Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Condensing Universe


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 17 May 2011 - 08:52 AM

I have no problems with the theory of the big bang and expanding universe, but this is a fun simple alternative that I am finding hard to break.

Consider a model of the universe where matter starts massive (sub atomic particles miles across) and then shrinks. The universe just condenses out of energy into large scale cold matter. Over many billions of years, this matter shrinks to the size it is now and keeps shrinking, getting hotter as in condenses. (Not as exciting as the big bang)

The key argument being the phrase: “As experienced by matter”.
Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly experiences by matter we know nothing about it.
Therefore, the laws of physics are the laws of the universe as experienced my matter.

As matter shrinks, it experiences a faster speed of light.
That is it takes less time for light to cross the width of a smaller atom, or to travel the length of a ruler made of shrinking atoms. So the ruler measures light travelling a longer distance in a given time period, but only because the ruler is shrinking.

So, in this model we have the speed of light as experienced my matter.

The master speed of light is still absolute but we have no scale to measure it by so its value is unknown.
The speed of light as experienced my matter is increasing with time by a rate derived from the Hubble constant.
(Ho = 2.5 10-18 per second, so speed of light increasing by less than 1 part in ten billion per year)
{You cannot use the wavelength of a reference light to measure against see below}

So now we have two types of distances, those defined by physical units of measurements using instruments made of matter, and distances measured using the speed of light and time.

In this model, the idea is that the universe is not expanding if we measure using the speed of light, but is expanding if we use units of measurements based on matter. However, this is only because the physical units based on matter are shrinking as time passes; each time you use the ruler you read off a bigger number.

The current definition of the metre uses the speed of light so it does not shrink with matter.
In this model, you need to remake your metre rulers 1 atom longer every 6 or 7 years.
I am going to use the old definition of the metre for the rest of this argument.

So in this model, as matter gets smaller it experiences a faster speed of light, and this is the only speed of light known. So “c” in all physics equations is the speed of light as experienced by matter.

{If like me you are trying to break this argument, please double check the following for me}

If you plug an increasing value for the speed of light into equations for the atom, it shrinks and emits shorter wavelength radiation when electrons change state.
So you get a circular argument, as matter shrinks it experiences a faster speed of light, this increases the strength of the electromagnetic force so making the atoms smaller anyway.

Now if this applies to all Boson based forces then the nucleus also shrinks and relative stability of atoms is maintained. {I got totally lost trying to test this}

In this model, we have matter shrinking and emitting shorter wavelength light as it shrinks. Therefore, the wavelength of our reference light sources are shrinking with our instruments, rulers, diffraction gratings etc.

So if we look out into the universe what do we see?

We see old light emitted by matter that was bigger (more fluffy) than modern matter.
When we measure it with our shrinking modern-matter instruments, the wavelength is longer than we expect, but the light has not changed it is still as emitted by the larger scale ancient matter. So, the cosmic redshift is due to us shrinking not relative movement.

{Has everybody already broken this or should I keep typing?}

Consider a long line of galaxies spaced a billion light years apart, but stationary relative to each other. Each galaxy has an identical race of aliens using instruments identical to every atom. They all start emitting an identical reference laser beam at each other.
Assuming the Hubble constant is about 0.08 per billion years, a billion years later when the light reaches the nearest galaxies on each side of the emitters, all the matter in all the galaxies has shrunk. These instruments are now still atom identical to those in the emitting galaxy’s but smaller than a billion years ago, so now measure the billion year old light a 1.08 times longer than their reference is now. When it reaches the next galaxies in line, it is 1.16 times longer than the reference now.
So cosmic redshifts work from all viewpoints equally, but there is no associated time dilation.
{Is lack of time dilation a problem with this model?}

In this model, we need to use the correct units of measurement when thinking about distant / ancient object. They are made of bigger matter than we expect. To make the physics work you need to convert to ancient units of measurements using the Hubble constant and the time difference.
So the physical metre or mile etc was 1.08 times bigger a billion years ago. So galaxies are not as big as we think, and stars in them are not moving as fast as we think.
Also are they shrinking faster than the stars are flying out of them? (So maybe less dark matter needed)
(I am still trying to guess what this does to decay curves of supernova {Is this a flaw?})

Going back to the start of the universe, where enormous fluffy matter experiencing a very low speed of light.
E = mc2
With a very low value for ‘c’ you can get a very large amount of matter from a tiny amount of energy.

