1. Standard cosmology assumes the only absolutes in the universe are the size of the atom and the speed of light.

This alternative cosmology assumes the only absolutes are the size of the universe and the speed of light.
So we are shrinking, space is not expanding.

The known laws of physics are applied strictly, but are assumed to be circular. That is everything is relative with no absolute reference (as required by GR).
All observers are made of matter and are shrinking with matter.

It uses a single inertial reference frame to describe the universe at all scales (QM, atoms, stars, large-scale structure).
In this ref frame the average distance between distant galaxies is constant but matter is shrinking by about 6% every billion years.
Space is not expanding, so photons or moving objects can travel past galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light in standard cosmology.

The laws of physics define relationships but give no absolutes.
The size of the atom is defined by QM/QED relative to the units of measurements and visa versa but gives no absolute size.
The characteristic wavelength of light emitted by ionised atoms is only defined relative to the size of the atoms.
The speed of light is absolute and unchanging. It defines the experience of distance relative to time.

Applying the laws of physics as written to matter shrinking you get:
Wavelength of light from matter in the past (z+1) larger than now. z is the scale difference (redshift in standard cos)

Size of matter in past (z+1) times larger. ---(size atom relative to wavelength emitted)
Time dilation is matter running slower in the past.
Speed matter runs slowed by factor (z+1) ---(speed of light same for all observers)
Etc etc.

This gives SI units in the past:
Time: s' = (1+z)s
Length: m' = (1+z)m
Energy: J' = J/(1+z)
Mass: Kg' = Kg/(1+z)
Force N' = N/(1+z)^2

By assuming the above and graphically matching supernova luminance and angular distance curves to the observed, I get:
z+1 = 1.065t with t in billions of years.
So: absolute / light travel / look back distance = log(1+z) / log(1.065) in billion light years.
With no expansion of space luminosity distance is: (z+1)log(1+z) / log(1.065).
Angular size distance is: 1/ atan2((1+z) , log(1+z) / log(1.065))

Distance curves

Plotted against supernova data

2.

3. I don't really understand.

Are you implying gravity as the most fundamental force?

4. Your theory has already been thoroughly debunked here. Do you plan to spam all the physics forums with it?

5. Originally Posted by xyzt
Your theory has already been thoroughly debunked here. Do you plan to spam all the physics forums with it?
Which post do you think debunked it?
I spent most of the time correcting the physics/astronomy of the forum beginners.

6. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
I don't really understand.

Are you implying gravity as the most fundamental force?
I am simply pointing out that if you reverse the assumptions made in standard cosmology, and apply the laws of physics stricty.
Then matter shrinking gives a redshift and aparent time dilation just the same as space expanding.

However, when you follow things further, there is no need for forms of energy and matter that are hypothetical.

7. Originally Posted by xyzt
Your theory has already been thoroughly debunked here. Do you plan to spam all the physics forums with it?
If the BAUT forum debunked this conjecture then probably no need to look at it closer.

8. If matter is shrinking, then why aren't all the stars in the galaxy getting further away?

(Or, to put it another way, expanding space only occurs at cosmological distance not at the level of atoms.)

9. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Originally Posted by xyzt
Your theory has already been thoroughly debunked here. Do you plan to spam all the physics forums with it?
Which post do you think debunked it?
I spent most of the time correcting the physics/astronomy of the forum beginners.
You are highly delusional. See here. And here. And here for a final kick in the pants. One of the tenants of hardened cranks is to never admit to being proven wrong (and to post the same crank thread all over the internet).

10. Originally Posted by Strange
If matter is shrinking, then why aren't all the stars in the galaxy getting further away?

(Or, to put it another way, expanding space only occurs at cosmological distance not at the level of atoms.)
Also, wouldn't the universe (space-time) have to have 'started' immensely large if it is now shrinking? If that is true what size did it start at? Some arbitrary size?

Also, is there some limit to matter shrinking? Or does matter shrink till it disappears?

11. Originally Posted by PetTastic
This alternative cosmology assumes the only absolutes are the size of the universe and the speed of light.
So we are shrinking, space is not expanding.
The thing that immediately comes to mind here is that the strong interaction will break your idea, because the QCD Lagrangian is not invariant under scale transformations. In particular, the effective potential of the gluon field between pairs/triplets of quarks explicitly depends on their separation distance. I am also highly doubtful of the electroweak interaction, but don't know enough about it to tell for certain; at first glance though I would say it isn't scale invariant either.

Note that your idea explicitly depends on the assumption that all fundamental interactions are invariant under scale transformations, so that there are no changes in the laws of physics. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

12. What would Noether's theorem conserve under scaling symmetry I wonder?

13. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
I don't really understand.

Are you implying gravity as the most fundamental force?
I am simply pointing out that if you reverse the assumptions made in standard cosmology, and apply the laws of physics stricty.
Then matter shrinking gives a redshift and aparent time dilation just the same as space expanding.

However, when you follow things further, there is no need for forms of energy and matter that are hypothetical.
Um... Dark matter?

It is a theoretical construct only because we don't know what it is, but it's the reason galaxies don't fly apart.

Dark energy is also one of my favorite things.

14. Originally Posted by Strange
If matter is shrinking, then why aren't all the stars in the galaxy getting further away?

