Jump to content

AbstractDreamer

Senior Members
  • Posts

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Theoretical physics

Recent Profile Visitors

4620 profile views

AbstractDreamer's Achievements

Atom

Atom (5/13)

21

Reputation

  1. "... the photons instead increase in wavelength and redshift because of a global feature of the spacetime through which they are traveling. One interpretation of this effect is the idea that space itself is expanding." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Wiki even states that space expansion is only ONE interpretation. I am guilty of entertaining another interpretation. Yet despite all your responses you have repeated failed to address the important points; either due to a failure to understand my point, or you are blinded by a desire to be right and steadfast refusal to be helpful.
  2. I wouldn't ask if I knew the answer. That's the nature of asking questions. You answer as if you aren't reading the question, despite it being asked multiple times. Hubble's law = recessional velocity = Hubble's constant = proper distance Where is the effect of curvature on recessional velocity? In this equation that shows the direct relationship between recessional velocity (cosmological redshift interpreted as spatial expansion) and distance, where does gravity come into the picture? I've been very consistent. There is nothing I can do about other people choosing to be inconsistent with understanding what I'm saying. It's about whether or not cosmological redshift can have an interpretation that includes a temporal contraction/expansion. It's NOT about if I believe that it does or does not. What I believe is irrelevant. Science is not about faith. I never asked about negating expansion. You answered that gravity negates expansion. Your answer was in response to my supposition that gravity affects space expansion... which was simply a juxtaposition of your previous question about gravity affecting time, which to me seemed to carry an implicit meaning that gravity DID indeed affect space expansion, which I didn't know then and latter asked about. You are looking at the FLRW metric model and the evolution of the Universe as a whole; a model that assumes a spatial expansion interpretation of comoslogical redshift and a flat time metric, to explain why gravity negates spatial expansion and not the time metric, and describe how the universe evolved. You're using a theory to justify its assumptions. That is a logical fallacy. Not only that, I'm asking specifically about cosmological redshift interpretation, not gravitational or relativistic redshift. The point was about testability or non-testability. Are you conceding that your argument that my proposal is untestable is moot at this stage? In response to my lack of maths, I'm not denying that. I don't think it is a reason to dismiss the idea entirely at such an early conceptual stage. In response to a theoretical basis, your arguments thus far have largely missed the mark. I'm questioning the completeness of a spatial expansion interpretation of cosmological redshift. Your arguments supporting spatial expansion are all premised on that interpretation. You cant use a theory to justify its premises.
  3. OK yes, the slits themselves do not have to be entangled. I guess you cant actually entangle a hole. But perhaps you can have two microscopic holes that are blocked by an entangled pair of particles. For the sake of clarity, lets just call it an entangled slit. But this raises another question. What happens if the two slits are not exactly perpendicular to the wave? So when the wave reaches one slit first, it would instantaneously close the other before the wave reaches the second slit, thus showing no interference on the detector, as the 2nd slot is closed by the time the wave arrives. Is this a matter of precision? Could we position the two slits accurately enough to ensure the wave passes both slits simultaneously? So accurate as to match the instantaneous decoherence of the entangled slots? Lets say the wave managed to reach both slits instantaneously. Would the wave managed to pass through both slits before either of the closed and we see interference, or will the slits close before the wave gets through and we see no interference. Does the wave function of a quantum system preserve quantum entanglement in another system it encounters.
