9 hours ago, MigL said:

What we have gotten from you is that size reduction of atoms works, and mass can reduce linearly, because atoms are mostly empty space.

I said mass remains the same. I never said anything about a reduction in mass. Losing empty space increases density but no mass is lost since empty space has no mass.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

I never proposed a decrease in mass or keeping density the same. You are reading nonsense into what I wrote.

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

Think about what happens in the BBT. When space expands within a galaxy while the galaxy remains the same size, the fields don’t expand with space, they remain with the galaxy.

In a “shrinking matter” theory, when matter contracts, the fields contract. The fields remain with matter.

 

15 hours ago, joigus said:

The quote is due to Baez.

 

What an amazing family! John and Joan Baez are brother and sister.

7 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

I don’t see the scenario playing out that way but your conclusion is right.

In the “shrinking matter” model, at the time of recombination, planets had not yet formed but there were H atoms so let’s follow the progress of the atoms. If the atoms downscale by 1000, they would be 1000 times smaller and no less massive but with far greater densities. They would be the normal atoms we see today except that they were 1000 times larger and therefore less dense in the remote past.

In another 13 billion years, there could be some black hole issues. Normally physical laws don't change but matter itself  could be vastly different at the extremes

 

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

What an amazing family! John and Joan Baez are brother and sister.

12 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe he's somebody else's brother and she's somebody else's sister. But I think they're cousins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez#Family

Anyway, he explains there why length and mass can't scale independently from each other.

5 hours ago, bangstrom said:

Think about what happens in the BBT. .. space expands within a galaxy while the galaxy remains the same size 

 

What does it mean? (my emphasis)

As to scale symmetries in general, studying the invariance properties of a certain theory under re-scalings can be a useful tool, but I wouldn't try to read too much into it physically*. The reason is that, while symmetries as rotations and translations have a very transparent, very direct interpretation, that's not the case for scale transformations.

Rotations can be easily viewed from the active point of view. I can rotate a piece of experimental equipment; I can rotate the whole laboratory (active transformations). I can think of extrapolating this operation to include the whole universe. In that purely theoretical, ideal, scenario, actually rotating the whole universe would be mathematically equivalent to the inverse passive transformation (simple re-labelling of coordinates) of my frame of reference. Same goes for translations.

You can't do the same with scalings.

IMO, you would have to be very careful to explain how these observers could tell that their scales change from point to point or region to region (continuously as you move from one to the other?). I think @studiot has made this point before, and what I'm doing basically is rephrasing, or ellaborating a little bit on what he said:

On 2/28/2022 at 8:46 PM, studiot said:

Let us stop right there, because there is your problem in a nutshell.

Why is it 20 times ?

Why not 20.000000001 or 19.99999999999  ?

How does any observer determine when it is 20 times ?, because according to your hypothersis, this factor is continually changing.

That's what I meant by 'slippery slope.'

*By 'physically' I mean considering different observers that 'see' different scales. How do they know?

Edited March 12, 20223 yr by joigus
Quote + link addition

I still don't have much to write about that non-scalability of standard model.

 

About that density growth problem. i think i already wrote about this.
 
Lets imagine that there was an planet in CMB era, in the case of this planet, when it has contracted that 1000 times, and the matter in planet has only small gravitational time dilation, the Schwarzchild radius for the matter becomes smaller 1000 times. The escape velocity 'field' contracts as a whole such a way that the escape velocity on the surface of planet is still exactly same. It can be also said that term GM becomes smaller by 1/1000. The planet would remain ordinary planet, even when its mass increase 1000 times and its density would grow 1000 000 000 000 times higher. In the viewpoint of a human on the surface of that planet g_s, G and r_sch and M have been same all the time.
 

About G , black holes and a problem with gravitation of electromagnetic radiation

I dont know if this is informative.

In this theory, black holes do appear to grow after the moment some black hole is created. 

In this cosmological theory, all black holes and their gravitation fields appear to grow by rate r(t)/r(t0) = 1 + H(t-t0), this would be prediction of this theory. (This formula is a fit to hubble law apply propably 
only when t2-t1 < 100Myr). And that is because black holes do not contract - the time in their event horizon is stopped. therefore black hole and its gravitation field appears to grow in the viewpoint of contracting observer. 

The G is here a not universal constant. In GR theory G is by definition: a constant that tells how much matter that has mass M (or energy concentration) curve spacetime. right? What i see is that it is possible that G can be a parameter that depends on which kind of matter the mass M consists of - until the matter concentration becomes a black hole. From Black hole radius r = 2GM/c^2 if i demand that for contracted matter r'/r = L and when c'/c =1 then it would mean that (GM)'/GM = L and if M'/M=1/L, then G'/G = L^2

There is however one problem with if G depends on transformation size of matter: How about EM radiation and light? What is the G for light? If light has energy and energy causes gravity too, is there many different kind of light that has been emitted by differently transformed matter that has different G:s ? 

Or if the light emitted by differently transformed matter is always similar, is it then so that its G depend on its frequency G = A/f^2? 
 
