bangstrom

What I have written has been largely in response to considered problems. What has not been addressed?. Are you saying they don't scale or they do scale? I see space and time scaling in both 3D and 4D and matter scaling proportionally which is why the physics remains unchanged. Your claim is not my claim. But I do agree conservation laws hold locally because all changes remain proportional from one reference frame to the next. Why would the laws of gravity be any different. For convenience, we are justified in considering gravitational sources as single points. If particles become a smaller it should make no difference to gravity or changes in shape. But it should involve all material in the universe growing hotter with time and we observe this as a rise in temperature from the primal temperature of 3.73K. For a long time I thought it was simply a “What if ?” that helped my understanding of the BBT but now I see it as the answer to several problems with the Standard Model. But that is another story. I wrote my response without taking time to consider it properly. That is why I asked for your expertise to take a look at it. Not because I was trying to explain away something I didn’t understand. I favor a Machian approach to physics which tries to eliminate as many “metaphysicals” as possible and modify or remove any laws of physics that do not hew closely to experiment and observation. That is a good matter for consideration.

Does this make sense? Caracal gave the example of two men in two jars with time varying at different rates in each jar. Neither man notices a change in his own jar but they can look out and see that their clocks are running at different rates and their units of length no longer match. The radius r of an atom in both jars is r = ℏ2/me2 and the value of e in both jars is e=L3/2M1/2/T. The atoms in the jar with the faster rate of time should be smaller than in the jar with the slower time because the value of e is greater where e= L3/2M1/2/T when the length L is shorter, and momentum M is greater, and the rate of time T is greater.

It does for uniform solids but I don't understand this as a uniform principle.

(My emphasis.) Who gave it? And are you a co-author? x-posted with Swansont. In any case, mass and length scale together due to relativity and quantum mechanics, so no, you can't pull this off. Unless you explain very good reasons why ℏ and c (speed of light) are irrelevant in physics. The “given” of an expanding universe began with the interpretation of Hubble’s observation of distant galactic redshifts as recessional velocities. Hubble himself was never convinced that the universe was expanding because he could see other possible explanations. I am not a co-author of anything. What do you mean by “mass and length” scale together? Did you intend to say time and length scale together? It has never been my claim that ℏ and c are irrelevant. My interpretation is that the space traveler could know he has been transformed if he can observe an increase in the rest mass of a massive body. However, if his atoms are smaller and therefore more dense and time has quickened, there should be an increase in the objects inertial mass but he would not be able to observe the change because his rate of time is faster When you say mass has increased, do you mean rest mass or inertial mass or both? Also, Wetterich has a contracting model with quickening time where he claims that mass increases with time but I don’t know enough about the model to claim I understand it. https://bigthink.com/articles/the-universe-may-not-be-expanding/ arXiv:1912.00792v4 [gr-qc] 30 Apr 2021 The great emptiness at the beginning of the Universe “The beginning is vacuum, characterized only by average values of fields and their fluctuations. This is a very quiet epoch with only a very slow increase of particle masses. In the infinite past all particles become massless.”-Wetterich Wetterich also has this to say, “For standard inflationary models we find that the big bang singularity of homogeneous solutions is an artifact of a singular choice of fields.”

In the BB theory, it is a given that space is expanding while time can be considered unchanging. With shrinking matter, it is a given that space has always remained the same while time quickens. As time quickens, our material world grows smaller relative to the space around us. A more realistic possibility may be that space and time are changing simultaneously so space expands as time quickens but that possibility has too many variables for a single model. Any of these models should work with the condition that distance/time always equals c. The measurements and laws of physics within each reference frame should be the same even though they may vary from one frame to the next.

