Thread: Condensing universe (Alternative to BBT please break)

I have no problems with the theory of the big bang and expanding universe, but this is a fun simple alternative that I am finding hard to break.

Consider a model of the universe where matter starts massive (sub atomic particles miles across) and then shrinks. The universe just condenses out of energy into large scale cold matter. Over many billions of years, this matter shrinks to the size it is now and keeps shrinking, getting hotter as in condenses. (Not as exciting as the big bang)

The key argument being the phrase: “As experienced by matter”.
Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly experiences by matter we know nothing about it.
Therefore, the laws of physics are the laws of the universe as experienced my matter.

As matter shrinks, it experiences a faster speed of light.
That is it takes less time for light to cross the width of a smaller atom, or to travel the length of a ruler made of shrinking atoms. So the ruler measures light travelling a longer distance in a given time period, but only because the ruler is shrinking.

So, in this model we have the speed of light as experienced my matter.

The master speed of light is still absolute but we have no scale to measure it by so its value is unknown.
The speed of light as experienced my matter is increasing with time by a rate derived from the Hubble constant.
(Ho = 2.5 10^-18 per second, so speed of light increasing by less than 1 part in ten billion per year)
{You cannot use the wavelength of a reference light to measure against see below}

So now we have two types of distances, those defined by physical units of measurements using instruments made of matter, and distances measured using the speed of light and time.

In this model, the idea is that the universe is not expanding if we measure using the speed of light, but is expanding if we use units of measurements based on matter. However, this is only because the physical units based on matter are shrinking as time passes; each time you use the ruler you read off a bigger number.

The current definition of the metre uses the speed of light so it does not shrink with matter.
In this model, you need to remake your metre rulers 1 atom longer every 6 or 7 years.
I am going to use the old definition of the metre for the rest of this argument.

So in this model, as matter gets smaller it experiences a faster speed of light, and this is the only speed of light known. So “c” in all physics equations is the speed of light as experienced by matter.

{If like me you are trying to break this argument, please double check the following for me}

If you plug an increasing value for the speed of light into equations for the atom, it shrinks and emits shorter wavelength radiation when electrons change state.
So you get a circular argument, as matter shrinks it experiences a faster speed of light, this increases the strength of the electromagnetic force so making the atoms smaller anyway.

Now if this applies to all Boson based forces then the nucleus also shrinks and relative stability of atoms is maintained. {I got totally lost trying to test this}

In this model, we have matter shrinking and emitting shorter wavelength light as it shrinks. Therefore, the wavelength of our reference light sources are shrinking with our instruments, rulers, diffraction gratings etc.

So if we look out into the universe what do we see?

We see old light emitted by matter that was bigger (more fluffy) than modern matter.
When we measure it with our shrinking modern-matter instruments, the wavelength is longer than we expect, but the light has not changed it is still as emitted by the larger scale ancient matter. So, the cosmic redshift is due to us shrinking not relative movement.

{Has everybody already broken this or should I keep typing?}

Consider a long line of galaxies spaced a billion light years apart, but stationary relative to each other. Each galaxy has an identical race of aliens using instruments identical to every atom. They all start emitting an identical reference laser beam at each other.
Assuming the Hubble constant is about 0.08 per billion years, a billion years later when the light reaches the nearest galaxies on each side of the emitters, all the matter in all the galaxies has shrunk. These instruments are now still atom identical to those in the emitting galaxy’s but smaller than a billion years ago, so now measure the billion year old light a 1.08 times longer than their reference is now. When it reaches the next galaxies in line, it is 1.16 times longer than the reference now.
So cosmic redshifts work from all viewpoints equally, but there is no associated time dilation.
{Is lack of time dilation a problem with this model?}

In this model, we need to use the correct units of measurement when thinking about distant / ancient object. They are made of bigger matter than we expect. To make the physics work you need to convert to ancient units of measurements using the Hubble constant and the time difference.
So the physical metre or mile etc was 1.08 times bigger a billion years ago.
So galaxies are not as big as we think, and stars in them are not moving as fast as we think.
Also are they shrinking faster than the stars are flying out of them? (So maybe less dark matter needed)
(I am still trying to guess what this does to decay curves of supernova {Is this a flaw?})

Going back to the start of the universe, where enormous fluffy matter experiencing a very low speed of light.
E = mc²
With a very low value for ‘c’ you can get a very large amount of matter from a tiny amount of energy.