Or is it so that light does not cause gravity at all and only matter causes gravity? the gravitational effect of light is so small that it may have not been measured directly. The radiation can cause gravity in cosmological scales that is possible to measure in the expansion history (or contraction) of universe, but how well it can be measured? 
 

But G appears to be constant in the viewpoint of contracting observer if all matter contracts at the same rate and has same relative transformation size. 

----

I am not sure what studiot was talking about.
 
I am going through some thoughts here. This may not be very informative.

In order to have isotropic contraction instead of disintegration into small areas something is needed to keep matter together when it is contracting. When the contraction happens in ordinary matter there is a center or many centers for the contraction. Matter has to bind together and adjust to the change in order to be able to contract towards one center.

The man in the park can calculate the transformation factor L between the matter in space vessel and matter in the park only by knowing what is the 'time difference' coming from different time dilation histories: L = L(t2,t1). and knowing the function L(t). Linear approximation of L(t1,t2) = 1 + H(t2-t1) , and L(t) may be exponential L = exp(H(t2-t1)) based on that the proportional change observed in light 
 wavelength is all the time same. H may be slightly higher than Hubble constant H = 6.93 * 10^-11 1/yr.
 
Otherwise he has to measure what the factor L is for example in the following way: He ask the space traveler to give him an item that has exactly mass 1kg according to his measurement. Then he measures the mass of this item and he can see that it has a mass 20kg. From this difference in measurement of the mass, he can determine that L = m/m' = 1/20. 

There is one solution for time keeping and comparing times. If there is a space vessel that has contracted by factor 1/20 and it is flying in the park and there is an ordinary man walking on the park, the man can just give gift to the space traveler: a clock that is made of ordinary matter. The man has identical clock in his pocket that is synchronized to same time. The space traveler can put this gift clock then into his pocket and every time he wants to know what is the time outside, he just look this clock.

 

21 hours ago, Genady said:

What does it mean? (my emphasis)

How does space expand beyond the galaxies?

If matter and galaxies both were to expand along with the expansion of space, we would have no observation of an expanding universe. Since we observe galactic redshifts and interpret that as evidence of an expanding universe, the implication is that the galaxies must be remaining the same size while space expands beyond the perimeter of the galaxies. The galaxies are not expanding because they are gravitationally bound and are not affected by expanding space.

In the contracting matter theory, the universe is interpreted as being enormous in size from the beginning but not expanding. Instead of expanding space, the entire material world, from atoms to galaxies, is growing smaller so we have the illusion of expansion together with the observation of galactic redshifts because atoms are progressively growing smaller with time. Going back in time, earlier atoms were larger and emitted light in longer wavelengths proportional to their larger size.

In the BBT, space is expanding past non-expanding matter, but in the shrinking matter theory, matter is uniformly growing smaller within a background of static space while remaining proportional in size to the rest of the material world. The first is a model of expanding space and the second is a model of quickening time but the picture works the same from either perspective.

22 hours ago, joigus said:

Maybe he's somebody else's brother and she's somebody else's sister. But I think they're cousins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez#Family

You are right, they are cousins. I wasn't aware that Joan Baez had such an ilustrious father.

5 minutes ago, bangstrom said:

How does space expand beyond the galaxies?

If matter and galaxies both were to expand along with the expansion of space, we would have no observation of an expanding universe. Since we observe galactic redshifts and interpret that as evidence of an expanding universe, the implication is that the galaxies must be remaining the same size while space expands beyond the perimeter of the galaxies. The galaxies are not expanding because they are gravitationally bound and are not affected by expanding space.

In the contracting matter theory, the universe is interpreted as being enormous in size from the beginning but not expanding. Instead of expanding space, the entire material world, from atoms to galaxies, is growing smaller so we have the illusion of expansion together with the observation of galactic redshifts because atoms are progressively growing smaller with time. Going back in time, earlier atoms were larger and emitted light in longer wavelengths proportional to their larger size.

In the BBT, space is expanding past non-expanding matter, but in the shrinking matter theory, matter is uniformly growing smaller within a background of static space while remaining proportional in size to the rest of the material world. The first is a model of expanding space and the second is a model of quickening time but the picture works the same from either perspective.

I understand that galaxies are not expanding. I'm curious, what does space expands within a galaxy mean? 

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I understand that galaxies are not expanding. I'm curious, what does space expands within a galaxy mean? 

That is a matter for the Big Bang experts.  That is my interpretation of the theory so I am not the person to ask. I find it a strange idea when I think about it.

10 hours ago, caracal said:

There is one solution for time keeping and comparing times. If there is a space vessel that has contracted by factor 1/20 and it is flying in the park and there is an ordinary man walking on the park, the man can just give gift to the space traveler: a clock that is made of ordinary matter. The man has identical clock in his pocket that is synchronized to same time. The space traveler can put this gift clock then into his pocket and every time he wants to know what is the time outside, he just look this clock.

 

Why would the space travelers 1kg mass be hardly any greater than the same mass for the man in the park? And, why would a material object, either a clock or a weight, moved from one reference frame to another not rescale to its local environment?

