Explaining quantum weirdness with locally expanding space

[substitutematerials]

Hi Everybody,

Please try out this speculative explanation of various quantum effects. It takes this as its main non-standard assumption: the expansion of space does not necessitate a changing distance between any two particular physical objects, and expansion occurs on all scales in the universe.

Imagine that a photon begins as a point, but expands it radius by c(t), i.e. the photon gets bigger over time, until an interaction occurs somewhere on its expanding surface. The interaction can only happen at one particular point on the shell of the enlarged photon because the energy of the photon is quantized- it can only give up its energy once. However, the probability of the photon arriving at that particular point on its shell is influenced by all potential events within the sphere, since the expanding photon has grown through them. This explains the fact that a single photon will interfere with itself in the double slit experiment, having appeared to "take all available paths" before choosing it's actual path.

We can take this a step further and say that it is not the photon that is expanding, but space itself. The deeper meaning of this is that a point from the past interacts with a larger volume in the future. Now we can move on to entanglement, which describes the scenario in which determining the property of one entangled photon will simultaneously determine that of its entangled partner, regardless of the distance separating them. This is because the observer is actually interacting with the past moment when the photons were entangled. The point-moment, the event of entangled emission, has grown in volume, such that the observer's measurement is essentially retro-causal. This is the real meaning of spatial expansion, and the cause of entanglement: a point in the past becomes a larger volume in the future. The observer of entanglement is interacting with the past. This also makes some sense if we imagine the photon's perspective from a relativistic framework. Since the photon moves at c, it experiences no passage of time. It is emitted and absorbed instantaneously. It has not traveled- instead, the moment of its emission has expanded in volume until the moment of its absorption.

Consequently, I'm offering that quantum effects are evidence of local spatial expansion. Anybody?

[Strange]

It takes this as its main non-standard assumption: the expansion of space does not necessitate a changing distance between any two particular physical objects, and expansion occurs on all scales in the universe.

 

 

We observe that the distance between things is changing.

We also observe that expansion only happens at large scales (where the distribution of mass in approximately homogeneous).

 

 

 

Imagine that a photon begins as a point, but expands it radius by c(t), i.e. the photon gets bigger over time

 

Photons don't have a well defined size, so this doesn't seem to make sense.

 

 

 

However, the probability of the photon arriving at that particular point on its shell is influenced by all potential events within the sphere, since the expanding photon has grown through them. This explains the fact that a single photon will interfere with itself in the double slit experiment, having appeared to "take all available paths" before choosing it's actual path.

 

This is true. But to correctly calculate the outcome, you need to assume that the photon takes all possible paths (even those that are not achievable at the speed of light).

 

 

 

We can take this a step further and say that it is not the photon that is expanding, but space itself.

 

Expansion is not a speed. So your ct thing doesn't apply.

 

 

 

he deeper meaning of this is that a point from the past interacts with a larger volume in the future. Now we can move on to entanglement, which describes the scenario in which determining the property of one entangled photon will simultaneously determine that of its entangled partner, regardless of the distance separating them.

 

The collapse of entangled states is instantaneous, so I don't see how it can be explained by the photon expanding at c.

 

 

Consequently, I'm offering that quantum effects are evidence of local spatial expansion. Anybody?

 

As the photon ends up back at a single point, when detected, are you also claiming that the universe is constantly expanding and then shrinking again.

[substitutematerials]

Thanks for the detailed consideration of my speculation, Strange. I appreciate it.

We observe that the distance between things is changing.
We also observe that expansion only happens at large scales (where the distribution of mass in approximately homogeneous).

My conjecture is not that the distance between astronomical objects doesn't change with spatial expansion, but that it needn't. Objects like the Earth and the sun can be decoupled from expansion, and maintain static distances, but that doesn't change the fact that space is expanding through and around them. It is a global property in this regard. Very distant objects can recede from each other in this model, as we observe. While it is a can of worms, a necessary condition for this is that mass density and gravitation do not impact the progress of expansion. Hence the speculations forum.

Photons don't have a well defined size, so this doesn't seem to make sense.

I've confused things by referring to the size of a photon. Really the idea is: all points in space expand to become volumes.

As the photon ends up back at a single point, when detected, are you also claiming that the universe is constantly expanding and then shrinking again.

no. Expansion in this model is a constant. The effect of the photon's absorption emerges at a single point in the future, but the expanded spatial volume doesn't collapse with the waveform of the photon. The universe remains larger than before.

