Deminishing Returns

[Guest GA Douglass]

Fishing for a theoretical spell check, that is, I've got a theory that I think is neat and I'd like it kicked around a bit. At least I "think" it's original, havn't seen it elsewhere, but if you have - be a pal and link me.

 

Specifically

 

I was thinking that there was the potential for false perception accounting for both missing mass and apparent acceleration of universe expansion situations, based on the assumption of certain stable states that we have no true evidence for, specifically volume/mass.

 

My primary thought here is that the volume/mass of any part of the universe need not be a constant to be true to our observations so long as the volume/mass is consistent in a relative way.

 

If the universe were losing volume/mass on all matter, if there were a uniform reduction in mass of every particle, then it would appear on the galactic scale that things were moving away from one another at a rate equal to the loss of mass. On the local scale the observable effects would be negligible as we would all be losing mass and getting smaller at the same rate and everything would appear to be stable in a relative way from our perspective.

 

If I understand this correctly and the above were true in order to have what appear to be stable orbits then the gravitational constant would have to be wrong both being neither constant due to mass loss and greater than what is readily observable in order to account for "stable" orbits since orbits within the solar system and in the galactic arms would be collapsing orbits with the mass/volume loss balancing out the difference so that as the Earth falls towards the Sun the Sun falls away from the Earth. If the gravitational constant were wrong wouldn't that account for apparent missing mass in galactic formations?

 

As far as I can tell there wouldn't be a limiting factor on how fast the universe could lose mass and therefore how fast galaxys could rush away from one another, I'm not even sure that it's mathematically disprovable (anyone?) since it's all about relative observation. There's not a whole lot that one can compare with the rate of observed acceleration anyway, and in any event none of this would rule out a "big bang" along with its imparted motion to the universes components skewing things even further.

 

To me most interestingly is that if this were true then the universe could end in a "grand fizzle" when individual particles no long retain enough mass to stay cohesive and simply wink out of existence as matter. From a sci-fi writers point of view it comes down to what form the mass is becoming since it shouldn't be simply lost (can't destroy energy right?) - possibly matter could be transforming back to its esoteric pre-big bang state, or mass could be lost as part of the creation of those parallel universes which have been theorized for some time - lots of room for wild speculation here very little of which is provable and all of which makes good fodder for short stories.

 

Insights? Glaring flaws? Thanks in advance.

[J.C.MacSwell]

My primary thought here is that the volume/mass of any part of the universe need not be a constant to be true to our observations so long as the volume/mass is consistent in a relative way.

 

If the universe were losing volume/mass on all matter' date=' if there were a uniform reduction in mass of every particle, then it would appear on the galactic scale that things were moving away from one another at a rate equal to the loss of mass. On the local scale the observable effects would be negligible as we would all be losing mass and getting smaller at the same rate and everything would appear to be stable in a relative way from our perspective.

 

.[/quote']

 

I don't think I know what you mean by volume/mass. Isn't it considered not to be constant? (volume divided by mass is increasing at a rate of the cube of Hubbles "constant")

[[Tycho?]]

Well

 

1) Since this is a theory of yours, you can assume that it is wrong simply because physists with more training/education/intelligance than you have probably already thought about it.

 

2) How exactly do you propose that these things lose mass?

[J.C.MacSwell]

']

 

1) Since this is a theory of yours' date=' you can assume that it is wrong simply because physists with more training/education/intelligance than you have probably already thought about it.

 

?[/quote']

 

Maybe his "thanks in advance" was a little prematue for your "insight".

[mezarashi]

Well not to say your theory is wrong, but you have to understand that alot of physics is not proportional, so your changing of just that one shrinking rule would mean that ALOT if not ALL physical laws must change in some what will seem to us as a random and chaotic manner. For example, halving the mass/volume (also known as density) may need to have you to increase the speed of light by 1.563 times, reduce the proton/electron charge by 24.298%, and so forth to keep the world as we know it stable.

 

And well lastly, I see no reason to propose something as funny as that. Our theoretical understanding of the universe itself is already tangled up with quantum mechanics, relativity, and string theory. By having everything shrinking at once, we don't particularly achieve any new insight to the workings of the universe, it may be the case, but then again, how much is it going to shrink. If everything keeps shrinking as you say, then there really is no point of disappearance, because even the fabric of space time is shrinking, and what is beyond our universe, we don't know. Maybe it is, but it's pretty much irrelevant from a practical sense or way beyond the scope of our understanding at the present time.

[Guest GA Douglass]

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that science has, in some people, generated the same kind of totalitarian beleif system that one also finds in the extremest memberships of most religions? I appologize, such a comment as is more suitable to a psychology/anthropology forum so I'll find one for it.

 

More to the point.

 

An interesting side thought would be that if matter were not losing its bulk consistantly there would be large and small matter. As I understand partical physics (barely) these type of matter wouldn't be able to interact due to the differences in charge or energy (the stuff that causes matter to interact in the first place). Useful in being able to dismiss dark matter - the gravity signature of different sized matter should transend the bounderys that would prohibit more traditional matter interactions. The differences in sizes resulting only in more compact or dispersed gravity signatures.

 

With this theory I can use it to excuse an FTL drive without totally destroying traditional physics (long a holy grail of sci-fi writers). Make a ship really big (solar system sized for example) and its relative motion could then exceed the speed of light (relative to normal matter in space) without building up all that annoying inertia that prevents such things in reality, because its speed relative to its size could be small, then shrink back down at the other end - good navigation a must since the ship wouldn't be able to interact with ordinary matter and light during its journey.

 

Changing alot of mathematical rules doesn't bother me much since I'm primarily looking at it from a writability standpoint. I'm certainly not looking for a Nobel Prize here. No one expects or wants a bunch of math in a peice of fiction. Unknowns like dark matter and dark energy are a pain to deal with as fiction - much easier to say that there is one variable rather than two unknowns it is both easier to grasp and much less a dues ex machina of belief straining.

 

The other interesting thing would be the end of the universe stuff - since the accellerated rate of decay, or whatever you want to call it, would begin to have noticable effects within a few million years. It's quite possible that life (organized matter) would become impossible long before matter ran out. Another good story that.

 

OH!

 

As for theorys being dismissed by the "establishment" do remember that plate tectonics was dismissed for years simply because it came from outside the "establishment", and let none of us forget that Kepler wasted most of his brilliant life pursuing a theory that turned out to be rather silly.

 

Once again, all comments are and have been appreciated - keep them coming!

[Sayonara]

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that science has, in some people, generated the same kind of totalitarian beleif system that one also finds in the extremest memberships of most religions?

If it had, it would certainly come as a surprise to anyone who knows how scientific progress is made.

[Guest GA Douglass]

Scientific progress is made in many different ways. Ranging from those rare bursts of insight and answers from unexpected quarters, to the more traditional and methodical reasearch and inquiry.

 

There is the way it is supposed to be made and then there is the reality of influences outside the scientific method. The influence of a combination of money and power from a variety of interests prevent the traditional process from working in an honest and open way. If you can't bring forward data or come to certain conclusions for fear of losing funding or being demonized within your field then there is a problem. Cosmology is one of the few sciences not completely at the mercy of political interests and here we have the more traditional and pervasive problem of institutional interia.

[Sayonara]

I don't see what that has to do with science generating "the same kind of totalitarian beleif system that one also finds in the extremest memberships of most religions".