Cosmic background radiation in this model was emitted a microwaves by large-scale matter near the edge of our light cone. Early large matter galaxies may have seen it as red light.

Lastly, in this model dark energy could be considered as energy being lost to intergalactic space as matter emits every more energetic photons with ever decreasing chance of hitting another shrinking galaxy.


I hope that you found this a fun interesting argument even if I have missed a fundamental flaw somewhere.

#2 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 08 July 2011 - 10:43 AM

This has been an interesting post and I am disappointed that no one with a good physics background has responded to it. In a general way, it does seem to me that a universe that can expand from virtually nothing can or has contracted to almost nothing. In any case, it would have had to contract to get into its pre-big-bang state. For sure, it wasn't "created".



#3 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 11:14 PM

In discussions else where a few things have popped up on this theory.

Time dilation of supper nova decay may be explained by radio active decay rate being slowed by a low experience C.
(Is not a perfect match)

Angular size of distant objects matches BBT predictions.
Under BBT the angular size of an object is fixed when light left the object before space expanded. (Nearer)
In this model the object was bigger. (Bigger)

Dark matter in this model is now near zero.
For large scale structure the massive age of universe slowly forming only needs normal gravity.
If galaxies are growing at 4% per billion years from infalling gas (1000 atoms per cubic meter, 100 km/s) then rotation curves do not look too far from observed.
Intergalatic medium spirals in stars spiral out.
In BBT you need dark matter to make gas fall in against the expansion of space moving intergalctic medium away.

At the atom scale, equations for the atomic radius and wavelengths emitted seem to work.
Maths bit on another forum

#4 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 11:05 AM

I'm sorry someone more qualified has not yet responded. In that absence...

I do not accept the proposition that shrinking matter is symmetrical to expanding spacetime.

Conceptually, your metric's version of the balloon analogy would be a collection of ballons representing galaxies that deflate over time, giving the appearance that the distance between galaxies increases with time. However, observe the difference between that and a bunch of fixed diameter balloons fixed to a stretching plane. In the analogy corresponding to your metric, the distance between the barycenters of every galaxy remains fixed, while we observe the centers of galaxies to be receding from one another. Also, imagine two balloon galaxies side by side, both twenty centimeters in diameter. Label the center of the first balloon galaxy to be at x=10 and the second to be at x=30. As the balloons shrink to 10 cm in diameter, the left hand side of the first balloon moves to x=5 from x=0, while the left hand side of the second balloon moves to x=25 from x=20. If shrinking galaxies were responsible for the observed increase in distance between galaxies over time, we would expect the far end of galaxies in one direction to be less red-shifted than the far end of galaxies in the opposite direction, because we are not at the center of our galaxy. (Let me know if I need to make a diagram to illustrate) This is not what we observe.

Also, consider what we are observing when we say that the light from a body is redshifted. We do not measure the spectral lines of hydrogen to be further apart when the source is from a distant galaxy, we observe the frequency on which those lines lie to be shifted to the red end of the spectrum. The spectrum is not "stretched" because the rulers we use to measure have shrunk, the spectrum as a whole is moved.

I did not see any attempt at the site you linked to make the math work for your model. All I saw was a list of a few equations. Perhaps your link is bad?

#5 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 01:12 PM

The balloon analog is only a very crude way of explaining the metric expansion of space.

The only things we can actually see move in space are asteroids, planets and the very nearest stars.
All other clues to movement come from redshift data.

The redshift is a multiplier effect ie: At z = 0.1 the wavelength of all electromagntic radiation coming from that object is 1.1 times longer than expected.
So it is more accurate to say that emission & absortion lines are 'scaled' not 'moved'.
For and object at z = 0.1. I am suggesting, it is all matter including our instruments that has shrunk by (1/1.1) 0.90909 while the light was traveling for a billion years. So any light we measure coming from that object measures 1.1 times longer.

The maths on that link, shows the hard link between the size of atoms and the wavelength of light they emit.
Indicating that matter shrinking could cause the light emitted and absorbed to shrink equally with it.