This is true. But to correctly calculate the outcome, you need to assume that the photon takes all possible paths (even those that are not achievable at the speed of light).

This is quite perplexing to me; I have stumbled on it for a while. How is a superluminal path included in the list of possible paths? Does this mean that a third slit placed behind the detector would need to be accounted for in the interference pattern of a hypothetical test? What if the test is controlled for a given light travel time, rejecting inputs with a long enough light delay to have encountered the third slit?

The collapse of entangled states is instantaneous, so I don't see how it can be explained by the photon expanding at c.

The photon is stuck in the past moment. The point in space and time has expanded to come in contact with the present observer. When the observer determines the spin or polarization, she is determining what happened at the moment of its inception. She is interacting with the past itself, which has grown in volume to encompass her position, as well as the position of the entangled photon. This is my big idea.

[Strange]

My conjecture is not that the distance between astronomical objects doesn't change with spatial expansion, but that it needn't. Objects like the Earth and the sun can be decoupled from expansion, and maintain static distances, but that doesn't change the fact that space is expanding through and around them.

 

 

Then you need to come up with a new model that describes this. This is not consistent with the current solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (such as the FLRW metric).

 

 

I've confused things by referring to the size of a photon. Really the idea is: all points in space expand to become volumes.

 

So what does it have to do with photons, then?

 

 

 

no. Expansion in this model is a constant. The effect of the photon's absorption emerges at a single point in the future, but the expanded spatial volume doesn't collapse with the waveform of the photon. The universe remains larger than before.

 

Why is the expansion of the universe relevant to the behaviour of a photon?

 

 

 

This is quite perplexing to me; I have stumbled on it for a while. How is a superluminal path included in the list of possible paths? Does this mean that a third slit placed behind the detector would need to be accounted for in the interference pattern of a hypothetical test? What if the test is controlled for a given light travel time, rejecting inputs with a long enough light delay to have encountered the third slit?

 

You need to read up on quantum theory. Particularly, the Feynman integral. The probability of a photon being detected in a particular place has to calculate every possible path the photon could take (including whizzing off to Jupiter and going round Ganymede three times before returning - although that path will only have a small effect on the result!)

 

 

 

The photon is stuck in the past moment. The point in space and time has expanded to come in contact with the present observer. When the observer determines the spin or polarization, she is determining what happened at the moment of its inception. She is interacting with the past itself, which has grown in volume to encompass her position, as well as the position of the entangled photon.

 

I don't know what "the photon is stuck in the past moment" even means.

 

I don't see how this addresses anything about entanglement. You seem to imply that the spin is fixed when the photon and, presumably, its entangled partner are created. But entanglement (specifically Bell's inequality) shows that this cannot be the case.

[substitutematerials]

I don't know what "the photon is stuck in the past moment" even means.

 

I don't see how this addresses anything about entanglement. You seem to imply that the spin is fixed when the photon and, presumably, its entangled partner are created. But entanglement (specifically Bell's inequality) shows that this cannot be the case.

It's a goofy way of saying that no time elapses for the photon. I don't think what I am proposing is the same as the predetermination of the spin. The spin is in a superposition until it is detected, and so does not violate Bell's inequality. What I am proposing is very similar to the retrocausal solution to Bell's Inequality, talked about here by Huw Price and Ken Wharton,

 

https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

 

and here

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXMJ2Z90teQ

 

and peer reviewed

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01140

 

You need to read up on quantum theory. Particularly, the Feynman integral. The probability of a photon being detected in a particular place has to calculate every possible path the photon could take (including whizzing off to Jupiter and going round Ganymede three times before returning - although that path will only have a small effect on the result!)

Agreed, I definitely do need to read up on the path integral.

 

Then you need to come up with a new model that describes this. This is not consistent with the current solutions to the Einstein Field Equations (such as the FLRW metric).

I've been working on this for a while. It is certainly true that what I am proposing is not consistent with an FLRW derived model of the universe. I don't think there is any conflict with General Relativity as a local solution, in regions of asymmetrical distribution of mass. Of course there better not be a conflict in these cases, since it is pretty well tested at this point. Here are the basic equations that would describe distance scales in my model:

 

[math] z=\frac{-ln(1-t)}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}

[/math]

 

[math] X= ct_o(1+\frac{\int_{0}^{t}(z)dt}{t})

[/math]

 

[math] D_l=X(1+z)

[/math]

 

where (z) is the cosmological redshift, (t) is the lookback or light travel time expressed with the present being 0 and the origin being 1, (X) is the Co-moving distance, (t_o) is the cosmic time of the observer and (D_l) is the luminosity distance.

