Do you have a new cosmology theory?

[Martin]

Severian said this very well in the context of a different subforum

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive...

 

If you don't know the basics of standard cosmology, please ask questions. There are people at SFN who will be glad to explain things.

 

If you want to criticize the standard picture that professional cosmologists use these days, be sure you know what you are talking about.

 

If you want to present alternative concepts, be sure you first have an adequate appreciation of mainstream cosmology. In order to argue for your alternative you must have an accurate understanding of the mainstream picture.

 

=========================================================================

 

Here's a quick way to see how you do on standard cosmology.

The CMB redshift is somewhat less than 1100, people often use a rough estimate of 1100. Put 1100 into Wright's cosmology calculator and see if you understand what you get.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

 

the calculator is a nice embodiment of the standard cosmology model, with the commonly accepted parameters of 71 for the current Hubble, 0.73 for dark energy, 0.27 for matter.

 

The calculator will tell you that the present distance from here to the matter which emitted the CMB is about 45.6 GLY

 

that the light was emitted when expansion was 370,000 years old.

 

that the present age is 13.7 GY, so that the light travel time was 13.6+ GY or about a third of a million years LESS than the total age. We might as well say 13.7 GY for the light travel time too.

 

the calculator will also tell you that the distance THEN from here to the matter that emitted the light WHEN it emitted the light was around 41 milllon LY. that is, less than 45.6 GLY by a factor of 1100.

 

So the CMB light was emitted from atoms which were 41 milllon LY from the matter that eventually formed our galaxy and us, and those atoms are now 45.6 billion LY from us. And the light has taken almost the full 13.7 billion years to reach us.

 

These numbers are not precise---there are uncertainties in the paramters like 71 for the Hubble. What I am doing is copying more or less what the calculator gives, using the parameters that are put in for it to use. You can vary the parameters and see how that changes the estimates, if you care to.

 

The point of the test is to see if you can visualize the basic dimensions here. If you are comfortable with these bare CMB details, then my guess is that you have assimilated a good bit of the standard cosmology model. If you aren't, and cannot picture what was going on, then please ask questions.

 

============================================================

 

There is also some introductory stuff to read. Here are some links:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, here is an idea that I just had. Suppose that instead of the universe expanding, some of the constants of physics were changing. Ie, I think it is possible to change the constants of physics rather than the distance between galaxies. Depending on how many constants have to be fiddled to fit in, it might be an interesting idea or an ugly one. It should be more or less equivalent to the expansion, just an alternate explanation.

 

For example, if the speed of light were decreasing, it would mean that distances (at least as measured by light) would be increasing. It would also mean some things have less energy, and might account for red shift. I'm not sure if any other constants would have to change in order to not violate known observations. Can anyone tell me what else would have to change?

 

And yes, I do realize this is a completely ad hoc hypothesis, but it might be interesting.

[YT2095]

if the universe is expanding, that means that mass is moving further away from Other mass and the forces of gravity between these masses will be lessened, which means the speed of light will take a more Direct path and seem to be Increasing (not decreasing) in speed, as you said.

c however will still remain constant during this.

 

again, this would be Logical.

[fripro]

One of the problems that I have experienced on this fourms in science is most log on's seem to want to tear down legimate scientific theories.

 

I want to post a quotation from from DeBorlie nobel-prize-laureate (to whom I am in deep debt).*

 

He (Louis de Broglie) said:

The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice.*

 

If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.*

 

More recently, in the domain of theoretical physics, of which I can speak with knowledge, the magnificent novel conceptions of Lorentz and Planck, and particularly Einstein also clashed with the incomprehension of eminent scientists.

 

The new ideas here triumphed; but, in proportion as the organization of research becomes more rigid, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will be unable to develop freely.

 

Let us state in a few words the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing. While, by the very force of circumstances, research and teaching are weighted down by administrative structures and financial concerns and by the heavy armature of strict regulations and planning, it becomes more indispensable than ever to preserve the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of initiative for the original investigators, because these freedoms have always been and will always remain the most fertile sources for the grand progress of science. FRIPRO

[foodchain]

One of the problems that I have experienced on this fourms in science is most log on's seem to want to tear down legimate scientific theories.