(Or, to put it another way, expanding space only occurs at cosmological distance not at the level of atoms.)

This is a direct prediction of my model.
z+1 = 1.065^t ; t is time or distance in billions or years/lightyears (same thing as no expansion of space)

The predicted redshift over 100,000 lightyears the entire width of galaxy is only
1.065^(100e3/1e9)-1 = 0.00000629749

Over the size of atoms the redshift is too small for the precision of Wolfram or google calculators, much smaller than the Hubble constant and the expansion of space in standard cos.

15. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic
This alternative cosmology assumes the only absolutes are the size of the universe and the speed of light.
So we are shrinking, space is not expanding.
The thing that immediately comes to mind here is that the strong interaction will break your idea, because the QCD Lagrangian is not invariant under scale transformations. In particular, the effective potential of the gluon field between pairs/triplets of quarks explicitly depends on their separation distance. I am also highly doubtful of the electroweak interaction, but don't know enough about it to tell for certain; at first glance though I would say it isn't scale invariant either.

Note that your idea explicitly depends on the assumption that all fundamental interactions are invariant under scale transformations, so that there are no changes in the laws of physics. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
I can't pretend to understand the details of this, in particluar is it using SI units in anyway?

If it is, then it is the SI units that scale with the atom and the rest of physics, leaving the QCD Lagrangian is unchanged.
If it is not using SI units then no scale is defined anyway.

Scale relative to what?

16. Originally Posted by PetTastic
I can't pretend to understand the details of this, in particluar is it using SI units in anyway?

If it is, then it is the SI units that scale with the atom and the rest of physics, leaving the QCD Lagrangian is unchanged.
If it is not using SI units then no scale is defined anyway.
I am really not sure what you mean by this, since the symmetries of the Lagrangian don't have anything to do with units. Let's look at a very simple example, just to illustrate the concept; suppose we have a Lagrangian of the general form

which is just the derivative of some function A(r). This Lagrangian would be invariant under translations, i.e. under transformations of the form

with a constant V. This is easy to see, since the constant just drops out when the derivative is taken. However, the same Lagrangian is not invariant under rescalings of the form

because the rescaling factor is not eliminated by the derivative operator, so the form of the Lagrangian changes under such a transformation.

This is not a physically meaningful example, it is intended only to illustrate the basic idea. Obviously, it is irrelevant what units A(r) is expressed in, the important aspect is only the symmetries of the system in question, i.e. what happens when one performs a transformation. Now, the QCD Lagrangian is very much more complicated than this trivially simple example, but the upshot is that it isn't invariant under rescalings either, like our expression above.

17. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic
I can't pretend to understand the details of this, in particluar is it using SI units in anyway?

If it is, then it is the SI units that scale with the atom and the rest of physics, leaving the QCD Lagrangian is unchanged.
If it is not using SI units then no scale is defined anyway.
I am really not sure what you mean by this, since the symmetries of the Lagrangian don't have anything to do with units. Let's look at a very simple example, just to illustrate the concept; suppose we have a Lagrangian of the general form

which is just the derivative of some function A(r). This Lagrangian would be invariant under translations, i.e. under transformations of the form

with a constant V. This is easy to see, since the constant just drops out when the derivative is taken. However, the same Lagrangian is not invariant under rescalings of the form

because the rescaling factor is not eliminated by the derivative operator, so the form of the Lagrangian changes under such a transformation.

This is not a physically meaningful example, it is intended only to illustrate the basic idea. Obviously, it is irrelevant what units A(r) is expressed in, the important aspect is only the symmetries of the system in question, i.e. what happens when one performs a transformation. Now, the QCD Lagrangian is very much more complicated than this trivially simple example, but the upshot is that it isn't invariant under rescalings either, like our expression above.
I think I understand what you are saying, maybe.
However, you are correct, I do not understand the details of even your simple version.

Hence, let me try to black box your example, and consider the boundary conditions, inputs and outputs.

To me the key question is, does your example have a dependancy on absolute distance and time?
Normally, anything that is compatable with GR is not.
What are the inputs?
Are they measured in metres and seconds?
What are the outputs measured in?
Are the inputs and outputs pure numbers without units?

(When working with QM or QED people sometime rescale everything so that the speed of light is 1, and scale back if the result is a length or time.)

So can I try to explain my side of it slightly better?

In my model I, am scaling the size and speed of operation of matter in the past, in such a way that the speed of light is preserved.
If the light emitted was (z+1) times longer wavelength than now, then all of matter was (z+1) times larger and ran (z+1) times slower.
As everything is relative, the same scale factors apply to the metre and second, and therefor the value of c is preserved.

So any inputs and outputs measured in metres or seconds are numerically unchanged by the scaling.
Pure numbers like the fine-structure-constant or hyper-fine are not effected.
All the constants of physics that use SI units remain numerically unchanged.

The idea is that any physics experiment performed by an observer in the past gives the identical result to to that being performed now by a modern observer.
Assuming the observer is made of matter and is scaled in the identical way to what he/she/it is observing.