There is not a direct symmetry between the two models.
In the condensing universe model, the universe is 500 billion years old minimum.
First neutrons at z= 1015 about 430 billion years ago. (As space is not expanding there is no equivilent of inflation)
On these time scales the large-scale structures of the universe are possible without matter traveling at relativistic speeds, and without dark matter. (Space not expanding helps a bit as well)

Without the expansion of space, the physics galaxies can only be modeled as dominated by in falling gas.
Models of hydrogen spiraling in and stars spiraling to out give rotation curves similar to those observed.
These models of galaxies need no dark matter to get sensible results.
(In BBT the expansion of space is moving gas away from the galaxies against the pull of gravity.)

#6 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 26 July 2011 - 01:46 PM

Crude though it may be, the balloon analogy is sufficient to illustrate that observations falsify your metric.

Posted Image

The redshift is a multiplier effect ie: At z = 0.1 the wavelength of all electromagntic radiation coming from that object is 1.1 times longer than expected.
So it is more accurate to say that emission & absortion lines are 'scaled' not 'moved'.


Do you have a source for this? If my understanding is correct, then this claim is false, but I readily admit that I may incorrect. It is my understanding that red shift means precisely that, a shift of the spectrum to the red end, not a stretching of the spectrum.

I was wrong. My complaint regarding various frequencies of spectral lines was invalid.
http://skyserver.sds...e/redshifts.asp

Edited by JMJones0424, 26 July 2011 - 02:22 PM.


#7 SextonBlake

SextonBlake

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 26 August 2011 - 08:40 AM

My twopenneth:

I have no problems with the theory of the big bang and expanding universe, but this is a fun simple alternative that I am finding hard to break.

Consider a model of the universe where matter starts massive (sub atomic particles miles across) and then shrinks. The universe just condenses out of energy into large scale cold matter. Over many billions of years, this matter shrinks to the size it is now and keeps shrinking, getting hotter as in condenses. (Not as exciting as the big bang)


Enlarge a proton a thousand times and it will fly apart as the binding forces will no longer be able to hold it together. So having a proton a billion, billion times as big as now is not possible. There is also the point that no matter could hold together since the binding forces would be such that even a neutron could not hold together, so no stars, etc.

What we call hot is atomic and molecular motion. Surely if it got "hotter" it would expand as that is what usually happens?

The key argument being the phrase: “As experienced by matter”.
Anything that cannot be directly or indirectly experiences by matter we know nothing about it.
Therefore, the laws of physics are the laws of the universe as experienced my matter.


The laws hold up for all conditions. they may just be more extreme in some cases, like inside a black hole.

As matter shrinks, it experiences a faster speed of light.
That is it takes less time for light to cross the width of a smaller atom, or to travel the length of a ruler made of shrinking atoms. So the ruler measures light travelling a longer distance in a given time period, but only because the ruler is shrinking.

So, in this model we have the speed of light as experienced my matter.


Light speed is a constant. Different forms of matter are not going to change that.


The master speed of light is still absolute but we have no scale to measure it by so its value is unknown.
The speed of light as experienced my matter is increasing with time by a rate derived from the Hubble constant.
(Ho = 2.5 10-18 per second, so speed of light increasing by less than 1 part in ten billion per year)
{You cannot use the wavelength of a reference light to measure against see below}


The speed of light and the speed of gravity seem to be linked so a different speed of light would mean a different speed of gravity so in large complicated structures like a galaxy, a slower speed of gravity would produce a different shaped galaxy as bodies were slower to reach to the gravity of other bodies.

So now we have two types of distances, those defined by physical units of measurements using instruments made of matter, and distances measured using the speed of light and time.


If matter is shrinking in size and light is changing in speed, then we have no trustworthy way of measuring anything.

In this model, the idea is that the universe is not expanding if we measure using the speed of light, but is expanding if we use units of measurements based on matter. However, this is only because the physical units based on matter are shrinking as time passes; each time you use the ruler you read off a bigger number.


So the universe is not expanding. It's just everything else getting smaller?

The current definition of the metre uses the speed of light so it does not shrink with matter.
In this model, you need to remake your metre rulers 1 atom longer every 6 or 7 years.
I am going to use the old definition of the metre for the rest of this argument.


At this small rate, even over the lifetime of the universe it is not going to make much difference.

So in this model, as matter gets smaller it experiences a faster speed of light, and this is the only speed of light known. So “c” in all physics equations is the speed of light as experienced by matter.


