What would happen to space if passage of time was accelerating? Equality principle. Similarity of empty space. A Shrinking matter theory that might actually work.

[MigL]

Whoa !
Who has time to read all that ?
I'll address your first point about how closely electrons can pack ...
( which is different from being in the same 'state', and governed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle )

53 minutes ago, caracal said:

What i have understood, the Pauli exclusion principle, is it coming from coulomb repulsion.

No. It has more to do with spin.
Half integer spin particles, or fermions, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and cannot be 'stacked' on one another.

Integer spin particles, on the other hand, are bosons, and obey Bose-Einstein statistical rules, and can be stacked on one another.

[caracal]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whoa !
Who has time to read all that ?
I'll address your first point about how closely electrons can pack ...
( which is different from being in the same 'state', and governed by the Pauli Exclusion Principle )

No. It has more to do with spin.
Half integer spin particles, or fermions, obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and cannot be 'stacked' on one another.

Integer spin particles, on the other hand, are bosons, and obey Bose-Einstein statistical rules, and can be stacked on one another.

Yes i may have made too much text here in order to others to read it all but maybe they can read by fastreading.

I made mistake in writing, i mean what i think Pauli exclusion principle between electrons in atomic scale distances 10^-10 ... 10^-15 is coming from EM forces between electrons, coulomb force, magnetic forces. (and also quantum fluctuations). Neutrons are fermions and obey Fermi-Dirac statistics but they don't have as strong coulomb and magnetic forces between them similarly than electrons do have, i think this is why they can pack together more than electrons, but they do obey pauli exclusion principle. This spin 1/2 and integer spin different behaviour had to do something with superposition of quantum wave functions, i remember.

Edited March 2, 2022 by caracal

[caracal]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Neutrons also obey Pauli, as do some other fermions.

https://byjus.com/jee/pauli-exclusion-principle/

That's exactly what it doesn't mean.

Place two clocks at each location.
Now reset one clock from each location to zero together.

After some period of time is the reading difference on the faster clock exactly 20 times the reading difference on the slower clock  ?

Hint it cannot be.

I still am not sure what you are asking. The reading is different but the difference
in time rates are such that the clock is moving 20 times faster.

According to relativity theories one possible way to do this would be that the park
is in gravitation field and the space vessel is away from the field. Then the man's
clock in the park could have 20 times slower time rate than space traveler in the vessel.

I could here write about idea that spacetime could transform into different forms.

This may be slightly repeating, But Well The idea i have in mind is that the other clock and the whole 
space vessel has been 'transformed'. 

Nothing in the theory of relativity forbids that that there is a entity called space
vessel and clock inside that runs 20 times faster by definition. The theories describe only what kind of relative time dilations the
clocks can have if they move relative to each other or the other is in deeper gravitation
field and other is further away from the gravitational field.

The question what i was thinking is that is it possible that the space vessel can 
'transform' into other form that way that its natural time runs 20 times faster after the 
transformation in a way that it does not break certain laws of nature?

Lets make thought experiment. 

Lets assume that The space vessel has transformed that way that 
its time run 20 times faster. Does this contradict with something?

Here is the picture of the situation again:

I look now some laws of nature:

If this were the only change that take place in the transformation, then observer inside 
the vessel would measure that the velocity of light is 20 times slower. I think that this is what can't be. There is a possibility 
that all lengths in the vessel has contracted by factor 20 including the length unit that the space
traveler in the vessel uses. He now measures that light's velocity is still same - 2998000km/s
Also the Lorenz gamma factor of any object inside the vessel are still same. All velocities
in fact in the vessel are still same. Special relativity works as usual inside the vessel.
All moving things just have different natural time rates, different lengths and 
different masses. Special relativity tells only what is the relative changes if these
things move at certain velocity inside the vessel.

But if these two were the only changes that has taken the place in the transformation 
of the space vessel, then the space traveler would measure that any photon does not follow law E = hf = hc/lambda. I think
that this also what can't be. It would be more meaningful to think that The law is still
valid. It is possible if all the energies in the vessel have changed also. 
And it would be meaningful that planck constant is constant.
The energies have to increase by factor 20 and planck constant have to stay constant.

Next i would like to think that Newton's second law is still valid inside the vessel:
 F = ma and the kinetic energy equation is valid E = 0.5mv^2. Since velocities stay
unchanged in transformation, all the masses should grow by factor 20.
Any acceleration inside the vessel should be 20 times greater. If Newton's second law
is still valid inside the vessel, then all forces should become greater by factor 400. 

By this far, it looks meaningful that space vessel can transform in a way that its time
runs 20 times faster than the time of the man who is walking in the park - if certain
changes in lengths,accelerations,masses,energies, and forces that are inside
the space vessel take place.

This is the 'invention' i suggest. Some physical object can 'transform' into other
form in that kind of way that physical laws in or inside that object are still valid.

While this thought experiment is going quite well this far, 

I make a big question: Can the transformation of the space vessel be even such that the space traveler inside
the vessel does not notice anything changing in any laws of the physics inside the space
vessel - if he does not look outside from the window? 

How this could be possible? There may be answer to this - the spacetime or space itself
transforms into different form. 

