Lazarus

How does the curvature of space cause a photon to permanently change its path? All of the diagrams of space curving around a mass seem tp start with a rectangular grid then pull the grid down around a mass. The line that dips comes back up to realign with the original line. So why does the light lensing work?

Swansont, You have incredible patience to field all the questions that you do. It is appreciated greatly. If I could try your patience again, I would appreciate it if you would jump over to Speculations and give my post on a Cosmology Hypothesis some more information on why it is out in left field,

Here is a better description of the cause of the Red Shift. Let a Bohr atom have a velocity of 3 with an electron changing from an orbit with a relative velocity of 1 to an orbit with a relative velocity of 2. e> Blue photon > v=pv+1=4,ke=16 * * * e> * * v=pv+2=5, ke=25 * * * * * * * p> * * * * pv=3. * * * * * * * * <e * * * v=pv-2=1, ke=1 * * * < Red photon * * <e * * v=pv-1=2, ke=4 The energy change going from the higher orbit to the lower one is significantly different for an electron moving in the direction of the motion of the atom than an electron moving in the opposite direction. In the example the kinetic energy change is 9 for an electron moving in the direction of the motion of the atom, as opposed to 3 for the electron moving in the opposite direction. The change in the energy from the electrostatic force is the same for both. If the path of the electron is an orbital or something else a similar effect will occur.

If the superposition state of the second particle stays the same after the first particle is measured why couldn't both particles have stayed in the same superposition state since they started out?

Swansont said "Not in quantum mechanics, for entangled particles. They are in a superposition. Once you measure the state, the entanglement is broken." Delta1212 said "Even if they were, doesn't the correlation still hold even if the measurements aren't made at the same time? Swansont said "Yes, which is not what you expect from oscillations." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please clarify for me how the measurements can be at different times if the first measurement breaks the entanglement.

So do you think the oscillations of the two entangled enties could stay in sync or is that unlikely?

Is the time of observation the same for both observers? I can't find a description ot the experiments that makes it clear to me whether or not that is the case. They talk about instantaineous communication but I can't tell if the two observations are made at the same time. If they are, why couldn't the two entities just stay in sync like the dumbbells?

Elfmotat said: "Your whole post is based on the assumption that the Cosmological Constant changes over time, despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Hence the term Cosmological Constant. It is thought to represent the vacuum energy density, and there's no current reason to suspect it should change over time." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lazarus The rate expansion of space is said to change over time so I assumed that gravity must change to match. This was just my understanding and has nothing to do the the hypothesis. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote Lazarus Quote Elfmotat 2 and 3 are extremely vague, and 1 contradicts observation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will try to unvague these points. 1 The expansion of space concept is unnecessary when you treat all Red Shift as the result of the motion of the source of the photons that were emitted a long time ago. You do not need space expansion to stretch photons to match current observations. 2 Using the Bohr atom with a proton orbited by an electron it can be seen that the energy required to change the level of the electron is affected by the motion of the atom. Whether it is an orbit, an orbital or other path, motion will have an effect on the energy required to change the level of the electron. With photon leaving in the direction of motion of the atom, the higher velocity of the electron generating it will require more energy change to go from a higher orbit to a lower one resulting in a bluer photon. A photon leaving in the opposite direction will drain less energy in the electrons transition so is more red. 3 What observation does it conflict with? Again using the Bohr atom for illustration looking at the clockwise orbit with gravity in the 6 o'clock direction, the force on the electon at 12 o'clock is greater towards the proton than it would be without gravity so the path has to change. When the electron is at 6 o'clock the electrostatic force from the proton is offset by the force of gravity, also changing the path of the electron. No matter what the path of the electron really is it has to be affected by gravity.

The Standard Theories imply that: Space is expanding at an accelerating rate. Gravity offsets the expansion. Gravity changes over time to match the changing rate of expansion So the equations for gravity have to change over time. That is why the empirical adjustments have to be made. Is that correct? The essence of the hypothesis is: 1 All Red Shift results from the motion of the source of the photons. 2 Red shift is caused by the difference of energy required for a photon to leave in the direction of motion than opposed to the direction of motion. 3 Slowing of clocks in gravitational fields is because the path of electrons in atoms is changed by gravity.