18. Originally Posted by PetTastic
To me the key question is, does your example have a dependancy on absolute distance and time?
No. I did not specify any particular form of the function A(r) in my example; it could be anything at all. The important part is not the explicit form of A(r), but only how the function behaves when inserted into the Lagrangian ( i.e. its symmetries, not its form ).

What are the inputs?
Are they measured in metres and seconds?
What are the outputs measured in?
Are the inputs and outputs pure numbers without units?
I'm afraid I don't follow you. None of this is relevant to what I am trying to show with the example. Rescaling has nothing to do with units - I can express my daily commute in terms of who many kilometers I have to drive, or how many miles; two different units, two different numerical values, but the same physical distance. Rescaling and choice of different units are not the same.

(When working with QM or QED people sometime rescale everything so that the speed of light is 1, and scale back if the result is a length or time.)
That is not a rescaling, it is just a choice of different units ( SI vs natural units ). Again, these two concepts are not the same thing.

Pure numbers like the fine-structure-constant or hyper-fine are not effected. All the constants of physics that use SI units remain numerically unchanged.
The idea is that any physics experiment performed by an observer in the past gives the identical result to to that being performed now by a modern observer.
I don't follow you here either, because if the above is the case, no shrinkage can occur, and no one observes any change in the universe whatsoever. This is clearly contradictory to empirical data.
Ask yourself, in light of your two statements above - matter shrinks with respect to what ? And who observes the shrinkage ?

19. The laws of physics being circular is key to my model.

Physics only describes/predicts what happens when matter is used to observe matter.

Forms of matter that cannot be observed by matter are hypothetical.
So, basically if it can't be observed by matter it is not part of standard physics.

For example: A local observer doing an experiment to measure the size of an atom, is using an instrument made of atoms to do it.
The speed matter or clocks made from matter run at is only defined relative to another clock made of matter.
This makes all of physics circular.

The only absolute being the speed of light that fixes the relationship between distances measured by an observer and time measured by that observer.

Physics only provides relationships between one property of matter and another, it has no absolute reference scale.
For example: You can substitute out the units system being used, and physics gives you a direct relationship between the size of the hydrogen atom and the wavelengths of light it absorbs and emits, without reference to any external scale system.

This is assuming all of the physics of matter is being scaled, from quantum mechanics upwards. Inserting a scale factor somewhere inside the laws of physics does not work.

If matter was larger in the past, then so were the local observers and their scientific instruments.
The relationship between the matter being observed and observer is preserved, so the observer sees nothing untoward.

On the other hand, if the observer and his instruments are not local to the matter being observed then the observer does start to see differences when the distance to the observer is millions of lightyears.

My model is based on the direct observation that matter is shrinking.
Using telescopes made of matter we observe that distant matter is larger (angular size), redder, dimmer and slower than modern matter. So I just fit that to the known but circular laws of physics.
Standard cosmology explains this by the expansion of space modifying the photons that reach us from the past, but it does need a few 'small' fix factors to achieve a good match.

20. The scale of energy and interactions within our universe is relative to each other. There is no absolute scale, you are correct, but this relative scale is the important factor. You propose a change in relative scale, or there would be no effect at all to observe. Since these elements are relative, you necessarily have to change the relative scale of the strong force interaction, which is the problem Markus illustrates. Changing the relative scale breaks physics.

21. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic
This alternative cosmology assumes the only absolutes are the size of the universe and the speed of light.
So we are shrinking, space is not expanding.
The thing that immediately comes to mind here is that the strong interaction will break your idea, because the QCD Lagrangian is not invariant under scale transformations. In particular, the effective potential of the gluon field between pairs/triplets of quarks explicitly depends on their separation distance. I am also highly doubtful of the electroweak interaction, but don't know enough about it to tell for certain; at first glance though I would say it isn't scale invariant either.

Note that your idea explicitly depends on the assumption that all fundamental interactions are invariant under scale transformations, so that there are no changes in the laws of physics. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.
I can't pretend to understand the details of this, in particluar is it using SI units in anyway?

If it is, then it is the SI units that scale with the atom and the rest of physics, leaving the QCD Lagrangian is unchanged.
If it is not using SI units then no scale is defined anyway.

Scale relative to what?
BRRRR! Nitwit detector has just gone off.

22. Originally Posted by PetTastic
On the other hand, if the observer and his instruments are not local to the matter being observed then the observer does start to see differences when the distance to the observer is millions of lightyears.
As Kalster has noted, that's a rescaling of matter relative to a static universe, i.e. it is a rescaling of the fundamental interactions and their quantum fields. As you have rightly observed, that does not work, because QCD is not invariant under rescalings, and I am pretty sure neither is the electroweak interaction. Yes, this will give you the illusion of an expanding universe, but it will also "break" nucleonic physics.

23. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic
On the other hand, if the observer and his instruments are not local to the matter being observed then the observer does start to see differences when the distance to the observer is millions of lightyears.
As Kalster has noted, that's a rescaling of matter relative to a static universe, i.e. it is a rescaling of the fundamental interactions and their quantum fields. As you have rightly observed, that does not work, because QCD is not invariant under rescalings, and I am pretty sure neither is the electroweak interaction. Yes, this will give you the illusion of an expanding universe, but it will also "break" nucleonic physics.
To me, scale relative to 'a static universe' sounds like an absolute reference and therefor incompatible with GR and standard cosmology.
Intrucducing an absolute frame of reference would break my model in the same way.