 

I want to post a quotation from from DeBorlie nobel-prize-laureate (to whom I am in deep debt).*

 

He (Louis de Broglie) said:

The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the scientific domain have been achieved by bold thinkers who perceived new and fruitful approaches that others failed to notice.*

 

If one had taken the ideas of these scientific geniuses who have been the promoters of modern science and submitted them to committees of specialists, there is no doubt that the latter would have viewed them as extravagant and would have discarded them for the very reason of their originality and profundity.*

 

More recently, in the domain of theoretical physics, of which I can speak with knowledge, the magnificent novel conceptions of Lorentz and Planck, and particularly Einstein also clashed with the incomprehension of eminent scientists.

 

The new ideas here triumphed; but, in proportion as the organization of research becomes more rigid, the danger increases that new and fruitful ideas will be unable to develop freely.

 

Let us state in a few words the conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing. While, by the very force of circumstances, research and teaching are weighted down by administrative structures and financial concerns and by the heavy armature of strict regulations and planning, it becomes more indispensable than ever to preserve the freedom of scientific research and the freedom of initiative for the original investigators, because these freedoms have always been and will always remain the most fertile sources for the grand progress of science.FRIPRO

 

Yes but then you have to be able to make science a separate reality from what I like to call the human condition, or totality of its environment. Science ultimately is a human institution, as such its not free from being human. I have very few standards really that I have developed as a personal philosophy, and going from your post it seems a bit of a paradox to argue if such views are truly wrong going from what was represented in the quotes. Basically if humanity cannot sustain fitness in time in regards to a stable and healthy environment I think what you face in the face of pure reduction on the issue is extinction. So with that being said I support fully environmental science becoming something of an integrated model with basically everything, science, commerce, economics be it global or local or even national, with anything. If humanity simply does not care in time to carry itself for what can sustain, then I don’t really know what is the point to anything else.

 

Science has for what I think a paramount role in this. If undergraduate education regardless of discipline had environmental science as an emphasis not as class but integrated into class from a rational viewpoint that is common I would hope in science then I think that such could only be prosperous. Ultimately though in conjunction with your post that would entail having to think of the environment for instance regardless in terms of research of advance or anything. IN reality this seriously lacks, even while the realities of environmental ruin and ill health can be readily studied in a fully modern sense with heavy implications for the future.

 

Also this would seem to connect with your idea in that to get such "reform" that is needed past against the powers that be which is a heavy majority with all the cash is nothing but an uphill battle in a non quantum classical world it seems. I also could only see genius in wanting to prolong life itself overall, even if it is just human life at a minimum.

[iNow]

One of the problems that I have experienced on this fourms in science is most log on's seem to want to tear down legimate scientific theories.

Hi Fripro,

 

I see you're still on about this.

 

 

If your "theory" is so scientific, why are you not publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal instead of an online forum?

 

 

Quit with the Galileo gambit already.

[fripro]

I am not quite sure what you are driving at, fill me in. I again would like to quote: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-censorship-nobel-prize-laureate.htm

 

I still believe publishing on a forum is important to find out where ones scientific topic might need some help.

[Mr Skeptic]

if the universe is expanding, that means that mass is moving further away from Other mass and the forces of gravity between these masses will be lessened, which means the speed of light will take a more Direct path and seem to be Increasing (not decreasing) in speed, as you said.

c however will still remain constant during this.

 

again, this would be Logical.

 

I will give an example to clarify my idea. Suppose that there were 1,000,000 light years between galaxy A and galaxy B, which are stationary with respect to each other except for the expanding universe. Then at a (much) later time, you measure the distance again, and find that the distance is now 2,000,000 light years. You can conclude that they are twice as far apart, or that a light year is half what it used to be. What I am suggesting is that we examine the second possibility, that the speed of light (and therefore all distances as measured by light) is changing, rather than that the distance itself is changing. I think that either changing distance or changing constants would be equivalent and indistinguishable.

 

But I'm pretty sure that other constants would also have to change if the speed of light were changing, and I'd like to know which and how many.

[Klaynos]

Well the biggest problem I can see here is that invariant c is a conclusion of our electromagnetism theories... I'm not sure if you just change the permittivity and permeability of free space whether you can preserve the theory, I fear you may not...

 

But I do know there is an idea which alot of eminent cosmologists have which is very similar to yours.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well the biggest problem I can see here is that invariant c is a conclusion of our electromagnetism theories... I'm not sure if you just change the permittivity and permeability of free space whether you can preserve the theory, I fear you may not...