Cosmic background radiation in this model was emitted a microwaves by large-scale matter near the edge of our light cone. Early large matter galaxies may have seen it as red light.

Lastly, in this model dark energy could be considered as energy being lost to intergalactic space as matter emits every more energetic photons with ever decreasing chance of hitting another shrinking galaxy.


I hope that you found this a fun interesting argument even if I have missed a fundamental flaw somewhere.

I need feed back on this for my science fiction book, otherwise the professor of astrophysics in it will look very silly.

OK, I'm confused about the size of atoms being different. Are you suggesting that the electric force was less in the early stages, so the electrons were orbiting further from the nucleus and possibly at a slower speed?

So, back then, when an electron dropped from a higher orbital to a lower orbital, the acceleration would be less, and the time it took to complete the process would be longer, leading to a longer wavelength photon?

Originally Posted by kojax

OK, I'm confused about the size of atoms being different. Are you suggesting that the electric force was less in the early stages, so the electrons were orbiting further from the nucleus and possibly at a slower speed?

So, back then, when an electron dropped from a higher orbital to a lower orbital, the acceleration would be less, and the time it took to complete the process would be longer, leading to a longer wavelength photon?

Edit: Sorry, that is a yes to the size of the atom bit, but all boson based forces

The idea is that the electric force is still changing now, inline with the hubble constant, as a result of the experienced speed of light still changing now.
The speed of light has only been measured to 4 parts in a billion, but this model has the speed of light (as experienced by shrinking matter) changing by less than 1 part in 10 billion per year.
Hubble constant = 7.8e-11 (per year)

If I'm not mistaken, then you'd have to change the actual magnitude of the electric force, not just the rate at which it transmits. Otherwise, the difference in the time it takes the electron to accelerate and then decelerate again when dropping to a lower orbital wouldn't be changing in a way that is likely to yield a linear relationship between distance/time and red shift.


I mean, imagine if the speed at which gravity propagates were slower. That doesn't necessarily mean you would fall slower. The magnitude of the gravitational force would still be the same.

The argument is more based on "c" (speed of light) in the formulas for radius of an atom or the energy difference between electron shells in an atom. Hence the energy / wavelength of a photon emitted.
Along side the electric force.

The maths needs checking as I am a micro processor designer & games programmer so very limited skills in this field.

I came up with this stupid idea for a SciFi book, but now can't break it, and it is driving me mad.

But it does give nice answers to a few things, unless I have it all wrong.
All I need is one argument my Professor Randlecliff can use in the book to show the aliens up to no good by saying this.

When we use a telescope to find the epicentre of the big bang, the result is always within the telescope. Everything in the universe moves away from everything else at the same rate, I don't think so, telescope is shrinking and so are the subjects being measured.
I think all matter condenses over time, due to gravity.
Black hole is prime example of the massive becoming the smallest, this indicates gravity as cause.
Were we really smaller in ancient times ? Have the skeletons and doorways etc. condensed ?
I am suggesting that linear compression is mainly observation based and that in fact spacecraft should expand when they move from higher pressure atmosphere to the "vacuum"(don't get me started on that) of space. As a bubble from the sea bed expands as it rises.
That would make gravity the Higgs boson.
Or in mathematical terms gravity would be base 0 as it can be applied to all bases(particles etc.).
Base 0 can also be termed God as it is omnipresent.(somewhat facetious).
If there is truly no gravity in space what holds the ship together ?

In the discussion elsewhere, there is some agreement that if the following does not vary with time, and all observations of distant objects show they do not.

• The Fine structure constant
  The Planck constant
  Rydberg constant

All are invariant with time, then it is very difficult to tell the difference between matter shrinking and the universe expanding.

The most obvious experiment that would show the difference is to measure the speed of light to one part in ten billion without using interferometry, or any method using the wavelength of a reference light source.

Problems with the idea:
Some people think GPS satellites would spot the speed of light changing very quickly, other people say not.