No observerse witness a change in scale, unless they are moving relative to the matter being observed. (Speed of light for years to get detectable change.)

Observers local to the matter witness no change in scale relative to them and no change in the laws of physics.

The z function is exponetial, so as time passes the relative scales of two distant objects does not change.
So an observer remote from the matter by millions of light years only sees a static scale difference.

24. Originally Posted by PetTastic
To me, scale relative to 'a static universe' sounds like an absolute reference and therefor incompatible with GR and standard cosmology.
Your model is contrary to GR and standard cosmology anyway, since those explicitly model an expanding universe, not shrinking matter.

So an observer remote from the matter by millions of light years only sees a static scale difference.
Yes, I understand that, and it's the scale difference that is the issue. Like I said, you can't scale QCD in this way and expect everything to still work out. On the other hand, if no physical rescaling takes place, you can't recover the observational data of an accelerating expansion.

To avoid any further confusion, can you write down explicitly what happens to the Lagrangians of QED, QCD and EW in your model ? It would be much easier to just consider the mathematics.

25. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Your model is contrary to GR and standard cosmology anyway, since those explicitly model an expanding universe, not shrinking matter.
To convert GR into a plausible cosmology the Lamda-CDM model adds, the expansion of space, the cosmological constant, dark energy and dark matter to GR.

My model only uses GR and matter shrinking.
Everything else follows from unavoidable physics, in a universe thousands of billions years old, where stars have been burning for in the region of 100 billion years or more.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
To avoid any further confusion, can you write down explicitly what happens to the Lagrangians of QED, QCD and EW in your model ? It would be much easier to just consider the mathematics.
It is not me that is claiming the laws of physics reference an external absolute scale factor.
In my model, nothing is scaling relative to the local observers, who is him/its self part of the circular laws of physics.
Everything is relative to the observer.

26. Originally Posted by PetTastic
To convert GR into a plausible cosmology the Lamda-CDM model adds, the expansion of space, the cosmological constant, dark energy and dark matter to GR.
That is not entirely correct. The expansion of space follows directly from the field equations, it isn't something that is being added-on somehow, it is intrinsic to space-time itself. Likewise, the cosmological constant ( = dark energy ) is already part of GR ( although for curious historical reasons ! ). The only thing that is being added on from observational data is the cold dark matter.

My model only uses GR and matter shrinking.
If I understand it correctly, your model assumes a stationary universe. Since the tendency to expand is intrinsic to the geometry of space-time, you will need to explain just why it is stationary. This is the exact same problem that led Einstein to introduce the cosmological constant - he was a believer in a stationary universe.

It is not me that is claiming the laws of physics reference an external absolute scale factor.
I don't know about other readers here, but at this stage I no longer know what it actually is you are proposing. You cannot have shrinking matter in a stationary universe without rescaling the fundamental interactions in the process. After all, that is why it is called "shrinking matter". I understand that everything shrinks equally at the same rate ( which is something you have yet to explain - why is the shrinkage in perfect sync even across cosmological distances ?? ), so local observers won't notice anything special, but the shrinkage still happens with respect to distant/old reference observers. If it didn't, we wouldn't see anything happening at all.

This is why I asked whether you are able to put some maths around this - I am sure I am not the only one getting kind of confused over what it actually is you are proposing. As things stand I see you as contradicting yourself - you are saying there is no rescaling, but at the same time you say that the apparent recession of distant objects is due to shrinking matter. These statements are mutually exclusive.

27. What I am sying is:

My model requires that the laws of physics are circular.

That is they describe the behaviour of matter as observed by matter.

The size of atoms/matter is only measured using matter/atoms.

The written laws of physics give no absolute sizes relative to an external frame of reference.

As I understand, your original objection to this is that the QCD Lagrangian does not scale.

Most Lagrangians used in physics are scale independent, use cyclic coordinates and have the required symmetries to work with GR.

(Please correct anything I have wrong here, as I have never looked at QCD before.)

The QCD Lagrangian is odd, as you said, it is scale dependant.
As far as I can see, this is because its behaviour changes with energy/temperature.
From Lattice QCD papers, it looks like the Lagrangian is expressed directly in SI units, i.e. Joules or eV or Kelvin.
I am guessing that is because the Lagrangian contains some form of threshold value or function expressed in those units?

If the above is correct, then QCD Lagrangian is defined in SI units measured using matter, and is part of the circular laws of physics with no problem.

It would be nice to move on to discuss modelling the universe predicted by my model.
The problems associated with the predicted baryonic dark matter, and the CBM.
The complications associated with having two versions of time, linear as used in inertial reference frames, and that measured by matter running slower in the past.
Nucleosynthesis from neutrons cm across at z = 1e17 or so.

28. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Most Lagrangians used in physics are scale independent, use cyclic coordinates and have the required symmetries to work with GR.
None of this is correct, I'm afraid. This is at the heart of my argument - in particular none of the above is applicable in the case of QCD. On a more general level, the Standard Model and GR are two separate theories, and don't necessarily work together very well.