  4. Space expansion is not modelled in Newtonian physics. In Relativistic physics, gravity is a curvature of spacetime 4d manifold, and space expansion is a stretching of only the 3d space metric. How does curvature affect spatial expansion? How exactly is it an even weaker claim, even if I acknowledge that expansion happens? And No. I don't acknowledge that expansion must happens. I acknowledge cosmological redshift is measured. I acknowledge spatial expansion it is a viable interpretation of redshift. It is apparent you are the one that adamantly believes it expansion happens, and perhaps evidentially so. But you need to separate your beliefs, from mine. Space expansion is a proposal - an interpretation - based on cosmological redshift not relativistic or gravitational redshift. Your answer, that gravity is an attractive force under Newtonian physics is nonsense when talking about cosmological redshift. There's no effect of gravity in cosmological redshift. Hubble's Law describes cosmological redshift is related to proper distance and time (Hubble parameter), and NO gravity factors. The FLRW metric describes space expansion is due to proper distance and time, and again NO gravity factors Time metric contraction is related to distance not gravity (me). No. Ill say it again as pedantically as possible, might just work eventually. IF we interpret the cosmological redshift effect as spatial expansion and zero temporal expansion, then the cosmological redshift effect is all due to spatial expansion, according to Hubble Law and FLRW metric. In this case the redshift represents only spatial expansion, and as such it is a measurement of spatial expansion. IF we interpret the cosmological redshift effect as partial spatial AND partial temporal expansion, then the cosmological redshift effect is NOT all due to spatial expansion. In this case cosmological redshift represents more than just spatial expansion, and as such its measurement cannot wholly be attributed to spatial expansion. Like I said before. We can argue whether or not its testable later. We don't know if its untestable right now. Lack of testability hasn't stopped ideas in String Theory.
  5. I'm sure this has been asked multiple times, but I couldn't easily find a answer. So in the double slit experiment, with steady source of emission through two slits, we see an interference pattern on the other side that suggests the emission is wave like as it passes the slits. The emission appears to acknowledge and pass through BOTH slits, while its waveform remains uncollapsed. What happens if the two slits are entangled such that when one slit is open the other is instantaneously closed, for each emission. Would the entanglement of the slits cause the waveform of the emission to collapse, or would the waveform cause the slits to decohere? How would a partial decoherence of the slits affect the probability distribution of where the particle might end up being detected?
  6. How exactly does gravity negate expansion, knowing that expansion is a change in the metric and gravity is not? No. My claim is that redshift could be due to BOTH a spatial AND temporal adjustment. If there was no spatial adjustment, then yes, perhaps you can deduce the redshift is entirely due to a temporal change, and to this end, it might be measurable. But I'm not claiming exactly how much of the redshift is due to spatial or temporal expansion. My claim is that some of the redshift could be due to change in the temporal metric, and why is that not a possibility. My claim is also that a change in the metric of time could be measured, if there is a way to "untrap" a frame of reference from the same moment of time as the observation, or vice versa. Which AFAIK is not possible, but I dont know what might be possible in the future. I'm not claiming there is no change in scale. We find solutions where redshift can be explained via not just a spatial expansion, but a spatial AND temporal expansion. The term time-metric-contraction might be imprecise. I simply used the word "contraction" to conceptualise a rotation that is symmetrical to expansion.
  7. Ok I accept that apparent super luminal recession is a prediction of GR given the FLRW solution, and not a violation of GR under that interpretation. And that solution allows the metric of space to expand at any speed. The cosmological constant was supposed to provide a static solution to the field equations. Redshift was then discovered in spiral nebulae. Lemaitre proposed a spatially expanding universe, deriving the Friedman equations with a parameter for the scale factor of expansion, and calculating Hubble's law. Hubble then provided experimental observation evidence to support Hubble's law describing a relationship between the redshift measurements and distance from Earth. Why have we not proposed a spatially and temporally expanding universe to explain redshift? I dont see why it's unreasonable. You cant use the FLRW solution to explain why the universe expands only spatially, because the FLRW solution IS the interpretation of a universe that expands only spatially. If you question the premise of a universe that expands only spatially, you cant use FLRW solution to falsify that question. No, because it's an affect on the metric of time is not measureable (AFAIK). On the other hand, we have the observation that gravity affects space expansion. Under what mechanism? Magic? Space expansion is a stretching of the metric. Gravity, AFAIK, affects the curvature and coordinate values of spacetime, but does not stretch the metric. Hence why gravity is bounded by causality and the speed of light, and space expansion is not. Lemaitre's theoretical basis for space metric expansion was redshift measurements My theoretical basis for time metric contraction is redshift measurements. Sure he managed to derive actual solutions.