Why should light change speed? it's the same speed whether admitted by a mile long radio wave or the highest energy gamma ray source.

{If like me you are trying to break this argument, please double check the following for me}

If you plug an increasing value for the speed of light into equations for the atom, it shrinks and emits shorter wavelength radiation when electrons change state.
So you get a circular argument, as matter shrinks it experiences a faster speed of light, this increases the strength of the electromagnetic force so making the atoms smaller anyway.


The wavelength emitted is relative to the energy of the source. Surely a particle would only have the same energy, whatever it's size?.

Now if this applies to all Boson based forces then the nucleus also shrinks and relative stability of atoms is maintained. {I got totally lost trying to test this}


It is only going to shrink if you can increase the binding forces, which is not going to happen.

In this model, we have matter shrinking and emitting shorter wavelength light as it shrinks. Therefore, the wavelength of our reference light sources are shrinking with our instruments, rulers, diffraction gratings etc.


Again, it's down to energy and not size.

So if we look out into the universe what do we see?

We see old light emitted by matter that was bigger (more fluffy) than modern matter.
When we measure it with our shrinking modern-matter instruments, the wavelength is longer than we expect, but the light has not changed it is still as emitted by the larger scale ancient matter. So, the cosmic redshift is due to us shrinking not relative movement.


Looking back 12 billion years, we see galaxies that look like the ones around now in basic structure. Not huge particles, etc.

{Has everybody already broken this or should I keep typing?}

Consider a long line of galaxies spaced a billion light years apart, but stationary relative to each other. Each galaxy has an identical race of aliens using instruments identical to every atom. They all start emitting an identical reference laser beam at each other.
Assuming the Hubble constant is about 0.08 per billion years, a billion years later when the light reaches the nearest galaxies on each side of the emitters, all the matter in all the galaxies has shrunk. These instruments are now still atom identical to those in the emitting galaxy’s but smaller than a billion years ago, so now measure the billion year old light a 1.08 times longer than their reference is now. When it reaches the next galaxies in line, it is 1.16 times longer than the reference now.
So cosmic redshifts work from all viewpoints equally, but there is no associated time dilation.
{Is lack of time dilation a problem with this model?}


Photons are essentially immortal (light does not experience time dilation). They are the same to the solar wind as they are to the matter of neutron stars so the size and density of atoms do not bother them.

In this model, we need to use the correct units of measurement when thinking about distant / ancient object. They are made of bigger matter than we expect. To make the physics work you need to convert to ancient units of measurements using the Hubble constant and the time difference.
So the physical metre or mile etc was 1.08 times bigger a billion years ago. So galaxies are not as big as we think, and stars in them are not moving as fast as we think.
Also are they shrinking faster than the stars are flying out of them? (So maybe less dark matter needed)
(I am still trying to guess what this does to decay curves of supernova {Is this a flaw?})

Going back to the start of the universe, where enormous fluffy matter experiencing a very low speed of light.
E = mc2
With a very low value for ‘c’ you can get a very large amount of matter from a tiny amount of energy.

Cosmic background radiation in this model was emitted a microwaves by large-scale matter near the edge of our light cone. Early large matter galaxies may have seen it as red light.

Lastly, in this model dark energy could be considered as energy being lost to intergalactic space as matter emits every more energetic photons with ever decreasing chance of hitting another shrinking galaxy.


I hope that you found this a fun interesting argument even if I have missed a fundamental flaw somewhere.


If 1.08 times bigger a billion years ago, that makes something about twice as big 13 billion years ago which is about how far back we can see. So hardly atomic particles miles across.

The infra-red spectrum overlaps the microwave spectrum so easy for one type of EMR to be seen as the other due to minor changes.

Dark energy is said to make up 72% of the universe and everything we now detect just 4%, so just one eighteenth, so hardly the source of DE.

#8 SextonBlake

SextonBlake

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 26 August 2011 - 09:00 AM

PetTastic. The only way I see expansion working is via a hyperspehere, a four physical dimension sphere with the universe as a "flat" 3D skin on it.

As a model of how it works; start off with a ball in the middle, punctured by ten foot long metal spikes. The ball is there merely to hold them in place and can be ignored. Three foot from the centre if a sphere (the expanding universe). Where the metal spikes puncture it, there we will say are galaxies. Now the sphere expands to 12 feet across (6 feet from the centre).

