I may be repeating here, but i put my theory in nutshell here.

These formulas are actually quite simple, they just describe change in magnitude, isotropic
contraction and transformation in time evolution.

I i am comparing two otherwise similar systems, like two space vessels ,where the other one
is contracted by factor L 0<L<1 and i compare physical properties in two reference points
,that is say x and other Lx away from the 'contraction center' 0,0,0

Magnitudes of different properties between these reference points has equation:

lengths,time invervals, velocity,acceleration,energy,mass,momentum,planck constant, 

light velocity, local forces,power,density

s'/s = L t'/t = L v'/v = 1 a'/a = 1/L E'/E = 1/L m'/m = 1/L p'/p = 1/L h'/h = 1
c'/c = 1 F'/F = 1/L^2 P'/P = 1/L^2 rho'/rho = 1/L^4 

I deduced those equations of magnitude by demanding certain laws of nature to hold.

And any time dependent field,distribution or structure should be different by equation

X' = Z * X(r/L,t/L) ,where Z is the change proportion of the magnitude of the field

for example

F' = (1/L^2) F(r/L,t/L) Force field

or

rho' = (1/L^4) rho(r/L,t/L)  distribution of density

This means different magnitude, different spatial distribution and different time evolution.

This is the simple mathematical description of the phenomenom. And here is a picture of the situation.

 

For example if L = 0.5

mass would be 1/L = 2 times higher. This comes from deduction where i demanded that E = hf and l = h/p for both observers where h'/h = 1

If that mass would collapse to black hole, the BH would have r'/r = 0.5 radius.

Where the change is - it is in the deep structure of matter. Somewhere in very
small length scales something has changed. This is what i am thinking, could there be something in very small length scales happening in all matter that makes existence of this kind of iso-forms or iso-transformations to possible to exist. For example there is a some kind of network or grid that can change in size and it time evolution. This is why i dont yet directly accept the argument markus hanke makes.

Markus arguments about QCD and QFT are 'interesting', really worth to check, if i just
find anything - but i have to look up these things.

 

 

Edited March 8, 20223 yr by caracal

this is quite old quote.

(Quote)(Caracal) How i think is that the strong and weak interactions do not need to have any special properties.

(Quote)(Markus hanke)"Yes they do - they would need to be invariant under rescaling, which they are not.

This phenomenom what i describe here is 'transformation', not only rescaling.

It is similar phenomenom than length contraction+time dilation+equivalence principle in GR in some point of gravitation field if it is observed by distant observer. This is why weak and strong interactions dont need to have any special properties. Everything or anything is just 'transformed' into different form. 

I have to apologize about too much writing here. I should have written shorter responses. I have to think about all arguments you have made now for a while. Thank you all for your responses.

Edited March 8, 20223 yr by caracal

2 hours ago, caracal said:

I have to think about all arguments you have made now for a while. Thank you all for your responses.

Please do so.

The universe has expande roughly 1040 times its original size since the recombination era of the CMB ( easily calculated by the ratio  of Hydrogen ionization temperature to current CMB temperature, simple gas law )

If we use your simplistic approach that actually everything in the universe has shrunk about 1000 times, that applies to everything, not just atoms.

Decreasing the radius of an object by half, while keeping density constant, .requires that its mass, proportional to the cube root of the radius, decreases to 1/8. If you claim that its mass only decreases to half the original weight, then its density must increase 4 times ( proportional to r² ).

According to your proposal, that would mean, that if everything shrank by about 1000 times, the the mass of planets, stars and galaxies has also decreased by about 1000 times, and that would mean they increased in density immensly.
By a million times !

The majority of stars would be Black Holes by now.

Maybe you should closely consider Markus' comments about scaling.
Your theory doesn't seem to 'scale' very well.

(i post my reply later)
 

Edited March 9, 20223 yr by caracal

13 hours ago, caracal said:

Markus arguments about QCD and QFT are 'interesting', really worth to check, if i just
find anything - but i have to look up these things.

 

I think they're insurmountable. If the universe were made of just photons and neutrinos on a scale-invariant background, it would display scale invariance, but it isn't, so it doesn't.

MigL has given a nice cosmological account that complements Markus'.

I think the argument, when you consider the quantum theory, becomes even more involved, as you would have to prove that the beta function --the function that tells you how the interaction scales with energy, and thereby with length-- vanishes.

I don't know how massless physicists would feel in a universe like that, but it's been known for a while that it doesn't work.

12 hours ago, caracal said:

It is similar phenomenom than length contraction+time dilation+equivalence principle in GR in some point of gravitation field if it is observed by distant observer. This is why weak and strong interactions dont need to have any special properties. Everything or anything is just 'transformed' into different form.