  8. Then neither is a change in the time metric. Then String Theory is not scientific, but it still being explored. Then gravity is also the mechanism why there is no observed change in the time metric where gravity is significant, as I have repeatedly explained through inheritance. Then a falsification will suffice.
  9. In the same way that space expansion is explicitly dependent on distance, so too could the proposed time-metric-contraction equivalent - that is, dependent on distance not time. There is no requirement that the dependency needs to be swapped. In addition, is it not true that distance is explicitly intertwined with time? The coordinate system for GR describes a spacetime value, not just a space value or a time value. Anything that is far away in distance is ALSO far ago in time. Something that is 10 lightyears away in distance is also a year away in time. Something that is 20 lightyears away in distance is also twice the time away than something 10 lightyears away in distance. Something that is 1 year ago has some value of distance away based on its motion and potential and background curvature. Anything explicitly dependent on distance is also explicitly dependent on time, and vice versa. So if space expansion is explicitly dependent on distance, is it not also possibly explicitly dependent on time under a specific coordinate rotation? The concern for testability is not a reason to dismiss an idea before consideration, at least not before even a model is framed. Once we have a model, you can argue it cant be tested. Before that, we should be allowed to create a model. Unless you already have all the answers. Please elaborate what this mechanism is. Is there any definitive proof why it must only stretch the spatial axes but the temporal axis must remain constant?
  10. I am using a principle of inheritance to say that without a model. If you can demonstrate that you can drink a glass that is half full in one gulp, then the same glass that is half empty can also be drunk in one gulp without necessarily needing to demonstrate it - because the latter inherits all the properties of the former. If a space expansion explanation of cosmological redshift does not affect the fine structure constant, then neither would a time-metric contraction explanation nor even a massless invisible gorilla explanation affect the fine structure constant. I beg for precision. We know the speed of light is invariant with a constant metric of time. We know the speed of light is invariant using any frame of reference at the same moment as the measurement of that speed. These premises are fundamental and intrinsic to the physics of GR. You cant use a theory to prove its own premises! In the same way we cant explain why there is no (or insignificant) space expansion in volumes of curvature. It's just an observable the redshift only occurs in "flatter" volumes. Anything you can say about why space expansion is observed the way it is can be similarly attributed to any alternative explanation of redshift. I have wildly speculated previously, the measuring of wavelengths are "trapped" in time with the waves themselves. We literally cannot measure something yesterday or tomorrow. We can measure something that was emitted yesterday and travelled a lightday through space to reach us. But we can only measure it "right now". If we did measure it yesterday, it was measured "right then" and not "right now". We cannot measure something "right now" as it was or will be at any other time than "right now". The "fixing" of this time moment requires that the observer and the object be in the same moment. But I propose that redshift is due to the continuum being stretched - not just the space part. It looks like the only the space part (wavelength stretching redshift) is changing because our observations are fixed in time with our objects. What exactly does a constant metric of time account for that a non-constant metric of time doesnt? AFAIK, GR doesn't even model the metric of time. It just assumes that time over time is constant. It is a fundamental premise of its theory, despite not explicitly stating it. The consequence of this assumption is that it effectively "normalises" the theory to a state where it works where time over time is constant - which of course suitably matches all observations because all observers are trapped in time with their observees. Would a more fundamental model be one that includes a metric of time, albeit one that only matches observations when a solution to the metric of time for the observer is the same as that being observed. Such a model could then interpret redshift as potentially also a stretching of the temporal axes, and not just the spatial axes. While I agree it wont necessarily help with observations and won't be easy to test, its just an interpretation, like the Copenhagen vs Many Worlds interpretation of QM. I'm saying that GR absolutely accounts for the universe we measure, because all measurements are trapped in time with whatever they are measuring and therefore it does not need to model a metric of time. The universe