 

You can see this has no free parameters except for the present age of the universe. The graph parallels LamdaCDM pretty well, I am working with Mordred over in this thread on comparing values with the lightcone calculator. I've generated a graph here showing a comparison. I can tell you that for the type 1a data from the Perlmutter study, this equation agrees within a fraction of a percent. It begins to diverge more substantially after z=8 or so, but the very early universe is quite similar, with the age of the universe at the CMB being off by a factor of 2, and the temperature at one second after the big bang being off by a factor of 4. It seems to me that being in the right order of magnitude at this point is meaningful.

 

The metaphor I resort to is that space is like an audiotape of lightwaves, which we play by stretching, rather than just moving it as in a tape player. Since we are stretching and distorting the record through the act of playback, we naturally observe a lengthening of distant events- they take longer to unfold, and are shifted in 'pitch'. This is the source of the redshift in this model. When the time elapsed since the event is short compared to the age of the universe, this effect is negligable.

 

I have a paper explaining the derivation of the first equation as well. Thanks again for your thoughtful consideration.

[Strange]

It's a goofy way of saying that no time elapses for the photon.

 

 

You can reach that conclusion simply from the Lorentz transform. Even though it is not strictly valid it is commonly used in pop sci descriptions, even by scientists.

 

But it is utterly irrelevant to entanglement as it is in the observers time frame that it appears to be instantaneous.

 

 

 

What I am proposing is very similar to the retrocausal solution to Bell's Inequality, talked about here by Huw Price and Ken Wharton,

 

Retrocausality is a perfectly valid interpretation of quantum mechanics (and, therefore, exactly equivalent to all the others). I agree it is quite an intuitive way of understanding non-locality.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Strange

[substitutematerials]

Why is the expansion of the universe relevant to the behaviour of a photon?

What I'm saying is that light is propagated by the expansion of space. On some level, this is true in conventional cosmology- since light from the CMB has traveled 45 glyr to reach us in only 13.8 gyr, I think we can say that most of its motion was borne on the expanding fabric of space. Of course any observer along the interval will measure the speed of light at c, but in the simplest interpretation of Speed = Distance/Time, the effective speed of the traveling photon was X/t. I am taking it a step further and saying that all of the apparent motion of light is due to expanding space, which happens locally at c, and at on larger scales can be averaged to X/t. The speed of light is the speed of the expanding medium, the speed of information.

[Strange]

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling factor. Therefore, the speed of separation of two points is proportional to how far apart they are.

 

I can't even imagine what expansion would be like if every point were moving away from every other at a fixed speed. It doesn't seem to make sense.

[Mordred]

Not everything is expanding. Only between the voids, away from LSS does expansion occur. So I'm having trouble making sense of your proposal.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

Edited November 8, 2016 by Mordred

[substitutematerials]

Not everything is expanding. Only between the voids, away from LSS does expansion occur. So I'm having trouble making sense of your proposal.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

Hi Mordred, I realize that my proposal is in clear disagreement with how we understand spatial expansion to work at present. The below explanation will hopefully explain how my mental image of a different conception works, for the purpose of speculation.

 

 

Expansion is not a speed, it is a scaling factor. Therefore, the speed of separation of two points is proportional to how far apart they are.

 

I can't even imagine what expansion would be like if every point were moving away from every other at a fixed speed. It doesn't seem to make sense.

Every point is moving away from it's past position at a fixed speed. I am 300,000 kilometers away from the space I was inhabiting one second ago, which has expanded by that radius to form a sphere surrounding me. The radius of this sphere is the distance light could have 'traveled' in the elapsed time. Likewise a point on the sun's surface has expanded to form a sphere eight light-minutes in radius. Because the Earth and the sun maintain static distances from each other, they are overlapping each other's expanding pasts. This is why I see light from the sun: I am standing where the sun was eight minutes ago.