 

But I do know there is an idea which alot of eminent cosmologists have which is very similar to yours.

 

Yes, you'd have to change at least one of the permitivity and permeability of space to retain compliance with the [math]c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu\epsilon}}[/math] part of Maxwell's equations, and most likely have to change both so is not to mess up the relative strengths of electricity and magnetism. So now there's at least 3 constants to change. Interestingly, all 3 of these are defined constants.

 

What's the cosmology theory that is similar to mine?

[Martin]

 

What's the cosmology theory that is similar to mine?

 

There have not been a LOT of reputable people that have played around with variablespeedoflight cosmologies, in terms of the whole field.

 

The most well-known example is the VSL cosmology of Joao Magueijo

Magueijo is very smart and last I heard was at Lee Smolin's Perimeter Institute. Wikipedia mentions John Moffat as well, who is also at Perimeter.

 

"A variable speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by John Moffat and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo to explain the horizon problem of cosmology.[17][18][19] [20] [21] [22] [23] The idea is that light propagated as much as sixty times faster in the distant past, thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact since the beginning of the universe. As such, it was proposed as an alternative to cosmic inflation, although it is less clear how it reproduces the other successes of inflationary cosmology such as the monopole and isotropy of the universe, and the scale invariance of the spectrum of initial perturbations."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

 

I would not get too excited because VSL cosmology is pretty dead. It got some notice a few years back, when Magueijo was working on it.

But it has not worked out so well. It was a good idea to try, and then if it didnt work good, drop. My impression is it got dropped, maybe back in 2004. Very little about it since then AFAIK

================

 

VSL cosmology was an attempt to solve the HORIZON problem, without assuming inflation. In 2006-2007 Magueijo adopted a different approach to solving the horizon problem without inflation. He published an interesting paper with Parampreet Singh where they point out that LQG by itself solves the horizon problem, because there is a bounce instead of a singularity----so the whole sky can come to equilibrium (roughly the same temperature in all directions) before during and immediately after the bounce.

That paper showed that he had given up on trying the VSL explanation and was approaching it differently, where you didnt need some drastic assumption like changing speed of light.

 

Moffat hasn't published anything about VSL in a long time either. It kind of went out of style.

[fripro]

The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in vacuum . . . My belief and published theory is that light can not travel in a vacuum.

 

This where I differ, however I do believe as the density of the ether atmosphere of the Universe changes the speed of light is not constant.,

[iNow]

The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light in vacuum . . . My belief and published theory is that light can not travel in a vacuum.

 

This where I differ, however I do believe as the density of the ether atmosphere of the Universe changes the speed of light is not constant.,

 

I'm guessing that when you say your "theory" was "published" you are referring to the fact that it's posted on your website, correct?

[Martin]

Hi iNow, Klaynos, Fripro, Skeptic and y'all,

 

Just wanted to say I for one am pleased by all the discussion and glad of the thoughtful interest in cosmology (which i think is a beautiful and fascinating field of research).

 

I don't see any reason to constrict our focus to the initial topic, which was rather narrowly defined anyway.

 

But I wanted to remind everybody that the original topic of the thread was the message that

you really need to understand standard mainstream cosmology before you start critiquing it or inventing alternatives.

 

Some are doing this more than others (I mean basing what they have to say on a firm grasp of the conventional picture.)

[fripro]

I am sure the moderator does not permit me to advertise where my theories are being published.

 

Believe you me Martin I have studied the standard mainstream cosmology before making my coments above.m

[Martin]

Believe you me Martin I have studied the standard mainstream cosmology before making my coments above.

 

That's nice Fripro,

I was just making a general statement reminding folks of the opening topic of the thread, which is a kind of message or request.

 

I have no direct knowledge of your study background and it is even hard for me to keep track of what one GUESSES various people know about mainstream LCDM model based on what they say here.

 

If you know standard model cosmology, then I cordially invite you to take over some of the explaining and exposition work here. It would be very helpful. There is a lot to do. Just keep it separate from any alternative stuff of your own so that it doest create confusion between the two.

[Mr Skeptic]

There have not been a LOT of reputable people that have played around with variablespeedoflight cosmologies, in terms of the whole field.

 

[...]