The metal spikes are still puncturing the sphere in exactly the same places, but now the puncture marks as in the galaxies are further apart (though they have not moved). Now the sphere expands again so 18 feet across, so 9 feet from the centre, and the metal spikes still puncture the sphere in exactly the same places, but are now even further apart in the expanding universe, without actually having moved. It is just the distances between them that expands.

#9 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 26 August 2011 - 12:55 PM

The original post is now a bit out of date, as this is still work in progress.
One of the new ideas added is that things happen slower to larger matter.
Including:
Time to emit or absorb a photon, electrons changing energy level, radio active decay ....
Basically, the experience of time changes with the size of matter, a similar effect to time-dilation with increasing z.
Clocks made of bigger matter run slower.


My twopenneth:



Enlarge a proton a thousand times and it will fly apart as the binding forces will no longer be able to hold it together. So having a proton a billion, billion times as big as now is not possible. There is also the point that no matter could hold together since the binding forces would be such that even a neutron could not hold together, so no stars, etc.

What we call hot is atomic and molecular motion. Surely if it got "hotter" it would expand as that is what usually happens?

I think the key to thinking about this, "Size relative to what?"
In this model, there are no absolute units of size.
Neutrons and protons were normal size 480 billion years ago, but have been shrinking in size since by maybe 6 percent every billion years.
In this model, protons and neutrons could not exist earlier the z = 1015 because there would not be space in the universe for them at about a metre across.
As matter shrinks it takes up less space reducing pressure, so temperatures fall.


Light speed is a constant. Different forms of matter are not going to change that.

Yes, this whole model is bases in the speed of light being 1.0 always.
That is 1 light-year per year etc.
But as matter shrinks it take less time for light to travel past something made of matter, this is like the scale speed of light.
To an external observer it takes light longer to travel the length of a metre ruler in that past because the metre ruler in the past was made of bigger atoms.
So to an external observer that ruler measures smaller distance traveled by light in a given timer period, so sower speed.


The speed of light and the speed of gravity seem to be linked so a different speed of light would mean a different speed of gravity so in large complicated structures like a galaxy, a slower speed of gravity would produce a different shaped galaxy as bodies were slower to reach to the gravity of other bodies.

This matches observation quite well, and the maths for values of z below 15 is very similar to the big bang theroy version.
In BBT we see objects at the distance they were when the light was emmitted.
That is we see objects at the angular size they were before the expansion of space moved then away.
In this model distant object have a larger angular size because they were made of bigger matter.
(The maths around the experience of gravity are interesting, but seem to work quite well.
Assuming experienced time effects experienced accleration and speed.)


If matter is shrinking in size and light is changing in speed, then we have no trustworthy way of measuring anything.

This only works if the speed of light is 1.0.
But do not trust your ruler or instruments as they are shrinking.


So the universe is not expanding. It's just everything else getting smaller?

I always thought assuming the universe is expanding because it can't be us that is shrinking
is not in the spirit of the cosmological principle.


At this small rate, even over the lifetime of the universe it is not going to make much difference.

The best fit to observations seems to be matter exponentialy decaying in size by about 6 percent every billion years.
Going back into the past gives 1+z = 1.068t where t is in billions of years.


Why should light change speed? it's the same speed whether admitted by a mile long radio wave or the highest energy gamma ray source.

This is only the scale or experienced speed, as matter gets smaller it takes less time for bosons to travel the width of a neutron or atom etc.


The wavelength emitted is relative to the energy of the source. Surely a particle would only have the same energy, whatever it's size?.

Well the odd thing is that energy electron levels in atoms are propotional to the size of the atom.
This make the wavelength emitted proportional in size to the size of the atom.
I think there is a link to the maths in a previous post.


It is only going to shrink if you can increase the binding forces, which is not going to happen.

All of the main forces are transmitter by bosons that travel at the speed of light.
If this is the experienced speed of light then the maths for photons shows the em force is propotion to c.
The maths for the other forces is not so clear.


Again, it's down to energy and not size.