From Lattice QCD papers, it looks like the Lagrangian is expressed directly in SI units, i.e. Joules or eV or Kelvin.
Of course, since the Lagrangian is a measure of energy and dynamics of a system.
Bear in mind though that Lattice QCD is an approximation method to enable us to perform numerical calculations. The QCD Lagrangian itself is far too complicated for most analytical methods.

It would be nice to move on to discuss modelling the universe predicted by my model.
That's good and well, but remember that the entire idea stands on a shaky foundation so long as the QCD issue remains open.

29. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
the Standard Model and GR are two separate theories, and don't necessarily work together very well.

Of course, since the Lagrangian is a measure of energy and dynamics of a system.
Bear in mind though that Lattice QCD is an approximation method to enable us to perform numerical calculations. The QCD Lagrangian itself is far too complicated for most analytical methods.

It would be nice to move on to discuss modelling the universe predicted by my model.
That's good and well, but remember that the entire idea stands on a shaky foundation so long as the QCD issue remains open.
The QCD Lagrangian is just a function that is evaluated at an instant of time.
At any instant of time, it gives the energy of the system (kinetic - potential) at that instant of time.

The system is described in SI units and so is the result return by the function.
At any instant of time, SI units are linked to the scale of matter, because they are the results of measurements by instruments made of matter.

The function references no external coordinate system other than SI units.

At low energies, solutions describe the properties of protons and neutrons relative to other matter.
At high energies, it describes a quark-gluon plasma relative to other matter.

What issues remain open?

As far as I can see, my model is more friendly towards QM in a GR environment than standard cosmology.
As events can be described relative to both local and remote observers, with my model describing matter not space.
Making it simpler to model large-scale predictions like entanglement in terms of GR concept of simultaneous events. This looks interesting when distance is something that is measured relative to shrinking matter. (The universe only looks big because we are shrinking).

30. Originally Posted by PetTastic
The QCD Lagrangian is just a function that is evaluated at an instant of time.
At any instant of time, it gives the energy of the system (kinetic - potential) at that instant of time.
That is not correct in general. The Lagrangian is obtained by integrating the Lagrangian density over a region of space, and the action of the system is the Lagrangian density integrated over time. As such, the Lagrangian isn't a function of energy at an instant of time ( note : this is not the same as being a measure of total energy ), but rather a functional in the field variables, which themselves may or may not depend on time and/or position. In order to get the field equations of the system in question, you have to insert the Lagrangian into the Euler-Lagrange equations, and solve them to obtain the equations of motion. Only then can you obtain explicit relations for such measures as "energy at an instant of time". Unfortunately, the QCD Lagrangian is far too complex to do this analytically, hence the need for approximation methods such as Lattice QCD.

At any instant of time, SI units are linked to the scale of matter, because they are the results of measurements by instruments made of matter.
It appears to me that you haven't understood what I was trying to explain ( in particular that this is not an issue of the choice of units ), and/or that you have the wrong idea how the Lagrangian formalism works. I can at this stage only recommend that you consult a good textbook on this subject - I am referring not to the classical mechanics concept of "Lagrangian mechanics", but rather to the Lagrangian formalism of quantum field theory, which is somewhat more general and involved than the difference between kinetic and potential energies.

What issues remain open?
This one :

The universe only looks big because we are shrinking
QCD doesn't shrink/scale ( neither does EWI, I would think ), so if we shrink, we will break the laws of physics in the process. I have attempted to give you a hand with your idea by pointing this out - it was really only meant as a constructive criticism. It's up to yourself now what you do with it; in my opinion simply dismissing it is probably not the best approach, but I leave it to you.

31. Are you referring to non-relativistic QCD?

QCD is a fully relativistic field theorem, and supports the standard group of Lorentz transforms.
This includes length dilation and the comoving-space transform used by my model.

Length dilation is scaling in the direction of relative motion.
Hadrons in a particle accelerator are length dilated/scaled as flat as a pancake.

My model is compatible with all QFT in the standard model as they all support the basic Lorentz transforms of which comoving-space scaling is one of the simplest.

If QCD did not scale, protons and neutrons moving would be breaking the laws of physics.

32. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Length dilation is scaling in the direction of relative motion.
Hadrons in a particle accelerator are length dilated/scaled as flat as a pancake.
That is purely a coordinate effect as seen from the laboratory observer's frame of reference, it is not a rescaling of the Lagrangian in the reference frame of the particle itself, unlike in the case of "shrinking matter". That's the whole point of "Lorentz invariance" - if you apply a Lorentz transformation to the Lagrangian, it remains unaltered, so everyone continues to see the same physics. And QCD - along with all the rest of the Standard Model - is evidently Lorentz invariant, but most certainly not scale invariant. These are completely different symmetries.

QCD is a fully relativistic field theorem, and supports the standard group of Lorentz transforms.
This includes length dilation and the comoving-space transform used by my model.
The entire Standard Model is Lorentz invariant, so this is trivial.
The Poincare group comprises translations in time, translations in space, spatial rotations, and spatial boosts; it does not include rescalings.

If you are still in doubt what I am attempting to point out, have a look at this summary of QCD symmetries on slide 39 of the presentation :

http://phys.cts.nthu.edu.tw/~particl..._Chivukula.pdf

You can't really make it any clearer that scale invariance is not one of the symmetries of the QCD Lagrangian, so your model fails in this basic but crucial regard.