Also, your scenario would work better with a time traveler than a space traveler. Movement through space slows time so the two aren’t entirely different.

10 hours ago, caracal said:

Or is it so that light does not cause gravity at all and only matter causes gravity?

Light can’t be detected by any means in the space between signal and receiver so how do we know that light energy even exists in the space between? Mach asked this question as did Berkley long before him. Currently, Carver Mead along with a litany of others are convinced that energy never exists separate from matter.

11 hours ago, caracal said:

There is one solution for time keeping and comparing times. If there is a space vessel that has contracted by factor 1/20 and it is flying in the park and there is an ordinary man walking on the park, the man can just give gift to the space traveler: a clock that is made of ordinary matter. The man has identical clock in his pocket that is synchronized to same time. The space traveler can put this gift clock then into his pocket and every time he wants to know what is the time outside, he just look this clock.

 

So according to your conjecture a clock that constructed on earth will not experience time dilation when launched into space?

There could be very obvious solution to non-scalability problem. The whole standard model just transform also into smaller scale too. The contracted matter follows 'contracted standard model', while ordinary matter follows 'ordinary standard model'. That would make the transformed matter also stable.

What would cause that? some change in the spacetime or very deep level of the constituents
of matter. This would require that that there is continuous process going on in space in very small length scales - the matter and maybe also space is not static in very small length scales. And this process can change that way that space and also matter can have transformations. The process should be something that effects in everything. Or at least everything we know about particles and interactions currently.

It is needed that all of the very small constituents of matter can have transformations, such that then matter can have transformations.

GR gravitation theory may also tell that space is not static but continuously undergoing some process or movement, because Gravitation field updates at the speed of light. 

On 3/13/2022 at 2:50 PM, bangstrom said:

Why would the space travelers 1kg mass be hardly any greater than the same mass for the man in the park? And, why would a material object, either a clock or a weight, moved from one reference frame to another not rescale to its local environment?

Also, your scenario would work better with a time traveler than a space traveler. Movement through space slows time so the two aren’t entirely different.

Light can’t be detected by any means in the space between signal and receiver so how do we know that light energy even exists in the space between? Mach asked this question as did Berkley long before him. Currently, Carver Mead along with a litany of others are convinced that energy never exists separate from matter.

It comes from deduction from equations E = hf and lamdda = h/p . If the matterwave of contracted particle has shorter wavelength and it depends on particles momentum such that lamda = h/p = h/muv ,where u is Lorentz gamma factor, then if h is still same and measured velocity of particle remains same and u remains same since it depends only on velocity, then it must be that the mass of the particle has increased. 

The man in the park observes that the space vessel mass 4000 kg while space traveler observes that it weights 200 kg. The man in the park observes that his body mass is 70 kg, but space traveler observes that the mans body mass is 3.5 kg.

The man in the park and star traveler make also other observations that are different. The man in the park observes the gravity pull to be 10m/s^2 , but space traveler observes the gravity pull to be 0.5m/s^2. The man observes the temperature of sun to be 6000 K and the temperature of air to be 300 K. But the space traveler observes the sun temperature to be 300 K and the air in the park to have temperature 15 K. Man in the park observes solar constant to be 1000 W/m^2, but space traveler observes the solar constant to be 0.00625 W/m^2. The man in the park observes the sun to have color 400 nm, but the space traveler observes the sun to have color 8000 nm. Air density 1.225 kg/m^3 vs 0.00766 g/m^3 and so on.

Why the vessel does not rescale or why the matter in the vessel is stable and not explode - i think answer to that would be that all contracted matter in it follows 'contracted standard model' instead of 'normal/ordinary standard model'. All of the binding energies are 20 times greater also.

  

On 3/13/2022 at 3:32 PM, swansont said:

So according to your conjecture a clock that constructed on earth will not experience time dilation when launched into space?

I made mistake in description there. Both the space vessel and the clock are subject to same relativistic effects when the vessel moves or rises up in earths gravitation field. So the timekeeping of the clock inside the vessel would change relative to the timekeeping of the clock the man have in the park,if the vessel moves. My thought there was different: ordinary matter and transformed matter can be in same place and also mix. And there can be two timekeeping in same place with two different clocks.

 

---

Their transformation difference would slightly change over time if all matter is contraction. It would be L(t2,t1), unknown function that is L = 1 + H(t2-t1) when t2-t1 < 100Myrs. It might be L(t2,t1) = exp(H(t2-t1)) when t2-t1 > 100 Myrs, but it is not certain say what L(t2,t1) is. The transformation would be intrinsic change in the matter. But in principle it could be altered by some unknown parameter in environment.

If L(t) = exp(H(t-t0)), H = 6.93*10^-11 1/yr then L = 1000 , when t-t0 = 100 Byrs. That would mean that if the effects of gravity were small, creation of CMB would be 100 Billion years old event. That is 7 times more than 13.8 Byrs what is current understanding of the age of CMB. ???

Edited March 15, 20223 yr by caracal