Energy is an interesting concepts this is preserved along with momentum in this model.
Photons are not stretched by the expansion of space as in BBT so photons arrive with the same energy they started with.
But as matter shrinks from an external viewpoint it gets hotter and gives out shorter wavelength photons.
Matter the gallaxies are all shrinking and photons emmitted have a greatly reduce chance of hitting another gallaxy as they are all shrinking away in size.


Looking back 12 billion years, we see galaxies that look like the ones around now in basic structure. Not huge particles, etc.

This model need no dark matter to form the large scale structures because the iniverse is hundreds of billions of years old.
The galaxies are not moving apart so there way no big bang.


Photons are essentially immortal (light does not experience time dilation). They are the same to the solar wind as they are to the matter of neutron stars so the size and density of atoms do not bother them.

Yep, photons live until they hit something, no energy lost in flight etc.


If 1.08 times bigger a billion years ago, that makes something about twice as big 13 billion years ago which is about how far back we can see. So hardly atomic particles miles across.

z = 1015 was about 480 billion years ago in this and the universe was old then.



Dark energy is said to make up 72% of the universe and everything we now detect just 4%, so just one eighteenth, so hardly the source of DE.


This model needs no dark energy or matter or inflation etc.
Just one smooth curve for matter shrinking with time.

#10 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 27 August 2011 - 07:53 PM

I have no problems with the theory of the big bang and expanding universe, but this is a fun simple alternative that I am finding hard to break.

Consider a model of the universe where matter starts massive (sub atomic particles miles across) and then shrinks.
...
{Has everybody already broken this or should I keep typing?}

This is a fun model, but I believe it was broken long ago. I don’t know of, and have never seriously searched for, old history of the idea, but it’s such an obvious and enticing idea, I’d be surprised if something similar to it didn’t go back to the early 1700s or so. Rather than trying to unearth the history of contracting/expanding matter models, I think it’s easier just to try breaking it again, here.

(Pardon me if I ramble – I’m thinking this through as I write)

A problem that would have been apparent before the emergence of modern particle physics in the early 1900s (had anyone been giving the matter much thought – prior to the early 1930s, the idea that distant stars were receding more rapidly than nearby ones, or even that there were stars more than 100,000 ly distant, was only an obscure theoretical one), is that it would occur on all scales. The Sun and the Moon would have had larger disks in the past. Solids such as stone would have had greater gaps between molecules, and thus different material properties. Materials that were once non-porous, would, over geological time periods, become porous. This would make for some strange geology for which there’s no evidence. Chemistry would change, for which there’s no evidence.

With the 1930s appearance of Hubble’s law, it’s necessary to hypothesis that distant stars are not receding at a greater speed, but that, the light from them being emitted when they were younger, their larger atoms emitted longer wavelength light. This works only if we assume a classical model of the atom – that is, that electrons orbit the nucleus under electrostatic attraction in a smooth, continuous way. The problem with this is that it wasn’t possible to explain the behavior of atoms with this model. This failure is one of those that necessitated the creation of quantum physics.

To get a contracting matter model that’s compatible with quantum physics, it has to be redefined not in terms of macroscopic bodies or fictional classical models of the atom contracting, but in the strength and behavior of the elementary interactions changing with time. For the same change in electron orbit to produce gradually higher-energy, shorter wavelength photons, and thus any emission and/or absorption spectrum to shift smoothly, the potential energy of the electrons in their orbitals must gradually increase. For this to occur, the product of elementary charge and Coulomb’s force constant must gradually increase. Because a change in Coulomb’s constant would also result in a change in the speed of light, I think only the elementary charge can change to make the contracting model work. This, though, would have profound effects on almost every physical phenomena, geology, chemistry, etc, which again, we don’t see.

That’s about as far as I can get without some serious study and calculating. See the Wikipedia article “hydrogen-like atom” and links from it for details on what I’m talking about.

Enlarge a proton a thousand times and it will fly apart as the binding forces will no longer be able to hold it together.

I’m not suggesting that PetTastic’s contracting matter model is true, but the Sexton objection misstates how the strong interaction – which keeps protons together – works, according to best current theory.

The strong interaction, which holds the 3 quarks of a proton or neutron together, doesn’t follow the 1/d2 law that gravity and electromagnetic interactions do, but is constant regardless of distance.