The mass remains the same. Our measurements of size scale but not mass. This should apply to all measurable bits of matter and everything but space itself . The assumption in the model is that time quickens but space does not expand. Lengths are measured as shorter as time quickens so distances appear to increase We can compare this with the Big Bang model since the two models are equivalent. Doubling the radius of the universe requires that its mass increase by 8. No, that would be a violation of the conservation of mass as would a decrease of mass in the example you gave. That would no work within the model. In the shrinking model, Atoms grow smaller with time, so if you run the movie backwards to the recombination era, atoms would be larger by about 1000 times in an extremely crowded universe. This is a reference suggested by Markus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance and the first sentence reads, “In physics, mathematics and statistics, scale invariance is a feature of objects or laws that do not change if scales of length, energy, or other variables, are multiplied by a common factor, and thus represent a universality.” I understand this to mean we can use different scales for length, among other things, to measure objects without changing the laws of physics so long as they are multiplied by a common factor. I can explain how the common factor is the value of c later, but for now, the following is essential to understand the shrinking matter model. Relative to the radius of the universe, the atomic scale is growing smaller. Conversely, relative to the atomic scale, the radius of the universe is growing larger. In other words, either the universe is growing larger relative to the material within or the material within is growing smaller while the radius of the universe remains large and unchanging. The two possibilities are equivalent and neither one is impossible. Either the universe is growing larger or we and the material world is growing smaller. Our observations should be the same either way.

Mass does not grow smaller when the volume lost is empty space. The electrons grow closer to the nucleus causing the atoms to spin faster and our perception of time to quicken.

This is the way expansion “actually” works, when observations fail to match the theory a fudge factor is added to bring theory in line with observation. Examples include, Guth’s inflation, dark energy, and the Cosmological Constant-” lambda”. The CC is a mathematical correction- not a known law of physics. If space is expanding, atoms should also expand since they are almost entirely empty space. Contraction theory explains the sharp 'cut-off' where material contracts while space remains unchanged. The BBT adds the Cosmological Constant when needed and drops it when not. Atoms in the primal universe must have been much closer together for the fusion of hydrogen into helium and lithium to take place.

If we have a map telling us how to travel from Chicago to New York, we don't need another map to go from New York to Chicago. We just reverse the direction. We have a cosmological model for the expansion of space so we don't need a formal model for the contraction of matter in a universe where space is not expanding because one view is the simple inverse of the other. We can extract predictions from expansion model knowing that the predictions should be the inverse of the contracting model. The predictions for both should yield the same conclusions. And, if they don't, we have a dilemma to be considered. You say the scale of matter should remain static so the alternative could not work. But it should work in both since the two models differ in perspective only and not in physics or math. So why one should work but not the other? This is a dilemma to be worked out. There was a recent observation that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. In the expansion of space model, this would require an influx of energy so we have "dark" energy. In the shrinking matter model, accelerated expansion corresponds to accelerated contraction of matter which means the universe should be warming faster than expected but without dark energy. That is another dilemma and I could go on. The constant nature of 'c' is a given in both the expansion and shrinking models but the expansion of space is only in the BB model. With the shrinking matter model, the universe has always been the same large size but it appears to be expanding because all the material within is growing smaller. Occam's razor does not allow the introduction of things outside the known laws of physics such as Guth's inflation, dark matter, or dark energy.

That assumes that space is expanding but that is not the model in question where space is not expanding. What do you mean by this? If our observations are due to changes in both space and time simultaneously (and I find this to be a likely possibility) we would have no idea if the dominate change is space or time or anywhere in between or I they are both scaling up or both scaling down. Those are too many variables to make a model. Relative to the radius of the universe, the scale of of matter is growing smaller with time but relative to the scale of matter, the radius of the universe is growing larger. The only evidence that we have for either possibility is the redshifting of light from distant galaxies. I don’t see how we can say one is true and the other false since they are just a matter of perspective. All the properties of matter and as well as motion and inertia can only be recognized or measured in reference to other bits of matter. The condition of the vacuum in no way affects the senses. This is what Einstein called “Mach’s principle”. I find it more realistic to consider cosmological changes in reference to changes in matter rather than to changes in the vacuum of space but can see how it can be modeled either way. A more realistic model should be less prone to errors in interpretation. I don’t see how we can say whether the universe is expanding or if the material world is growing smaller since our only view from inside should be identical either way. I have seen the problem expressed to the contrary of the we can view as, “If the universe were to suddenly double in size we would not be able to tell the difference and the math is only as good as our assumptions that go into it.

As I understand, distance and time are measured the same in all reference frames but they vary from one inertial frame to the next which is why we can observe redshifts increasing with distance. The environment from which light is emitted doesn’t vary with just differences in space and time alone but with the combined effects of both space and time simultaneously “spacetime”. In cosmology, we can’t deal with changes in spacetime because there are too many variables, so time is artificially set as a co-moving coordinate while expanding space is considered as the driver of change. This is the expansion model. In the shrinking matter model, space is set as a co-moving coordinate while time is considered as the agent of change. In this model, atoms emit light in longer wavelengths not just because of their larger size but they are of a lower (not as contracted) energy level. Everything within each reference frame remains proportional so I see no problem with scaling.