But there are some questions. Is this transformation stable, does it leak or something? 
can it exist in ordinary place? what about empty space, does the space traveler measure 
some changes in the empty space, for example in vacuum energy? I think the answer is, 
the principle still may be possible - to all these questions.

This is the reason i speak about a physical principle: The space vessel can be 'transformed' that way that its
natural time rate is 20 faster and other changes. And the space traveler inside the vessel
may not see the difference. 

The space traveler see the inverse changes in the environment. For example earths gravity pull is 20 times weaker.

How about higher mass densities, do they lead to that the space vessel might collapse
to a black hole if it would be say 100000000 times smaller and have 100000000 times greater
natural time rate? Actually the gravitation constant changes too, in the case of space vessel by 1/200 times. it comes weaker by inverse
of the square of the change in time rate. The answer would be according to this 'no'. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, caracal said:

What i have understood, the Pauli exclusion principle, is it coming from coulomb repulsion. If there were no
repulsion, the electrons could pack up much more closely, like neutrons can do. The exchange
force is not a independent force, it is what i understand depending from coulomb repulsion.
quantum fluctuations may make coulomb propulsion stronger or weaker or cause
tunneling effects, but without propulsion there is no exchange force and electron degenerate pressure. 

It’s not, but Pauli prevents particles from being in the same state. Neutrons and protons obey it.

 

2 hours ago, caracal said:

And pauli exclusion principle would be not present in atomic length scales. (That would propably mean that the electrons in matter
falls apart and becomes dust. )

What? It’s definitely present in atoms, which is kinda what defines the atomic length scale

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, caracal said:

I make a big question: Can the transformation of the space vessel be even such that the space traveler inside
the vessel does not notice anything changing in any laws of the physics inside the space
vessel - if he does not look outside from the window? 

No. As I have already pointed out earlier, while some laws of physics may be scalable in that way, most are not scale invariant, most notably the laws of quantum physics don’t behave well under rescalings. You cannot ‘shrink’ atomic structures and composite particles and expect the physics to remain the same.

For one thing, none of the fundamental interactions can be scaled, irrespective of how you fudge the fundamental constants; the whole concept of shrinking matter is pretty much dead right there.

Even if that weren’t so, the wave equations that govern atomic structure do not scale as well - and neither do their solutions.

And again, even if such rescalings were possible somehow, you’d come up against other issues. For example, if you shrink an atom while keeping its orbitals intact, the position of its electrons becomes more and more localised over time - which of course increases the uncertainty in their momenta. Eventually that uncertainty becomes large enough that electrons can jump orbitals (and fall back), leading to molecules becoming unstable, and ordinary matter emitting a continuous ‘glow’. Still further in the future, all atoms would become ionised; and still further, the hadrons within the nucleus would ‘dissolve’ into a quark-gluon plasma. Needless to say, we observe none of those things.

Lastly, we actually have ways to check whether at least some of the fundamental constants might have had different values in the past (~2 billion years) - for example using natural fission reactors, such as at Oklo. The available data indicates that that was not the case.

So no matter how you look at this, it simply doesn’t work. Even if it did, the model would generate many more problems and explanatory gaps than it solves.

[bangstrom]

On 3/2/2022 at 7:28 PM, Markus Hanke said:

For one thing, none of the fundamental interactions can be scaled, irrespective of how you fudge the fundamental constants; the whole concept of shrinking matter is pretty much dead right there.

 

There is a platinum bar in Paris that once served as our standard for the length of a meter. The current standard for a meter is defined as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds.

If we could measure the length of the platinum bar by the modern standard while on the surface of a neutron star where the rate of time is slower, would the lengths of the two meters remain the same? Assuming that the physical length of the platinum bar can not rescale?

 

 

 

[caracal]

On 3/3/2022 at 3:28 AM, Markus Hanke said:

On 3/3/2022 at 12:40 AM, caracal said:

I make a big question: Can the transformation of the space vessel be even such that the space traveler inside
the vessel does not notice anything changing in any laws of the physics inside the space
vessel - if he does not look outside from the window? 

No. As I have already pointed out earlier, while some laws of physics may be scalable in that way, most are not scale invariant, most notably the laws of quantum physics don’t behave well under rescalings. You cannot ‘shrink’ atomic structures and composite particles and expect the physics to remain the same.

For one thing, none of the fundamental interactions can be scaled, irrespective of how you fudge the fundamental constants; the whole concept of shrinking matter is pretty much dead right there.

Even if that weren’t so, the wave equations that govern atomic structure do not scale as well - and neither do their solutions.

And again, even if such rescalings were possible somehow, you’d come up against other issues. For example, if you shrink an atom while keeping its orbitals intact, the position of its electrons becomes more and more localised over time - which of course increases the uncertainty in their momenta. Eventually that uncertainty becomes large enough that electrons can jump orbitals (and fall back), leading to molecules becoming unstable, and ordinary matter emitting a continuous ‘glow’. Still further in the future, all atoms would become ionised; and still further, the hadrons within the nucleus would ‘dissolve’ into a quark-gluon plasma. Needless to say, we observe none of those things.