Not only does this lead to a model of the nucleon that’s won’t fly apart if you somehow manage to make it bigger (ie: by pummeling it with electrons), it leads to one of the IMHO neatest theoretical explanations in modern physics: why you can’t jar quarks out of a hadron (protons and neutrons are hadrons, as are mesons, and possible some more exotic particles): the work necessary to separate quarks is so great, it necessarily creates new quark-antiquark pairs from the vacuum, so the jarred-out quarks still aren’t outside of a hadron! A good summary of this and starting place to read more is this wikipedia section

It also adds another problem for the shrinking matter model. The shrinking of the size of the electron orbit caused by increasing the electromagnetic interaction strength would result in the nucleus getting bigger, not smaller, so at some point in the model’s timeline, the nucleus will be too big for its electron shell, and things will get very weird.

#11 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 08:00 AM

I have been playing with this idea on and off for many years assuming there was a flaw in it.

I have put it up on many science orientated forums, labeled, "please break".
The best found so far would seem to be beta decay and the weak force not scaling very well, due to the W boson fixed mass.

I have found several similar theories that have been broken over the years, fine-structure constant changing over time, etc., but so far not this one.

As for stone getting porous remember all matter even solid iron is 99.99% (needs a few more '9's I think) empty space.
All maths test, I have done regarding chemistry show everything changes in proportion.
Including covalent bonding distances, relative energies of formation, crystal spacing, thermal velocities and kinetic energy.
However, everything happens faster as matter gets smaller.
Most of old-style quantum physics scales well with the size of matter/experienced speed of light, and to my level of understanding causes no issues in QED.
There is also mathematical support for the wavelength of light emitted be proportional to the size of the atom. (Rutherford–Bohr model and Rydberg formula)

I just consider this model to be interesting, with no evidence to support it over the big-bang version other than it being hard to break.
I like the way is gives a 500+ billion-year-old universe with no requirement of dark matter or dark energy.
Galaxies are transient whirlpools in space dominated by in-flowing gas and out going dead stars and chunks of iron.
As they eat the intergalactic medium at a high rate.
I even have a BBT transform that gives a size of the universe curve in 'physical units'-(shrinking with time) that assumes the galaxies stay the same size over time.
It shows tha apparent increase in rate of expansion, and an equivilent to apparent inflation.
Based on matter shrinking at about 6% per billion years, going back in time gives 1+z = 1.07t (t in billion years)


But anyway, no more than interesting. B)

#12 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 09:01 AM

How do you account for the lack of observed doppler broadening of spectral lines increasing with distance from the observer that your metric requires?

How do you explain the observed lack of very old stars if the Universe is 500+ billion years old?

#13 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 10:46 AM

How do you account for the lack of observed doppler broadening of spectral lines increasing with distance from the observer that your metric requires?

The idea is the ancient light arrives exactly as emmitted, it is us and our instruments that shrunk while the light was traveling for billions of years.
The atoms in us, our diffraction gratings, rulers and prisms are made of that have changed not the wavelength of the light.The wavelength of light from out reference light sources also shrinks.

How do you explain the observed lack of very old stars if the Universe is 500+ billion years old?

In this model galaxies do not last more than 20 billion years or so.

When the primodial hydrogen stops falling into the galaxies they go dark:
Without the interstellar medium being replenished and held inplace by infalling gas,
There is nothing to form new stars.
The expelled shells from red giants just keep flying outwards with no ISM to stop the expansion.
Even supernova are not very bright, because a large part of their brightness comes from a solar mass of material hitting the ISM at a sixth of more of the speed of light.
With no interstellar medium, that mass of debris flies off to become cold atoms traveling at 0.25 c until they hit an atom off the intergalactic-medium maybe up to 6 years later after traveling the best part of a light-year.
After a few hours of the explosion, thermal collisions fall of exponentially, and magnetic fields are expanding equally in all directions.
So there is nothing cause the high-velocity gas to emit light other than gamma rays from unstable isotopes.

As I said, it is a interesting model to play with.

#14 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

    412.63 ppm

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1241 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 11:26 AM

The idea is the ancient light arrives exactly as emmitted, it is us and our instruments that shrunk while the light was traveling for billions of years.
The atoms in us, our diffraction gratings, rulers and prisms are made of that have changed not the wavelength of the light.The wavelength of light from out reference light sources also shrinks.