If under BBT the calculated ratio of dark matter to normal matter is constant in galaxies based on observation of rotation. Then under this model the dark matter decreases with distance into the past. Almost no dark matter at redshifts greater than 8 to 20.
Beyond that galaxies are spinning too slowly and so must be collapsing.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Sorry to be blunt, but what a load of crap. Every statement is wrong or meaningless.

Not saying you're wrong, but examples and explanations work a lot better than blunt statements such as these. This is a discussion forum Wayne.

On behalf of Wayne:

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

When we use a telescope to find the epicentre of the big bang,

1. The Big Bang doesn't have an epicentre - epicentre refers to seismic events.
2. The Big Bang does not have a centre of any kind.
3. No one uses a telescope to find the centre of the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

When we use a telescope to find the epicentre of the big bang, the result is always within the telescope.

Word salad, or a seriously inadequate attempt to communicate meaning.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Everything in the universe moves away from everything else at the same rate, I don't think so,

So, you erect a strawman and then proceed to shoot it down. How comforting for you, but utterly irrelevant for us.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I think all matter condenses over time, due to gravity.

Condenses? You do have a way with words! Condense has rather precise meaning in scientific contexts. Are saying, for example, that the Earth's formation - which was certainly executed by gravity - was a process of condensation.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Were we really smaller in ancient times ? Have the skeletons and doorways etc. condensed ?

Brilliant! Purest lunacy. I congratulate you. Please speculate on the significance of large creatures such as dinosaurs in the past. Please give some thought to scaling effects. Indeed, please give some evidence you are thinking.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

I am suggesting that linear compression is mainly observation based

The semantic content of this statement is currently zero. Perhaps in a few weeks, after it has undergone linear compression and further condensation, it may make sense. But I'm not going to hold my breath, fearful that the increased interanl pressure might make my gonads shrink.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

That would make gravity the Higgs boson.

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

Or in mathematical terms gravity would be base 0 as it can be applied to all bases(particles etc.).

Originally Posted by Max Time Taken

If there is truly no gravity in space what holds the ship together ?

1. Of course there is gravity in space! I ask you to ignore my foregoing pokes at your ridiculous ideas and answer this question.

You are proposing signficant changes to our understanding of how the universe works. It seems to me that someone making such a proposal should have a reasonably sound understanding of current theory. So, if you are so overwhlemingly ignorant as to think that gravity does not exist in space, then from whence came the unmitigated self righteousness that allows you to spew this infantile nonsense onto the internet?



Did I capture the general flavour of your thoughts Wayne?

Edited to correct Quote problem noted by Wayne.

That's more like it.

As I said in the original post, I came up with this stupid idea for a book I am working on, called "The Lunar Archaeologist"
http://www.authonomy.com/books/33723...archaeologist/
(Some people did not believe I was writing a book, in email discussions)

I just needed something interesting for the aliens to say at first contact, and I went for "your scientists have got it all wrong, the universe is not expanding..."

The problem is I now can't find a good counter argument for my Professor Randlcliff in chapter 12. I am now up to chapter 8 on the second edit, fixing grammar etc., but no closer to finding a killer counter argument.

I thought I had it with the big difference in the predicted age of the universe, without an equivalent of inflation. All the neutrons would have decayed before helium could form and therefore, making even it harder for first stars to form. However, it was pointed out that a slower experienced speed of light, could increase the average life of particles (Not looked at the maths of that myself)

Not that I could use something that dull and boring in the book!

Anyway help. Otherwise I will need to delete the whole subplot across 5 chapters.

Interesting.

As I understand it, on a certain level there is no difference between an expanding universe where everything starts out packed tightly together and then the distance between things increases, and a static universe where everything starts out packed tightly together and then everything shrinks, causing the distance between things to increase.

If you want to rigorously define it all the other way round, using a different "coordinatization", things can get hairy mathematically, but in a nutshell it all boils down to defining what it is that causes the change in scale factor. Does it act on the distance between things, or does it act on the things themselves?

Obviously, the expanding model seems a lot simpler and more elegant...

To us, anyway! :wink:

I think the best you'll get out of this scenario is that both views might be equally as valid, but are all a matter of perspective.

