you this evening. In the mean time answers to all your questions can be found in my book at pantheory.org. So that you don't have to look anything up, I'll give you the answers to your questions when I get back this afternoon PST but when it concerns just my model I will provide my answers in the other thread, the link supplied in posting #108.
    Actually I was referring to the OP; I don't want to be further side-tracked into other non-standard theories. No offence, but this thread is already confusing enough as it is. I am just trying to get a clear picture of exactly what is going on in the OP's model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Very good, thank you. We have now established that the relative positions of comoving space and shrinking matter are equivalent, and both are seeing the same laws of physics. Thus both also observe the same natural constants, right ?
    I have posted this on many sites over the last few years, but we all get stuck at this point.
    I can't pretend I have any answers beyond this.

    We see the laws of the universe as experianced by matter. If matter is shrinking then things get very complicated very quickly.

    If you convert all units that have a distance component into light seconds instead of metres and therefore, work in comoving space assuming that is the natural coordinate system for the universe.

    It sort of looks like the plank length or constant has a problem in comoving space if the size of the atom in light seconds changes.
    But at that level most of physics assumes energy associated with space, but if space is not expanding?
    For some reason, physicists assume there was a big bang

    But I also got problems with the weak force, the W boson having a rest mass does not scale with the size of that atom.

    I am a computer programmer/micro processor designer not a physicist.

    So I am concentrating on looking for observational evidence or an experiment that will prove this rubbish.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Look PetTastic, I appreciate that you are making a real effort to keep this discussion objective, and that you are willing to acknowledge your own limitations. Kudos to you.

    On the other hand I just cannot see this model working. I don't mean that in any personal way, I really don't. I just fail to see the advantage of a shrinking matter model over an expanding universe model; I think instead of making things easier it just gets really complicated really quickly - and this is even before we get down to fundamental forces.
    I can sort of understand where you are coming from - an ever expanding space-time is not the easiest thing to visualize and come to grips with. But then, neither is shrinking matter ( IMHO ).
    In the end, the strongest argument for me is that the laws of nature cannot change either way if the ratios between fundamental constants remain unchanged ( which they must to preserve the laws of physics ) - thus light frequencies emitted must remain constant even as matter shrinks, and red-shift just wouldn't occur in a space of constant metric. This is contrary to observation. Make of this what you will, but I just don't think this model works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Look PetTastic, I appreciate that you are making a real effort to keep this discussion objective, and that you are willing to acknowledge your own limitations. Kudos to you.

    On the other hand I just cannot see this model working. I don't mean that in any personal way, I really don't. I just fail to see the advantage of a shrinking matter model over an expanding universe model; I think instead of making things easier it just gets really complicated really quickly - and this is even before we get down to fundamental forces.
    I can sort of understand where you are coming from - an ever expanding space-time is not the easiest thing to visualize and come to grips with. But then, neither is shrinking matter ( IMHO ).
    In the end, the strongest argument for me is that the laws of nature cannot change either way if the ratios between fundamental constants remain unchanged ( which they must to preserve the laws of physics ) - thus light frequencies emitted must remain constant even as matter shrinks, and red-shift just wouldn't occur in a space of constant metric. This is contrary to observation. Make of this what you will, but I just don't think this model works.
    The advantages in the model are you get no detectable dark matter or dark energy. You also get the prediction of the illusion of both.
    Without the expansion of space galaxies model sensibly and the observered rotation curve is expected.
    You also get a universe with consistent behavior over time no epoch or inflation required.

    I can't see how you get the last bit.
    If atoms were larger in the past than you need to change the fundamental constants to avoid them emitting longer wavelength light at a slower rate.
    Bohr radius


    experienced/measured speed of light when atoms shrink

    Energy levels atom


    Wavelength

    Either plug in "c now" to see what we observe through a telescope or plug in from the time period being looked at to see no change from that point(time) of view.


    Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    Wait just a minute now. If matter shrinks, but the spatial distance between emitter and receiver remains the same, then no redshift would occur at all
    Discussing generic shrinking-matter models only; In this discussion I am not discussing particulars of my own model in this thread.

    If everything remains proportional then larger matter in the past would have produced longer wavelengths -- longer wavelengths means redder. It is simply a matter of proportionality. For the same reason space would now appear to be expanding, also just a relative condition whereby we keep using smaller yardsticks to measure space. This is not just my shrinking-matter model, this is the generic aspect of all such models and the reason for the proposal of shrinking-matter models to explain redshifts in the first place, without the universe or space expanding.

    most certainly not at values of z=5...10 or even more as observed. A larger atom does not imply longer wavelength light, especially not since you content that the ratios between the fundamental constants remain the same!
    Larger atoms mean longer wavelengths in all generic shrinking-matter models that propose the maintenance of proportionality.

    Actually it wouldn't. Because all other physical processes remain the same, light emitted from these photons would contain the same energy, i.e. would exhibit no redshift at all.
    Physical processes, ratios, constants, would all remain the same concerning proportionality models. When observing old EM radiation of a certain wavelength, they would appear to be longer now because we accordingly would be using smaller yardsticks to measure the wavelength(s).

    No that makes no sense whatsoever. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with "size". Total mass must have been the exact same, because total energy must be conserved. For the same reason, light emissions could not have taken place at different frequencies.
    Mass would have measured the same then as now but the determinants of mass then would not have been the same as now so you couldn't actually compare mass from the past with mass in the present. You could just say something like the mass of a proton measured then would be the same as the mass of a proton measured now, even though everything now dimensionally would accordingly be relatively smaller.
    Last edited by forrest noble; January 31st, 2012 at 10:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Look PetTastic, I appreciate that you are making a real effort to keep this discussion objective, and that you are willing to acknowledge your own limitations. Kudos to you.

    On the other hand I just cannot see this model working. I don't mean that in any personal way, I really don't. I just fail to see the advantage of a shrinking matter model over an expanding universe model; I think instead of making things easier it just gets really complicated really quickly - and this is even before we get down to fundamental forces.
    I can sort of understand where you are coming from - an ever expanding space-time is not the easiest thing to visualize and come to grips with. But then, neither is shrinking matter ( IMHO ).
    In the end, the strongest argument for me is that the laws of nature cannot change either way if the ratios between fundamental constants remain unchanged ( which they must to preserve the laws of physics ) - thus light frequencies emitted must remain constant even as matter shrinks, and red-shift just wouldn't occur in a space of constant metric. This is contrary to observation. Make of this what you will, but I just don't think this model works.
    The advantages in the model are you get no detectable dark matter or dark energy. You also get the prediction of the illusion of both.
    Without the expansion of space galaxies model sensibly and the observered rotation curve is expected.
    You also get a universe with consistent behavior over time no epoch or inflation required.

    I can't see how you get the last bit.
    If atoms were larger in the past than you need to change the fundamental constants to avoid them emitting longer wavelength light at a slower rate.
    Bohr radius


    experienced/measured speed of light when atoms shrink

    Energy levels atom


    Wavelength

    Either plug in "c now" to see what we observe through a telescope or plug in from the time period being looked at to see no change from that point(time) of view.


    Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.
    We are going around in circles now. I was working off the assumption that all observers measure the same fundamental constants ? Thus all the above formulas, being made up of constants, would not change in terms of output !
    If this is indeed not the case, as you seem to suggest, will you then please point out to me exactly which one of the constants in the Bohr radius relation it is that changes over time ? I had already asked that very same question is post 112, but haven't received a clear answer.

    Ok perhaps I need to make myself a bit clearer : we need to know exactly what it is that changes when matter shrinks ( you have already established that the reference frame is irrelevant for this ), and exactly what it is that remains constant. Without that information we will just keep going around in circles and cannot move forward in this discussion. All answers to these questions were vague at best. I want to see it written down in black and white, once and for all. If none of them change, then where is the redshift ? If they change, then which ones are they ?
    By the way, the answer cannot depend on the observer, because all observers see the same physical laws, which is well verified by both observation and experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    The more I think about this model, the less sense it makes to me.

    1. Matter shrinks, but laws of physics remain the same. Thus speed of light must have changed over time to compensate.
    2. Speed of light changes, that means speed of gravity changes as well
    3. Speed of gravity changes, that means galaxies would have looked a lot different in shape and structure in the past
    4. We observe far away ( = old ) galaxies, and they look just the same
    5. So how could anything have changed ?
    6. If all laws scaled in perfect ratio to each other, then no difference to BBT model would be observable; the models would be perfectly equivalent.

    So what are we saying ?? What are the parameters of this shrinking matter model ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    1. The universe is of finite size and static, as proposed by you
    2. Matter shrinks, means it was larger in the past
    3. So there must have been a point in the past when a single particle filled the entire universe ??

    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    1. Matter shrinks, so was larger in the past
    2. Fundamental constants don't change
    3. Because constants were the same, so was strong force
    4. So at some time in the past nucleons would have been so large that strong force wouldn't have been able to hold them together ?? They would decay into more nucleons, or other hadrons.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
    The universe is expanding, the atom does not change size, how big was the universe compared to the size of the atom at the time of the big bang.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
    The universe is expanding, the atom does not change size, how big was the universe compared to the size of the atom at the time of the big bang.
    PetTastic, there were no atoms at the time of the Big Bang. There was no matter at all, only energy. Only when the universe expanded and cooled did matter form. Also, you seem to forget that atoms are aggregate systems, they are composed of more fundamental constituents which interact in certain ways.
    Are you familiar with the various fundamental particles and how they fit together ?

    We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
    No. Standard cosmology does not need shrinking matter, and the fundamental constants never change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Look PetTastic, I appreciate that you are making a real effort to keep this discussion objective, and that you are willing to acknowledge your own limitations. Kudos to you.

    On the other hand I just cannot see this model working. I don't mean that in any personal way, I really don't. I just fail to see the advantage of a shrinking matter model over an expanding universe model; I think instead of making things easier it just gets really complicated really quickly - and this is even before we get down to fundamental forces.
    I can sort of understand where you are coming from - an ever expanding space-time is not the easiest thing to visualize and come to grips with. But then, neither is shrinking matter ( IMHO ).
    In the end, the strongest argument for me is that the laws of nature cannot change either way if the ratios between fundamental constants remain unchanged ( which they must to preserve the laws of physics ) - thus light frequencies emitted must remain constant even as matter shrinks, and red-shift just wouldn't occur in a space of constant metric. This is contrary to observation. Make of this what you will, but I just don't think this model works.
    The advantages in the model are you get no detectable dark matter or dark energy. You also get the prediction of the illusion of both.
    Without the expansion of space galaxies model sensibly and the observered rotation curve is expected.
    You also get a universe with consistent behavior over time no epoch or inflation required.

    I can't see how you get the last bit.
    If atoms were larger in the past than you need to change the fundamental constants to avoid them emitting longer wavelength light at a slower rate.
    Bohr radius


    experienced/measured speed of light when atoms shrink

    Energy levels atom


    Wavelength

    Either plug in "c now" to see what we observe through a telescope or plug in from the time period being looked at to see no change from that point(time) of view.


    Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.
    We are going around in circles now. I was working off the assumption that all observers measure the same fundamental constants ? Thus all the above formulas, being made up of constants, would not change in terms of output !
    If this is indeed not the case, as you seem to suggest, will you then please point out to me exactly which one of the constants in the Bohr radius relation it is that changes over time ? I had already asked that very same question is post 112, but haven't received a clear answer.

    Ok perhaps I need to make myself a bit clearer : we need to know exactly what it is that changes when matter shrinks ( you have already established that the reference frame is irrelevant for this ), and exactly what it is that remains constant. Without that information we will just keep going around in circles and cannot move forward in this discussion. All answers to these questions were vague at best. I want to see it written down in black and white, once and for all. If none of them change, then where is the redshift ? If they change, then which ones are they ?
    By the way, the answer cannot depend on the observer, because all observers see the same physical laws, which is well verified by both observation and experiment.
    We see the same constants but observers from different time periods measure them using different units of length.
    That is the metre or foot are shrinking with the instruments we use to measure them.

    In standard cosmology not all observers see the same value in an experiment.
    Consider two observers measuring the wavelength of a spectural line in a star, but from different distances.
    The observer nearer the star will see a smaller value than the other.
    We blame the expansion of space for the difference.