If QCD did not scale, protons and neutrons moving would be breaking the laws of physics.
See above. Lorentz transforms are not rescalings of the Lagrangian, since it is invariant under such transforms.

33. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That is purely a coordinate effect as seen from the laboratory observer's frame of reference, it is not a rescaling of the Lagrangian in the reference frame of the particle itself, unlike in the case of "shrinking matter". That's the whole point of "Lorentz invariance" - if you apply a Lorentz transformation to the Lagrangian, it remains unaltered, so everyone continues to see the same physics. And QCD - along with all the rest of the Standard Model - is evidently Lorentz invariant, but most certainly not scale invariant. These are completely different symmetries.
I think "is purely a coordinate effect" is a slightly bad choice of words, as time dilation, etc. is very real.

However, I think we are now getting somewhere as you are using my own argument against me

You are saying, when the particle gets length dilated so does its local coordinate system, so the Lagrangian is not being rescaled relative to it.
Correct?

Is it reasonable of me to reword this as?:
When the particle shrinks in the direction of travel so does the local coordinate system, so the Lagrangian is not rescaled relative to the local coordinate system/ reference frame.

This is the argument that I have been using all along.
When matter shrinks so does the local reference frame or coordinate system, so the Lagrangian is not rescaled relative to it.

I think I have a clue to the second issue of contention.
You are saying my "scaling" is not a standard Lorentz transform?
Is this because you are assuming that I am only scaling distance and not time as well?

I am using the Lorentz transform used by standard cosmology for the expansion of space, and to describe comoving space.
It is the Lorentz transform that provides the cosmic redshift and cosmic time dilation, as a counter to the scale change.

When applied to matter not space there is the added complication of relativistic mass, when coverting from/to the local reference frame.
From to OP:
This gives SI units in the past:
Time: s' = (1+z)s
Length: m' = (1+z)m
Energy: J' = J/(1+z)
Mass: Kg' = Kg/(1+z)
Force N' = N/(1+z)^2

34. Originally Posted by PetTastic
I think "is purely a coordinate effect" is a slightly bad choice of words, as time dilation, etc. is very real.
It being a coordinate effect doesn't make it less "real" - it just means the effect isn't detected in the rest frame of the object itself. Note that this symmetric relationship is true only for inertial frames in Minkowski space-time.

You are saying my "scaling" is not a standard Lorentz transform?
Of course it isn't. Lorentz transforms are just translations, rotations and boosts, but not rescalings. Besides, they apply only between inertial frames in Minkowski space-time.

I am using the Lorentz transform used by standard cosmology for the expansion of space, and to describe comoving space.
It is the Lorentz transform that provides the cosmic redshift and cosmic time dilation, as a counter to the scale change.
What ? I completely and utterly lost you know, I'm afraid. Metric expansion has nothing whatsoever to do with Lorentz transformations, and that is most certainly not what standard cosmology does. Lorentz transforms relate inertial frames in Minkowski space-time to one another; standard cosmology uses FLRW space-time, and has no notion of such transformations. The Lambda-CDM model is based on a rescaling of the spatial part of the metric by a time-dependent scale factor a(t), so if you set out to replicate the results of standard cosmology, you need to talk "rescalings" too, not Lorentz transforms.

All along this is what I assumed you were doing - shifting the scale factor of metric expansion from the distant universe to local matter, and reversing the sign, with the aim of replicating the results of standard cosmology in the sense that it provides an alternative that is still in accord with empirical data. Hence all my talk about rescalings. I had no idea that you were under the impression that standard cosmology obtains redshift through Lorentz transforms, which is not correct.

35. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by PetTastic
I think "is purely a coordinate effect" is a slightly bad choice of words, as time dilation, etc. is very real.
It being a coordinate effect doesn't make it less "real" - it just means the effect isn't detected in the rest frame of the object itself. Note that this symmetric relationship is true only for inertial frames in Minkowski space-time.

You are saying my "scaling" is not a standard Lorentz transform?
Of course it isn't. Lorentz transforms are just translations, rotations and boosts, but not rescalings. Besides, they apply only between inertial frames in Minkowski space-time.

I am using the Lorentz transform used by standard cosmology for the expansion of space, and to describe comoving space.
It is the Lorentz transform that provides the cosmic redshift and cosmic time dilation, as a counter to the scale change.
What ? I completely and utterly lost you know, I'm afraid. Metric expansion has nothing whatsoever to do with Lorentz transformations, and that is most certainly not what standard cosmology does. Lorentz transforms relate inertial frames in Minkowski space-time to one another; standard cosmology uses FLRW space-time, and has no notion of such transformations. The Lambda-CDM model is based on a rescaling of the spatial part of the metric by a time-dependent scale factor a(t), so if you set out to replicate the results of standard cosmology, you need to talk "rescalings" too, not Lorentz transforms.

All along this is what I assumed you were doing - shifting the scale factor of metric expansion from the distant universe to local matter, and reversing the sign, with the aim of replicating the results of standard cosmology in the sense that it provides an alternative that is still in accord with empirical data. Hence all my talk about rescalings. I had no idea that you were under the impression that standard cosmology obtains redshift through Lorentz transforms, which is not correct.
Length dilation is a classic example of a Lorentz transform that scales.