I mean, perhaps the aliens are wrong. Perhaps it is them that are (for some reason) scaling up at the same rate as the universe, so they perceive things differently. How could we tell?

It just works too well, there must be an obvious flaw in it.

The driving force for matter shrinking just looks like entropy, and conservation of energy.

The problem is it does not give the same results as BBT, it only looks similar from our current time view point.

No big bang
No inflation
No dark energy
Dark matter increases over time.
Larger matter in the past effects standard candle measurements, so constant rate of shrinkage (Still working on that one)
Supernova decay curves slowed by size of matter (giving apparent time dilation)


The whole thing is driving me mad.
Just playing with these using values of c now or c then
Bohr radius


experienced speed of light when shrink

Energy levels atom


Wavelength

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


Works for the size of the matter/ atoms as for wavelength.

I am going to have to rewrite a few chapter of my book unless someone points out the flaw.

The only possible flaw I can think of is the increase in complexity and the burden of proof. Can't you cut the aliens with Occam's razor?

Or the philosophical arguments against having all the forces changing their values in synchronisation, due to - what? There is a lot more that has to go on, in perfect synchronisation, than in the current model, isn't there?

For a while last week, I thought I had finally killed this off, with several problems making it a bad match for observations.

The light curve is (1+z) brighter than sensible
I originally thought this was a good explanation for quasars, but then the cosmic background would also be a 1000 times more powerful than expected.

Issues with coherent light sources or radio communications
Transmission frequency information encoded would not agree with received frequency.
Coherent sources would dim with distance from self-cancellation.

Supernova brightness and decay curves
Arguments for the apparent time dilation being caused by the size of the object spreading the light out don’t work. We would see the blue shiftedlight front edge of the explosion a longer time period ahead of the red shifted edges of the explosion.
So, making distant supernova excessively red shift away from us as they fade.
This also breaks the modelling of galaxies as being dominated by in-falling gas, because that assumes supernova brightness is strongly affected by their environment.

There were a few things that did not really work that well, but you could not say broke the idea.
The experienced speed of light in extreme cases, like matter orbiting a black hole in the past.
Scaling galaxies with larger matter in the past, verses angular size observations did not match rotation curves predicted or observed, without changing the strength of gravity in the past.

However, when I started checking basic physics for shrinking matter, I found a few interesting things.
(I wish real physicists would not assume c is a constant and lump it in with other constants. )

The time taken to emit or absorb a photon gets smaller.
The lifetime of elementary particles gets shorter.
Chemical reactions go faster (modelling electrons changing state etc)
Molecules and atoms vibrate faster.

Taking a bit of a leap, but it looks like for matter/atoms everything happens faster as it shrinks, including the speed that the clocks run at. (Not sure about pendulum clocks, because of the gravity aspect)

This makes the experience of time very interesting in this model of things.
The speed of time is related to the size of matter you are made from.
I think this means the experienced speed of light, only happens at the atomic level, because clocks and people made of matter change speed at the same rate.

Assuming this is a form of time dilation that needs to be adjusted for when looking at old light, most things now work better than before in this model. However, it will take me weeks to check this does not break something major.


So Now

The distance to objects matches the luminosity distance. (The rate photons are emitted at slows by (1+z) )
There is maybe now an issue with angular size beyond z = 1.8 or so. (still tyring to understand gravity)

Otherwise, I am now back to the drawing board in trying to break this.
As it matches observations better than before.
So maybe in my Sci-Fi book the aliens were right

I don't think you can break this, if all you are really doing here is performing a transformation to co-moving coordinates, where objects remain the same distance apart and shrink over time, whilst the speed of light decreases.

If that is the case, the aliens aren't any more right than we are.

But if the aliens are claiming there is any proof that their model is the correct one, you might have a chance.

Just some bits from discussions elsewhere.