I don't understand how the equivalence principle allows you to pull this off. If anything, the EP tells you that free-falling local observers cannot tell they're falling, so the standard model would be still there, in all its locally-valid glory, telling you the universe is not scale-invariant...

I also hope you don't mean special-relativity length contraction & time dilation. That's nothing like scale invariance...

On 3/7/2022 at 2:14 PM, MigL said:

So, in your 'model' if you reduced the radius of the Earth by half, it would have half the mass ?

Did you not say everything scaled accordingly so as to preserve physical laws/relationships ?

The mass remains the same. Our measurements of size scale but not mass.

14 hours ago, MigL said:

If we use your simplistic approach that actually everything in the universe has shrunk about 1000 times, that applies to everything, not just atoms.

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

On 3/7/2022 at 2:14 PM, MigL said:

So, in your 'model' if you reduced the radius of the Earth by half, it would have half the mass ?

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.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

if everything shrank by about 1000 times, the the mass of planets, stars and galaxies has also decreased by about 1000 times, and that would mean they increased in density immensly.
By a million times !

 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. 

 

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe you should closely consider Markus' comments about scaling.
Your theory doesn't seem to 'scale' very well.

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.

 

5 hours ago, joigus said:

I don't understand how the equivalence principle allows you to pull this off.

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.

3 hours ago, bangstrom said:

The mass remains the same. Our measurements of size scale but not mass.

caracal says 

Quote

 

For example if L = 0.5

mass would be 1/L = 2 times higher.

 

!

Moderator Note

and in this thread, we are discussing their idea.

 

2 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In the BB theory, it is a given that space is expanding while time can be considered unchanging.

 

(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 \( \hbar \) and c (speed of light) are irrelevant in physics.

 

Bangstrom is having separate discussion in this thread.

This is for putting together the main idea i had, while i dont have much to say about the falsification of the idea at the moment. 

My idea assumed "equality principle", that is a statement than when there is a box or space vessel in rest or constant velocity in empty space (or in freefall in uniform gravitation field), and the whole box or vessel has been transformed, and there is a space traveler inside the vessel, he can't know whether he and space vessel has been transformed or not by doing measurements inside the vessel. He can only know that he and the vessel has been transformed if he looks outside from the window. There was also another principle: empty space looks similar both for transformed and non-transformed observer.

The transformation i was thinking about was, if L<1, length contraction in 3 dimensions and faster time. There is an analogue. The space vessel could look like a projection of motion picture that has been resized into smaller size and its film is running faster by same factor.

The cause or reason for this kind of transformation would be that there is something happening somewhere in very small length scales.

But according to you or others in this thread who responsed, this kind of principle - 'equality principle' is impossible to hold. And this has something to do with non scale-invariance in standard model. Some phenomena in matter would change. 
 

I could say something to the density problem. Just for the sake to somehow enlighten the theory. In theory also mass increases but G of matter decreases even more such that (GM)/GM = L , L<1 - but in the viewpoint of contracting observer G stays constant. G would have to decrease and gravitation field would have to contract too if i want to think that if planet for example contracts by factor L=1/1000, local human there would still think everything is normal in his viewpoint.

There is following game or story for this kind of planet. It becomes quite weird.

There would be 1000 year during 1 year outside of the planet. The gravity pull would be on the surface 1000  times higher than before the contraction, but escape velocity exactly same. Schwarzchild radius for the planet would be 1000 times smaller. The temperature of the planet would be 1000 times higher and its thermal radiation power 1000 000 times higher. The wavelength of that thermal radiation would be 1/1000 times shorter. The density of its water on its surface would be 1000 000 000 000 times higher. But local humans would observe everything to be normal as before the contraction - except that the sun would be very dim and cold. According to local humans, the radius of planets orbit around their sun is 1000 times longer and the gravity pull of their sun at the orbital distance is 1/1000 times weaker. 

But this is just a 'game' that is based equations that describe how different kind of physical properties changes. And there is no base for this since there may not be equality principle. If there is no base for this, this is just a construction.

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 20223 yr by caracal

The main difference is that an expanding universe is only observed at a specific separation ( intergalactic scales ).
The concept of energy conservation is not applicable globally.

It is, however, applicable locally.
And a "shrinking' universe cannot be supported locally.

Edited March 9, 20223 yr by MigL

8 hours ago, joigus said:

11 hours ago, bangstrom said:

In the BB theory, it is a given that space is expanding while time can be considered unchanging.

 

(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.