Standard cosmology describes the expansion of space in terms of GR.

The comoving scale factor at time t: a(t) also describes the time dilation at time t.

It describes the scaling of both space and time, and is a Lorentz transform that preserves the relationship between space and time, and thus the speed of light.

36. Originally Posted by PetTastic
It describes the scaling of both space and time, and is a Lorentz transform that preserves the relationship between space and time, and thus the speed of light.
Please provide a textbook reference that shows

(1) that metric expansion scales time
(2) that metric expansion is a Lorentz transformation
(3) the derivation of the Friedmann equations and the Hubble Law from Lorentz transformations

37. Marcus, you are correct, I was forgetting Lorentz transforms are special relativity, so do not include the expansion of space or reference frames traveling faster than the speed of light.

I just got 17 emails pointing out my stupid mistake.

However, the expansion of space still does preserve the relationship between space and time, and the speed of light.
It is a scaling of both space and time that produces both cosmic time dilation and cosmic redshift.

That is purely a coordinate effect as seen from the laboratory observer's frame of reference, it is not a rescaling of the Lagrangian in the reference frame of the particle itself, unlike in the case of "shrinking matter". That's the whole point of "Lorentz invariance" - if you apply a Lorentz transformation to the Lagrangian, it remains unaltered, so everyone continues to see the same physics.
Is the killer argument in my favour, as the local ref frame is the basis of my argument.

38. Originally Posted by PetTastic
Marcus, you are correct, I was forgetting Lorentz transforms are special relativity, so do not include the expansion of space or reference frames traveling faster than the speed of light.
Yes, correct.

It is a scaling of both space and time that produces both cosmic time dilation and cosmic redshift.
Incorrect. The FLRW metric is of the general form

so the metric expansion happens only in the spatial part of the metric - there is no "scaling of time", nor is that needed.

Is the killer argument in my favour, as the local ref frame is the basis of my argument.
It is actually the exact opposite, precisely because Lorentz transformations are incapable of producing a rescaling, they do not allow you to recover the scale factor a(t). This is pretty much what you have acknowledged in the first sentence of your last post also, and what the point of my argument was. Can you not see this ? Lorentz transformations are not rescalings of the Lagrangian ( since it is invariant under such transformations ), but you need a rescaling to be present to globally recover the expansion factor a(t) in your cosmological metric, and hence the empirically observable change in scale. The problem then is that once you try to introduce the rescaling, you will find that the QCD Lagrangian is not invariant under such a transformation, so you end up breaking the strong interaction.

So to make a long story short :

1. All empirically observable metric expansion effects are due to the presence of a cosmological scale factor a(t) - no scale factor, no observable effects
2. The QCD Lagrangian is Lorentz invariant
3. However, Lorentz transformations can not produce the scale factor a(t)
4. The QCD Lagrangian is not scale invariant ( see document I linked to in post #31 )
5. Rescaling the QCD Lagrangian would in principle allow you to recover the required scale factor a(t), however, due to (4) you will "break" the strong interaction in the process

So if you want to eliminate the scale factor from the cosmological metric ( i.e. eliminate metric expansion ), you need to instead shift it to the Lagrangians of the fundamental interactions ( to produce shrinking matter instead ). This will at the very least break the strong interaction. It will also introduce a new problem, namely the question why such rescalings should take place - there is no symmetry mechanism in the Standard Model that could introduce such a process ( unsurprisingly ) in the first place; it would have to be introduced as a new ad-hoc assumption that has no physical motivation. On the other hand, metric expansion is an intrinsic property of space-time, and falls directly out of the Einstein equations without any further assumptions - which is why the FLRW metric was one of the earliest exact solutions that was found to his equations.

It just occurs to me that you have another problem - to eliminate metric expansion while still maintaining the validity of GR as a model, you will need a very precisely balanced value of the cosmological constant ( this is the exact issue that lead Einstein to originally introduce this constant ). This puts you in a position where your idea will have to explain just why this constant has the exact value that is required to counterbalance metric expansion, for a given configuration - what is the physical mechanism that ensure this ? And it gets much worse from here - since the cosmological constant is just energy density of the vacuum, and the vacuum ground state is in turn determined by the Standard Model Lagrangian, you cannot rescale any of these Lagrangians without affecting the cosmological constant too !

I am sorry to say, but the more I think about your idea, the more self-contradictory the whole thing becomes, at least in its present form. At the end of the day, to make all of this work you will have no choice but to introduce a new scalar field that permeates all of space-time - this scalar field would need to couple to the vacuum ground state to ensure the proper balancing of the cosmological constant, as well as modify the fundamental Lagrangians in just the right way to make them scale invariant. Whether this is mathematically possible - I have absolutely no idea, but it would be extremely difficult, and also very ad-hoc, not to mention that there isn't any evidence for the presence of such a field.

Btw, you are probably aware of this already, but you are of course not the first person to propose this; it's actually an old idea. The latest reincarnation is probably Wetterich's proposal :

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.6878.pdf

It's a pity that he never even investigates the relationship to the standard model QFTs. In any case, he goes the route via an additional scalar field, as I alluded to above. Note that this yields a substantially modified action for the gravitational field equations, so GR in its current form would no longer be valid.