When we observe a spiral galaxy edge on, we note a broadening of the spectral lines commensurate with the rotation of the galaxy, since a portion of the matter that is emitting photons is on average traveling away from us at a slower speed than the other due to rotation. If your metric explains redshift as a contraction of matter rather than an expansion of space over time between the emitter and the observer, how do you explain the lack of a increasing doppler broadening corresponding proportionally to distance between emitter and observer, since one half of a galaxy observed edge on under your metric is receding at far greater speed than the other? You cannot claim that the contraction of our measuring devices somehow descriminates between photons emitted from opposite sides of galaxies. Any skewing of results due to changes in our instruments would affect all measurements made by those instruments equally. We do not observe increased doppler broadening with increased distance, therefore, contraction of galaxies cannot be responsible for the observed increased redshift with increased distance.


In this model galaxies do not last more than 20 billion years or so.


I asked about long-lived stars, not galaxies. Have you developed an alternative theory of stellar evolution to explain the lack of extremely old stars in a universe which your metric describes as extremely old?

#15 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 12:37 PM

When we observe a spiral galaxy edge on, we note a broadening of the spectral lines commensurate with the rotation of the galaxy, since a portion of the matter that is emitting photons is on average traveling away from us at a slower speed than the other due to rotation. If your metric explains redshift as a contraction of matter rather than an expansion of space over time between the emitter and the observer, how do you explain the lack of a increasing doppler broadening corresponding proportionally to distance between emitter and observer, since one half of a galaxy observed edge on under your metric is receding at far greater speed than the other? You cannot claim that the contraction of our measuring devices somehow descriminates between photons emitted from opposite sides of galaxies. Any skewing of results due to changes in our instruments would affect all measurements made by those instruments equally. We do not observe increased doppler broadening with increased distance, therefore, contraction of galaxies cannot be responsible for the observed increased redshift with increased distance.

The interesting thing about the model is it gives very good rotation curves for spiral galaxies, without dark matter.
http://en.wikipedia...._rotation_curve
Purly based on spiraling in gas and dense matter flying out.
The gas hitting the disk as it spirals in keeps the disk flat collecting metals and dust into molecular clouds, but also imparting momentum to these clouds.
This gives new stars a slightly hight angular velocity than older stars, so they spriral outwards, overtaking older stars.
This gives something very close to the observed rotation curve but the bright stars are spiraling outwards slightly, not orbiting in circle.

Assuming 1000 atoms per cubic meter infalling at 100 km/s hitting at about 20 degrees. Space not expanding.
There are a lot of parameters to play with, including the effect of infalling gas on halo stars


I asked about long-lived stars, not galaxies. Have you developed an alternative theory of stellar evolution to explain the lack of extremely old stars in a universe which your metric describes as extremely old?


How can a star be older than the local galxies?
Only small dim stars live a long time, and are hard to see at distance.

#16 sigurdV

sigurdV

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 641 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 05:52 PM

Is the startingpoint of your idea that the picture of a universe expanding into something can be replaced with a picture of the universe doing the expansion within itself?

I mean: What is your theory expressed with a minimum of maths and physics?

#17 PetTastic

PetTastic

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts

Posted 03 September 2011 - 05:01 AM

Is the startingpoint of your idea that the picture of a universe expanding into something can be replaced with a picture of the universe doing the expansion within itself?

I mean: What is your theory expressed with a minimum of maths and physics?


I am a computer programmer / micro processor designer not a physist, so I can't go too deep myself.

Switching between thinking in normal accepted cosmology terms, and this model can be a real mind bender, if you do it a few times a day. To test observations or convert distances/ times from one to the other.

When I have my head in Condensing Universe mode, I consider the BBT view of things to be an optical illusion.
It only looks like space is expanding because we are getting smaller.
I have a little plastic man on my desk holding a tiny metre ruler.
I sometimes pretend he is measuring the velocity of the cat and getting a different number on his ruler to mine.

The key thing is in this model, is there are two types of units of distance.
Distances measured using the speed of light, and a fixed time reference.
Speed of light is always 1.0 at the large scale, so the universe is not expanding if you measure in light-years.

However, physical units of measurement based on matter shrink with us.
The universe is expanding if you measure it in metres or miles.

The parsec gets a bit dodgy to use in the condensing universe model as it is a bit of both.