Distance curves:

Is interesting how similar the absolute distance is the commoving distance in BBT
(Light travel distance is same thing as no expansion of space)


This was generated with:

Code:

function [ ret ] = ZCurve ()
    z = 0:0.25:50;
    
    # Time equals distance in billions of years or lightyears
    AbsDistance = log(1+z) / log(1.065);    # 1+z = 1.065 .^ t;
    
    # Angular dist is reciprocal of angular size
    angd = 1 ./ atan2((1+z) , AbsDistance);
    
    # Photon emission rate slower for larger matter 
    #(time to emit photon of longer wavelength, dist & force on electron changing state etc)
    lumd = AbsDistance .* (1+z);
    
    plot(z,AbsDistance, ";Abs dist;", z, angd,";Ang dist;", z(1:11), lumd(1:11), ";Lum dist;");
    xlabel "z";
    ylabel "Distance (billion ly)";
endfunction

Some fun discussions that the neutrino has a virtual or collusion size of 17.98 metres to explain the 60ns early arrivals, and that it has never shrunk with other particles.
Will be interesting to see if the 60ns is baseline independent.

Also did some interesting stuff on conservation of momentum in the two ref frames BBT and condensing, as one is accelerating relative to the other.

Size of the universe in phyical units is a curve (1/1.065^t) that shows the illusion of the expansion accelerating

Lots of people don't like the whole idea much, but no one can break it yet.

PetTastic,

Lots of people don't like the whole idea much, but no one can break it yet.

(emphasis added mine)

I do like the whole idea My own model is generally the same Pan Theory - Alternative to the Big Bang Theory concerning the diminution of matter but think we should discuss detail differences. What say you?

Maybe we could start by you explaining to me the chart above, posting #17. For one thing redshifts Z values in the presently observable universe don't go beyond 10.0, right? Does the Z on this chart have another meaning? And what is the meaning of Ang distance? I guess Abs distance means absolute distance as determined by the Hubble formula. I understand Lum Distance as the distance determined by the inverse square law of light.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

PetTastic,

Lots of people don't like the whole idea much, but no one can break it yet.

(emphasis added mine)

I do like the whole idea My own model is generally the same Pan Theory - Alternative to the Big Bang Theory concerning the diminution of matter but think we should discuss detail differences. What say you?

Maybe we could start by you explaining to me the chart above, posting #17. For one thing redshifts Z values in the presently observable universe don't go beyond 10.0, right? Does the Z on this chart have another meaning? And what is the meaning of Ang distance? I guess Abs distance means absolute distance as determined by the Hubble formula. I understand Lum Distance as the distance determined by the inverse square law of light.

In the hubble deep field you can see stuff that looks like galaxies at z approaching 12.
Hubble Ultra-Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As in this model space is not expanding so the absolute distance is the same as the light travel distance and look back distance.

The diagram is the best match I can get to the accepted observed distance curves.
Distance measures (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by PetTastic

In the hubble deep field you can see stuff that looks like galaxies at z approaching 12.

Hubble Ultra-Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As in this model space is not expanding so the absolute distance is the same as the light travel distance and look back distance.

The diagram is the best match I can get to the accepted observed distance curves.

Distance measures (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course my model is the same. Accordingly space does not expand, contract, warp, etc. Space accordingly is simply defined as a distance, area, or volume that is within or bounded by the farthest extensions of matter and field -- and nothing more. Using this definition no space exists outside the physical universe.

I've never worked with angular distance but guess that it is not a very good yardstick since I believe there has been a whole lot of misinterpretation going on with the BB model.

I'm sure after the James Webb goes up we will be able to see a lot of Z-12's if the diminution of matter model is valid. If the expanding universe model is correct at Z=12 then they should see nothing but small young galaxies with lots of type II supernova. But I think there is practically no chance of that since they are now observing the same proportion of old appearing galaxies at Z=7-8 as we can see next door.

I've reformulated the Hubble formula to calculate the "correct distances" to galaxies based upon the diminution of matter model. According to the reformulation the closest supernova, galaxies, etc. are about 11% farther away, and at the farthest distances, about 11% closer than what the standard formula based upon an expanding universe calculates. It took a long time to do it but it does away with the idea of dark energy since type Ia supernova brightness vs. distance calculations almost perfectly match the standard candle line. See pantheory.org technical papers.

Will be interesting to see if the 60ns is baseline independent.