This is NOT what the GR equations show. This is just wrong. You are possibly right and I do find it to be a strange way of looking at things. This would imply that redshift is the same for all distant objects, since it depends only on our local rate of shrinkage. But this is not what we see at all. As we look into greater distances of space, we see galaxies progressively less expanded than our own with atoms larger than our own emitting light in wavelengths proportional to their larger sizes so we see light redshifting with distance.

That is true but in the shrinking matter model we have an enormously long way to go before reaching that point. Astronomers see the universe growing colder and less energetic as they look deeper into space and the most distant observation is the CMBR with a temperature of 2.73K. The Big Bang model may have a perfectly good explanation for why it works the other way but contraction comes closer in several ways to describing the universe as we actually observe it. Another difficulty with the BBT has to do with accelerated expansion. In the model of shrinking matter, the universe is non-expanding and the galaxies are not moving farther apart with time. Instead, the entire material world is growing smaller so we have the observation of an expanding universe but the appearance of expansion is a consequence of material contraction. Expansion is endothermic so an accelerated expansion should require an enormous influx of energy hence we have “dark” energy. The counterpart to accelerated expansion in the shrinking model is accelerated contraction. Contraction is exothermic so no dark energy is required, Besides, an acceleration of contraction with time is more plausible than an acceleration of expansion because expansion works against gravity while contraction works with gravity. Worst of all is the now popular estimate that the mass of the universe is 96% dark energy and dark matter and the part we can see is the remaining 4%.

There is a platinum bar in Paris that once served as our standard for the length of a meter. The current standard for a meter is defined as the distance light travels, in a vacuum, in 1/299,792,458 seconds. If we could measure the length of the platinum bar by the modern standard while on the surface of a neutron star where the rate of time is slower, would the lengths of the two meters remain the same? Assuming that the physical length of the platinum bar can not rescale?

GR equations - not words - show how it happens. In the Big Bang expansion theory. If the universe is expanding against gravity, then the galaxies should also be expanding but to a lesser extent since the gravitational bounding within the galaxies is locally greater than that of the universe in general. We as observers should observe no expansion within our galaxy since we are expanding by the same amount as the rest of the galaxy but we should see the universe expand because the universe is expanding at a greater rate than are the galaxies. However, in the shrinking matter theory. The universe has always had the same radius and is not expanding at all but it appears to be expanding because the material within is uniformly growing smaller with time. For example, if we and our material world grow smaller by one tenth, then the universe should appear to grow larger by one tenth. So the appearance of expansion is directly proportional to the contraction of matter.

That makes no sense - if there’s no rescaling of size, there is no shrinking matter. You can’t have it both ways. No one is saying atoms can’t change in size. I am saying atoms can change in size without changing their proportions so there is no change in proportions that require a rescaling. In other words, atoms today are small scale models of atoms in the distant past just as the in the BBT where space itself is a large scale model of what it was in the past. One is physically possible, the other one isn’t. In the expansion model, what was the distance of a light year when the universe had a radius of one half a light year. Which one is impossible to change? One could also say the laws of gravity make it impossible for space to expand because it would take objects longer than predicted to fall as distances increase. As long as our units of distance and time remain proportional to c, there is no change in the laws. They are not. To give one example - metric expansion is a function of distance, so the further out you look, the higher recession velocities are. This is true for all directions. How do you replicate this with ‘shrinking matter’, which depends only on the local rate of shrinkage? The observations of both scenarios are identical. There is no observational difference whether the universe is expanding while the atomic scale remains static or if the radius of the universe remains large and static while the all material within grows smaller. It works both ways. If the atomic scale in the distant universe was progressively larger with atoms emitting light in wavelengths proportional to their size, we should see the same degree of redshifting with distance that we observe with the Hubble rate. One advantage of caracal’s model is that it is obvious from the start that galactic redshifts are not recessional velocities. They are indicators of a universal rate of change. They are not recessional velocities that can be used as reliable indicators of distance and time. This is not as obvious from the Standard Model BB theory.