Lastly, we actually have ways to check whether at least some of the fundamental constants might have had different values in the past (~2 billion years) - for example using natural fission reactors, such as at Oklo. The available data indicates that that was not the case.

So no matter how you look at this, it simply doesn’t work. Even if it did, the model would generate many more problems and explanatory gaps than it solves.

I am not changing physical properties only, i am also transforming the shape.

In a way i think this transformation of shape to be similar than transformation of picture in
projection screen, when the projector is pushed closer to the screen.

I make any physical object to shrink homogenously and isotropically into smaller size, 
and then i change time rate,E,m,p,U,F,a,... by certain factors. 

timeinterval'/tinterval = L  , v'/v = 1 E'/E = m'/m = p'/p = 1/L , F'/F = 1/L^2 , a'/a = 1/L h'/h = 1 c'/c = 1

This means that any field shrinks isotropically no matter what is their shape. After that
i multiply for example E by 1/L and F by 1/L^2.

You should use SI units and look the lagrangian in these units - why? 
because i looks like natural units defines m_p = 1 or that m_e = 1. you shouldn't do this definition, 
because all masses change like m'/m = 1/L in this transformation.
The lagrangian should have dimension Joule in all its terms in SI units, is this true? 

If it is joule, The Lagrangian's 'magnitude' changes like Lag'/Lag = 1/L and the 
shape of lagrangian 'field' Lag(x,y,z) shrinks in 3 dimensions isotropically and 
homogenously. 

For example if it is a radially symmetric step function:
if 0 < r < 1 Lag(x,y,z) = 1
if r > 1 Lag(x,y,z) = 0
it transforms to following:
if 0 < r < L Lag(x,y,z) = 1/L
if r > L Lag(x,y,z) = 0

And for example any force field F = F(r) where r is a vector transforms to following:
F' = 1/L^2 F(Lr)
(i put factor L in the argument of the force function and multiply the magnitude F then with 1/L^2)

And any energy field E = E(r) where r is a vector transforms to following:
E' = 1/L E(Lr)

What is happening there is - the spacetime or space itself transforms into different shape. Or if not speaking that there is something is happening there, i could say that spacetime or space has a kind of iso-transformations. There exist objects that can have a 'transformation' relative to some other object. For example there are two similar space vessels, that are otherwise identical or almost identical, except that the other vessel has transformation relative to the other vessel. (and they may exists in same place side by side.) There is actually a principle or statement i didn't mention: the empty space should look similar to both space travelers, if there are space travelers inside those two space vessels.)

---

In the viewpoint of non-transforming observer,  when matter transforms and shrinks isotropically and other changes takes place, 
electrons should emit very long wave emission when it adjust to its new orbital, that is now  slightly transformed into smaller in size, but it is far too long wavelength that it could be seen or measured. Nothing else should happen. Electron do get more localized by factor L but its mass, momentum and energy also increases by factor 1/L. This would make the uncertainity of momentum times uncertainty in place to be same = h/2pi .

(But in the viewpoint of transforming observer he would just see this emission, nothing 
else.)

None of the fundamental constants have changed in our environment in our perspective, But if we look to distant space, we would see there differently transformed matter - matter has been bigger in the past + other differences. But this image of the matter in the past actually i think 'should' look same same as if we imagine that distant object just have redshift and time dilation because of cosmic expansion of space ( and other effects coming from the expansion of space)

This text above looks like i am repeating here. 
---
I could write here about two problems that i have noticed in this Shrinking matter theory:

There is one question or problem about my theory in particle collision experiments.
Should there be also created shrunk or differently transformed electrons and protons or other particles
in particle collision experiments for example in CERN? 
My counter though to this is that in order to create shrunk, bigger or differently transformed particles in such experiments,
maybe you would need this kind of  particles to start with in the first place.

There is a problem with solar system dynamics, what could actually 
falsify this theory. If matter shrinks, (and in my theory also the gravitation field
shrinks), then in our viewpoint, planets should migrate 
about 330nm/AU/s away from the sun. This is i think different prediction from
expanding space theory because this is not a force that can be neglected in gravitationally
bound systems. It is apparent expansion of lengths due to shrinking of the length unit 
of the observer. that is roughly a velocity 330nm/AU/s - not a force.

I am not sure what happens if this velocity that is pointing away from the sun would be added to numerical calculations.

This migration rate is just the Hubble constant in units  nm/AU/s 
(k = 2.20*10^-18 1/s).

But radar measurements with messenger probe gives that astronomical unit increases only about
15cm/year. But maybe the gravity of other planets cancels this effect? On the other hand
titan is preceding from saturn about 11cm/year and moon is preceding 3.8cm/year. According
to this shrinkin magger theory if the velocity is just added to semimajor axis, the migration should be 8.4cm/year and 2.66cm/year at least. But are these
titan and moon migration coming solely from tidal effects? That would mean that there
is no room for my theory.  
 

Edited March 4, 2022 by caracal

[caracal]

I could add this science study here:

There is one interesting science study about Quasar time dilations. https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1824
MRS Hawking (2010) have studied quasars and he makes in this article a conclusion that quasars with different redshifts don't show signs of time dilation.
What would be reason and explanation for that? He gives few possible explanations there. I have to say that i havent read it well though.