Please tell me how this hypothesis conflicts with reality. It was agreed on the thread "How can galaxies exist with the expansion of space?" that there are two distinct sources of the acceleration of stars and galaxies. One is the expansion of space and the other is gravity. The equation for gravity has to produce the force necessary to offset the expansion of space. The equation that works today will be wrong tomorrow because the rate of expansion changes. It would be difficult to modify the gravity equation to account for the changing rate because we really don't know how fast it is going to change or even why it is changing. That is why there is a "fudge factor" called the Cosmological Constant that has to be determined empirically and changes with time. See the Cosmology thread started February 2, 2013: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72570-how-can-galaxies-exist-with-the-expansion-of-space/ There is no question that mathematics of current theories generates good matches to the physical world. The interpretation can be questioned. It is strange that gravity changes to match space expansion without some cause and effect relationship. The accuracy of the space expansion equations doesn't prove space is really expanding any more than the Roulette equations that described the motion of the sun and planets around the earth proved that the sun orbits the earth. It would seem that it would take a lot less coincidence to formulate an explanation based on the consideration that the Red Shift is caused by the velocity of the source of the photons. That way you don't need the two different causes of the Red Shift, velocity and space expansion. Here is a different way to explain the effects we see: The reason for the red shift of old light is that the source of the light was moving away from where the Earth is now at a speed that is related to the time of emission and the distance from the center of the Big Bang. There is no real reason that the distance from Earth is linearly proportional to the velocity of the source of the light. The following chart is a 2 dimensional slice of 4 dimensional Space/Time. The units of the time axis are such that light would travel an equal distance along the X axis to the Time value. This is what we see now. Time _______________________ !__________________________ Now__________________e !__________________________ Stars_______________*___ !_*________________________ 1a Supernova _____1a_____!_____1a___Z=.4-.9, v=.32c-.56c Oldest 1a SN ___0_______ !_________0__Z=1.7, v=.7c____ \__Galaxies_@___________ !___________@_Z=7, v=.97c_/_ __\_____/__Atoms form___ !___Z=10, v=98.3 \______/____ ____/\__Farthest Visable __ !_Z=infinity v=c ____\_/_______ __/_____\______________ _!_______________/___\______ ___________\____________!____________/________\____ ______________\_________!_________/______________\_ _________________\______!______/___________________ ____________________\___!___/______________________ Big Bang________________ 0_____________________X axis The chart shows the velocity of objects at the time the light was emitted that is arriving at the earth now. The Earth is a ways from the center of the Big Bang. The light arriving now is from: (1) The main la supernovas with Z=.4 to .9 V=.32c to.56c (2) The oldest la supernova at Z=l .7 V=.7c (3) Galaxies at Z=7 V=.97c (4) Atom formation at Z=l0 V=.983c (5) The edge of the matter at Z=infinity, V=c The Red Shift due to the velocity of the light source can be accounted for by the difference of energy required to change electron levels generating photons in the direction of travel than in the opposite direction. The slowing of clocks in gravity can be accounted for by the change in the path of an electron in relation to the nucleus. The confusion about photons being particles or waves can be resolved by the assumption that all matter and radiation consists of minute entities that can be represented as positive and negative vectors that always travel at the speed of light. Electrostatic, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are all that are needed to construct a universe. Sorry, the link to the thread "How can galaxies exist with the expansion of space" is: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72570-how-can-galaxies-exist-with-the-expansion-of-space/ I guess the link won't work.

In principle if we had the technical ability we could measure a particle and predict what it's state would be at a future time. I understand what you are saying and really appreciate your responses. Thank you.

The dumbells are in a constantly changing mode, vetical, horizontal and in between. When arriving at the target vertical the target is destroyed. When arriving horizontally they pass through the hole. How is this any different from particles changing modes?

Same as particle entanglement. If the targets are 50 miles apart, an observer at one target knows what the observer at the other target sees.

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT OF TWO DUMBBELLS To reproduce Quantum Entanglement with two dumbbells this is what you need to do, Fire the two 12 inch dumbbells in synchronized rotation at two equidistant cardboard targets with 8 inch holes in the center. If one target is destroyed the other one will also be destroyed. If one dumbbell passes through the hole the other dumbbell will also pass through the hole.

Dear Beefpatty, With this thread winding down, I don't want it to appear that there are unresolved issues. There are none. The original question has been answered clearly with good explanations. The last posts by ZAPATOS and ACH52 were absolutely valid. I tried to make if very clear that my post about Telsa was not an argument for or against anything. The discussion you referred to was about atoms, not galaxies. Your contribution is appreciated. It was a pleasure to read all the excellent posts to this thread by knowledgeable individuals.

I see what you mean. Since the force of gravity at short distances is greater than what would be necessary for stable orbits without the expansion of space, the electrostatic force must be greater than would be required to hold solids together without space expansion. There should be no effect at greater distances unless some galaxies have a significant excess of deficiency of electrons. Pleae forgive the irrelevant reply but I couldn't resist. Telsa showed that "pushing on a building" at the right frequency could eventually bring the building down. Mythbusters seemed to verify it by shaking a big bridge with an 8 pound weight.

The electrostatic force between electrons and protons should have the same problems with the expansion of space that gravity does. Doesn't the sizeable expansion of space over a few billion years have any effect within atoms and solids held together by electrostatic forces?