    You don't like my answer on constants.
    Consider Planck's constant = 6.626068 × 10-34 m2 kg / s

    If two observers from different time periods agree on the value, is it a constant?

    In this model, they are using a metre of different length.
    If they convert the metres into light seconds, they now each have a different value for the constant.

    So the Planck's constant is a constant as measured by matter but the universe's value is changing.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
    The universe is expanding, the atom does not change size, how big was the universe compared to the size of the atom at the time of the big bang.
    PetTastic, there were no atoms at the time of the Big Bang. There was no matter at all, only energy. Only when the universe expanded and cooled did matter form. Also, you seem to forget that atoms are aggregate systems, they are composed of more fundamental constituents which interact in certain ways.
    Are you familiar with the various fundamental particles and how they fit together ?

    We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
    No. Standard cosmology does not need shrinking matter, and the fundamental constants never change.
    Instandard cosmolgy we assume that even thow atoms are only 12% of the universe their size does not change it is the size of te universe that changes.
    Therefore in standardc cos we are saying atoms are shrinking comared to the size of the universe.

    In the condensing universe model there can be no atoms as such back beyond z = 1012 about 380 billion years ago.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    In standard cosmology not all observers see the same value in an experiment.
    Yes, they do when they measure the fundamental constants. Those are the same for all observers. That was precisely my point.

    Consider two observers measuring the wavelength of a spectural line in a star
    Not a fundamental constant for the purpose of this discussion. I am referring to h,c,G, mass & charge of electron, Planck length & mass, fine structure constant.

    If two observers from different time periods agree on the value, is it a constant?

    In this model, they are using a metre of different length.
    If they convert the metres into light seconds, they now each have a different value for the constant.

    So the Planck's constant is a constant as measured by matter but the universe's value is changing.
    This is what makes or breaks your theory.
    If the value of constants changes, then the physical laws will no longer be the same.
    If the value remains and the dimensions of the constant are redefined ( i.e. the meter is measured differently ), then the model will be perfectly equivalent to standard cosmology. There will be no difference in outcome.
    So which one is it ?

    Therefore in standardc cos we are saying atoms are shrinking comared to the size of the universe.
    Thats precisely what I am trying to tell you above ! The two models become indistinguishable if no change in values of fundamental constants takes place. Both models are exactly the same. All that changes is the observers perspective. It is in essence nothing but a coordinate transformation - so what is the point ??

    In the condensing universe model there can be no atoms as such back beyond z = 1012 about 380 billion years ago.
    A completely ad-hoc postulate, which wasn't mentioned before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    By the way, how do you explain Olber's Paradox in your model of a static, very old universe ? Just curious...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    By the way, how do you explain Olber's Paradox in your model of a static, very old universe ? Just curious...
    I know this question was addressed to PetTastic but my answer(s) to explain Olber's paradox for generic shrinking-matter models can be seen in my posting #58 on page one of this thread. PetTastic might wish to add something to this or point out an additional perspective
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    By the way, how do you explain Olber's Paradox in your model of a static, very old universe ? Just curious...
    I know this question was addressed to PetTastic but my answer(s) to explain Olber's paradox for generic shrinking-matter models can be seen in my posting #58 on page one of this thread. PetTastic might wish to add something to this or point out an additional perspective
    1. As already explained, matter shrinkage cannot account for the large observed redshift
    2. Matter shrinks, space does not. Speed of light value is constant. Thus all light sources still reach earth in a finite time in a static universe.
    3. What has inverse square law got to do with this ? There are stars distributed equally through all of the universe, in all directions and all distances ( roughly speaking ) in space. Thus the sky couldn't be dark.

    None of these points would explain Olber's paradox in a static universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    In standard cosmology not all observers see the same value in an experiment.
    Yes, they do when they measure the fundamental constants. Those are the same for all observers. That was precisely my point.

    Consider two observers measuring the wavelength of a spectural line in a star
    Not a fundamental constant for the purpose of this discussion. I am referring to h,c,G, mass & charge of electron, Planck length & mass, fine structure constant.

    If two observers from different time periods agree on the value, is it a constant?

    In this model, they are using a metre of different length.
    If they convert the metres into light seconds, they now each have a different value for the constant.

    So the Planck's constant is a constant as measured by matter but the universe's value is changing.
    This is what makes or breaks your theory.
    If the value of constants changes, then the physical laws will no longer be the same.
    If the value remains and the dimensions of the constant are redefined ( i.e. the meter is measured differently ), then the model will be perfectly equivalent to standard cosmology. There will be no difference in outcome.
    So which one is it ?

    Therefore in standardc cos we are saying atoms are shrinking comared to the size of the universe.
    Thats precisely what I am trying to tell you above ! The two models become indistinguishable if no change in values of fundamental constants takes place. Both models are exactly the same. All that changes is the observers perspective. It is in essence nothing but a coordinate transformation - so what is the point ??
    Sorry now you have completely lost me.

    Who sees their version of Plank's constant change, any observer made of matter sees the same value of the constant?

    We use the measured value of the constant in our laws of physics in local units of measurement, not the universe's versions value of anything.
    In our coordinate system, the size of the atoms is measured using atoms so is constant at the current time.

    But in comoving space atoms are shrinking, so Bohrs' equations don't work in light seconds, because the distance of the electrons from the nucleus in light seconds is not a constant.

    I assumed you had agreed that conservation of momentum can only work natively in one scaling reference frame, therefor the space expanding and matter shrinking are not equivalent as they assume different reference frames for conservation of momentum.

    In the condensing universe model there can be no atoms as such back beyond z = 1012 about 380 billion years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    A completely ad-hoc postulate, which wasn't mentioned before.
    Please look at the http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...ase-break.html thread that I have been posting about for the last 3 years on many sites.

    Matter shrinking at about 6% every billion years, gives a good match to luminace and angular size curves shown in prev posts.

    (z+1) = 1.065t
    t = log(z+1)/log(1.065)

    z is size of matter/ wavelength of light emitted in past
    Time in past t in billions of years.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Sorry now you have completely lost me.

    Who sees their version of Plank's constant change, any observer made of matter sees the same value of the constant?

    We use the measured value of the constant in our laws of physics in local units of measurement, not the universe's versions value of anything.
    In our coordinate system, the size of the atoms is measured using atoms so is constant at the current time.

    But in comoving space atoms are shrinking, so Bohrs' equations don't work in light seconds, because the distance of the electrons from the nucleus in light seconds is not a constant.
    Ok, I'll try this again. Matter is shrinking. Thus one of two things is changing ( otherwise it couldn't shrink ) :

    1. The actual value of the fundamental constants
    2. The dimensions of the constants ( so e.g. the length of the meter ), whereas the value itself remains constant

    If (1) is true than physical laws change over time. If (2) is true than then ALL measurements change for the matter-based observer, and the two models ( BBT & condensing universe ) are indistinguishable.
    Just forget all details for the minute, because the above is what it all comes down to. So which one is it ?

    Also, you haven't addressed posts 119, 121 and 127 yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Something else just comes into my mind - if the universe was very old we would be seeing a HUGE amount of ambient gamma radiation over and above the normal cosmic background, from evaporating black holes ( Hawking radiation ). No such thing is being observed ? How come ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Sorry now you have completely lost me.

    Who sees their version of Plank's constant change, any observer made of matter sees the same value of the constant?

    We use the measured value of the constant in our laws of physics in local units of measurement, not the universe's versions value of anything.
    In our coordinate system, the size of the atoms is measured using atoms so is constant at the current time.

    But in comoving space atoms are shrinking, so Bohrs' equations don't work in light seconds, because the distance of the electrons from the nucleus in light seconds is not a constant.
    Ok, I'll try this again. Matter is shrinking. Thus one of two things is changing ( otherwise it couldn't shrink ) :

    1. The actual value of the fundamental constants
    2. The dimensions of the constants ( so e.g. the length of the meter ), whereas the value itself remains constant

    If (1) is true than physical laws change over time. If (2) is true than then ALL measurements change for the matter-based observer, and the two models ( BBT & condensing universe ) are indistinguishable.
    Just forget all details for the minute, because the above is what it all comes down to. So which one is it ?

    Also, you haven't addressed posts 119, 121 and 127 yet.
    A non zero value can not be a constant in two scaling coord systems if it is base on scaling units.

    Code:
    Value/Constant                               Standard cos                                           Condensing Universe
    Coord system                            Local             Comoving                        local                comoiving
    
    Speed light                                constant         scaling                           scaling               constant
    Size atom                                  constant         scaling                           constant            scaling
    length metre                             constant          scaling                          constant            scaling
    Light year                                  constant         scaling                           scaling               constant
    Size universe                             scaling            constant                        scaling               constant
    Momentum                                                                                      scaling               constant
    Plank's constant                        constant         scaling                           constant           scaling
    Sorry about the formating, copied from old post elsewhare.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    What do you mean by speed of light scaling for comoving space in standard cosmology ?
    I hope you are not implying that the speed of light depends on the observer ?

    A non zero value can not be a constant in two scaling coord systems if it is base on scaling units.
    So I take this to mean that the numerical values change, right ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What do you mean by speed of light scaling for comoving space in standard cosmology ?
    I hope you are not implying that the speed of light depends on the observer ?

    A non zero value can not be a constant in two scaling coord systems if it is base on scaling units.
    So I take this to mean that the numerical values change, right ?
    Yes, the two spaces are using different coordinate systems, and the two coordinate systems/ units of measurement are scaling relative other.

    I left the momentum in standard cosmology blank as it gets very complicated, and last time the whole thread ended as discussion on it.

    I am still looking at the other questions.

    The black hole one is interesting, but how many black holes would be expect to see in our galaxy.
    In standard cosmology we assume galaxies are gravitationally bound by dark matter, so all the neutron stars and black holes can't escape.

    In the model, the baseline for gravitation lensing observation's changes from say 12 to 40 billion light years, so the angle light is bent by is much less.
    Making galaxies much less massive short lived objects, only partially gravitational bound.
    Stuff is spiraling outward as gas spirals in from millions of lightyears away.

    One of the best arguments against the model is we should be able to detect the 5 to 15 degree difference in angle as the stars spiral out.
    However, this gets complicated by the interpretation of redshift values if it partially due to matter shrinking and partly doppler effects from real motion.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Allow me please to quote from Wikipedia :

    "In physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α, the Greek letter alpha) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Being a dimensionless quantity, it has constant numerical value in all systems of units. Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916."

    Note the bit about dimensionless quantity. Now the big question - does this constant change in your model or not ? Since it's dimensionless the answer cannot depend on which observer you choose.
    My issue is simply this : if the above does not change, then neither can any of the other physical constants, and matter shrinkage cannot occur. If it does change, then the Oklo natural fission reactor would look a lot different than it actually does.

    I am not trying to be awkward here, I am just trying to get my head around this, and I just don't feel like a clear and definite answer has been forthcoming yet.

    The black hole one is interesting, but how many black holes would be expect to see in our galaxy.
    In standard cosmology we assume galaxies are gravitationally bound by dark matter, so all the neutron stars and black holes can't escape.
    The number in our galaxy would be the same ( it being younger than the universe ), but the total number of BHs across the universe would be vastly greater ( because many stars above the mass limit required have lived and died ). Also, the number of BHs that have evaporated would be very large, and thus the universe would be flooded with gamma radiation above the normal background levels.
    The fact that they are gravitationally bound has no bearing on this.

    I'm also still not clear about the redshift issue - I am awaiting further clarification about the fine structure constant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Allow me please to quote from Wikipedia :

    "In physics, the fine-structure constant (usually denoted α, the Greek letter alpha) is a fundamental physical constant, namely the coupling constant characterizing the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Being a dimensionless quantity, it has constant numerical value in all systems of units. Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant in 1916."

    Note the bit about dimensionless quantity. Now the big question - does this constant change in your model or not ? Since it's dimensionless the answer cannot depend on which observer you choose.
    My issue is simply this : if the above does not change, then neither can any of the other physical constants, and matter shrinkage cannot occur. If it does change, then the Oklo natural fission reactor would look a lot different than it actually does.

    I am not trying to be awkward here, I am just trying to get my head around this, and I just don't feel like a clear and definite answer has been forthcoming yet.