Edited March 4, 2022 by caracal

[caracal]

Sorry about this double reply. I didn't remember to say about time evolution of Lagrangaen, or Force or other things. The time evolution of things should change also.

If for example radioactive nucleus has been transformed that way that its time moves 20 times faster, and has been transformed to 20 times smaller in all lengths isotropically and homogenously such a way that the contraction center is defined, and also other changes took place, then the expected characteristic half life of the remaining nuclei is 20 times shorter from that moment on.

That change in time evolution also comes from that the space or spacetime has transformed into other form.

there was a question in the title of this topic ' what would happen to space if the passage of time was accelerating?' I speculated that it could transform into certain form. That the acceleration of time would not be only change what would take place in space or spacetime.

Edited March 4, 2022 by caracal

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, bangstrom said:

where the rate of time is slower

“Rate of time” is a meaningless concept. Locally, time always ticks at 1 second per second, and lengths always measure at 1 meter per meter.

14 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Assuming that the physical length of the platinum bar can not rescale?

You can compress the physical length of a platinum bar by packing its atoms more tightly, which in itself is not the same as a rescaling, because the atoms themselves do not change size. There is, however, a limit to this - once the compression force becomes strong enough to begin affecting atomic structure, then the platinum bar will eventually cease to be platinum. This is what happens at the formation of the neutron star itself - ordinary matter becomes degenerate because the relevant limits get exceeded, leaving only neutrons and a quark-gluon plasma.

That’s precisely my point - if you increase energy levels (which is what happens when shrinking atomic structure), you end up with new states of matter that are different from the original state. This is because QFT doesn’t scale - it couples explicitly to a well defined energy scale. You can’t shrink eg an ordinary star and expect it to remain an ordinary star. It simply doesn’t happen.

14 hours ago, bangstrom said:

If we could measure the length of the platinum bar by the modern standard while on the surface of a neutron star

You would obtain the same result - nothing changes for a local observer, so far as lengths measurements are concerned. 

Except of course that the bar (and yourself) will be flattened into a thin sheet by the gravity of the neutron star, so you’d know you aren’t in an ordinary environment.

13 hours ago, caracal said:

That would mean that there
is no room for my theory.  

I commend you for also considering possible problems of your idea - we don’t see this often here. Kudos 👍

13 hours ago, caracal said:

I make any physical object to shrink homogenously and isotropically into smaller size, 
and then i change time rate,E,m,p,U,F,a,... by certain factors

By what mechanisms do these change? What determines the rates of change? What mechanism ensures that all changes are fine tuned exactly such that everything remains consistent?

13 hours ago, caracal said:

because i looks like natural units defines m_p = 1 or that m_e = 1. you shouldn't do this definition

Using natural units is standard in all of modern physics, since it simplifies the calculations. This has no physical significance, it just saves you from writing out all the constants all the time.

And yes, the Lagrangian has units of energy.

13 hours ago, caracal said:

But this image of the matter in the past actually i think 'should' look same same as if we imagine that distant object just have redshift and time dilation because of cosmic expansion of space ( and other effects coming from the expansion of space)

Well, you will have to show this mathematically, while taking into account all already known physics.

At the moment you are proposing a large number of new physical mechanisms, while assuming that these will produce precisely the results you think they’ll do. It will be up to you to show this mathematically; there’s too much in your post to actually address it all. 

So can you provide a mathematical formalism that shows the mechanisms for shrinkage in the framework of the Standard Model  (in a way that preserves the known laws of QFT), and show that this reproduces all available cosmological observations (not just redshift)?

Even for simple redshift I don’t really understand your thoughts here - if redshift was down to your local rate of shrinkage, then wherever we look, all distant objects should exhibit nearly the same redshift, or at the very least there should be no correlation with distance. Clearly this is not so, and we know that there is a direct relationship between redshift and distance of observed object.

It’s like a rabbit hole - the more you look at this, the more assumptions you need in order to make it seem even remotely plausible. I really fail to see the point in all this, as it offers no advantages whatsoever compared to standard physics. And it’s not like shrinking matter is a new idea - it’s been around for as long as I can remember, and pops up regularly on forums.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, caracal said:

The Lagrangian's 'magnitude' changes like Lag'/Lag = 1/L

So energy is not locally conserved? How does this fit in with Noether’s theorem? And how does simply transforming the Lagrangian like this yield a spatial shrinkage of the system?

Remember also that, in order to get equations of motion for your system, you insert this Lagrangian in the Euler-Lagrange equations (or make it stationary via variational calculus). But this equation depends on the Lagrangian itself, as well as derivatives with respect to its own time and space derivatives. Hence, if you transform the entire Lagrangian as you suggest, the solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation will not be the same - which means different physics.

So how does this work - you keep L the same, but then get no shrinkage. You transform the Lagrangian, but then get different physics. So how does this work?

Edited March 5, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[bangstrom]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

That’s precisely my point - if you increase energy levels (which is what happens when shrinking atomic structure), you end up with new states of matter that are different from the original state.

That is true but in the shrinking matter model we have an enormously long way to go before reaching that point. Astronomers see the universe growing colder and less energetic as they look deeper into space and the most distant observation is the CMBR with a temperature of 2.73K.