 

You might ask why one would want to perform these mental gymnastics rather just referring to the well accepted explanation,"light traveled across static space from the sun to the Earth; it took eight minutes to cross the void." One reason I find the alternate vision compelling is that the locally expanding space scenario fits what we see at the quantum level- that the photon is somehow still engaged with the entire volume of its potential paths until absorption, and that the interaction with the photon is as if it is an interaction with the past moment of emission itself as shown in entanglement scenarios, as if we are touching the past, retrocausally.

[Strange]

Every point is moving away from it's past position at a fixed speed. I am 300,000 kilometers away from the space I was inhabiting one second ago, which has expanded by that radius to form a sphere surrounding me.

 

 

In which direction?

 

And speed relative to what?

 

Are you head and your neck moving apart at 300,000 km/s? Or your head and your feet?

 

 

 

One reason I find the alternate vision compelling is that the locally expanding space scenario fits what we see at the quantum level- that the photon is somehow still engaged with the entire volume of its potential paths until absorption, and that the interaction with the photon is as if it is an interaction with the past moment of emission itself as shown in entanglement scenarios, as if we are touching the past, retrocausally.

 

The photon is also affected by any possible future paths. And by other objects that are further away than this sphere. How does your model handle that?

[substitutematerials]

In which direction?

And speed relative to what?

The speed, like the speed of light, is relative to the observer's inertial frame, and is radial in all directions.

 

Are you head and your neck moving apart at 300,000 km/s? Or your head and your feet?

No. They are all moving away from space they formerly occupied. It doesn't have to mean anything to the the distance measured between them. Can you imagine this alternative or does it seem non-sensical?

 

The photon is also affected by any possible future paths. And by other objects that are further away than this sphere. How does your model handle that?

This is an excellent question, just the kind I hoped to get here. It is the same as the point you brought up with the Feynman Path Integral, and I don't have a ready explanation for why future paths would also be relevant.

[Strange]

No. They are all moving away from space they formerly occupied. It doesn't have to mean anything to the the distance measured between them. Can you imagine this alternative or does it seem non-sensical?

 

 

So you seem to be ascribing some sort of physical attributes to empty space that can have a position and speed. Or, to put it another way, how would you experimentally detect and measure this expansion of space?

 

Also, how do you connect your idea of points expanding at c (*) to the fact that we observe expansion as a scaling effect?

 

(*) This which still seems mathematically nonsensical. So perhaps you could present the math behind it.

 

 

 

This is an excellent question, just the kind I hoped to get here. It is the same as the point you brought up with the Feynman Path Integral, and I don't have a ready explanation for why future paths would also be relevant.

 

So your idea seems to have no value.

[Mordred]

 

This is why I see light from the sun: I am standing where the sun was eight minutes ago.

 

Oh really I think not. This is a complete garbage statement.

 

What changes in how the observer measures light due to expansion?

What I'm saying is that light is propagated by the expansion of space. On some level, this is true in conventional cosmology- since light from the CMB has traveled 45 glyr to reach us in only 13.8 gyr, I think we can say that most of its motion was borne on the expanding fabric of space. Of course any observer along the interval will measure the speed of light at c, but in the simplest interpretation of Speed = Distance/Time, the effective speed of the traveling photon was X/t. I am taking it a step further and saying that all of the apparent motion of light is due to expanding space, which happens locally at c, and at on larger scales can be averaged to X/t. The speed of light is the speed of the expanding medium, the speed of information.

Don't make the mistake of confusing apparent or peculiar velocity with actual velocity.

 

I think you better study these two articles.

 

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies

 

Don't let the title of the first one confuse you. Its a simplified version of the second article. Written by a professor that has years of forum experience.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[substitutematerials]

Hey guys, surely 'complete garbage' is an overly strong dismissal- I realize that this idea is a very wrong description of present theory, but I don't believe the statement is logically incoherent. You doth protest too much. There are many ideas that are brought to these sites that are not self-consistent or even capable of evaluation, and I pretty strongly believe this idea at least rises about that level of gibberish. I can formulate a clear mental picture of what it means to be "standing where the sun was eight minutes ago". It is not different than saying "I am standing where the big bang occurred," except for the radical shift in the actual dynamics of spatial expansion.