 

4 hours ago, caracal said:

My idea assumed "equality principle", that is a statement than when there is a box or space vessel in rest or constant velocity in empty space (or in freefall in uniform gravitation field), and the whole box or vessel has been transformed, and there is a space traveler inside the vessel, he can't know whether he and space vessel has been transformed or not by doing measurements inside the vessel. He can only know that he and the vessel has been transformed if he looks outside from the window.

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.”

 

 

30 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

What do you mean by “mass and length” scale together? Did you intend to say time and length scale together?

 

Mass scales as inverse length. By together, I didn't mean the same way.

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

Mass scales as inverse length. By together, I didn't mean the same way.

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

18 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

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

Quote

makes some sense in that it gets bigger when ℏ gets bigger (more "quantum fuzziness" makes a bigger atom) and gets smaller when the electron's charge is bigger (more attractive pull). It also gets smaller when the mass of the electron gets bigger - here we see that bigger mass scales go with smaller length scales! But we want some understanding at a gut level why making the electron heavier would make the hydrogen atom smaller!

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html

You don't contemplate quantum mechanics, that's why you don't understand. The world is quantum.

\( \frac{\hbar}{mc} \) is a length. It's the length scale from which you must start making quantum relativistic corrections. You can't leave quantum mechanics out of the story. Otherwise your story is not about the real world. It's about a fantasy world.

Solids are subject to quantum mechanics too.

Edited March 10, 20223 yr by joigus
Addition

4 hours ago, bangstrom said:

“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

Or, he's speaking of the electroweak era, before a symmetry break and the Higgs mechanism gave particles their current mass.
Prior to that, all were massless.

Can't find the original paper, yet.
Just your link.

Edited March 10, 20223 yr by MigL

10 hours ago, joigus said:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html

You don't contemplate quantum mechanics, that's why you don't understand. The world is quantum.

ℏmc is a length. It's the length scale from which you must start making quantum relativistic corrections. You can't leave quantum mechanics out of the story. Otherwise your story is not about the real world. It's about a fantasy world.

 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.

 

 

 

You don't seem to want to address the problems pointed out by forum members.

Simply put, in a 3Dimensional space, length and mass don't scale in a way that keeps the Physics unchanged.
You either have the violation of mass/energy conservation at the local level, along with ( as you claim ) violation of time symmetry ( Noether's theorem ), yet we know conservation laws hold locally, and there are time reversible processes.

Or, you have gravitational changes at the large, or cosmological, scales, such as the laws of gravity being different at cosmological distances, such as galaxies being differently shaped or stars burning hotter/cooler, etc., yet we don't observe any of that either.

So other than a mental exercise in "What if ?", what exactly are you hoping to accomplish ?

9 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Does this make sense?

I'll take a closer look at it later, but let me tell you physics is not just about making sense. Lord Kelvin's theory of electromagnetic knots made perfect sense, yet it's not what Nature is like.

I have some comments to make about this idea of observer-dependent scaling. It's akin to a slippery-slope kind of argument, but for good reasons.

Maybe tomorrow.

16 hours ago, MigL said:

You don't seem to want to address the problems pointed out by forum members.

What I have written has been largely in response to considered problems. What has not been addressed?. 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

Simply put, in a 3Dimensional space, length and mass don't scale in a way that keeps the Physics unchanged.

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.

17 hours ago, MigL said:

You either have the violation of mass/energy conservation at the local level, along with ( as you claim ) violation of time symmetry ( Noether's theorem ),

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.

 

17 hours ago, MigL said:

Or, you have gravitational changes at the large, or cosmological, scales, such as the laws of gravity being different at cosmological distances, such as galaxies being differently shaped or stars burning hotter/cooler, etc., yet we don't observe any of that either.

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.

 

18 hours ago, MigL said:

So other than a mental exercise in "What if ?", what exactly are you hoping to accomplish ?

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.

 

17 hours ago, joigus said:

I'll take a closer look at it later, but let me tell you physics is not just about making sense.

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.

 

17 hours ago, joigus said:

I have some comments to make about this idea of observer-dependent scaling. It's akin to a slippery-slope kind of argument, but for good reasons

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.

 

On 3/9/2022 at 6:31 PM, joigus said:

 But we want some understanding at a gut level why making the electron heavier would make the hydrogen atom smaller!

That is a good matter for consideration. 

1 hour ago, bangstrom said:

That is a good matter for consideration. 

The quote is due to Baez.

6 hours ago, bangstrom said:

What I have written has been largely in response to considered problems. What has not been addressed?. 

What we have gotten from you is that size reduction of atoms works, and mass can reduce linearly, because atoms are mostly empty space.
That 'empty' space, however contains fields, such that the mass of a hydrogen atom is composed of about 2 % from the rest masses of its three quarks and one electron; the other 98 % is chromodynamic and electrodynamic binding energy.