    The black hole one is interesting, but how many black holes would be expect to see in our galaxy.
    In standard cosmology we assume galaxies are gravitationally bound by dark matter, so all the neutron stars and black holes can't escape.
    The number in our galaxy would be the same ( it being younger than the universe ), but the total number of BHs across the universe would be vastly greater ( because many stars above the mass limit required have lived and died ). Also, the number of BHs that have evaporated would be very large, and thus the universe would be flooded with gamma radiation above the normal background levels.
    The fact that they are gravitationally bound has no bearing on this.

    I'm also still not clear about the redshift issue - I am awaiting further clarification about the fine structure constant.
    The model only works if there is no change to the fine-structure constant.
    It has no units based on length, so it does not scale and should be a constant from all viewpoints.

    In the model the light travel distance to most object is larger than in standard cosmology, and that space is full of hydrogen and dead galaxies some maybe a hundred billion years old.
    This does have a problem with observation in that even at that age they would still have some glowing white dwarfs.
    But at even just z = 1, 11 billion light years of hydrogen is between us and any blackholes in those dead galaxies. (in this model)
    Possibly part of the reason they died was radiation pressure acting on dust blowing the ISM away. (wild speculation)

    The inverse square law makes radiation sources in our gallaxy have a massive effect in comparison.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    The model only works if there is no change to the fine-structure constant.
    It has no units based on length, so it does not scale and should be a constant from all viewpoints.
    Nice So now we have something to work with !
    Consider this :



    Now, since this value is always constant ( which is in agreement with the Oklo reactor findings as well ), then so are e, c, u and h in the above formula. Thus we can surmise that the values of the fundamental constants do not change. That leaves then only the dimensions of measurement, meaning all dimensions appearing in the above formula must scale equally. Thus when the "meter" gets shorter ( as measured by matter ) then so must the "second" get shorter as well, to keep the numerical value of the constant the same.
    What does that mean ? To me that means that this model behaves exactly the same as standard BBT. In my mind, there would be no discernable difference from the standpoint of matter, leaving me to wonder what the advantage of this model over standard BBT actually is.

    That assumes of course that the red-shift mechanism works - can you explain to me once more where the redshift in your model comes from, keeping in mind that the fundamental constants remain the same in value ?

    You had provided the following relation :



    which sounds about right. Now - h,c,R,Z,n are all independent of the size of matter and don't scale - where does the redshift come from, then ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The model only works if there is no change to the fine-structure constant.
    It has no units based on length, so it does not scale and should be a constant from all viewpoints.
    Nice So now we have something to work with !
    Consider this :



    Now, since this value is always constant ( which is in agreement with the Oklo reactor findings as well ), then so are e, c, u and h in the above formula. Thus we can surmise that the values of the fundamental constants do not change. That leaves then only the dimensions of measurement, meaning all dimensions appearing in the above formula must scale equally. Thus when the "meter" gets shorter ( as measured by matter ) then so must the "second" get shorter as well, to keep the numerical value of the constant the same.
    What does that mean ? To me that means that this model behaves exactly the same as standard BBT. In my mind, there would be no discernable difference from the standpoint of matter, leaving me to wonder what the advantage of this model over standard BBT actually is.

    That assumes of course that the red-shift mechanism works - can you explain to me once more where the redshift in your model comes from, keeping in mind that the fundamental constants remain the same in value ?

    You had provided the following relation :



    which sounds about right. Now - h,c,R,Z,n are all independent of the size of matter and don't scale - where does the redshift come from, then ?
    No!
    As matter shrinking the speed of light we measure using instruments made of atoms increases in value!
    In this model the speed of light is constant only in comoving space not in local space.

    If we are working in local space using units based on metres or feet etc.
    The both the speed of light (see my badly formatted table) and the vacuum permeability are not constants.
    They are properties of the universe and constant in comoving space, therfore measured using shrinking matter the value changes.

    Speed of light has unites m/s & vacuum permeability has units H/m, so the measured values change in oposite directions so is a constant.

    But in the Ryderg constant in SI units is compoud constant that seems to work out to be a constant in local space.
    Si in everything is a constant other than c.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    No!
    As matter shrinking the speed of light we measure using instruments made of atoms increases in value!
    In this model the speed of light is constant only in comoving space not in local space.
    Right. So, that means, as matter shrinks, speed of light increases, thus atomic energy levels increase. Total number n of permissible levels remains.
    So...where does the extra energy come from ? In the universe as a whole, as well as in an atom taken in isolation, total energy must be conserved. Please explain.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 3rd, 2012 at 12:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    1. The universe is of finite size and static, as proposed by you
    2. Matter shrinks, means it was larger in the past
    3. So there must have been a point in the past when a single particle filled the entire universe ??

    There is no generic shrinking-matter answer for your question #3, but in my own model the answer is yes. Like the BB model, there accordingly was just one beginning entity. But this version of shrinking-matter requires the creation of new matter from the discarded particulates of shrinking matter. This model also is a type of steady-state model concerning a constant density of the universe in all time frames. As you could image there are many other possible shrinking-matter versions.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 3rd, 2012 at 06:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    No!
    As matter shrinking the speed of light we measure using instruments made of atoms increases in value!
    In this model the speed of light is constant only in comoving space not in local space.
    Right. So, that means, as matter shrinks, speed of light increases, thus atomic energy levels increase. Total number n of permissible levels remains.
    So...where does the extra energy come from ? In the universe as a whole, as well as in an atom taken in isolation, total energy must be conserved. Please explain.
    What extra energy?
    It is only the value measured using a shrinking coord system that changes.

    In the is model comoving space is the natural coord system of the universe.
    In comoving space the speed of light is absolute & constant.
    Therefore E = mc2 does not change.
    Conservation of momentum works in comoving space.
    So the energy of an object subject to zero force is a constant E = 1/2mV2

    In local space object speed up as space expands.
    As mattter shrinks it emits hotter photons.
    etc. etc.
    A nuclear reactor emits more energy, but everything else made of matter is doing the same.
    Its all relative.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    No!
    As matter shrinking the speed of light we measure using instruments made of atoms increases in value!
    In this model the speed of light is constant only in comoving space not in local space.
    Right. So, that means, as matter shrinks, speed of light increases, thus atomic energy levels increase. Total number n of permissible levels remains.
    So...where does the extra energy come from ? In the universe as a whole, as well as in an atom taken in isolation, total energy must be conserved. Please explain.
    What extra energy?
    It is only the value measured using a shrinking coord system that changes.

    In the is model comoving space is the natural coord system of the universe.
    In comoving space the speed of light is absolute & constant.
    Therefore E = mc2 does not change.
    Conservation of momentum works in comoving space.
    So the energy of an object subject to zero force is a constant E = 1/2mV2

    In local space object speed up as space expands.
    As mattter shrinks it emits hotter photons.
    etc. etc.
    A nuclear reactor emits more energy, but everything else made of matter is doing the same.
    Its all relative.
    Yes, but what I actually meant is the atomic energy levels from post 139. In that relation, you said (quote) "everything is a constant other than c". Thus, as c changes from the matter point of view, so do the energy levels E. So, when c increases, the energy level values increase also ( that's the reason for the shift in light frequency, isn't it ?? ). So, where does that extra energy come from which blue-shifts the emitted photons ? Remember : blueshift = extra energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Opps sorry yes

    Those energy levels are the energy required to raise an electron to an excited state and then the energy of the photon released when drops back.
    So do not represent stored energy.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Opps sorry yes

    Those energy levels are the energy required to raise an electron to an excited state and then the energy of the photon released when drops back.
    So do not represent stored energy.
    That's not really an answer to my question. A photon emitted at a higher frequency ( blue shifted ) carries more energy. Since you propose that this blueshift happens at the time of emission, than this extra energy must be coming from somewhere ?
    My point is simply this - as matter shrinks you propose that it emits photons at a higher frequency as in the past, thus we observe redshift in far away objects. Now, blue shifting requires more energetic photons. Where does the extra energy come from ? I am seeing a potential violation of the principle of energy conservation here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Opps sorry yes

    Those energy levels are the energy required to raise an electron to an excited state and then the energy of the photon released when drops back.
    So do not represent stored energy.
    That's not really an answer to my question. A photon emitted at a higher frequency ( blue shifted ) carries more energy. Since you propose that this blueshift happens at the time of emission, than this extra energy must be coming from somewhere ?
    My point is simply this - as matter shrinks you propose that it emits photons at a higher frequency as in the past, thus we observe redshift in far away objects. Now, blue shifting requires more energetic photons. Where does the extra energy come from ? I am seeing a potential violation of the principle of energy conservation here.
    As I was saying conservation of energy works in comoving space.
    In comoving space as matter shrinks the electron in atoms are moving nearer the nucleus releasing energy.
    Matter is getting denser and hotter.

    What?????
    Nothing is redshifted or blue shifted.

    Larger atoms in the past emit longer wavelength light.
    Space is not expanding so there is no cosmic redshift.
    Photon travel through space for billions of years and arrive with the same energy / wavelength they were created.

    But matter isshrinking while they were in flight.

    Energy is conserved.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Nothing is redshifted or blue shifted.

    Larger atoms in the past emit longer wavelength light.
    You are contradicting yourself - see above quote.
    Today's photons are blue shifted as compared to photons emitted a long time ago. Thus there is a difference in energy between photons emitted today, and photons emitted in the past. Is this not your proposed mechanism for the observed redshift of far away objects ?
    All I want to know is where the extra energy comes from.
    Shorter wavelength = more energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Nothing is redshifted or blue shifted.

    Larger atoms in the past emit longer wavelength light.
    You are contradicting yourself - see above quote.
    Today's photons are blue shifted as compared to photons emitted a long time ago. Thus there is a difference in energy between photons emitted today, and photons emitted in the past. Is this not your proposed mechanism for the observed redshift of far away objects ?
    All I want to know is where the extra energy comes from.
    Shorter wavelength = more energy.
    No I am not that statement if fine.
    Photons in the past were emitted with a longer wavelength, (redder)
    Modern photon are emitted with a shorter wavelength (bluer)

    No photons are redshifted or blue shifted, their energy from time of creation the time they are absorbed is constant and so is their colour!
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    No I am not that statement if fine.
    Photons in the past were emitted with a longer wavelength, (redder)
    Modern photon are emitted with a shorter wavelength (bluer)

    No photons are redshifted or blue shifted, their energy from time of creation the time they are absorbed is constant and so is their colour!
    Yes, I understand that, but that wasn't my issue.
    My issue is that today they are more energetic than in the past ( as you have said above ), so I need to know where the extra energy comes from which photons carry today as compared to some time in the past ?
    Take a stable atom of some type, lets call it atom A. At some point it emits a photon of energy E1. Now time goes by, and say, 1000 years later, that very same atom A emits another photon with energy E2. Under your model, because time has passed, the atom will be slightly smaller, thus the emitted photon will be slightly bluer, thus : E2 > E1. All I want to know is where the extra energy E2-E1 comes from.
    I understand that, once emitted, the photon's energy remains constant, but that wasn't my issue.

    In comoving space as matter shrinks the electron in atoms are moving nearer the nucleus releasing energy
    Why would the electron move closer to the nucleus ?? Both masses and electric charges do not change, so why would it move closer ? And even if it did, all that would happen is that its kinetic energy increases and it orbits faster. There is no photon emission unless it was first brought to an excitation state.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 5th, 2012 at 07:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Matter is getting denser and hotter.
    Wait just a minute now. Are you meaning to imply that ( T = Temperature )



    and thus ( S = Entropy )



    and therefore



    which is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Matter is getting denser and hotter.
    Wait just a minute now. Are you meaning to imply that ( T = Temperature )



    and thus ( S = Entropy )



    and therefore



    which is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics ?!
    You are forgetting the energy inputs from fusion in stars etc.
    Shrinking denser hotter stars outputting more energy.
    Atoms in stars radiating hotter photons at a higher rate.

    The large-scale structure of the universe is collapsing under gravity heating the intergalactic medium to a million degrees.

    The main thrust of the argument is our laws of phyics are based on observing/measuring atoms using tools made of atoms.
    This creates a circular argument that shows in our laws of physics.
    A machine or instrument made of atoms that measures the size of the atom will always say the atom is the size of the atom so constant.

    The idea is this model is not perfect, but the challenges remaining to be solved are of a similar magnitude to those in standard cosmology.
    Remember in standard cosmology photons lose energy and momentum while traveling through expanding space, but distant receding objects are stationary in their own local space so energy & momentum of matter is ok.