I am familiar with the neutrino speed "problem." What do you mean by the above concerning "baseline independent?" You don't have to be formal with me since I'm kind of a laid back kind of guy over here on the west coast of the colonies

PetTastic,

In this model.
I have larger atoms outputting less energy in the past.
What ever way I do the maths, in comoving space with an absolute speed of light, or in local physical space using the measured or experienced speed of light, I get the energy output of stars or supernovas decreasing by a factor of (1+z)².
This comes from each photon having less energy, and the rate they are emitted at slowing in larger atoms.
Also the star may be bigger, but it is still made from the same number of atoms.

So far, this model does seem to be a very good match for observation.
It predicts an observer who does not understand that they are shrinking will see the illusion of dark matter and dark energy.

Space not expanding means everything must follow the standard laws of physics.
The collapse of the large scale structure must be accelerating.
Galaxies must be rapidly growing, spawning more galaxies, as the eat the thickening intergalactic medium.
In this model, the laws of physics don't give you many choices, so far everything I can test is a good match for observation, including galaxy rotation curves.

The current discrepancy that I have found is the cosmic microwave background.
In this model, I can't see anyway that the large-scale structure cannot leave a major mark on it.
I need to do some more reading on standard cosmology to see how this works in BBT.

In my own diminution of matter model I also get a very good match concerning distance vs. brightness. To enable this I reformulated the Hubble formula for distance calculations based upon the diminution of matter (instead of space expanding), added a new brightness factor (also based upon the diminution of matter), and adjusted the intrinsic brightness of type 1a supernovas by about 11%. Here is my technical paper concerning this.

http://pantheory.org/PDFs/technical-papers.pdf

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my own diminution of matter model I also get a very good match concerning distance vs. brightness. To enable this I reformulated the Hubble formula for distance calculations based upon the diminution of matter (instead of space expanding), added a new brightness factor (also based upon the diminution of matter), and adjusted the intrinsic brightness of type 1a supernovas by about 11%. Here is my technical paper concerning this.

http://pantheory.org/PDFs/technical-papers.pdf

I did have a look at this the first time you posted it, but I am still a bit confused as to how this matches observation.

The brightness of distant objects drops away very fast, that is why we need big telescopes to capture the light.
Objects in the hubble deep field have a brightness equivilent to being 350 billion lightyears away.

My model only has objects at z=4 being 25 times dimmer than you would expect for non expanding space.
Last time I checked the data about two years ago this was a few percent too bright for what we see through telescopes.

Originally Posted by PetTastic

Originally Posted by forrest noble

In my own diminution of matter model I also get a very good match concerning distance vs. brightness. To enable this I reformulated the Hubble formula for distance calculations based upon the diminution of matter (instead of space expanding), added a new brightness factor (also based upon the diminution of matter), and adjusted the intrinsic brightness of type 1a supernovas by about 21%. Here is my technical paper concerning this.

http://pantheory.org/PDFs/technical-papers.pdf

I did have a look at this the first time you posted it, but I am still a bit confused as to how this matches observation.

The brightness of distant objects drops away very fast, that is why we need big telescopes to capture the light.
Objects in the hubble deep field have a brightness equivilent to being 350 billion lightyears away.

My model only has objects at z=4 being 25 times dimmer than you would expect for non expanding space.
Last time I checked the data about two years ago this was a few percent too bright for what we see through telescopes.

All of the calculations are given in the paper concerning type 1a supernova. There are two plots given in the paper. One plotting uses the standard model intrinsic supernova brightness, the standard model distance based upon the Hubble formula. The other plotting uses a different intrinsic brightness for supernova, about 21% brighter, and the changes to the Hubble formula based upon matter diminution, puts the closest supernova about 11% farther away than the standard Hubble formula. At the farthest distances my model puts supernova about 11% closer than the Hubble formula calculates so they appear brighter than they should. Additionally I add a small brightness adjustment factor that asserts that larger atoms in the past would have produced more intense radiation which differs from the standard model interpretation which asserts that expanding space has stretched out the wavelengths making them less energetic.

My model and plotting of calculations can be seen of page 17, and the standard model plotting and interpretation can be seen on page 18 of the technical papers. My model is very close to the Standard Candle line, and the standard model plotting is not close to the standard candle line but instead shows the dark energy interpretation.
//