Reducing the radius of a sperical mass, while keeping density the same would result in a mass of 1/8 the original. If it weighs 1/2 the original, as you propose, then you have added/created binding energy, even if the number of constituent particles remains the same, and have effectively increased the density.
Since density can be  a parameter for such things as Black Hole formation, it would also be a factor in large scale cosmological structures.

This is more a philosophical comment. I don't see why standard model unscalability would make it completely impossible that matter can in principle transform and maintain equality principle.

If i can take a picture of a car and print it into 2 times smaller scale to some paper, why it can't be possible, at least in principle, that the car can have transformation where all of its lengths are contracted in 3 dimensions?

I think the answer to this question something like following: " yes yes it can be imagined, any object made of matter can have in principle transformations and even that way that equality principle holds, but it is in real world unphysical." And what is unphysical? It is something that has not been observed.

If i make a car from lego blocks and then identical car with smaller lego blocks. Similarly, transformed matter is made from some kind of blocks that are themselves transformed. But now the blocks are structures in spacetime. This is a corollary.

What i think still is that there just might be some simple underlying process either in deep length scales or in spacetime that makes these kinds of transformations possible. It should be something simple.

There may not be 'smallest length scale'. for example Planck's length just can get transformed too. 

Transformation of matter would be new physics. Something that standard model tells nothing about. Similar as super symmetry, but super symmetry propably has some theoretical justification.

I can alternatively make hypothesis that every fundamental particle can have transformations. And these transformed particles can make up matter similarly than ordinary matter. And that matter looks like ordinary matter except that it has transformation.

...

I agree that changing matter could cause so large deviations in the behavior of matter during last 12Byrs (=about the distance of furthest currently known objects and age of oldest known stars) that it should have been seen in astronomical observations. For example HR diagram of globular clusters that are estimated to be 12Byrs old would look different since stars would have evolved differently. What i think is observed is that matter have behaved very precisely similar way during this time - but the light coming from them have redshift and time dilation.

...

In the cosmological theory that assumes that matter transform, when matter has contracted at least 1000 times since CMB time, many problems with changing matter get overcome just by assuming equality principle. I think it deals very well with observation that stars and galaxies have behaved similar way during cosmological time even with distances 10BLYs. Stars behave almost exactly like they have behaved when matter was say 100 times larger - because of equality principle. 

There are some very modest differences in the matter that would come from slight time dilation histories. 
For example matter in sun vs matter in interstellar matter: gravitational time dilation in matter in sun are for sun of magnitude about 1 + 2*10^-6 - relative to time dilation far away from sun. During 4.6Byrs that would have caused transformation difference: 

L = 1 + 0.0693 1/Byrs * 4.6 Byrs * 2*10^-6 = 1.000000637

The differences in matter are very small, these is very mild change in spectral lines. They can be observed, but these spectral line shifts also can be misinterpreted to be coming from doppler effect.

I have already discussed about this here.

(Quote)(Bangstrom) "When you say mass has increased, do you mean rest mass or inertial mass or both?"

When transformed observer measures photon i assume that equation E=hf holds and h'/h = 1. because the time of the transf. observer runs faster he would measure that photon has less frequency, therefore according to the equation less energy than what outside observer measures the same photon to have. From this i deduce that the unit of energy the transformed observer has should increase in the viewpoint of nontransformed observer such that E'/E = 1/L ,L<1 and the unit of momentum should increase p'/p = 1/L. Here i conclude that it would require that all energies and momentums should increase. The momentum is p = muv where u'/u = 1 and v'/v = 1. This would mean that the inertial mass m should increase m'/m = 1/L. But without equality principle, these changes could be seen by transformed observer. With equality principle, he does not see these changes and mass and energy are still conserved in his viewpoint.

 

 

There is nly one rest mass, that being measured in the rest frame.
That is the only mass I'm considering.

If you were sitting on a planet 13 Billion years ago, and it underwent a linear downscaling of 1000, of the type you propose ( 1000 times smaller and 1000 times less massive ), it would now be 1000000 times more dense, and you could find yourself sitting on the event horizon of a Black Hole.
Without any cause, simply the passage of time.
IOW, physical laws are no longer invariant with the passage of time.

That would be a strange universe if physical laws could change at any moment.

this is just a comment: i remember following definition. Inertial mass is property of object that resist changes in velocity. F = ma. But it is same than rest mass. And also same as gravitational mass in theory of General relativity. I remember that it was not clear before whether gravitational mass is same than inertial mass.

Edited March 12, 20223 yr by caracal