Back to your point about path integrals Strange, I have been doing some reading, and as far as I can tell, at least the double slit experiment hasn't really been tested yet to the precision needed in order to confirm or deny the importance of non-classical photon paths in the path integral calculation, since their probabilities would be very low. Some recent work is tackling this almost as we speak- I think the general experimental setup is to add a third slit and look for the effect of photons weaving through multiple slits on their path to the detector. So I will hazard, without caution, that you have actually identified an experiment that would produce a relevant yay or nay to this image: If locally expanding space is the principle that underlies path integral formalism, then we should only see evidence for classical light path probabilities in any experimental setup.

here are some links:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.2022

arxiv.org/abs/1610.06401v1 (not yet peer reviewed)

Do you know of any other experimental arrangement where the path integral requires computing non-classical paths, say in particle accelerators?

 

Thanks again for looking at this, guys. And Mordred, I will read the links you sent. I certainly want to have a complete understanding of the LambdaCDM configuration of the FLRW metric. What I am proposing here is clearly a dramatic deviation from that framework, which is why I began the topic in speculations.

[Mordred]

Try running the math itself. Stop to consider that both the Earth and Sun formed a few billion years ago. Secondly the Earth has always orbitted our Sun.

So if you consider these details then how can you possibly stand where the sun was a mere 8 minutes ago?

There is nothing logical behind that statement. Especially considering it takes light 8 minutes to reach us from the Sun.

Let alone a massive object that is orbitting said sun.

Secondly expansion Does not affect our solar system gravity is simply too strong compared to the strength of the cosmological constant.

Thirdly your confusing artifacts of formulas such as recessive velocity which is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity due to the formula and seperation distance between observer and emitter.

[latex]v_r=H_0d[/latex]

 

For example the recessive velocity at z=1100 is roughly 3.2 c. Yet we know nothing moves faster that c not even information exchange

 

Its well and good to speculate but at least use the laws of physics.

 

As far as redshift goes the velocity of light does not change. It is the wavelength not velocity that is affected.

 

Do some vector addition with regards to the Earth sun system. You will not possibly a combination that shows you are standing where the sun was 8 minutes ago.

 

It is a physical impossibility. Not merely flying in the face of basic physics.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

Hey guys, surely 'complete garbage' is an overly strong dismissal- I realize that this idea is a very wrong description of present theory, but I don't believe the statement is logically incoherent.

 

 

Describing expansion in terms of a constant speed is totally incoherent. It makes no sense. It is impossible. I mean, feel free to post the math that shows how it is supposed to work but I can't see how it is possible.

 

 

 

There are many ideas that are brought to these sites that are not self-consistent or even capable of evaluation, and I pretty strongly believe this idea at least rises about that level of gibberish.

 

Of course you do. This is the classic "it makes sense to me" argument.

 

 

 

Do you know of any other experimental arrangement where the path integral requires computing non-classical paths, say in particle accelerators?

 

Any calculation in QED needs to take account of non-classical paths to get the right result. As the papers you cite seem to confirm.

[Mordred]

Here is something to grasp. The rate of expansion per Mpc is slowing down. Yet the seperation distance due to expansion is accelerating.

 

This is explained on those links.

 

The two links you provided is 100% unrelated to expansion. Yes they both use geometry but that is the only similarity.

Expansion does not affect the two slit experiment. Go ahead assume it does.

 

Take the rate of expansion per Mpc 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

How meters is in 1 Mega Parsec? Now apply that to a 1 meter distance two slit experiment. Where each photon takes far less than a single second to cross a single meter. The numbers will not add up. You will end up being so many orders of magnitude out to be garbage.

 

1 Parsec =‎: ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

 

Go ahead show how those numbers add up.

 

Then explain how the density strength of the cosmological constant at a measly 7×10-10 joules/meter can possibly affect a single atom. Let alone a solar system or galaxy compared to the force of gravity due to their mass.

 

These two numbers alone explain how light can exceed expansion. Ie cross 46 Glyrs

 

1 Parsec = ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

 

locally to the light path the rate of expansion is practically non-existent.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[substitutematerials]

The part of my proposal that you are missing Mordred is that light doesn't travel across space. I'm proposing that light is borne on expanding space. This is a major change to the laws of physics, yes. Of course I'm not proposing that the Earth and Sun are moving apart at the speed of light; as Strange has gathered, I am ascribing a physicality to space that is not defined by the distance between any 2 particular objects.

 

 

 

 

So you seem to be ascribing some sort of physical attributes to empty space that can have a position and speed. Or, to put it another way, how would you experimentally detect and measure this expansion of space?