The Big Bang model may have a perfectly good explanation for why it works the other way but contraction comes closer in several ways to describing the universe as we actually observe it.

Another difficulty with the BBT has to do with accelerated expansion. In the model of shrinking matter, the universe is non-expanding and the galaxies are not moving farther apart with time. Instead, the entire material world is growing smaller so we have the observation of an expanding universe but the appearance of expansion is a consequence of material contraction.

Expansion is endothermic so an accelerated expansion should require an enormous influx of energy hence we have “dark” energy. The counterpart to accelerated expansion in the shrinking model is accelerated contraction. Contraction is exothermic so no dark energy is required, Besides, an acceleration of contraction with time is more plausible than an acceleration of expansion because expansion works against gravity while contraction works with gravity.

Worst of all is the now popular estimate that the mass of the universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and the part we can see is the remaining 4%.

[beecee]

17 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It’s like a rabbit hole - the more you look at this, the more assumptions you need in order to make it seem even remotely plausible. I really fail to see the point in all this, as it offers no advantages whatsoever compared to standard physics. And it’s not like shrinking matter is a new idea - it’s been around for as long as I can remember, and pops up regularly on forums.

I propose Occam's razor. We have the evidenced based accepted theory of the BB and spacetime expansion, with everything else being fixed,  v's a shrinking model where everything is changing, including the constant nature of "c". 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The Big Bang model may have a perfectly good explanation for why it works the other way but contraction comes closer in several ways to describing the universe as we actually observe it.

The problem is that it has to fit with all of physics, not just cosmology. 

[Markus Hanke]

22 hours ago, bangstrom said:

That is true but in the shrinking matter model we have an enormously long way to go before reaching that point.

You see, my issue is that you have no way to actually know this. What do you base this assumption on? What do you base any of the assumptions mentioned on this thread on?

Unfortunately to date no one has been able to actually put forward a working model (ie a mathematical formalism) for shrinking matter, so there isn’t any way to extract predictions of any kind from the concept. Everything that has been proposed here is speculation and guesswork. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that (we are in ‘Speculations’ after all), but it does make it difficult to discuss the concept in any meaningful way.

One could start on a basic level, and eg look at the wave function for a hydrogen atom, which can be written down analytically (see any QM text of your choice). Can someone demonstrate how to scale this mathematically in a way that supports the assumptions given here, without violating any other physics? This would be a good first step.

[bangstrom]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Unfortunately to date no one has been able to actually put forward a working model (ie a mathematical formalism) for shrinking matter, so there isn’t any way to extract predictions of any kind from the concept. Everything that has been proposed here is speculation and guesswork.

If we have a map telling us how to travel from Chicago to New York, we don't need another map to go from New York to Chicago. We just reverse the direction.

We have a cosmological model for the expansion of space so we don't need a formal model for the contraction of matter in a universe where space is not expanding because one view is the simple inverse of the other. We can extract predictions from expansion model knowing that the predictions should be the inverse of the contracting model. The predictions for both should yield the same conclusions. And, if they don't, we have a dilemma to be considered.

You say the scale of matter should remain static so the alternative could not work. But it should work in both since the two models differ in perspective only and not in physics or math. So why one should work but not the other? This is a dilemma to be worked out.

There was a recent observation that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. In the expansion of space model, this would require an influx of energy so we have "dark" energy. In the shrinking matter model, accelerated expansion corresponds to accelerated contraction of matter which means the universe should be warming faster than expected but without dark energy. That is another dilemma and I could go on.

18 hours ago, beecee said:

I propose Occam's razor. We have the evidenced based accepted theory of the BB and spacetime expansion, with everything else being fixed,  v's a shrinking model where everything is changing, including the constant nature of "c". 

The constant nature of 'c' is a given in both the expansion and shrinking models but the expansion of space is only in the BB model.

With the shrinking matter model, the universe has always been the same large size but it appears to be expanding because all the material within is growing smaller.

Occam's razor does not allow the introduction of things outside the known laws of physics such as Guth's inflation, dark matter, or dark energy.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

With the shrinking matter model, the universe has always been the same large size but it appears to be expanding because all the material within is growing smaller.

Yeah, like I said, everything else is changing with the shinkage model: With expansion we are only speaking of spacetime.

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Occam's razor does not allow the introduction of things outside the known laws of physics such as Guth's inflation, dark matter, or dark energy.

But we have evidence for these things, and occam'srazor appears the simplest explanation. Inflation explains isotropy and inhomogeneities: DM is evident in the bullet cluster anomlay and general rotational curves: DE was invoked due to observational data re type 1a supernova and WMAP. They are needed and observed add on's and obviously (with DE) exactly opposite to what would normally be expected. 

Edited March 6, 2022 by beecee

[caracal]

 

Quote(Markus Hanke)"So can you provide a mathematical formalism that shows the mechanisms
 for shrinkage in the framework of the Standard Model  (in a way that preserves the 
known laws of QFT), and show that this reproduces all available cosmological 
observations (not just redshift)?"

Yes i can write mathematical formalism for my theory. But this idea may not be in the framework of standard model, i dont know that now.

