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.Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
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 ?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.
Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ? What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
Congrats, what a fast replyDid 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.
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.
The key point is conservation of momentum.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 ?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.
Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ? What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
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.
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
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...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.
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.
Speedfreak,
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,
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.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.
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.How do you measure and quantify this shrinking process if all ratios remain intact ?
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.
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.Is total mass also constant under this shrinking process ?
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?What happens to the strong and weak nuclear forces ?
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.
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 !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.
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.So accordingly every 5.9 billion years matter doubles in size. This explains the observed galactic redshifts would the universe or space expanding.
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.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.
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.
Consider the extreme case, two galaxies so far apart that they are moving away from each other beyond the speed of light.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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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 infrom 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.
Markus Hanke,
Discussing generic shrinking-matter models only; In this discussion I am not discussing particulars of my own model in this thread.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
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.
Larger atoms mean longer wavelengths in all generic shrinking-matter models that propose the maintenance of proportionality.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!
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).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.
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.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.
Last edited by forrest noble; January 31st, 2012 at 10:07 PM.
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 !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
Energy levels atom
Wavelength
Either plug in "c now" to see what we observe through a telescope or plug in
Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.
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.
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 ?
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 ??
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.
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.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.
Are you familiar with the various fundamental particles and how they fit together ?
No. Standard cosmology does not need shrinking matter, and the fundamental constants never change.We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
We see the same constants but observers from different time periods measure them using different units of length.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 !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
Energy levels atom
Wavelength
Either plug in "c now" to see what we observe through a telescope or plug in
Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
Are you familiar with the various fundamental particles and how they fit together ?
No. Standard cosmology does not need shrinking matter, and the fundamental constants never change.We have to assume many of the above are also true in standard cosmology.
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.
Yes, they do when they measure the fundamental constants. Those are the same for all observers. That was precisely my point.In standard cosmology not all observers see the same value in an experiment.
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.Consider two observers measuring the wavelength of a spectural line in a star
This is what makes or breaks your theory.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.
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 ?
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 ??Therefore in standardc cos we are saying atoms are shrinking comared to the size of the universe.
A completely ad-hoc postulate, which wasn't mentioned before.In the condensing universe model there can be no atoms as such back beyond z = 1012 about 380 billion years ago.
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 redshiftI 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
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.
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.Please look at the Condensing universe (Alternative to BBT please break) 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.
Ok, I'll try this again. Matter is shrinking. Thus one of two things is changing ( otherwise it couldn't shrink ) :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.
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.
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 ?
A non zero value can not be a constant in two scaling coord systems if it is base on scaling units.
Sorry about the formating, copied from old post elsewhare.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
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 ?
So I take this to mean that the numerical values change, right ?A non zero value can not be a constant in two scaling coord systems if it is base on scaling units.
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.
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 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 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 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.
NiceThe 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.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!NiceThe 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.
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 ?
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 sois 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 ineverything is a constant other than c.
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.
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.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 ??
Last edited by forrest noble; February 3rd, 2012 at 06:15 PM.
What extra energy?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.
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.What extra energy?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.
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.
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 ?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.
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.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 ?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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.In comoving space as matter shrinks the electron in atoms are moving nearer the nucleus releasing energy
Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 5th, 2012 at 07:18 AM.
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.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 ?!
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.You are forgetting the energy inputs from fusion in stars etc.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 ?!
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 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.
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;306349][QUOTE=PetTastic;306252]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.
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.
Yikes ! I'm hurt
I think you are showing a fatal flaw in your understanding of entropy
Precisely my point. We are talking about the universe as a whole, and the average temperature inside it.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.
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.
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.Universe starts cold matter evenly distributed ....
Fatal flaw in my understand of entropy ? I think not.
I am awaiting your explanation.
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.
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.which used more sophisticated methods than necessary
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.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.
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.
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.which used more sophisticated methods than necessary
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.
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.
But the first part of my example is normal cosmology, clouds condensing into stars. We can see it happening around us.Yikes ! I'm hurt
I think you are showing a fatal flaw in your understanding of entropy
Precisely my point. We are talking about the universe as a whole, and the average temperature inside it.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.
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.
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.Universe starts cold matter evenly distributed ....
Fatal flaw in my understand of entropy ? I think not.
I am awaiting your explanation.
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.
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.
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
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.Matter is getting denser and hotter.
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.The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.
Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 6th, 2012 at 11:59 AM.
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.
Right, I try this again. Must be a failure on my side in not being able to properly explain my argument.
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.
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
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.Matter is getting denser and hotter.
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.The volume of an engine stays constant, but the volume of the working medium inside the cylinder changes.
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
Wow, it is a while since I last heard that name, and I hope I never hear it again!
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.
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 :
You are badly bending the laws of themodymamics
Entropy (arrow of time) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.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.
You give the answer yourself above when you say (quote) "gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)". Same works in reverse :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
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.
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.
Markus Hanke,
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.We are now 166 posts in, and I still haven't seen any explanation as to why and how matter would shrink.
Just wondering.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 7th, 2012 at 12:40 PM.
Please stick to less fluffy Wikipedia pages. I suggest: Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAm 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 :
You are badly bending the laws of themodymamics
Entropy (arrow of time) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.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.
You give the answer yourself above when you say (quote) "gets hotter (basic thermodyamics- volume of cloud now smaller)". Same works in reverse :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
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.
I don't understand why it breaks the second law
From Wikipedia page:
In my model, the universe starts with cold simple matter evenly distributed.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.
So gravitational & nuclear potential energy is at maximum.
Entropy is near zero.
Second law of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
I just said that in previous post.
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.
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
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.In my model, the universe starts with cold simple matter evenly distributed.
So gravitational & nuclear potential energy is at maximum.
Entropy is near zero.
If this is incorrect, where am I going wrong ?
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.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.
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.
Why do people read threads on standard cosmology if it can't explain why space is expanding, dark matter or dark energyI 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.
The problem is this model predicts the illusion of all three of the above.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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.These are the posts where you reject science's definition of entropy and replace it with your own personal version.
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.
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.
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.
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.From the disorder of cold matter spread out, galaxies and stars are born and become ordered and hot starting from cold disorder.
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.
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.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.
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.As far as the heat death of the universe, this would happen in either version
Which, as demonstrated, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore it's a no-go...In this case maybe a shrinking-matter steady-state model
[QUOTE=Markus Hanke;306956]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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
"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."Which, as demonstrated, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Therefore it's a no-go...In this case maybe a shrinking-matter steady-state model
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.
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.
The universe is a closed system - no heat energy can leave it !!
I never said that they are.
Precisely.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.
Yes, obviously.It is the second law that make perpetual motion machines impossible based on thermal energy.
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 ?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.
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.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.
That's a separate issue.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.
Once again I provide quotations, this time from the Wikipedia article for "Entropy (Arrow of Time) :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.
"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.I never said that they are.
Precisely.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.
Yes, obviously.It is the second law that make perpetual motion machines impossible based on thermal energy.
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 ?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.
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.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.
That's a separate issue.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.
Once again I provide quotations, this time from the Wikipedia article for "Entropy (Arrow of Time) :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.
"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.
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.
Useful work can only be done when heat can flow from hot to cold.As the Universe grows, its temperature drops, which leaves less energy available to perform useful work
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
PetTastic,
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.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.
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.
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.
What you think appears to be rather irrelevant, since it's clear you don't understand the subject.
Your assumptions are ju8st as valid.
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 ?
| « Astronomy Picture of the Day | Planet Venus, retrogard rotation, why? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