    As I said in previous post there are issue's Plank's constant in this model, if you try and use it to explain matter shrinking.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Matter is getting denser and hotter.
    Wait just a minute now. Are you meaning to imply that ( T = Temperature )



    and thus ( S = Entropy )



    and therefore



    which is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics ?!
    You are forgetting the energy inputs from fusion in stars etc.
    Shrinking denser hotter stars outputting more energy.
    Atoms in stars radiating hotter photons at a higher rate.

    The large-scale structure of the universe is collapsing under gravity heating the intergalactic medium to a million degrees.

    The main thrust of the argument is our laws of phyics are based on observing/measuring atoms using tools made of atoms.
    This creates a circular argument that shows in our laws of physics.
    A machine or instrument made of atoms that measures the size of the atom will always say the atom is the size of the atom so constant.

    The idea is this model is not perfect, but the challenges remaining to be solved are of a similar magnitude to those in standard cosmology.
    Remember in standard cosmology photons lose energy and momentum while traveling through expanding space, but distant receding objects are stationary in their own local space so energy & momentum of matter is ok.

    As I said in previous post there are issue's Plank's constant in this model, if you try and use it to explain matter shrinking.
    Sorry, I think I didn't make my argument clear enough - my fault.
    I was actually referring to the entropy of the universe as a whole, which for now can be regarded as a closed, isolated system.
    So, if you are saying that the average temperature of the universe increases ( which would be the case if matter gets hotter and denser over time ), then your model is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
    Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with measurements based on matter size.
    I don't know about you, but I would regard that as pretty much a fatal flaw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;306349][QUOTE=PetTastic;306252]
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Matter is getting denser and hotter.

    ----

    You are forgetting the energy inputs from fusion in stars etc.
    Shrinking denser hotter stars outputting more energy.
    Atoms in stars radiating hotter photons at a higher rate.

    The large-scale structure of the universe is collapsing under gravity heating the intergalactic medium to a million degrees.

    The main thrust of the argument is our laws of phyics are based on observing/measuring atoms using tools made of atoms.
    This creates a circular argument that shows in our laws of physics.
    A machine or instrument made of atoms that measures the size of the atom will always say the atom is the size of the atom so constant.

    The idea is this model is not perfect, but the challenges remaining to be solved are of a similar magnitude to those in standard cosmology.
    Remember in standard cosmology photons lose energy and momentum while traveling through expanding space, but distant receding objects are stationary in their own local space so energy & momentum of matter is ok.

    As I said in previous post there are issue's Plank's constant in this model, if you try and use it to explain matter shrinking.
    Sorry, I think I didn't make my argument clear enough - my fault.
    I was actually referring to the entropy of the universe as a whole, which for now can be regarded as a closed, isolated system.
    So, if you are saying that the average temperature of the universe increases ( which would be the case if matter gets hotter and denser over time ), then your model is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
    Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with measurements based on matter size.
    I don't know about you, but I would regard that as pretty much a fatal flaw.

    I think you are showing a fatal flaw in your understanding of entropy

    Consider a fixed volume of space containing a cloud of cold gas.
    Average temperature of matter in the system is very low.
    Average wavelength of light emitted very long.

    The volume of the system stays the same but inside it, the gas cloud condenses under gravity into stars.
    The average temperature of matter in the system is now very high.
    Average wavelength of light emitted now very short.

    The laws of thermodynamics predict this. It would be breaking the laws of physics if it did not happen.

    Now repeat this over the entire volume of a fixed size universe.

    Universe starts cold matter evenly distributed ....

    If you want of think about tricky issues with entropy, consider the bigbang, inflation starting and inflation suddenly stopping.

    Don't get me wrong in my personal view. I am still 40% standard cosmology, 30% I do not know what the hell is going on, and 30% this matter shrinking idea preidicts galaxy rotation etc and is very hard to break.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Freshman MrStupid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Don't get me wrong in my personal view. I am still 40% standard cosmology, 30% I do not know what the hell is going on, and 30% this matter shrinking idea preidicts galaxy rotation etc and is very hard to break.
    You are on the right track with the idea of shrinking matter. What you need to do is connect it up with relativity and gravitation.

    GR took a wrong turn because of the difficulty of the math involved. Einstein went to Hilbert and Levi-Civita for help, who had off-the-shelf software to solve the problem, the theory of Riemannian manifolds (non-Euclidean geometry). They had to tweak it a little to permit the use of the pseudometric tensor g, giving them a theory that gave the right results, but which used more sophisticated methods than necessary.

    Had they simply used the existing Newtonian model (absolute space with time flowing uniformly over it), instead of arriving at a theory in which space and time are entangled, with space expanding to permit objects to retain the same size as they move through different levels of gravitational potential, they would have had a theory in which matter expands or contracts, depending on gravitational potential, within an absolute space.

    The advantage of the matter expanding/contracting model is that it requires only a single scalar field, s, to contain all the information for which GR uses a 4x4 tensor, the aforesaid g. In GR, on top of g, the Ricci tensor Rab is constructed and the vacuum equation Rab = 0 is arrived at. This is the equation for a static equilibrium in the gravitational field, such as surrounds an isolated planet, for example. Rab is itself typically expressed as a complicated formula involving products and derivatives of Christoffel symbols, which are themselves expressions referencing g and its partial derivatives.

    The scalar field, s, represents (coincidentally, incidentally) the "scale" of matter, which is so much expanded or contracted relative to matter at a standard scale. For example, the scale in Hyde Park, London, this morning, could be defined to be 1. The scale increases as you ascend radially into space from Hyde Park. On the contrary, as a rigid object gets sucked into a black hole its scale falls indefinitely, but never reaches zero.

    In terms of the scalar scale field, the equilibrium solution at a point is particularly simple, s = dR/dr = (r/R)2, where r is the curvature of the isoscale surface through the point as "seen" by an observer at the standard scale and R is the curvature as seen by an observer at the point. This leads to the solution R = (r3 + a3)1/3 for an isolated planet, consistent with the Schwarzschild solution in GR, where a is proportional to the planet's mass. (I must point out that there is a simple relationship between scale and potential that eliminates the need for potential as a separate concept.)

    For those of you who don't know how GR is typically applied, let me explain some knowledge I arrived at by painfully looking at some papers in this area, notably Schwarzschild's. The researcher has a problem that he wants to solve for a practical situation. He goes to the GR equations and laboriously translates them into a Euclidean coordinate space and time that underlies the "curved spacetime" of GR. He then simplifies these to the point where he has something he can use computationally. Using a scale field and expressing equations in terms of it has the advantage of cutting out the middleman, the GR tensor equations, and at the same time enabling everything to be understood in a simpler and highly visualizable way.

    Now, let us consider the possible implications of this for the Big Bang.

    Instead of the Big Bang beginning as a point, imagine it beginning as an infinite Euclidean space in which matter is found everywhere in a roughly homogenous manner, but structured much like our space is structured in a hierarchy of matter groupings and voids of varying but comparable sizes, but WITHOUT gravity. Imagine then what would happen if gravity were suddenly TURNED ON. Gravitational waves would spread out from every atom at the speed of light (as measured locally) raising the scale (potential) everywhere it goes, shrinking matter, or, from the opposite point of view, expanding space. However, at any single material body, the gravitational waves arriving are always increasing, being drawn from all bodies within a range that increases as waves from ever more distant bodies arrive. There is a lot of math here that I have not done, but it seems possible that both inflation and accelerating inflation might be consequences of such a model.

    Another way to get inflation and accelerating inflation would be if our known universe is falling into a black hole of radius vastly greater than that of the known universe.

    All this IMHO.

    What has really stimulated me about your posts is the possibility that the rotational speeds of galaxies can be explained also by relativity. I've assumed that this was not a consequence of matter-shrinking relativity because, if it were, the GR guys should have been able to figure that out. The theories are practically the same, just expressed differently. But maybe they are being held back by the greater complexity of working within the curved spacetime paradigm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    I think you are showing a fatal flaw in your understanding of entropy
    Yikes ! I'm hurt

    Consider a fixed volume of space containing a cloud of cold gas.
    Average temperature of matter in the system is very low.
    Average wavelength of light emitted very long.

    The volume of the system stays the same but inside it, the gas cloud condenses under gravity into stars.
    The average temperature of matter in the system is now very high.
    Average wavelength of light emitted now very short.
    Precisely my point. We are talking about the universe as a whole, and the average temperature inside it.
    In your model, because the universe is of fixed size, the average temperature increases due to matter shrinkage and "bluer" photons, thus the entropy decreases, which is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    I am not talking about local phenomena like individual stars or galaxies, this is a global argument.

    In standard cosmology, the universe started off very hot immediately after the Big Bang. The universe then expanded ( no fixed volume here ! ), and the average temperature decreased. Thus entropy increased, and the 2nd law is preserved.
    Note here we are saying average temperature across the universe as a whole.

    Universe starts cold matter evenly distributed ....
    Yes, in your model...and that's the problem, because then as matter shrinks the average temperature increases because the total volume of the universe is constant. There is your violation of the second law.

    Fatal flaw in my understand of entropy ? I think not.
    I am awaiting your explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by MrStupid View Post

    The researcher has a problem that he wants to solve for a practical situation. He goes to the GR equations and laboriously translates them into a Euclidean coordinate space and time that underlies the "curved spacetime" of GR. He then simplifies these to the point where he has something he can use computationally.
    Basically word salad, nothing "underlies curved space-time"; but if your point is that GR is much more difficult mathematically than Newton's theory, then you of course you are right. So why bother ? Simple : there are certain phenomena that aren't explainable in terms of Newton, like e.g. the Mercury orbital precession, the Eotvos torsion balance experiments, light bending around massive objects etc etc etc. There is actually quite a list of them. Newton's theory follows from GR in the weak field approximation, but cannot explain these well observed and documented phenomena, which is why Einstein was looking for a more complete theory. It just happened to take him down the route of differential geometry, which, by the way, was developed long before Einstein. He just put the mathematical formalism to good use in his theory.
    Sometimes you just have to put in some extra effort to get the right results; only because you don't like that doesn't mean GR is wrong or useless.

    which used more sophisticated methods than necessary
    No, it used exactly what is required to make the formalism complete and consistent. Since all forms of energy, including gravity itself, is a source of gravitational field, the resulting field equations are of necessity highly non-linear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by MrStupid View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Don't get me wrong in my personal view. I am still 40% standard cosmology, 30% I do not know what the hell is going on, and 30% this matter shrinking idea preidicts galaxy rotation etc and is very hard to break.
    You are on the right track with the idea of shrinking matter. What you need to do is connect it up with relativity and gravitation.

    GR took a wrong turn because of the difficulty of the math involved. Einstein went to Hilbert and Levi-Civita for help, who had off-the-shelf software to solve the problem, the theory of Riemannian manifolds (non-Euclidean geometry). They had to tweak it a little to permit the use of the pseudometric tensor g, giving them a theory that gave the right results, but which used more sophisticated methods than necessary.

    Had they simply used the existing Newtonian model (absolute space with time flowing uniformly over it), instead of arriving at a theory in which space and time are entangled, with space expanding to permit objects to retain the same size as they move through different levels of gravitational potential, they would have had a theory in which matter expands or contracts, depending on gravitational potential, within an absolute space.

    The advantage of the matter expanding/contracting model is that it requires only a single scalar field, s, to contain all the information for which GR uses a 4x4 tensor, the aforesaid g. In GR, on top of g, the Ricci tensor Rab is constructed and the vacuum equation Rab = 0 is arrived at. This is the equation for a static equilibrium in the gravitational field, such as surrounds an isolated planet, for example. Rab is itself typically expressed as a complicated formula involving products and derivatives of Christoffel symbols, which are themselves expressions referencing g and its partial derivatives.

    The scalar field, s, represents (coincidentally, incidentally) the "scale" of matter, which is so much expanded or contracted relative to matter at a standard scale. For example, the scale in Hyde Park, London, this morning, could be defined to be 1. The scale increases as you ascend radially into space from Hyde Park. On the contrary, as a rigid object gets sucked into a black hole its scale falls indefinitely, but never reaches zero.