we experience is one that measureably has a constant metric of time. Should it (GR) account for something different than what we observe (measure)? Possibly, but that would be an end-result or a consequence that follows perhaps, rather than the reason to believe so. The reasoning is that GR models spacetime as a single manifold with four dimensions, and with the discovery of redshift measurements, we accommodate this discovery by declaring that the spatial metrics are variable and the temporal metric is constant - for (to me) no apparent evidence, knowing that those redshift measurements by necessity have the same time metric value as the EM waves being measured, which would allude to a constant metric time but not eliminate one that is non-constant. Why should our measurements (of redshift) necessarily be accounted for only by expansion of space because the limitations in GR on the speed of light and the implicit invariant metric of time. That is, the redshift shows that the receeding exceeds the speed of light, which violates GR, so there must be another mechanism at play; and implicitly, this moment of measurement of redshift is trapped in time with the EM waves themselves, which is a premise of GR. I previously asked the question is there anything that exists that is observable but not (directly) measurable. Perhaps it is possible the universe is more than just what can be measured? Or should we straight up dismiss it because it might not ever pass scientific methodology - "If it cant be seen today, it won't ever be seen in future and so its not there?" That's some fallacious reasoning there. We cant see the extra dimensions of string theory, let alone test them, yet I don't see us outright dismissing string theory. Why should we dismiss a metric of time idea before we even have a mathematical model and before we know whether or not we can falsify it? Surely that is more unscientific than a wild speculation with even just the slightest of reasoning.
  11. I cant prove my claim, but I have asked you to falsify it and you haven't yet conclusively. And it is not totally unreasonable like a massless invisible gorilla. It relates directly to the spacetime continuum and why we allow the space-metric to stretch but not the time-metric. It is a claim with sufficient reasoning to ask for a falsification before a complete proof is made. In contrast, I have asked you show me evidence why we assume the metric of time is constant. This idea is not falsifiable either, yet its science. And you have not given me a sufficiently adequate answer yet. This is the closest answer you have given me, which I have addressed previously as inappropriate for the question of specifically evidence for/against space metric expansion vs time metric contraction. You need to give me another answer that proves space metric expansion AND NOT time metric contraction is the only viable and correct interpretation. Either proof that my claim is refuted, or proof that the space-metric-expansion is the only correct interpretation of cosmological redshift. If you can prove neither, then I would argue my claim has viability - without a full mathematical model. Can you show me the maths in the GR field equations for space-metric-expansion as starting point please? If there is no effect from space expansion, and as the proposal of time-metric-contraction is an interpretation of space-metric-expansion, then it would inherit the same answer. "There is no effect of time-metric-expansion on the fine structure constant". I would argue one might imagine it does NOT affect speed of light as measured using any frames of reference that are trapped in the same time moment.
  12. A universe like ours that experienced and experiences an adjustment of the metric of time instead of the metric of space in space expansion, could look exactly like how ours started and evolved to what it is today. I'm not competent enough to provide an actual model, at least one that would satisfy actual physicists. I just have a obscure idea that I'm struggling to find words to describe, without every other response misunderstanding my meaning. For analogy, its like I'm asking why glass is not half empty instead of half full, and some responses are because the water is half the volume of the glass. The answer is missing the point. I cannot show the alternative fits. I'm asking why it cannot fit. I'm not necessarily getting rid of any parts of GR. I have no idea how it affects the fine structure constant. How does space expansion affect the fine structure constant? Is the fine structure constant different at two locations separated by a distance large enough to measure cosmological redshift? I doubt we have any evidence of such measurement. I'm not dispensing of anything within GR. Whatever mathematics are used to describe space expansion, such as the scale factor of expansion, or the cosmological constant, I am re-interpreting what some of the variables actually represent, rather than the equations themselves. We have never compared at a single moment in time, a clock ticking at that moment, with it's historical ticking at