True, but expansion is not the only explanation for redshifting. Besides redshifting, what observations support expansion? 3000K is an assumption because it is a theoretical calculation and not a direct observation. It may be explainable but it is still an assumption based on another assumption that galactic redshifts necessarily indicate expansion. Firstly, redshifting- not expansion- is what we actually observe over large scales. The galaxies are gravitationally bound but they exist within a far greater gravitationally bound object which is the universe itself so how does gravity prevent galaxies from expanding while allowing the universe to expand? Mach’s principle applies when thinking of gravitational effects globally. Mach explained that the vastly overwhelming gravitational effect on local environments comes from the combined gravity of all the massive bodies in the universe. Mach illustrated the universal effect of gravity with his example of a spinning gyroscope. A gyroscope orients with the gravity of sidereal space and is not noticeably affected by local gravitational effects such as the Earth or the sun. We normally ignore gravitational effect from the total mass of the universe because it is equal from all directions so we only consider the small local variations as “gravity” but gravity is a scalar value that exists everywhere and effects everything much like air pressure. If the gravitational binding of galaxies explains the decoupling from expansion, then I would expect an observable variation in the properties of matter between large galaxies and small galaxies and even more variation for the matter found in extragalactic space. The uniformity of matter calls for a more global explanation than the gravitational binding of galaxies. I consider this more global explanation is, as Mach explained, the combined gravitational effect of from all massive bodies in the universe. This comprises the spacetime environment that dictates our observations of distance and time and the physical properties of matter itself. I suspect this more global explanation is what caracol calls his “equality principle.” Wetterich calls it the “cosmon” and I call it by the old name of Mach’s principle but I find this to be different words for the same thing. Eternal expansion has other worries such as a Cold Death to the universe and the universe being a one time event. The two views have different eschatologies. If the universe is expanding radially relative to the atomic scale, then the atomic scale is necessarily growing smaller relative to the radius of the universe. The two possibilities are mutually inclusive and one can’t be any more likely than the other. Astronomers were once fond of popularizing expansion theory by saying it implies that the entire universe was once no larger than a golf ball. This assumes that we can step outside our universe and watch it expand from golf ball size to the present. Also, everything in the universe crammed into the volume of a golf ball is not easy to visualize. The only way we can observe the universe is from the inside and this is what caracal’s model attempts to do so it is one step closer to reality than the alternative. Expansion theory is only more difficult to visualize because it is more familiar to think of the scale of the universe from the outside than from the inside. But an inside view is our only real alternative. The advantage of having two models instead of just one is that we can look at the same phenomena from more than one point of view and this gives us perspective. If our interpretation of of both models does not coincide, we know there is a discrepancy somewhere to be resolved. If expansion theory conformed to observations there would be no need for considering other models but the problem is it doesn’t which is why we have ad hoc patches as Guth’s inflation and dark energy and why we determine the size of the universe using redshift values as indicators of recessional velocities even though we know they are not recessional.

The expansion of spacetime is an assumption… not an observation. Perhaps, the universe has always been the enormous size that we see today while all the material within has been uniformly shrinking in size. With either scenario the observations are identical. They are just the same scenario viewed from different perspectives. Russel Ryerson described the two views as one being the simple mathematical inverse of the other. He called one view “expansion” and the other “inverse-expansion.” Arthur Eddington said of his “shrinking atom” theory that a universe of contracting matter is the conceptual and mathematical equivalent of an expanding universe. We don’t have an external god’s eye view of the universe to say from the great beyond whether the universe is expanding or whether all material within is growing smaller. The observations from our inside view should be identical in either case. Again, the diminishing of the CMBR is an assumption… not an observation. The world we see now is the CMBR in its present non-diminished form. We are what became of it. If some bug eyed monster form the the other end of our geodesics could view our corner of the universe, we would be their CMBR. Again the 3000K is an assumption… not an observation. The observation is that the temperature of the CMBR is 3.73K and there is nowhere to go from there but up. In a shrinking ruler theory, the universe remains the same enormous size but the rate of time in the early universe was extremely slow and it was crammed with H atoms, perhaps as large as baseballs, that emitted light in wavelengths proportional to their size which is why we see primal light sources as redshifted. And the atoms had a temperature of 3.7K. Extreme temperatures and confinement are necessary for fusion to take place, but if temperature is lacking, confinement will suffice so the shrinking ruler model does not exclude the possibility of fusion in the early universe. As the universe aged, atoms grew smaller, and like the ice skater who spins faster when she withdraws her arms, we see atoms spinning and moving faster which we observe as a quickening of time and a rise in temperature. The Plank scale puts a limit to contraction, in which case, the universe may fade into a quantum uncertainity possibly to survive to repeat the cycle.