Do electrostatic forces follow the same rules as gravity?

So actually, we are all really in agreement on how the theory says that the universe works. One inferrence is that electrostatic force must work the same way or atoms would be growing. Great thread.

I am assuming that the "consensus" is that gravity offsets space expansion as our observation indicates and will continuously change to match our observations.

Dear imatfall, I did not intend to trick anyone. I keep saying that I appreciate the effort and execellent clarifications all the intricacies of the equations involved. I should not have added anything about alternate theories. My understanding of the interaction of gravity and space expansion from this thread just is not in agreement with the consensus. I have nothing but respect for all who have posted to this thread and the moderators.

I must appogize for my last post. Reading more of the Monitor's posts I discovered that theories that were not in line with the Standard Model were not allowed. It's your forum so it's your rules. I will move any further thoughts to the Rational Science dot org board. This thread has an excellent explanation of the compatabily of the equations of space expansion and gravity. I do not think it demonstrates "proof beyond a reasonable" doubt that space itself really expands. Einstein's posts would have been moved to the psuedoscience forum. Thanks again.

From the discussion on this thread it appears that there are two distinct sources of the acceleration of stars and galaxies. One is the expansion of space and the other is gravity. The equation for gravity has to produce the force necessary to offset the expansion of space. The equation that works today will be wrong tomorrow because the rate of expansion changes. It would be difficult to modify the gravity equation to account for the changing rate because we really don't know how fast it is gong to change or even why it is changing. Also, it is strange that gravity changes to match space expansion without some cause and effect relationship. The accuracy of the space expansion equations doesn't prove space is really expanding any more than the Roulette equations proved that the sun orbits the earth. It would seem that it would take a lot less magic to formulate an explanation based on the consideration that the Red Shift is caused by the velocity of the source of the photons. That way you don't need the two different causes of the Red Shift, velocity and space expansion. An example of a more straight forward approach is: How Isaac Newton would explain the Red Shift of old light The reason for the red shift of old light is that the source of the light was moving away from where the Earth is now at a speed that is related to the time of emission and the distance from the center of the Big Bang. There is no real reason that the distance from Earth is linearly proportional to the velocity of the source of the light. So the apparent distance of la supernova deviating from the linear formula of distance vs velocity is not a problem. The following chart is a 2 dimensional slice of 4 dimensional Space/Time. The units of the time axis are such that light would travel an equal distance along the X axis to the Time value. This is what we see now. Time _______________________!__________________________ Now__________________e!__________________________ Stars_______________*___!_*________________________ 1a Supernova_____1a_____!_____1a___Z=.4-.9, v=.32c-.56c Oldest 1a SN ___0_______ !_________0__Z=1.7, v=.7c_____ \__Galaxies_@___________!___________@_Z=7,v=.97c_/_ __\_____/__Atoms form___!___Z=10, v=98.3 \_______/____ ____/\__Farthest Visable __!_Z=infinity v=c ____\_/_______ __/_____\_______________!_______________/___\______ ___________\____________!____________/________\____ ______________\_________!_________/______________\_ _________________\______!______/___________________ ____________________\___!___/______________________ Big Bang________________0_____________________X axis The chart shows the velocity of objects at the time the light was emitted that is arriving at the earth now. The Earth is a ways from the center of the Big Bang. The chart shows: (1) the main la supernovas with Z=.4 to .9 V=.32c to.56c, (2) the oldest la supernova at Z=l .7 V=.7c, (3) Galaxies at Z=7 V=.97c, (4) Atom formation at Z=l0V=.983c and (5) the edge of the matter at Z=infinity, V=c. The Red Shift due to the velocity of the light source can be accounted for by the difference of energy required to change electron levels generating photons in the direction of travel than in the opposite direction. The slowing of clock in gravity can be accounted for by the change in the path of an electron about the nucleus. The confusion about photons being particles or waves can be resolved by the assumption that all matter and radiation consists of minute entities that can be represented as positive and negative vectors that always travel at the speed of light. Electrostatic, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are all that are needed to construct a universe.

I see how to make the two calculations match. Just "modify gravity" again and then space can slip by with the distance between things looking like the calculations from the other method. So as you say, the two methods are consistent. Case closed. I do prefer a more intuitive theory but nobody else does. This thread gives an excellent and simple answer to my original question. Thank you all.

OK guys, By modifying gravity we can now account for the motion of all the stars and galaxies in a straight forward manner. (With the possible exception of the newly discovered giant galactic cluster.) Does that mean that we did away with the expansion of space? If not the extra effect should mess up our calculations, If so what accounts for the stretched photons of the background radiation? I hope you can excuse my dumb questions because this is an enlightening thread with all the sharp and knowledgeable people posting to it. I trust there are people besides myself benefiting from it.