 

Thanks Martin. I suppose that has been discussed sufficiently already, so I will go look at what is already done. More than anything, I'm just trying to make sure to look at all the alternatives rather than just following the herd.

[Martin]

... More than anything, I'm just trying to make sure to look at all the alternatives rather than just following the herd.

 

I can understand! That wikipedia article didn't look bad, it might be helpful.

 

Besides VSL cosmology there have been observationalists who looked for evidence of various constants changing. This kind of activity has died down some but it was going on pretty lively at one time. they expecially were finding evidence that the fine structure constant was changing, but each time someone else would re-examine and decide it wasnt confirmed so the excitement would die down.

 

one possible formula for the fine structure constant involves the speed of light so journalists would translate the headline "fine structure changing?" into "speed of light changing?" in order to get the idea across. but the research was not much about the speed of light, more about the number 1/137.

 

You can find a lot of this stuff if you cast a wide net. But most is old.

And the VSL cosmology part is a small part. That is where you try to make sense of the universe----solve some of the outstanding puzzles---with this VSL assumption. Joao Magueijo is the main person who tried that.

[Quartile]

[$.02]

 

A few things that have always seemed strange to me about the Big Bang are the first questions that come to everyone's mind, which are also the questions that have yet to have a definitive answer: What is exploding, where did the explosive energy come from, and why did it explode?

 

I understand that the math behind the Big Bang scenario fits quite well. Could it be possible that the math is not describing an event that occurred at the "birth" of the universe but rather an event that is occurring all the time at relatively smaller energies?

 

[/$.02]

[insane_alien]

the big bang wasn't an explosion in the common sense of the term(a stick of dynamite or nuclear bomb) it was just an expansion of space, a very very fast expansion.

[Cuetek]

the big bang wasn't an explosion in the common sense of the term(a stick of dynamite or nuclear bomb) it was just an expansion of space, a very very fast expansion.

 

That doesn't really address the question. The Big Bang can be an expansion of space and still be ultimately finite in extent at a greater scale. The cosmological constant could vary depending upon the regional distribution of matter. If that distribution changes gradually across many billions of light years, we would be none the wiser.

 

If the rest of the material universe is hierarchical, why not the Big Bang?

 

-Cuetek

[Shadowwalker]

Severian said this very well in the context of a different subforum

 

 

If you don't know the basics of standard cosmology, please ask questions. There are people at SFN who will be glad to explain things.

 

If you want to criticize the standard picture that professional cosmologists use these days, be sure you know what you are talking about.

 

If you want to present alternative concepts, be sure you first have an adequate appreciation of mainstream cosmology. In order to argue for your alternative you must have an accurate understanding of the mainstream picture.

 

=========================================================================

 

Here's a quick way to see how you do on standard cosmology.

The CMB redshift is somewhat less than 1100, people often use a rough estimate of 1100. Put 1100 into Wright's cosmology calculator and see if you understand what you get.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

 

the calculator is a nice embodiment of the standard cosmology model, with the commonly accepted parameters of 71 for the current Hubble, 0.73 for dark energy, 0.27 for matter.

 

The calculator will tell you that the present distance from here to the matter which emitted the CMB is about 45.6 GLY

 

that the light was emitted when expansion was 370,000 years old.

 

that the present age is 13.7 GY, so that the light travel time was 13.6+ GY or about a third of a million years LESS than the total age. We might as well say 13.7 GY for the light travel time too.

 

the calculator will also tell you that the distance THEN from here to the matter that emitted the light WHEN it emitted the light was around 41 milllon LY. that is, less than 45.6 GLY by a factor of 1100.

 

So the CMB light was emitted from atoms which were 41 milllon LY from the matter that eventually formed our galaxy and us, and those atoms are now 45.6 billion LY from us. And the light has taken almost the full 13.7 billion years to reach us.

 

These numbers are not precise---there are uncertainties in the paramters like 71 for the Hubble. What I am doing is copying more or less what the calculator gives, using the parameters that are put in for it to use. You can vary the parameters and see how that changes the estimates, if you care to.

 

The point of the test is to see if you can visualize the basic dimensions here. If you are comfortable with these bare CMB details, then my guess is that you have assimilated a good bit of the standard cosmology model. If you aren't, and cannot picture what was going on, then please ask questions.

 

============================================================

 

There is also some introductory stuff to read. Here are some links:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716

 

 

Everyone states a black hole is the death of a galaxy or a wormhole to another universe--- BUUUTTT what if it is actually the big bang therory being played out, can we say this is not the way life first started eons ago the central collection of universal matter to be comprosed for the creation of life and new planets again. and yes we do have a Black hole in the center of our galaxy also. so is this galaxy going to reborn anew or totally destroyed?

[Klaynos]

Everyone states a black hole is the death of a galaxy or a wormhole to another universe--- BUUUTTT what if it is actually the big bang therory being played out, can we say this is not the way life first started eons ago the central collection of universal matter to be comprosed for the creation of life and new planets again. and yes we do have a Black hole in the center of our galaxy also. so is this galaxy going to reborn anew or totally destroyed?

 

duplicate of: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=402935#post402935

[richph]

I'd like to introduce myself, it's the first time I've been on this forum. My name's Richard Phillips and I'm from Oxford.

 

I would like to give you all a bit of a background as to why I would like to post a new theory. It may be a little long winded, I hope you'll bear with me.

My father came up with this theory about 60 years ago, and has been developing it ever since. He now claims that he has perfected it, and it is a theory of everything. As you can imagine I have been a captive audience for 50 of those 60 years. So what I thought I'd do is post on a scientifc forum, so that experts in this field could study it, believe me I'm no expert (except maybe about watching football on the telly). So here goes!

 

He believes that the universe is a lake of energy, and everything passing through it is moving along a sine wave from photons to stars. The measurement of these sine waves determines the state of the object.

 

For example, a star is moving along a longer sine wave than a planet, in other words, the shorter the sine wave the more mass the object has, and the less heat it generates.

 

He has some formulae that he says corroborates what he's saying.

 

This obviously is a very short condensed version, mainly because I don't understand most of it.

 

If it all sounds like gibberish, I will understand if there are no replies, but what I'm really looking for are questions that may perhaps put holes in the theory.

 

How can you have a theory of everything if you don't know everything?

[pioneer]

One of the challenges theoretical physics faces is, math can be used to support abstract premises. Math is a faithful horse one can lead down a wide of variety of paths, some even being mutually exclusive. Because the math can get complicated, for any number of reasons, one may not be able to explains the results in a common sense way. This loss of common sense checks and balances can allow a math illusion to come alive. It sort of sounds like your Dad was able to create one of these math loops that gained a life of its own. This is common in physics.

 

Let explain this from a slightly different angle. One way to express math equations is to plot these on a graph. The regular painter type artist doesn't use math equations, but directly plots their abstraction on the graph paper called the canvas. For example, the artist Escher, came up with an abstraction called the stairway to nowhere. This can exist as a 2-D plot, but it can not exist in reality, since it always appears to go up even though it is a loop. If one translated this plot, into the equations, they would all be integrated. But the result is an illusion that can not exist in the real world. It still defies common sense, but the math bias says it is now real. Very few people can use common sense looking at complex equations.

 

If we did Escher's art work, directly, using equations, without first plotting it to touch common sense reality, the math would get very complex but would appear integrated. We may no longer be able to count on common sense, since it is a complex math abstraction that takes effort just to follow the steps. If we assume math doesn't lie, the stairway to nowhere is now real. The result is it can be hard to give up because the math bias is telling Dad to keep working on hiis abstract reality made "real" with math. Recognition comes down to going to one of the abstract math art fairs. But one is dealing with humans who tend to have their abstract art bias.

 

One may say these abstract models can make predictions in reality. Here my stock example, that can demonstrate even an abstraction without any basis in reality can make predictions. For example, let us assume gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space. This is erroneous but one can sort of do the reciprocal of the existing equations and make predictions. This is easy to see, because one is still able to use common sense. But if we didn't already know about gravity, this could make it to the abstract math fair.

 

The additional problem your Dad faces he is subject to the rules of abstract common sense, which is not necessarily reality common sense. Your Dad may be following all the abstract math art regulations. But if the abstract common sense expects a stairway to nowhere affect, somewhere in the art, if you don't have it, it not the most acceptable technique. So you Dad is a struggling artist, shunned by the abstract critics. He is following the abstract math rules well enough to where the math says it is real and out of touch with regular common sense just like everyone else. So he keeps working hoping the critics change the abstract common sense rules so other artists can play in the big leagues. It is sort of unionized.