    In terms of the scalar scale field, the equilibrium solution at a point is particularly simple, s = dR/dr = (r/R)2, where r is the curvature of the isoscale surface through the point as "seen" by an observer at the standard scale and R is the curvature as seen by an observer at the point. This leads to the solution R = (r3 + a3)1/3 for an isolated planet, consistent with the Schwarzschild solution in GR, where a is proportional to the planet's mass. (I must point out that there is a simple relationship between scale and potential that eliminates the need for potential as a separate concept.)

    For those of you who don't know how GR is typically applied, let me explain some knowledge I arrived at by painfully looking at some papers in this area, notably Schwarzschild's. The researcher has a problem that he wants to solve for a practical situation. He goes to the GR equations and laboriously translates them into a Euclidean coordinate space and time that underlies the "curved spacetime" of GR. He then simplifies these to the point where he has something he can use computationally. Using a scale field and expressing equations in terms of it has the advantage of cutting out the middleman, the GR tensor equations, and at the same time enabling everything to be understood in a simpler and highly visualizable way.

    Now, let us consider the possible implications of this for the Big Bang.

    Instead of the Big Bang beginning as a point, imagine it beginning as an infinite Euclidean space in which matter is found everywhere in a roughly homogenous manner, but structured much like our space is structured in a hierarchy of matter groupings and voids of varying but comparable sizes, but WITHOUT gravity. Imagine then what would happen if gravity were suddenly TURNED ON. Gravitational waves would spread out from every atom at the speed of light (as measured locally) raising the scale (potential) everywhere it goes, shrinking matter, or, from the opposite point of view, expanding space. However, at any single material body, the gravitational waves arriving are always increasing, being drawn from all bodies within a range that increases as waves from ever more distant bodies arrive. There is a lot of math here that I have not done, but it seems possible that both inflation and accelerating inflation might be consequences of such a model.

    Another way to get inflation and accelerating inflation would be if our known universe is falling into a black hole of radius vastly greater than that of the known universe.

    All this IMHO.

    What has really stimulated me about your posts is the possibility that the rotational speeds of galaxies can be explained also by relativity. I've assumed that this was not a consequence of matter-shrinking relativity because, if it were, the GR guys should have been able to figure that out. The theories are practically the same, just expressed differently. But maybe they are being held back by the greater complexity of working within the curved spacetime paradigm.
    MrStupid, I suggest you open a new thread to discuss this. General Relativity isn't really the main point of this thread, this is about the "Shrinking Matter" model, which is not necessarily incompatible with GR as such. You however seem to imply that GR as a theory is wrong, and I am sure many members of this forum, including myself, will have a thing or two to say about that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman MrStupid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrStupid View Post

    The researcher has a problem that he wants to solve for a practical situation. He goes to the GR equations and laboriously translates them into a Euclidean coordinate space and time that underlies the "curved spacetime" of GR. He then simplifies these to the point where he has something he can use computationally.
    Basically word salad, nothing "underlies curved space-time"; but if your point is that GR is much more difficult mathematically than Newton's theory, then you of course you are right. So why bother ? Simple : there are certain phenomena that aren't explainable in terms of Newton, like e.g. the Mercury orbital precession, the Eotvos torsion balance experiments, light bending around massive objects etc etc etc. There is actually quite a list of them. Newton's theory follows from GR in the weak field approximation, but cannot explain these well observed and documented phenomena, which is why Einstein was looking for a more complete theory. It just happened to take him down the route of differential geometry, which, by the way, was developed long before Einstein. He just put the mathematical formalism to good use in his theory.
    Sometimes you just have to put in some extra effort to get the right results; only because you don't like that doesn't mean GR is wrong or useless.

    which used more sophisticated methods than necessary
    No, it used exactly what is required to make the formalism complete and consistent. Since all forms of energy, including gravity itself, is a source of gravitational field, the resulting field equations are of necessity highly non-linear.

    Here is a link to Schwarzschild's paper. http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresource...warzschild.pdf (I am not sj crothers, incidentally).
    Notice how he expresses the problem in terms of underlying rectangular coordinates x1, x2, x3, and "time" coordinate x4. He then translates these into underlying polar coordinates, etc., where he can find an exact solution more easily. In more modern papers, underlying coordinates are usually referred to as spacelike or timelike rather than as space and time. Such coordinates are not strictly necessary, but are very commonly used in physics, where real problems have to be solved.

    My point about GR is not that it is more complex than Newton's theory of gravitation. My point is that they didn't take the simplest approach in dealing with the problem because they saw that they could solve it within the usual Riemannian geometry framework, replacing metric with pseudometric. Obvious approaches, even though they frequently work, are not always the simplest.

    Nor am I proposing using a theory that doesn't work, Newton's theory of gravitation. I am only proposing using a field theory on ordinary space AND time (also known as Newtonian space and time), that uses the concept of scale rather than spacetime curvature. You could interpret this as another way of specifying the "geometry" of spacetime, specialized to take advantage of the unique characteristics required by relativity, but it is simpler just to view it as determining the scale of matter within a Newtonian space and time, which is just the notion of space and time that is used almost everywhere else in physics. I even gave the equation for equilibrium, which is quite obviously not Newtonian, where you would never find a term like (r3 + a3)1/3.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Freshman MrStupid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    MrStupid, I suggest you open a new thread to discuss this. General Relativity isn't really the main point of this thread, this is about the "Shrinking Matter" model, which is not necessarily incompatible with GR as such. You however seem to imply that GR as a theory is wrong, and I am sure many members of this forum, including myself, will have a thing or two to say about that.
    I don't think GR is wrong. It is just unnecessarily complicated. Research took a wrong turn with it when they came up with a theory that is right (works) but not simplest.

    I posted in this forum, because I'm primarily interested in PetTastic's shrinking matter idea in cosmology. I think what he needs to do is connect it up with relativity and gravitation, where a shrinking matter approach is also possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    I think you are showing a fatal flaw in your understanding of entropy
    Yikes ! I'm hurt

    Consider a fixed volume of space containing a cloud of cold gas.
    Average temperature of matter in the system is very low.
    Average wavelength of light emitted very long.

    The volume of the system stays the same but inside it, the gas cloud condenses under gravity into stars.
    The average temperature of matter in the system is now very high.
    Average wavelength of light emitted now very short.
    Precisely my point. We are talking about the universe as a whole, and the average temperature inside it.
    In your model, because the universe is of fixed size, the average temperature increases due to matter shrinkage and "bluer" photons, thus the entropy decreases, which is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    I am not talking about local phenomena like individual stars or galaxies, this is a global argument.

    In standard cosmology, the universe started off very hot immediately after the Big Bang. The universe then expanded ( no fixed volume here ! ), and the average temperature decreased. Thus entropy increased, and the 2nd law is preserved.
    Note here we are saying average temperature across the universe as a whole.

    Universe starts cold matter evenly distributed ....
    Yes, in your model...and that's the problem, because then as matter shrinks the average temperature increases because the total volume of the universe is constant. There is your violation of the second law.

    Fatal flaw in my understand of entropy ? I think not.
    I am awaiting your explanation.
    But the first part of my example is normal cosmology, clouds condensing into stars. We can see it happening around us.

    I think you are confusing the volume of the system with the volume of the working medium.
    The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.

    In this case, we are dealing with thousands of cubic light-years of low pressure gas being crushed down by gravity into stars only a few cubic light seconds in volume.
    The volume of the box around the stars/cloud stays constant, but the gas has been compressed by a factor of 1:1025.
    As nearly all the matter in the system is now in the star, the average temp of the system is hotter.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    But the first part of my example is normal cosmology, clouds condensing into stars. We can see it happening around us.

    I think you are confusing the volume of the system with the volume of the working medium.
    The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.

    In this case, we are dealing with thousands of cubic light-years of low pressure gas being crushed down by gravity into stars only a few cubic light seconds in volume.
    The volume of the box around the stars/cloud stays constant, but the gas has been compressed by a factor of 1:1025.
    As nearly all the matter in the system is now in the star, the average temp of the system is hotter.
    Right, I try this again. Must be a failure on my side in not being able to properly explain my argument.
    Firstly, I never doubted the validity of any of the above. Yes, matter does condense into stars, which then age and die and cool off again. So what ? That is a local phenomenon, whereas my argument deals with the entire universe, and statistical averages. I think I had made that sufficiently clear in previous posts. Entropy is a statistical measure.

    Standard cosmology : universe is born very hot and dense. Space-time then expands, the average temperature of the universe drops, entropy increases. Universe is now much cooler than at its beginning. Locally stars form, but they also die again, and as the universe keeps expanding matter density decreases and fewer and fewer stars are born until eventually the universe will be cold and dead. Entropy thus keeps increasing. Second law of thermodynamics is preserved.
    Shrinking matter : universe was always of the same size. Matter was bigger, cooler and less dense in the distant past. As time passes, matter shrinks, gets denser and hotter, and more energetic photons are emitted (as per your own assertion). Universe is static and closed, so average temperature of universe increases as matter shrinks. Entropy decreases. Second law is violated, since matter continues to shrink and average temperature never returns to previous levels.
    This is based on your very own statement that

    Matter is getting denser and hotter.
    That's it. I don't know what you mean by volume of system and working medium etc - we are talking average temperature across all of the universe, and its total size. I am assuming that matter is distributed throughout the universe ( not necessarily evenly ), meaning there are no large completely empty areas of the universe, so volume of system and volume of working medium are the same here.

    The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.
    Actually this is incorrect also. The volume of the medium does change, but it does so in cyclic fashion, meaning the volume eventually returns to its starting value, only to start the cycle again. So even for the engine, if we take the statistical average over many cycles the volume of the medium does not change. In your model that is not the case - matter just keeps shrinking and shrinking, and the universe gets hotter and hotter. Thus the 2nd law is violated.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 6th, 2012 at 11:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by MrStupid View Post
    I am only proposing using a field theory on ordinary space AND time (also known as Newtonian space and time), that uses the concept of scale rather than spacetime curvature.
    Fair enough, sounds interesting. Will you show me the maths please ? I am curious to see your alternative way, and check whether it can make the same predictions as GR.
    So please write down your field equations and we'll take it from there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    But the first part of my example is normal cosmology, clouds condensing into stars. We can see it happening around us.

    I think you are confusing the volume of the system with the volume of the working medium.
    The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.

    In this case, we are dealing with thousands of cubic light-years of low pressure gas being crushed down by gravity into stars only a few cubic light seconds in volume.
    The volume of the box around the stars/cloud stays constant, but the gas has been compressed by a factor of 1:1025.
    As nearly all the matter in the system is now in the star, the average temp of the system is hotter.
    Right, I try this again. Must be a failure on my side in not being able to properly explain my argument.
    Firstly, I never doubted the validity of any of the above. Yes, matter does condense into stars, which then age and die and cool off again. So what ? That is a local phenomenon, whereas my argument deals with the entire universe, and statistical averages. I think I had made that sufficiently clear in previous posts. Entropy is a statistical measure.

    Standard cosmology : universe is born very hot and dense. Space-time then expands, the average temperature of the universe drops, entropy increases. Universe is now much cooler than at its beginning. Locally stars form, but they also die again, and as the universe keeps expanding matter density decreases and fewer and fewer stars are born until eventually the universe will be cold and dead. Entropy thus keeps increasing. Second law of thermodynamics is preserved.
    Shrinking matter : universe was always of the same size. Matter was bigger, cooler and less dense in the distant past. As time passes, matter shrinks, gets denser and hotter, and more energetic photons are emitted (as per your own assertion). Universe is static and closed, so average temperature of universe increases as matter shrinks. Entropy decreases. Second law is violated, since matter continues to shrink and average temperature never returns to previous levels.
    This is based on your very own statement that

    Matter is getting denser and hotter.
    That's it. I don't know what you mean by volume of system and working medium etc - we are talking average temperature across all of the universe, and its total size. I am assuming that matter is distributed throughout the universe ( not necessarily evenly ), meaning there are no large completely empty areas of the universe, so volume of system and volume of working medium are the same here.

    The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.
    Actually this is incorrect also. The volume of the medium does change, but it does so in cyclic fashion, meaning the volume eventually returns to its starting value, only to start the cycle again. So even for the engine, if we take the statistical average over many cycles the volume of the medium does not change. In your model that is not the case - matter just keeps shrinking and shrinking, and the universe gets hotter and hotter. Thus the 2nd law is violated.