(this may not be a good text or good formalism, i suspect this a little) 

Part 1. I make hypothesis, that every physical object made of ordinary matter can have 'iso-transformations'.

That physical object can be any object made of ordinary matter - particle, atom, some space vessel, 
any everyday object, or even planet or stellar object like asteroid or star.

(I could mention here - i am not yet speculating that matter changes. But if it does, what would make some physical object to contract (or expand )isotropically instead of disintegrating into group of small parts? I suggested two reasons: Binding forces and quantum-mechanical adjustment
when particles wave function changes towards spatially contracted wavefunction that has faster
time evolution, it's allowed orbital also contracts.)

I didn't use this word 'iso-transformation' before. It just means 'transformations that have certain similar properties' 

------------------
1a) I state that in that iso-transformation, every length s in the spatial distribution
and every characteristic duration of any event t in time evolution, 
has transformation

t -> L t 
s -> L s 

,where i define L as 'a factor of transformation' , L > 0 

This 1a) does not yet tell whether the transformation has single center. But
the following 2) states that the transformation has center in 0,0,0 and that 
the transformation is isotropical around this center.

1b) The magnitudes of Several physical properties should change by following equations:

notation: 
X'/X = FF means that for physical property XX, there is transformation X -> FF X such that X' = FF X where X' is
transformed physical property X -> X' and FF is certain factor that is listed below for
magnitudes of different physical properties:

v'/v = 1 a'/a = 1/L E'/E = 1/L p'/p = 1/L m'/m = 1/L  h'/h = 1 
c'/c = 1 F'/F = 1/L^2 P'/P = 1/L^2

2) Any spatial and time dependent entity, field or distribution should transform into 
other form by following way:

It has transformation in the magnitude, spatial distribution and time evolution:

X(r,t) -> (X'/X) X(r/L,t/L) where r is vector (x,y,z)

I describe here that the transformation center is at origin 0,0,0 and that the transformation
of the spatial distribution of the field is isotropic and homogenous.

For example time dependent 'step' energy distribution E = E(r,t)
E = 1 , when 0<t<1 and 0<r<1
E = 0 , when t > 1 OR r > 1
will transform to
E = 1/L ,when 0<t<L and 0<r<L
E = 0 ,when t > L OR r > L
, where 0<L<1 is some factor

In case 0<L<1 the transformation would be isotropic contraction of spacial shape and transformation in time evolution such that all events in the field 
takes shorter time.

In case L >1 the transformation would be isotropic expansion of spatial shape and transformation in time evolution such that all events in the field
takes longer time. 

This is the formal representation of my theory.

Hypothesis is that any physical object can have this kind of iso-transformations.

This phenomenom is transformation. It is not only change in magnitude of certain physical
properties but also transformation of spatial distributions and transformation of
time evolutions of any field or distribution. 

---------

I could add here that i also came to conclusion from Schwarzchild
radius formula and Coulomb law is that it looks like (GM)'/GM = L and (kQ1Q2)'/kQ1Q2 = 1 
but i was not certain whether k'/k = 1 and Q'/Q = 1 or is it k'/k = L^2 and Q'/Q = 1/L.

But what really is the situation in EM fields and gravitational field is that they can have 
transformation 

X(r,t) -> (X'/X) X(r/L,t/L). 

for example gravity pull 'field':

g(r,t) -> (1/L)g(r/L,t/L) where r is place vector r = (x,y,z)

or escape velocity 'field':

v_esc(r,t) -> v_esc(r/L,t/L)

Where the center of the transformation is at (0,0,0)

note that later in cosmological theory i postulate that the rate of the transformation is subject to time dilations.
---------

--------
Part 2. Then i try to use this theory to make cosmological theory.

A) I make assumption that all matter in the observable universe
transforms in the way L becomes smaller.

L = L(t) , L(t0) = 1 , dL/dt < 0, L > 0 
,where t is time that stays at constant time rate

I denote another function LL(t) that describes the proportional redshift according
to time t that is now 'accelerating time' of contracting or transforming observer. 
LL is not same as L.

I make fit to Hubble's law : LL(t) = 1 + 2.20*10^-18 1/s

This is linear approximation and real LL(t) is unknown.

I can make guess that LL(t) = exp(k(t-t0) but LL may be different and depend on some conditions. 

B)I assume that all matter has same contraction size and is contracting at same rate. This
is not exactly true because of time dilation histories and time dilated matter contracts
more slowly. For example non-rotating black holes do not contract at all.

Theorems

1)I make theorem that A) and B) leads to Robertson-walker metric in flat space if there
were no gravitation and ordinary expansion of space present.

ds^2 = c^2dt - a(t)dr^2

,Where a(t) = LL(t).

In this time it is only 'pseudometric' - not real metric.

LL(t) describes now 'apparent expansion' - because all the changes are in the observer.

This would be the only observation we see unless we look into deep space, where we would see light coming from 'old matter' and unless we see somewhere matter that has transformed different rate due to its different time dilation history. Or unless there is differently transformed matter for other reason.