 

 

 

This is what I'm doing. And I'm claiming that we measure and detect this expansion all the time, because that's how light 'gets around'. When we view light, we are viewing a past moment that has expanded in volume to encompass our present position. In this way, a telescope is not 'like' a time machine, it is a time machine. Hence the retrocausality of quantum mechanics.

 

Assume for the sake of a thought experiment that the universe is finite, and has a edge. If this was the case, we would say that that edge is receding from any observer as the universe expands. This is a relationship to space itself, and not any particular object. We could make a similar statement about the Hubble horizon, or the observable horizon.

 

In this hypothetical finite universe, any physical, intact object with a real volume will occupy a particular fraction of the entire volume of space. After time has elapsed, that object will (obviously) still measure its own volume to be the same, but the fraction of the whole that it now occupies

has become smaller, since the universe as whole grew in the interim. But you could still refer to that earlier fractional volume of space, formerly occupied by the object, which would appear to be radiating away from the physical object as the universe grew.

 

I'll make one more post later to explain why I think redshift emerges naturally from this model, then I'll let it rest.

 

 

Assume for the sake of a thought experiment that the universe is finite, and has a edge. If this was the case, we would say that that edge is receding from any observer as the universe expands. This is a relationship to space itself, and not any particular object.

 

In this hypothetical finite universe, any physical, intact object with a real volume will occupy a particular fraction of the entire volume of space. After time has elapsed, that object will (obviously) still measure its own volume to be the same, but the fraction of the whole that it now occupies

has become smaller, since the universe as whole grew in the interim. But you could still refer to that earlier fractional volume of space, formerly occupied by the object, which would appear to be radiating away from the physical object as the universe grew.

[Mordred]

You haven't shown a single metric to define your proposal.

 

Do the actual math you will find are flat out wrong.

 

You can easily prove your assumptions wrong by simple number crunching.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[Strange]

I'm proposing that light is borne on expanding space.

 

 

This is (a) impossible and (b) not necessary.

 

 

 

And I'm claiming that we measure and detect this expansion all the time, because that's how light 'gets around'.

 

You need to provide some evidence that supports your hypothesis. As light is already known to travel through space at the speed of light, you need some alternative evidence to support your idea.

[Mordred]

You also need to study wavelength and its application to the probability functions of finding that photon somewhere on thst wavelength.

 

Wavelength DOES NOT equal the photons volume. The two are completely unrelated

 

You obviously do not understand this distinction.

 

A wave is basically a group of particles which moves in a particular form of motion. It is not the particle volume. which is pointlike. Volume isn't a definable property of a particle.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Mordred

[substitutematerials]

Here is something to grasp. The rate of expansion per Mpc is slowing down. Yet the seperation distance due to expansion is accelerating.

 

This is explained on those links.

 

The two links you provided is 100% unrelated to expansion. Yes they both use geometry but that is the only similarity.

Expansion does not affect the two slit experiment. Go ahead assume it does.

 

Take the rate of expansion per Mpc 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

How meters is in 1 Mega Parsec? Now apply that to a 1 meter distance two slit experiment. Where each photon takes far less than a single second to cross a single meter. The numbers will not add up. You will end up being so many orders of magnitude out to be garbage.

 

1 Parsec =‎: ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s.

 

Go ahead show how those numbers add up.

 

Then explain how the density strength of the cosmological constant at a measly 7×10-10 joules/meter can possibly affect a single atom. Let alone a solar system or galaxy compared to the force of gravity due to their mass.

 

These two numbers alone explain how light can exceed expansion. Ie cross 46 Glyrs

 

1 Parsec = ‎3.0857×10^16 m‎ The rate of expansion per second is 70 km/sec/Mpc.

 

The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

 

locally to the light path the rate of expansion is practically non-existent.

 

Yes Mordred, those 2 links are about a quantum mechanical experiment, and have no reference to expansion, nor do they need to in the conventional picture, because, like you say, 70 km/sec/mpc is a vanishingly small rate, and it should be completely constrained on local scales by all the forces that hold the environment of the experiment together.

 

Also, how do you connect your idea of points expanding at c (*) to the fact that we observe expansion as a scaling effect?

 

(*) This which still seems mathematically nonsensical. So perhaps you could present the math behind it.

 

What I am saying is that 70 km/sec/mpc is not the rate of expansion. In my hypothesis, H_o is a time dilation that stems from the fact that we are measuring time against the expanding medium of space- because I have equated light's transmission with the expanding medium.