    You are badly bending the laws of themodymamics

    Consider (again)
    A big box containing a cloud of hydrogen in a vacuum, with the box bigger than the cloud.

    Cloud collapses under gravity and gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)

    Cloud is only thing in box so whole system gets hotter.

    If this box is the universe how does its size effect the average temperature of the cloud
    The number of atoms inside it is constant so how does the size of the box matter, as long as it is always bigger than the cloud

    How are you calculating this magic average of yours
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by MrStupid View Post
    (I am not sj crothers, incidentally)
    Wow, it is a while since I last heard that name, and I hope I never hear it again!
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Hi MrStupid

    Interesting thoughts, thanks.

    My concern is I am swapping one cosmology for another model that just has different problems.
    The simple matter shrinking at 6% every billion years is a great match to stuff you see with a telescope, but to make a universe you also need the subatomic.

    This model predicts the illusion of dark energy but then cannot explain why matter is shrinking.

    One route I looked at recently is to add another dimension string theroy style, and then slowly rotate one of the constants of the universe into the extra dimension.
    This gives a similar curve to the 6% exponential decay model, and the extra dimension looks a bit like energy density. (if you squint)
    However, it still solved nothing in the end.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    You are badly bending the laws of themodymamics
    Am I ? Somehow my assertion of the universe's entropy increasing, as well as this having to be the case to fulfill the 2nd law appears to be in agreements with textbook definitions :

    Entropy (arrow of time) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cloud collapses under gravity and gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)

    Cloud is only thing in box so whole system gets hotter.
    Yes, but at the same time the box undergoes metric expansion, thus density of matter decreases ( galaxies etc are further apart ). Less gravity acting on each particle, total energy available for work is reduced, thus entropy increases. This, however, is not the case in your model as your universe is static. That's precisely my point. The entropy in your universe actually increases.

    If this box is the universe how does its size effect the average temperature of the cloud
    The number of atoms inside it is constant so how does the size of the box matter, as long as it is always bigger than the cloud
    You give the answer yourself above when you say (quote) "gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)". Same works in reverse :

    In standard cosmology : Because the pressure & density decreases. As the universe expands ( remember this is a metric expansion, meaning the distance between any two points within the volume increases ), the interstellar gas gets stretched out (less dense), reducing the gravitational attraction between the individual particles, making it harder and harder for things like stars to form. Net temperature drops. All explained here :

    Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In your model : I don't know, you explain to me what happens. It is you who said that matter gets denser and hotter, not sure why. I'm only quoting your words. If all matter gets denser and hotter, and the size of the universe remains, that would mean that the total temperature of your universe (and thus entropy) increases, doesn't it, since volume and number of atoms remains the same ??

    My argument is simply that in your model the universe's temperature increases, because you yourself said so. If I'm understanding this wrong, then please explain it to me.
    As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, my understanding that total entropy must increase in a closed system is accurate so far as I am concerned, and what happens in standard cosmology is in accordance to this so long as metric expansion takes place continuously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering. We are arguing over entropy of the universe etc etc, but are still missing an explanation of the basic process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering.
    There is no answer to this question in generic shrinking-matter models as to why matter would shrink. I am not aware of any other explanation than my own version/ theory/ model of shrinking matter. In my model of shrinking matter the particulates that make up matter must unwind as evidenced by fermion and atomic spin. In this model spin is real, not just a type of unexplainable angular momentum as in the standard model. As these particles accordingly spin they are also unwinding and concurrently rewinding. By this process the constituent particles that make up matter become smaller over time but greater in number so that the density of the universe would remain the same over all time frames. New matter is accordingly created over great periods of time, from the discarded particulates of matter. By this process matter must spin to exist, and therefore by unwinding must also become smaller to exist. This gets back to one beginning starting entity as you mentioned, your observation #3 in your posting #120.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 7th, 2012 at 12:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post

    You are badly bending the laws of themodymamics
    Am I ? Somehow my assertion of the universe's entropy increasing, as well as this having to be the case to fulfill the 2nd law appears to be in agreements with textbook definitions :

    Entropy (arrow of time) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cloud collapses under gravity and gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)

    Cloud is only thing in box so whole system gets hotter.
    Yes, but at the same time the box undergoes metric expansion, thus density of matter decreases ( galaxies etc are further apart ). Less gravity acting on each particle, total energy available for work is reduced, thus entropy increases. This, however, is not the case in your model as your universe is static. That's precisely my point. The entropy in your universe actually increases.

    If this box is the universe how does its size effect the average temperature of the cloud
    The number of atoms inside it is constant so how does the size of the box matter, as long as it is always bigger than the cloud
    You give the answer yourself above when you say (quote) "gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)". Same works in reverse :

    In standard cosmology : Because the pressure & density decreases. As the universe expands ( remember this is a metric expansion, meaning the distance between any two points within the volume increases ), the interstellar gas gets stretched out (less dense), reducing the gravitational attraction between the individual particles, making it harder and harder for things like stars to form. Net temperature drops. All explained here :

    Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In your model : I don't know, you explain to me what happens. It is you who said that matter gets denser and hotter, not sure why. I'm only quoting your words. If all matter gets denser and hotter, and the size of the universe remains, that would mean that the total temperature of your universe (and thus entropy) increases, doesn't it, since volume and number of atoms remains the same ??

    My argument is simply that in your model the universe's temperature increases, because you yourself said so. If I'm understanding this wrong, then please explain it to me.
    As for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, my understanding that total entropy must increase in a closed system is accurate so far as I am concerned, and what happens in standard cosmology is in accordance to this so long as metric expansion takes place continuously.
    Please stick to less fluffy Wikipedia pages. I suggest: Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I don't understand why it breaks the second law
    From Wikipedia page:
    Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.
    In my model, the universe starts with cold simple matter evenly distributed.
    So gravitational & nuclear potential energy is at maximum.
    Entropy is near zero.

    Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Today, much effort in the field is attempting to understand why the initial conditions early in the universe were those of low entropy,[9][10] as this is seen as the origin of the second law (see below).
    The death of the universe occures when entropy reaches maximum and potential energy reaches zero.

    The cloud is not reversable because hydrogen is not a perfect gas, photons leave the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering. We are arguing over entropy of the universe etc etc, but are still missing an explanation of the basic process.
    I just said that in previous post.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    PetTastic, I must honestly admit that I am now starting to doubt myself, because I am getting really confused. I quote from the Wikipedia page for "Entropy" :

    "Thermodynamic entropy has the dimension of energy divided by temperature, and a unit of joules per kelvin (J/K) in the International System of Units."




    Now, according to this definition, if the temperature T is very low initially (like in your model), does that not mean that the entropy S is very large and not close to zero like you are saying ?? Or in turn, that the temperature must have been high to start with so that the entropy was initially low and then increases, as the 2nd law states ? To my understanding entropy is a measure of the micro states of a system, so a cold gas would have many of these ( you need to specify the states of all atoms to describe it ), and a hot gas would have fewer. Is that not right ?
    If I am totally on the wrong track, and I admit there is a possibility that I am because I never studied thermodynamics, I will be the first to admit it. However, I just fail to see where I am going wrong. Please point me in the right direction here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Please allow me to also quote from the following text

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the universe tends toward high entropy. If so, what happens when there is nothing left to be disordered? How can matter be constant?

    which appears to further support my position that hot = low entropy and cold = high entropy, as is the case for the universe in standard cosmology :

    "It is nearly universally accepted that the universe began in a much more compact and ordered state than it does now. If the Big Bang hypothesis is right then the universe began in a state of zero entropy. We can observe the matter in the universe spreading out and cooling down (i.e. cosmic microwave background) even now. If we apply the second law of thermodynamics to this then we can see that the universe will continue to spread out and become less ordered and if it survives for long enough will eventually end in the 'Heat Death' when all of the matter has reached equilibrium and the entropy is at its highest. There may well be almost infinitesimal fluctuations but other than that the universe as we know it will be dead."

    This is in direct contradiction to your statement that

    In my model, the universe starts with cold simple matter evenly distributed.
    So gravitational & nuclear potential energy is at maximum.
    Entropy is near zero.
    Because your universe starts with cold matter evenly distributed, the entropy is not zero, but actually very high ! Thus, as time goes on and matter shrinks, thus hotting up, your entropy actually decreases, thus violating the 2nd law.
    If this is incorrect, where am I going wrong ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering. We are arguing over entropy of the universe etc etc, but are still missing an explanation of the basic process.
    I have to say I have never before heard of the idea that, in terms of the universe, matter could be shrinking rather than space expanding!
    If no "explanation as to why and how matter would shrink" has been put forward I am amazed this thread has lasted for over 170 replies and almost 2400 views.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering. We are arguing over entropy of the universe etc etc, but are still missing an explanation of the basic process.
    I have to say I have never before heard of the idea that, in terms of the universe, matter could be shrinking rather than space expanding!
    If no "explanation as to why and how matter would shrink" has been put forward I am amazed this thread has lasted for over 170 replies and almost 2400 views.
    In posting #168 I explained one way the diminution of matter mechanics could take place, as to how and why matter could/ would be shrinking. There are many possible versions/ models proposing matter-shrinking, and most of these models seemingly would have a lot in common. My own model of this is a 400 page long book that can be seen online free at pantheory.org. My initial version of shrinking-matter to explain galactic redshifts was proposed more than 50 years ago.

    Realize that there is no consensus among standard theory cosmologists as to how or why the universe or space is expanding, or why this expansion should be accelerating. They used to attribute this expansion cause to the beginning Big Bang but no longer do so. If that is not the explanation then there should be another explanation. There are various hypothesis concerning a cause for expansion but there is no accepted explanation of this. So even though my own shrinking matter model has such an answer/ explanation, it would seem that such an explanation would not be needed to compete with the standard model explanation(s) which do not have an explanation for expanding space.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 7th, 2012 at 12:45 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
    Just wondering. We are arguing over entropy of the universe etc etc, but are still missing an explanation of the basic process.
    I have to say I have never before heard of the idea that, in terms of the universe, matter could be shrinking rather than space expanding!
    If no "explanation as to why and how matter would shrink" has been put forward I am amazed this thread has lasted for over 170 replies and almost 2400 views.
    Why do people read threads on standard cosmology if it can't explain why space is expanding, dark matter or dark energy

    The problem is this model predicts the illusion of all three of the above.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    In the standard cosmology, space is expanding due to the results of the inflationary epoch. Before Guth's inflation, expansion was indeed considered an initial condition with no explanation, but that all changed in the mid 1980's. Inflation is what put the "bang" into Big-Bang theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    In the standard cosmology, space is expanding due to the results of the inflationary epoch. Before Guth's inflation, expansion was indeed considered an initial condition with no explanation, but that all changed in the mid 1980's. Inflation is what put the "bang" into Big-Bang theory.
    Although the Inflation model accordingly proposes to explain the observed even distribution of matter within the observable universe, there is no concensus explanation concerning the cause of Inflation other than the Big Bang itself, or if Inflation is related to the supposed present expansion of the universe. I am fairly certain that there is no consensus opinion that the cause of the supposed expanding space is based upon, or related to the initial Inflation era, even though some have considered this hypothesis. Some other speculations as to the cause of the supposed expansion of space have been gravity, dark energy, the shape of space, a cosmological constant, alternative effects of dark matter, anti-gravity, the energy of gravitons, extra dimensions unraveling, etc.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 7th, 2012 at 04:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    As I understand it, under GR, all you need is an initial condition of expansion for the universe to keep expanding in a way related to its mass/energy density. Inflationary theory provided that initial condition of expansion which GR can describe thereafter. Of course, we have no idea of the cause of inflation, but that is not my point.

    My point is, when you start with an already expanding universe, GR allows that expansion to continue in a way directly related to the contents of the universe. Once the universe is expanding, it remains expanding - either decelerating towards a constant rate, or decelerating towards a halt but never quite reaching it, or reaching a halt and then collapsing again. The parameters involved basically the interactions of mass, energy, momentum and gravity, and the effect they have on cosmological proper distance.