the same moment (future moment relative to the historic clock). Any measure of the clock historically has also been made at the historic time of measurement. The time of measurement is trapped in time with the clock ticking. So, while we routinely compare clocks, we are not exhaustively eliminating all possible variables in any of the comparisons, such as the potential variability of the metric of time. But this does not refute an idea of time metric contraction. The whole point of this alternative perspective is to re-interpret cosmological redshift as a time metric contraction instead of space metric expansion. Any/all characteristics, such as dependency, is automatically inherited. That is, if expansion is distance dependent, so too is time metric contraction. Specifically, I want to distance this topic from time dilation due to motion and gravitational potential. This time-metric-contraction idea is a separate entity and relates only to cosmological redshift observations. In the same way that space expansion is a separate entity to curvature.
  13. So its still redshift measurements is all we have as evidence for space expansion? The analogy was to show that space expansion as a theory for explaining cosmological redshift is no more sensible or no less ludicrous, to me, as time contraction; that massless invisible gorillas are as ludicrous/sensible as self arranging atoms. The analogy goes no further than that. It is a perfectly reasonable analogy for this purpose. Hence why I consequently asked what makes space expansion compelling and make more sense. I disagree that space expansion is predicted by GR. GR predicts a static universe cannot be stable. It is cosmological redshift observations that are interpreted as galaxies are moving away from us over distance that we then conclude the universe is (currently) in a state of spatial expansion; and that is then used by GR, with tuning, to model its history to explain such expansion. I am proposing a time contraction interpretation of cosmological redshift, where galaxies are not necessarily ONLY moving away from us spatially, but also temporally. This interpretation can similarly agree with the evidence, such as redshift, MBR and that the universe is to a large degree isotropic and homogeneous, with the right metric and right tuning. Essentially what this boils down to is why we prefer that the spatial metric is variable and that the metric of time is linear; and why we reject a linear spatial metric and a variable temporal metric. The answer "because it fits" simply does not apply, because the alternative also fits
  14. Feel free to be helpful and explain where I'm wrong. The evidence is cosmological redshift. Can you explain why space expansion is a compelling model and makes more sense?
  15. Sorry, I was imprecise. The receding of the galaxies is not a measurable it is the conclusion. All we have are measurements of spectral emission lines from type 1a supernovae which indicate non-linear distance-redshift relationship at very large distances. Afaik, that there is no other measurable (besides cosmological redshift) that is explained by space expansion. And space expansion is not directly measureable or testable at shorter distances. Going out on a limb, how can we ever directly test for space expansion, without an experiment that spans a distance where such expansion might be evident? We all agree there are peels on the floor. But instead of massless invisible gorillas, we decide that "self-arranging atoms" decide to spontaneously form banana peels directly from thick air makes more sense. For this analogy, the peels are the red-shifted measurements; time contraction is the ludicrous massless invisible gorillas theory; and space expansion is the spontaneous banana-forming self-organising atoms theory. From my perspective both are viable, but why do we choose one and reject the other? Space expansion is such an effect - or more precisely cosmological redshift. Space does not need to expand to cause redshift. If time contracts, we can achieve the same result. The experience of contracted time for the photon is "baked" into the wavefunction of the photon during the experience, which results in two perspectives: either a lengthening of the wavelength as measured by an observer "trapped" in the same time as the photon (me and you and most everything else in the universe trapped in time); or an unstretched wavelength as measured by an observer "outside" the influence of time (neither me or you or most things in the universe) In the same way the FLRW metric is tuned to BE consistent with such measurements, there might be solutions to metric of time contractions that are equally consistent. Perhaps preserving the uniform axes of space, but not necessarily so for other solutions. The counter argument where we could wildly choose functions of time is absurd; of course it would have to fit cosmological red shift measurements. Just like wildly choosing solutions to the field equations does not mean fitting solutions like the FLRW metric cant be found.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.