2)Theorem: Following observations: 
The old light coming from old matter has 
-redshift LLL(r)
-decrease of momentum and energy of photon 1/LLL(r)
-time dilation 1/LLL(r)

The reason for these 3 observation is now that matter in the past had iso-transformation
such that it had expansion by factor LLL. Also all light this matter had emitted had
expansion LLL and time dilation already when it left from the source.

3)Theorem since light travels at the velocity c

LLL(r) = 1 + k*r/c  k = 2.20*10^-18 1/s

this is also linear approximation. This is the redshift-distance relation. Real LLL(r) is unknown.

4)I make theorem that A) and B) and 2) leads to that Tolman test is passed. The surface brightness
is relational to inverse 4th power of redshift.

5)There would be different kind of Friedmann equations. In deriving them i would have to account gravitation and possible 'ordinary' expansion of space. 

I wrote earlier in part 5) of the main text about predictions that are different from expanding space theory. Some of the predictions and comparing them to observations may actually falsify this cosmological part of the theory.

---------
---------
Note that i haven't said anything about how the transformation actually takes place.

But what would make some physical object to contract isotropically instead of disintegrating
into group of small parts? I suggested two reasons: Binding forces and quantum-mechanical adjustment
when particles wave function changes towards spatially contracted wavefunction that has faster
 time evolution, it's allowed orbital also contracts.

Quote(Markus Hanke) By what mechanisms do these change? What determines the rates of 
change? What mechanism ensures that all changes are fine tuned exactly such that everything 
remains consistent?

I dont know the mechanism for the change. I started with assumption that the rate of 
time is accelerating.

I do have one idea. Could the spacetime consist in deep level a network of signals that are
traveling at velocity of c or some kind of 'changing entities' that at very deep level
changes in the velocity of c. The length- and timescale of these events may be extremely
small. The size differences of these entities may be very high. Then, this network is just shrinking for some reason. All distances
between the nodes or different entities gets smaller in a way that the network maintains
it's shape. (or it may also disintegrate). That would lead to that the 'time' that is the duration
of all events of the network would start to move faster also. This is i think a corollary - i don't answer to question why this kind of network would shrink.

It may not be a finetuning. Spacetime could be that kind of entity that in spacetime, there
are always certain laws of nature valid. such as Newton's 3 laws of dynamics, de Broglie equation,
Heisenberg uncertainity principle, Equation of photons energy, Lorenz covariance and 
special theory of relativity. The change in properties of matter when it transforms or contracts may be just following from this. 

----

Quote(Markus Hanke) "So energy is not locally conserved? How does this fit in with Noether’s theorem?
And how does simply transforming the Lagrangian like this yield a spatial shrinkage 
of the system? "

The energy conservation law doesn't hold in this transformation or change in properties.
But if i would demand that to hold, then Heisenberg principle, de Broglie law or Photon energy
law would not hold. What i think is that because of these laws have to hold, i have to
give up energy conservation law. (But the Energy conservation principle still holds in the viewpoint of transformed or changed observer.)

Instead of it, integral E*dt of any event stays constant here. This means that if some event have energy E(t) and it last time t1-t2, then

integral (t1->t2)E dt = constant. Maybe this is more general conservation law. 

Or there is an energy source. 

Not only Lagrangian transforms, but every field or distribution, according to equation

X(r,t) -> (X'/X)X(r/L,t/L) 

Why? the change should be in the structure of spacetime or space. The idea i have is that space or spacetime can transform like a picture in projection screen when someone moves projector closer or further away.

But what is also needed is that the matter adjust to the change. In order to do this, matter i think needs strong binding forces and QM behavior.  Atom or molecule would contract as a whole system because Electrons and nucleons, which have slightly shorter matter waves adjust to orbitals that are transformed to slightly smaller volume. 

Also if there are time dilations in electrons and nucleons or in fields it would make this situation different.

(this may be too brief answer what i wrote here)

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by caracal

[Markus Hanke]

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

We have a cosmological model for the expansion of space so we don't need a formal model for the contraction of matter in a universe where space is not expanding because one view is the simple inverse of the other.

I disagree, they are not at all inverses of one another, because they rely on completely different mechanisms and different physical principles. Expanding space is a consequence of GR, but shrinking matter is not. There is no model within known physics that predicts or facilitates anything even remotely like shrinking matter. On the contrary, there is direct evidence that at least some of the fundamental dimensionless constants have not changed in any way over the past few billion years. Without such changes, relative to its own state in the past, you’ll find it hard to get matter to shrink while maintaining all physics.

Also, saying that these are observationally identical (irrespective of mechanisms) is a claim that requires proof.

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

But it should work in both since the two models differ in perspective only and not in physics or math.

It is meaningless to keep claiming this verbally - you need to show that this is in fact true. 

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Occam's razor does not allow the introduction of things outside the known laws of physics

Right - pretty much every single claim about the inner workings of the shrinking matter concept is far removed from known physics. Even if you could get it to work somehow, it would require you to postulate large amounts of new mechanisms and principles.

So coming back to the central claim of this concept - can you (or anyone else) actually show us mathematically how this matter shrinkage occurs, exactly? I’m happy to start with the non-relativistic simplest case, ie Schrödingers equation and its solutions, the wave function for a hydrogen atom. If we cannot nail this down, all further claims based on it remain entirely moot.