    So, with a shrinking matter model, do we have the same state of affairs? Once objects are shrinking, do they need a mechanism to continue to shrink? What parameters have to interact in order to mediate the rate at which they shrink? Could there have been a mass/energy density where the shrinkage came to a halt and reversed?
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; February 7th, 2012 at 06:12 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    As I understand it, under GR, all you need is an initial condition of expansion for the universe to keep expanding in a way related to its mass/energy density. Inflationary theory provided that initial condition of expansion which GR can describe thereafter. Of course, we have no idea of the cause of inflation, but that is not my point.

    My point is, when you start with an already expanding universe, GR allows that expansion to continue in a way directly related to the contents of the universe. Once the universe is expanding, it remains expanding - either decelerating towards a constant rate, or decelerating towards a halt but never quite reaching it, or reaching a halt and then collapsing again. The parameters involved basically the interactions of mass, energy, momentum and gravity, and the effect they have on cosmological proper distance.
    So, with a shrinking matter model, do we have the same state of affairs? Once objects are shrinking, do they need a mechanism to continue to shrink? What parameters have to interact in order to mediate the rate at which they shrink? Could there have been a mass/energy density where the shrinkage came to a halt and reversed?
    In my own version of this model matter must unwind/ rewind to have existence. This unwinding is accordingly the cause of diminution as evidenced by particle spin. Accordingly the rate of this shrinking/ diminution per unit time would be constant, but time itself was accordingly slower in the past. As matter accordingly gets smaller time gets relatively faster, but this is not a generic part of shrinking-matter models. Although it is now difficult to find details of past shrinking-matter models in cosmology, the most famous was the Hoyle-Narlikar version published in the early 1960's. In this version electrons continuously get closer to the nucleus of atoms thereby atoms become smaller in diameter. In my own version all particles both atomic and otherwise themselves slowly become smaller by a mechanical unwinding mechanism that causes fermions to spin.

    The rate that matter accordingly shrinks is also not a generic aspect of shrinking-matter models either. PetTastic in one or more of his previous postings, has said that for his model he estimated that matter shrinks at a constant rate of about 6% per billion years. My own estimate of this same rate based upon the observed galactic redshifts, is about 12% per billion years.

    PetTastic will probably weigh in on this question
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 8th, 2012 at 12:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    As I understand it, under GR, all you need is an initial condition of expansion for the universe to keep expanding in a way related to its mass/energy density. Inflationary theory provided that initial condition of expansion which GR can describe thereafter. Of course, we have no idea of the cause of inflation, but that is not my point.

    My point is, when you start with an already expanding universe, GR allows that expansion to continue in a way directly related to the contents of the universe. Once the universe is expanding, it remains expanding - either decelerating towards a constant rate, or decelerating towards a halt but never quite reaching it, or reaching a halt and then collapsing again. The parameters involved basically the interactions of mass, energy, momentum and gravity, and the effect they have on cosmological proper distance.

    So, with a shrinking matter model, do we have the same state of affairs? Once objects are shrinking, do they need a mechanism to continue to shrink? What parameters have to interact in order to mediate the rate at which they shrink? Could there have been a mass/energy density where the shrinkage came to a halt and reversed?
    So far as I am concerned, and no evidence to the contrary has as per yet been forthcoming, these matter shrinking in a static universe models violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as demonstrated in posts 170 and 171. Having done further research in the area of thermodynamics I am now pretty much certain that this is indeed the case. Thus I think it is safe to say that these models are not viable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    -----
    So far as I am concerned, and no evidence to the contrary has as per yet been forthcoming, these matter shrinking in a static universe models violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics as demonstrated in posts 170 and 171. Having done further research in the area of thermodynamics I am now pretty much certain that this is indeed the case. Thus I think it is safe to say that these models are not viable.
    These are the posts where you reject science's definition of entropy and replace it with your own personal version.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    which appears to further support my position that hot = low entropy and cold = high entropy, as is the case for the universe in standard
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    These are the posts where you reject science's definition of entropy and replace it with your own personal version.
    PetTastic, I have presented evidence from reputable sources to show that you are mistaken when you say that a cold universe with even matter distribution equals zero entropy. All references are right there. I have even explicitely stated that, in case my interpretation is wrong, I will happily stand corrected. The ( very simple ) formula is right there is post 170. You have failed to provide a ( properly referenced ) rebuttal to that, thus the readers of this forum should draw their own conclusions. As far as I am concerned, until evidence to the contrary is presented, your model has been shown not to be consistent with physical laws.

    Allow me to provide two more references to substantiate my case :

    Time According to Sir Stephen Hawking

    "When viewing the universe as a closed system, it also stands to reason the universe began in a state of high order, and when it ends, will be in a state of extreme disorder. Based on the quantum theory of gravity and "no boundary condition" of spacetime (which Hawking explains in his book, A Brief History of Time, but which we will not discuss in detail), the universe did indeed begin in a very smooth and ordered state, which a few fluctuations in the density and velocities of particles as required by the quantum uncertainty principle. These fluctuations eventually caused matter to cluster due to their own gravity (in regions of higher density) after the Big Bang, and eventually form galaxies, stars, and planets. Having regions of high density, regions of low density, and then more regions of high density translate to an increase in entropy since the initial, smooth ball of matter before the Big Bang. Thus, the thermodynamic arrow's direction is confirmed; as time progresses, entropy increases. "

    And this one :

    Second Law of Thermodynamics

    "This ultimate equilibrium state was said to indicate that the universe was heading towards a final ``heat death''. Well, is this true? This answer is quite complicated. Given the fairly ordered state of the Universe at present, what with stars burning, new stars being formed, life existing on earth, and so on, one is led to the conclusion that the Universe must have started at the Big Bang in a very low entropy state, that is, in a highly ordered state. Ever since then, it has been racing towards a state with greater and greater disorder."
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 8th, 2012 at 12:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    As far as the second law of thermodynamics and the common interpretation of it that the universe goes from order to disorder, two big exceptions to this interpretation are gravity and life. From the disorder of cold matter spread out, galaxies and stars are born and become ordered and hot starting from cold disorder. Life is the second exception. Life can grow from a minuscule seed, from relative simplicity into a large animal or plant having the most complexity presently known in the universe.

    As far as the heat death of the universe, this would happen in either version, either space expanding or matter shrinking providing there is no continuous new-matter creating mechanism in the universe to compensate for space expansion or matter diminution. Those proposing such new-matter creation mechanisms and who were outside the Big Bang model, were Paul Dirac the famous American mathematician, Hoyle-Narlikar in their famous steady-state models, and others. My own shrinking matter model also proposes continuous creation of new matter from ZPF particulates surrounding black holes while the size of matter shrinks. This is a steady-state model of shrinking matter whereby the tend toward disorder is continuously compensated for by gravity enabling the continuous creation of new galaxies.

    How could one tell the validity of cosmological models by observation alone, the difference between us shrinking and space expanding? Simply look back in time. If the universe was much denser in the past, that would be strong evidence in favor of the BB model and the expansion of space. If not, it seemingly would be strong evidence against the BB model and in favor of a non-expanding space or a steady-state model of some kind, or maybe a shrinking-matter steady-state model
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 8th, 2012 at 01:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Markus Hanke,

    either space expanding or matter shrinking providing there is no continuous new-matter creating mechanism in the universe
    Obviously no such thing can exist, since the universe is a closed system, thus total energy is conserved. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

    From the disorder of cold matter spread out, galaxies and stars are born and become ordered and hot starting from cold disorder.
    You are forgetting that galaxies and stars have only finite life times. They burn out, die, and radiate their heat off again. Entropy is a statistical property, so you need to consider the entire life cycle of the star. The net change is either an increase in entropy, or no change. The 2nd law is thus preserved.
    Btw, stars and galaxies aren't closed systems, and they are local phenomena. My argument was a global one for the universe as a whole.

    Life is the second exception. Life can grow from a minuscule seed, from relative simplicity into a large animal or plant having the most complexity presently known in the universe.
    Yes, but again - life is a local phenomenon which exists in an open system, such as the Earth or another planet. The second law in its simplest form only applies to closed systems. And even then, small perturbations are allowed so long as the total entropy of the system never decreases.

    As far as the heat death of the universe, this would happen in either version
    PetTastic has explicitly stated that in his model the universe started off cold with evenly distributed matter, and then matter shrinks and becomes hotter and denser. No heat death here, more like the opposite. That was my point of criticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    In this case maybe a shrinking-matter steady-state model
    Which, as demonstrated, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore it's a no-go...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;306956]
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Markus Hanke,

    As far as the heat death of the universe, this would happen in either version, either space expanding or matter shrinking providing there is no continuous new-matter creating mechanism in the universe
    Obviously no such thing can exist, since the universe is a closed system, thus total energy is conserved. That's the first law of thermodynamics.
    For "no such thing" do you mean no such thing as the possibility of the heat-death of the universe? Or are you talking about "no such thing" as the possibility of a new-matter creation mechanism: Paul Dirac. one of the most famous mathematicians in modern times, first made this proposal. Fred Hoyle the famous English physicist/ cosmologist, also made such a proposal.

    You are forgetting that galaxies and stars have only finite life times. They burn out, die, and radiate their heat off again. Entropy is a statistical property, so you need to consider the entire life cycle of the star. The net change is either an increase in entropy, or no change. The 2nd law is thus preserved. Btw, stars and galaxies aren't closed systems, and they are local phenomena. My argument was a global one for the universe as a whole.
    There are finite lifetimes concerning stars based upon asto-physics calculations, but the lifetime of galaxies is indeterminable in the BB model, only guestimates can be made. All would agree that there is an ultimate lifetime to galaxies also. In my shrinking-matter model while old galaxies die, new ones are created maintaining a constant density of the obserbable universe.

    Yes, but again - life is a local phenomenon which exists in an open system, such as the Earth or another planet. The second law in its simplest form only applies to closed systems. And even then, small perturbations are allowed so long as the total entropy of the system never decreases.

    PetTastic has explicitly stated that in his model the universe started off cold with evenly distributed matter, and then matter shrinks and becomes hotter and denser. No heat death here, more like the opposite. That was my point of criticism.
    For my own shrinking-matter model the universe also has a beginning, a single entity. It starts out cold and ends up with matter, stars, and galaxies, heat, etc. but I don't think shrinking-matter models in general need to have a beginning. In my own version, shrinking does not change the temperature of matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    In this case maybe a shrinking-matter steady-state model
    Which, as demonstrated, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore it's a no-go...
    "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state. This is also commonly referred to as entropy."

    Within a closed system even as heat energy might leave the system gravity can create new stars, galaxies, and increased heat within the system. In a steady-state cosmological model the second law or thermodynamics would not seem to apply to the universe as a whole. This law was developed based upon the invention of the steam engine and does not equate/include the gravity heat creation mechanism of friction (the creation of new heat energy).
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 8th, 2012 at 03:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamic are not the same thing.

    Entropy is a measure of energy in the system that is not avaliable for doing useful work.
    Or a measure of work required to restore a thermodynamic system to a previous state.

    The concept of entropy is of most use when applied to engines and power generation, and calculating their efficiency.
    Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hence this diagram at the top of the page.
    220px-Carnot_heat_engine_2.svg.png

    It is the second law that make perpetual motion machines impossible based on thermal energy.

    In closed system divided into hot and cold material you can run and engine on the heat difference, until the system reaches thermal equilibrium.
    The system starts low entropy and ends high entropy, but no energy leaves or enters the system.
    All of the energy in the system is no longer in a form useful for power generation.

    The entropy of the system can also be increase by just mixing the hot and cold matterial, to achieve thermal equllibrium.

    In real systems chemical/gravitational or chemical potential energy renews the hot reservoir, and photons escaping into the universe cools the cold end.

    In my model everything starts with all of the energy in potential graviataional or nuclear form.
    Very little energy in other forms that could be considered entropy.
    Cold matter evenly distributed.
    Thus a low entropy state.
    As the system evolves potential energy gets converted to heat only to mix with the cold matterial increasing entropy.

    The lowest entropy prevoius state of a system is the one that takes the most work to restore.
    The lowest entropy state justifiable in my model is thus the cold matter evenly distributed one.

    In the model, as long as you don't try to make matter shrink by changing the Plank's constant, conservation of energy looks perfect.

    So far I can't find any issues with the model and GR with the cosmological constant removed again.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post


    Within a closed system even as heat energy might leave the system gravity can create new stars, galaxies, and increased heat within the system.
    The universe is a closed system - no heat energy can leave it !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamic are not the same thing.
    I never said that they are.