If time quickens, lengths grow shorter so locally length and time remain proportional to the value of c. Since all changes in distance and time remain proportional to c there is no change in proportions that requires rescaling. How do you know if light has lengthened or if your standard for length has grown shorter? All you have observed is that wavelengths light from a distant source are longer than you expected.

I don’t have time to comment now but you might want to look into some of the works of Christof Wetterich. https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~wetterich/index.php?n=Main.TalksCosmology https://arxiv.org/a/wetterich_c_1.html “Do we know that the Universe expands? instead of redshift due to expansion :smaller frequencies have been emitted in the past, because electron mass was smaller !”

Yes, the typical place is within a void. Could you elaborate about the typical place being in the future? Everything we observe in the vast majority the void is in our distant past. But, from the other end of the telescope, we are in the distant past from the perspective of the the void. Is that what you mean by the typical place being in our distant future?

Can you cite an example of what the "mainstream" understanding of superposition, quantum entanglement, and/or quantum teleportation is so I can be properly informed. Again, are you familiar with the experiments of Anton Zeilinger and would you consider him to be mainstream or not?

Something of description below should look familiar because it has appeared in other threads in this forum. electron|〉 = (1/√2)|spin up〉 + (1/√2)|spin down〉 This represents the mixed spin state of two entangled electrons. No one is saying particles can suddenly appear out of nowhere but two entangled particles can swap quantum identities nonlocally (instantly and across any given distance.) Even extra galactic distances. Quantum teleportation is not new and experiments are ongoing around the world. Are you familiar with the work of Anton Zeilinger “Mr. Beam” or what the Chinese have done recently? https://news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-successfully-teleported-particle-190234249.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall Our observation of the events is largely limited to observing a single particle’s quantum identity at a time so teleportation is never observed at the macro level.

Electrons and their wave functions are part of a whole. Entangled electrons have shared identities when not observed so what observation can make that distinction? Are you suggesting that superposition is a bogus concept?

Apparently entangled electrons need not have opposite signs if they are both in superposition. The Pauli exclusion principle can be used determine if the entangled states are mixed or defined. If you have one of a pair of entangled particles at hand and its partner is at a remote location, there is no way of observing the spin state of the at-hand particle without breaking the entanglement but you can observe it indirectly. You can create another entangled pair and combine one of the entangled particles with the at-hand entangled partner creating a three way entanglement so you now have four entangled particles. You still know nothing about their entangled states except that the combined pair of old and new particles will have opposite signs when observed as Pauli said. Observing the pair would give you no useful information but you can observe the state of the remaining particle from second entanglement. If the partner is spin-up, you know the particle you combined with the at-home entangled particle is now spin-down and making the at-home particle spin-up, and finally the remote particle spin-down. By the same sequence, if the particle from the second entanglement combined with the at-home particle is spin down, the remote particle will also be spin down. In general, the spin of the particle from the second entanglement combined with the at-home particle will always have the same as the spin of the remote particle when the sequence is observed. A spin-up particle introduced into the at-home- combination results in a spin-up particle out at the location of the remote entangled particle. The observation of one particle going into a combination in one location and a particle instantly appearing at a remote location with the same spin has the outward appearance of si-fi teleportation but nothing is physically transported. Only the quantum identity of one particle has been transported to another particle and the observation can take place with only one quantum identity at a time. One q-bit of information has been exchanged. This exchange of quantum identities is called 'quantum teleportation' and it is possible because entangled particles are in a mixed state of superposition rather than fixed before they are observed. The OP asked, "If two electrons are entangled and change spin (for example) how can these two events occur regardless of reference frame? " The answer can be found in both QM and SR. This obviously takes some 'splainen and understanding the principle of superposition is essential to the understanding how the mentioned event can happen.