40 minutes ago, caracal said:

X(r,t) -> (X'/X) X(r/L,t/L) where r is vector (x,y,z)

The wave function of the hydrogen atom (to stay with above example) manifestly does not transform in this way. Neither do any of the quantum fields in the Standard Model. And if they did, it wouldn’t be a shrinkage of the atom.

40 minutes ago, caracal said:

It is not only change in magnitude of certain physical
properties but also transformation of spatial distributions and transformation of
time evolutions of any field or distribution. 

40 minutes ago, caracal said:

There would be different kind of Friedmann equations

40 minutes ago, caracal said:

The energy conservation law doesn't hold in this transformation or change in properties.

That’s a lot of well established physics to abandon. Far too high a price to pay, so far as I am concerned, especially since standard cosmology requires no such unphysical assumptions.

So it’s pretty obvious now that this idea does not work within the framework of known physics.

40 minutes ago, caracal said:

Not only Lagrangian transforms, but every field or distribution, according to equation

X(r,t) -> (X'/X)X(r/L,t/L) 

There is literally not a single example of a real-world field, classical or quantum, I can think of right now that transforms like this.

What does this even mean? Is X’=X(r/L,t/L)? If so, for a simple inverse square law distribution X=a/r^2 (a=const), you’d get X’/X=L^2, and thus according to the above X->L^2 X(r/L) = L^4 X(r). How is this meaningful?

Edited March 7, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[caracal]

-----
The rules of the usage of the equation are the following:

First i have to know what is the property of that distribution that it speaks about. 
If it is a force, then the magnitude of the force changes like F'/F = 1/L^2

E'/E = 1/L F'/F = 1/L^2 a'/a = 1/L etc.

Then i could just LOOK the spatial distribution of the field without analysing it any
further. The field just would have such transformation that it contracts
isotropically - in all directions. And its magnitude in every place also increase
by factor 1/L^2. And i could just LOOK the time evolution in graph and it would just have
such transformation that every event runs faster. This is the idea.

Like for example i could look what the hydrogen atom looks like and what its time evolution looks like and then i can transform them.

But in order to use that equation:

Then if the distribution is inverse square F = a/r^2 it transforms to
F = (1/L^2) a L^2/r^2 = a/r^2. This means that all Force fields that are follow inverse
square law remain unchanged in their shape and magnitude.

There is one thing i didn't mention - when i compare conditions in two systems, i have to 
define the reference points of comparison. If i compare two hydrogen atoms without electrons, other which is transformed by factor L and
other is normal, for example transformed by factor L<1, then i put the reference point 
of transformed atom L times closer to a center. 

Because of this, if the force field follows inverse square law, 
i get equation F'/F = 1/L^2 between the magnitudes of the forces in these two reference 
points.

But if the property that has that kind of distribution would be energy, then its magnitude should change like E'/E = 1/L
and i get E = a/r^2 -> (1/L) a L^2/r^2 = L a/r^2.
That means that all energy distributions that follow inverse square law would transform
to E' = L a/r^2

But if i want to compare two reference points, the one in contracted entity where it is 
is L times closer to the center - i get E'/E = 1/L between the magnitudes of energy
in these two reference points.

---
There is just new phenomenom present in the cosmological scale, that is the reason
why friedmann equations would change. That is - the matter changes.

I think i can temporarily accept that energy conservation principle does not hold - for the sake
that other laws of nature holds. And i can always arbitrarily define that there is
energy source. And maybe there is an energy source - in the structure of spacetime.

I think I don't abandon physics - i just hypothetize that a new kind of phenomenom 
could be possible - and in cosmological theory - takes place. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by caracal

[Markus Hanke]

I’m sorry, but nothing I see here (or on the other thread) is even remotely convincing enough to justify spending any more time on this. You’re both really just guessing - there are a lot of ‘could’, ‘should’, and ‘might’, but no real substance I can see.

Feel free to tag me should you ever come up with an actual working model, and I’ll be happy to look at it - for now, though, I’ll leave you to it.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, caracal said:

I think I don't abandon physics - i just hypothetize that a new kind of phenomenom 
could be possible - and in cosmological theory - takes place. 

You can't ignore the parts of physics that say this doesn't work.

[MigL]

Even the most simple concepts, such as mass, don't scale well.

Shrinking distances by half, would result in shrinking mass to one quarter, as it depends on volume.

That extra quarter of missing mass simply disappears in your theory ?
Does the Gravitational constant change over time to account for the difference in force over time due to the downscaling ?

I can come up with many, many more effects that would need more and more assumptions and changes to modern Physics for your theory to be viable.
The current theory does not need any !

[bangstrom]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Shrinking distances by half, would result in shrinking mass to one quarter, as it depends on volume.

Mass does not grow smaller when the volume lost is empty space. The electrons grow closer to the nucleus causing the atoms to spin faster and our perception of time to quicken.

[MigL]

21 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

Mass does not grow smaller when the volume lost is empty space.

So, in your 'model' if you reduced the radius of the Earth by half, it would have half the mass ?

Did you not say everything scaled accordingly so as to preserve physical laws/relationships ?

Edited March 7, 2022 by MigL