    Entropy is a measure of energy in the system that is not avaliable for doing useful work.
    Or a measure of work required to restore a thermodynamic system to a previous state.
    Precisely.

    It is the second law that make perpetual motion machines impossible based on thermal energy.
    Yes, obviously.

    In closed system divided into hot and cold material you can run and engine on the heat difference, until the system reaches thermal equilibrium.
    The system starts low entropy and ends high entropy, but no energy leaves or enters the system.
    All of the energy in the system is no longer in a form useful for power generation.
    Correct. That means in other words that the direction of entropy increase is the same direction as to where heat flows. Now, image the universe at two times A and B : A = hot dense universe, B = cold spread-out universe. In which direction does the heat flow ?

    The lowest entropy prevoius state of a system is the one that takes the most work to restore.
    The lowest entropy state justifiable in my model is thus the cold matter evenly distributed one.
    It takes no work to restore a cold state, because heat naturally flows from hot to cold, not the other way round. It does take work to heat something up. Thus the above is upside-down.

    In the model, as long as you don't try to make matter shrink by changing the Plank's constant, conservation of energy looks perfect.
    That's a separate issue.

    In my model everything starts with all of the energy in potential graviataional or nuclear form.
    Very little energy in other forms that could be considered entropy.
    Cold matter evenly distributed.
    Thus a low entropy state.
    As the system evolves potential energy gets converted to heat only to mix with the cold matterial increasing entropy.
    Once again I provide quotations, this time from the Wikipedia article for "Entropy (Arrow of Time) :

    "However, the entropy can only be a constant if the system is in the highest possible state of disorder, such as a gas that always was, and always will be, uniformly spread out in its container."

    "For a system in which gravity is important, such as the universe, this is a low-entropy state (compared to a high-entropy state of having all matter collapsed into black holes, a state to which the system may eventually evolve). As the Universe grows, its temperature drops, which leaves less energy available to perform useful work in the future than was available in the past. Additionally, perturbations in the energy density grow (eventually forming galaxies and stars). Thus the Universe itself has a well-defined thermodynamic arrow of time."

    Both of these appear to disagree with your above statement - in both cases it is indicated that gas which is uniformly spread out and cold has a very high entropy, not a low one. Entropy is indeed a measure of energy available to perform work, but the relationship is inverse. The less energy available, the higher the entropy, as is quite clear from the above quotations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamic are not the same thing.
    I never said that they are.

    Entropy is a measure of energy in the system that is not avaliable for doing useful work.
    Or a measure of work required to restore a thermodynamic system to a previous state.
    Precisely.

    It is the second law that make perpetual motion machines impossible based on thermal energy.
    Yes, obviously.

    In closed system divided into hot and cold material you can run and engine on the heat difference, until the system reaches thermal equilibrium.
    The system starts low entropy and ends high entropy, but no energy leaves or enters the system.
    All of the energy in the system is no longer in a form useful for power generation.
    Correct. That means in other words that the direction of entropy increase is the same direction as to where heat flows. Now, image the universe at two times A and B : A = hot dense universe, B = cold spread-out universe. In which direction does the heat flow ?

    The lowest entropy prevoius state of a system is the one that takes the most work to restore.
    The lowest entropy state justifiable in my model is thus the cold matter evenly distributed one.
    It takes no work to restore a cold state, because heat naturally flows from hot to cold, not the other way round. It does take work to heat something up. Thus the above is upside-down.

    In the model, as long as you don't try to make matter shrink by changing the Plank's constant, conservation of energy looks perfect.
    That's a separate issue.

    In my model everything starts with all of the energy in potential graviataional or nuclear form.
    Very little energy in other forms that could be considered entropy.
    Cold matter evenly distributed.
    Thus a low entropy state.
    As the system evolves potential energy gets converted to heat only to mix with the cold matterial increasing entropy.
    Once again I provide quotations, this time from the Wikipedia article for "Entropy (Arrow of Time) :

    "However, the entropy can only be a constant if the system is in the highest possible state of disorder, such as a gas that always was, and always will be, uniformly spread out in its container."

    "For a system in which gravity is important, such as the universe, this is a low-entropy state (compared to a high-entropy state of having all matter collapsed into black holes, a state to which the system may eventually evolve). As the Universe grows, its temperature drops, which leaves less energy available to perform useful work in the future than was available in the past. Additionally, perturbations in the energy density grow (eventually forming galaxies and stars). Thus the Universe itself has a well-defined thermodynamic arrow of time."

    Both of these appear to disagree with your above statement - in both cases it is indicated that gas which is uniformly spread out and cold has a very high entropy, not a low one. Entropy is indeed a measure of energy available to perform work, but the relationship is inverse. The less energy available, the higher the entropy, as is quite clear from the above quotations.
    If you are using the laws of thermodynamics then you must use the thermodynamic definition of entropy, not the reverse.

    Heat flowing from hot to cold represents an increase in entropy, and is not reversible, this is the arrow of time defined by the second law.

    In a cold universe with potential energy for creating heat, any heat created will flow from hot to cold so increasing entropy, therefore a low entropy state.

    As the Universe grows, its temperature drops, which leaves less energy available to perform useful work
    Useful work can only be done when heat can flow from hot to cold.
    The expansion of the universe cools the cold side of the system, therefore increasing the work that can be done by heat from stored potential energy.
    This is therefore, a decrease in entropy as define by thermodynamics.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    Useful work can only be done when heat can flow from hot to cold.
    The expansion of the universe cools the cold side of the system, therefore increasing the work that can be done by heat from stored potential energy.
    This is therefore, a decrease in entropy as define by thermodynamics.
    So you are basically telling me that the information given on the Wikipedia article which I reference is incorrect ? It states quite clearly that

    "According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot with energy distributed uniformly. For a system in which gravity is important, such as the universe, this is a low-entropy state(...)"

    Taking this into account, you are telling us that the cooling of the universe (from a very hot and dense initial state) represents a decrease in entropy as quite clearly stated by you above, thus implying a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in standard cosmology, completely contrary to every cosmology textbook out there ? Is that what you are telling me ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The universe is a closed system - no heat energy can leave it !!
    I usually discuss the observable universe. But yes heat cannot leave the universe, but as heat radiation is forever redshifted and absorbed by matter it can turn into another form of energy, -- such as the heat of matter or the energy of relative motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Markus Hanke,

    Although it is conceivable that a shrinking-matter model might have its basis in the BB model, I have never heard of such a model. Most shrinking-matter models are either infinite universe models or such models can start out with matter of just about any temperature if the model includes new-matter creation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Markus Hanke,

    Although it is conceivable that a shrinking-matter model might have its basis in the BB model, I have never heard of such a model. Most shrinking-matter models are either infinite universe models or such models can start out with matter of just about any temperature if the model includes new-matter creation.
    Yes, I understand that. A BB-based shrinking matter model would not make much sense, really.
    I was comparing the two only in order to determine whether the initial conditions in PetTastic's model ( cold, large matter evenly distributed in a static universe ) actually represents a very high or a very low entropy state. My argument is this :

    1) In standard cosmology, the universe started off very hot and very dense immediately after the Big Bang
    2) Textbooks tell us that this very hot and very dense state corresponds to a very low entropy
    3) 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of a closed system never decreases
    4) Nowadays the universe's entropy is of the magnitude 10^104 or thereabouts
    5) The universe is now much colder and much larger than at the time of the Big Bang
    6) (4) and (5) combined would mean that a cool, spread out universe corresponds to a large entropy
    7) PetTastic suggested that in his model the universe began cold, with matter spread out - thus, according the above, such a state should carry a large entropy

    In essence, standard cosmology starts with a hot and dense cosmos (=low entropy), and then cools and spreads out (=large entropy). PetTastics model is the exact opposite - it starts with cold matter spread out (=large entropy), and then, by his own words, it becomes hotter (=low entropy) because of the shrinking matter and the more energetic photons which are required to explain the redshift.

    Now, remember that according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics the entropy in a closed system ( which the universe in either of the two models is ) can never decrease - do you see now where my argument is coming from ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I Like your perspective, I believe that geological stresses occur in all bodies within space. BUT They all transpire and burst like zits into the space they once filled.
    For the big bang to have a shock wave shows in itself, that space is within a flexible container with physical properties (NOT A VOID !!!!).
    Every action only gets an equal and opposite reaction in equilibrium not void.

    Space time , a suspended solution. That which is suspended is part of the solution.

    Last edited by Max Time Taken; February 10th, 2012 at 05:08 AM.
    Wholly (as or pertaining to most if not all sciences) = multicultural
    Holy = religionist/racist !

    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Geological stress cause is near zero.
    Last time this one this one came up it was agreed for the earth the effect is of the order of 1 billionth normal geological processes.
    If you use the correction factors put into the OPERA experiment as a basis then you can take it down to 10-11 or less.
    (Movement equivalent to Hubble constant over the radius of earth)

    The model is a closed system of fixed volume containing constant energy.
    Space is not expanding so photons do not lose energy as they travel.
    Space is not expanding so there is no cooling effect any heat generated adds to the entropy of the universe making it hotter.
    The cosmic background radiation therefore gets hotter with time, increasing the minimum temperature of matter in equilibrium with it.
    The universe starts with potential energy at a maximum and no thermodynamic energy (cold).
    If there is no thermodynamic energy in the system, then there can be no energy in the system in the form of entropy so entropy is zero.

    The system end with all with potential energy zero, entropy maximum, any remaining matter is in balance with background radiation so no work can be done.

    An interesting new point that has not been noticed before on other threads is that shrinking black holes evaporate faster in this model than standard cos.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    PetTastic,

    An interesting new point that has not been noticed before on other threads is that shrinking black holes evaporate faster in this model than standard cosmology.
    I would agree that this is the most generic version concerning what happens to black holes in many shrinking-matter models. The word "black hole" itself however can be ambiguous. The only uniformly acceptable definition for a black hole is a small volume of space which exerts vast amounts of gravitational influence from a singular source, and which cannot directly be observed since it does not directly produce EM radiation. Instead light that passes too close to it would be absorbed by the black hole. Some propose a black hole is a vacuous point and others propose that it is a physically massive entity even more dense than a neutron star. I ascribe to this latter definition. In my own model black hole particulates are made up of the same particulates that make up the ZPF. The closest analogy in standard cosmology would be a black hole made up entirely of hypothetical dark matter. But in my own model although these particulates become smaller in size along with matter in general, at the same time there would be more of them created (new matter creation). Black holes also accordingly continue their relentless drawing in (pushing-in) of field particulates and matter, so instead in this version black holes would continuously grow in size as time passes.

    In this version, once black holes reach a certain size and a maximum allowable spin energy for their size, they would spin off pieces of themselves. These pieces would appear to us as naked quasars with gravitational redshifts unrelated to their distances. This idea has kinship with Harp's ideas of naked quasars, although harp does not support the matter-shrinking paradigm.

    But yes I agree. I would think that for generic shrinking-matter models that black holes would evaporate faster than they accordingly would according to the standard model.
    Last edited by forrest noble; February 12th, 2012 at 05:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    386
    I think black holes get pinched in half, or at least till they emit something that correlates to gamma bubbles.

    Space - the black bit, is not fixed and does not heat fast enough, considering light speed and expansion rate for the universe to be contained in a fixed overall shape. Thermodynamics do not match.
    I assume that some/most light energy released melts/transpires solid state space that surround the "vacuous" stuff giving the back pressure that is gravity/geological forces on all bodies in space.
    Wholly (as or pertaining to most if not all sciences) = multicultural
    Holy = religionist/racist !

    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    What you think appears to be rather irrelevant, since it's clear you don't understand the subject.

    Your assumptions are ju8st as valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,027
    If the universe is static and matter starts off cold and evenly spread out, what stops all matter gravitationally converging and evwentually ending up in one huge mass ? In standard cosmology this is obviously impossible due to metric expansion, but what about here ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is the universe expanding in time and extending in space?
    By mico in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 7th, 2011, 03:33 AM
  2. Shrinking Y Chromosome
    By rybtler in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 12:15 AM
  3. Expanding of space within solar system
    By sak in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 07:53 AM
  4. Time expanding with space?
    By BumFluff in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 11th, 2008, 08:07 PM
  5. Shrinking
    By Kolt in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2007, 11:02 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •