Please beat on this Cosmology Hypothesis

[Lazarus]

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.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Lazarus

[elfmotat]

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.

 

In fact, if the CC were changing in time then it would have to be promoted to a scalar field, which would also (upon quantization) imply the existence of a spin-0 "Cosmological Particle." The actual name for such a particle is "dilaton." Most research on the possibility of a time-variable CC is in the context of Brans-Dicke gravity (a modification of General Relativity to include a scalar field). Dilatons aren't ruled out by experiment (though they certainly haven't been observed) and in fact they are typical in the various string theories.

 

 

Also, I don't see your "hypothesis" anywhere. Just vague words slapped together.

Edited April 23, 2013 by elfmotat

[Lazarus]

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.

 

[elfmotat]

The Standard Theories imply that:

 

Space is expanding at an accelerating rate.

 

Right.

 

Gravity offsets the expansion.

 

Well, depending on how far away you are from a massive object it may or may not offset the expansion. Two galaxies which are far apart will not be gravitationally bound, which is how we know the universe is expanding in the first place.

 

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?

 

No! I thought I did a decent job of explaining this in the last thread. You can approximate the predictions of General Relativity to obtain a "Newton-esque" force-law which includes the cosmological constant:

 

[math]F=m\left (-\frac{GM}{r^2} + \frac{c^2 \Lambda}{3}r \right )[/math]

 

Notice how you don't see any explicit time-dependence in that equation. No constants are changing. No "empirical adjustments" are being made.

 

 

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.

 

2 and 3 are extremely vague, and 1 contradicts observation.

[Lazarus]

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

 

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.

 

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.

[Lazarus]

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.