 

[math] H_o={\dot\dot}\tau[/math]

 

The Hubble parameter is the second derivative of proper time (tau) with respect to cosmic time. Units of distance in the numerator and denominator can be cancelled to yield 2.31E-18 sec^-1. This change in time is transformable to a scaling factor, but it emerges geometrically from the fact the we are measuring the rate of time against a constantly expanding medium.

 

The analogy that I employ here is that the space is like audio tape for light waves, except that the tape plays destructively, by stretching across the observer. When the time elapsed since an event is small relative to the cosmic age, the distortion is miniscule. But on larger scales it becomes significant- it is the source of the cosmological redshift, and is given by the equation I've posted several times:

 

[math]z=\frac{-ln(1-t)}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}[/math]

 

The derivation of this equation is in the attached paper. The change in wavelength of photons does not come from spatial expansion in this model- it comes from this second order scaling.

 

Stationary_Light.pdf

 

I have crunched actual numbers as best as I know how:

 

SL supernova table.tiff

 

The above attachment is a short table of supernovas from the SCP paper, computing the various distance scales to compare to values generated by the Wright calculator, and showing a mean disagreement of .007 between the models.

 

The equations used for the (SL) columns are listed elsewhere in this thread, with the addition of the standard distance modulus to convert apparent magnitude to absolute magnitude:

 

[math]M=m-5(log_{10}(D_l)-5)[/math]

 

Another way to compare to conventional cosmology is by the evolution of background temperature, using

 

[math]K_e=(z+1)K_o[/math]

 

and 2.73 Kelvins as the measured background temperature presently.

 

For the CMB, with z of 1089, recombination would be centered around 590,000 years after the Big Bang, and the light arriving now from that event would have been emitted from a co-moving distance of 52.6 glyr. The comparisons to the lightcone calculator are an age of 373,000 years and co-moving distance of 45.33 glyr.

 

Reaching back to a single second after the big bang, we can calculate that the temperature, assuming adiabatic expansion since then, the temperature would be 51.56 gigakelvins, within the order of magnitude estimated by lambdaCDM of 100 gigakelvins. This evolution of temperature is important in models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

 

Finally, I would just say that, like the original post in this thread, quantum mechanical behavior suggests that there is something wrong with the simple picture of light traveling through static space. I don't think we need to just accept things that don't make sense, relying entirely on mathematical efficacy. Deeper truths await us if we can truly proceed from intelligible first principles.

 

Thanks again guys

SL supernova table.tiff

Stationary_Light.pdf

[Strange]

Finally, I would just say that, like the original post in this thread, quantum mechanical behavior suggests that there is something wrong with the simple picture of light traveling through static space.

 

 

Indeed. But that behaviour is well explained by existing theory.

[substitutematerials]

any further thoughts?

 

Strange, I would just say that the non-local and retro-causal behavior of quantum events can only be described as well-explained by existing theory in the sense that it is mathematically circumscribed: we can predict outcomes. It is not well explained in physical terms, which is why QM physicists are sometimes implored to 'shut up and calculate'. I'm sure this is an acceptable stage for scientific understanding to pass through. Lorentz derived the mathematical transformations of time and length that special relativity would later explain. Kepler derived the math of elliptical orbits before Newton explained the nature of the force that caused them. We get so much more when we make intuitive sense of what the numbers are telling us.

 

This thread is a tangent to the paper I presented. While I can imagine some of these quantum behaviors to emerge in a locally expanding space, or stationary light model, my work is a cosmological theory. So this may have been a clumsy place to introduce the idea. All the topics I've started on scienceforums relate to this theory, although hopefully they have some merit as good thought experiments too. Is the close fit of my model to our present one, in the relationship of various distance scales to redshift, and the evolution of temperature over time, at all interesting to the esteemed members of this forum?

 

Also I'm embarrassed to issue a correction, which I already issued in the numerical analysis thread in the cosmology section, which is that the Co-Moving distance equation should read:

 

[math]X=ct_{lb}(1+\frac{\int_{0}^{t}(z)dt}{t})[/math]

 

(t_o) for the time of the observer, was written where (t_lb) for lookback time is in the above, the units of time should be the same as those used for the speed of light. This error is also in the attached pdf, and in light of this and future edits, I'll just post a link to the sharelatex website where I am working on it:

 

Stationary Light