39. The transform:

In SR the Lorentz transform is between two reference frames.
In GR I am refering to the more general transform between reference frames.
That is the transform between two cosmological reference frames described by a(t).
The transform includes scaling of space-time not just space. i.e. time dilaltion.
The transform preserves the meaning of proper length, so light like events, etc are preserved.

Matter shrinking:
You have reversed the logic in the one dimensional case from the 3 dimensional case.
In the one dimensional case the reference frame shrinks in the direction of travel, that is the metre in the local reference frame shrinks.
The size of the particle in local metres is preserved, and the Lagrangian is not effected.

In the 3d case, the reference frame shrinks in 3d along with the metre in that reference frame.
The size of the particle in local metres is preserved, and the Lagrangian is not effected.

Why are you saying this cannot be applied equally to 3d as 1d.
If it helps you can imagine three orthogonal metre rulers made of atoms, all shrinking but still valid in the local ref frame.

The motivation is:
Standard cosmology requires that 95% of the inputs are correction factors.
Dark energyis only thought to exist because the model is broken without it, and the same for dark matter.

In my model the shrinilng of matter looks exothermic from all reference frames, strong force/ weak force potential energy -> kinetic energy / mass.
So no dark energy required to shrink matter.
Baryonic dark matter is unavoidable (cold rocks, about 3 kelvin) as stars have been forming for more than a hundred billion years, and converting hydrogen to iron etc.
Good explanation of metal content of intergalatic medium, unavoidable long dead galaxies.
Universe can be described using a single inertial reference frame.
Direct predicting that shrinking of matter is unmeasurable at scales smaller than galactic clusters.
Direct prediction of an inflation type event.
Etc etc.

Other shrinking matter cosmologies:
Yes, I am in email contanct with several people who have or are writing papers on the subject.
Back in 2011, I posted a previous incanation of this model on this forum.
Condensing universe (Alternative to BBT please break)
That version is now dead, as people did find real problems with it, Weak force, dark matter issues - rotation of distant galixies a high z etc.
It all started as joke post to the old Mythbusters forum a while before that.

40. Originally Posted by PetTastic
The transform:

In SR the Lorentz transform is between two reference frames.
In GR I am refering to the more general transform between reference frames.
That is the transform between two cosmological reference frames described by a(t).
The transform includes scaling of space-time not just space. i.e. time dilaltion.
The transform preserves the meaning of proper length, so light like events, etc are preserved.

Matter shrinking:
You have reversed the logic in the one dimensional case from the 3 dimensional case.
In the one dimensional case the reference frame shrinks in the direction of travel, that is the metre in the local reference frame shrinks.
The size of the particle in local metres is preserved, and the Lagrangian is not effected.
And we're back at square one. Just like the equally circular Cosmoquest thread.

Yawn.

41. You are not really addressing any of the issues I have pointed out to you, you are just going back and re-stating what we have already been through; for example, I pointed out to you that time doesn't scale during metric expansion, and showed you the metric used to demonstrate the point, and you just ignored this and changed the subject by suddenly talking about transforms between reference frames, something that has no relation to metric expansion, being what we were discussing. It seems to me like you are happy enough to just pretend the issues don't exist; or perhaps my impression is wrong and you genuinely do not understand what those problems are, and what ramifications they have. Perhaps I just didn't make them clear enough. In either case my advice to you would be ( this is quite genuine, not meant to be sarcastic ) to thoroughly study both the theory of relativity as well as quantum field theory first, since it seems to me that you are not very well versed in either of them. Since these form the cornerstones of your idea, an in-depth study will enable you to look at what you propose in a more critical light, and from a position of knowledge.

It all started as joke post to the old Mythbusters forum a while before that.
This idea of shrinking matter as opposed to an expanding universe has been around for some time, and several different models have been proposed over the years, the latest one being Wetterich's, which I have referenced in my last post. I would not call such proposals a "joke" so long as they are based on the proper science. The problem is that no one has been able to make any of these models work without breaking either GR or the SM in the process, precisely for the reasons I attempted to point out.

But that's ok, because proposing new ideas lies at the heart of science, no matter how unlikely they might sound. Hopefully you can find the feedback I gave you valuable - ultimately though it is down to you what you do with it. My evaluation of this model is that it won't work without major modifications to GR, QFT or both, such as introducing additional scalar fields that couple to the existing QFs in just the right way, as Wetterich has done for example. My opinion is also that your own way of thinking about this is far too simplistic - there is a lot more to this than just transformations between frames.

I'll leave you to it at this stage, since I have little else to add over and above the issues I had mentioned already - I urge you to not just dismiss and ignore them, at least not if you have any interest in making this actually work.

42. Marcus you have been avoiding answering this since post #31.

You are assuming the reference frame shrinks with matter when it length dilates, so your Lagrangian is not scaled in local coordinates.
This is symmetric, so the particle shrinks in the direction of travel and so does the accelerator/universe relative to the particle.
Physics is measuring the size of length dilated matter against length dilated matter, so the Lagrangian, accelerator, particle and universe still work.

However, you are saying it is not valid for me to shrink the reference frame with matter in my model.
Why?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement