The What Was, Before The Big Bang

[xyz]

There is no know model for light, or any massless particle for that matter that makes logical sense. Just look at the two-slit experiment.

The double slit experiment and effect is observer effect. I do understand light to be like my description 1. 

[pgrmdave]

Trying to see objects anywhere on the opposite side of the sphere is impossible because the view of the observer can't go round corners.

Yes, you can, if the light is following the curve of the sphere. If the lines that light travels in are curved, and that curvature ends up being spherical, then the view of an observer goes round in a sphere (or, rather, a more complicated, 4-dimensional, version of a sphere).

[A-wal]

Yes, you can, if the light is following the curve of the sphere. If the lines that light travels in are curved, and that curvature ends up being spherical, then the view of an observer goes round in a sphere (or, rather, a more complicated, 4-dimensional, version of a sphere).

The wavelength of the light increases from the perspective of observers the further the observed object is round the sphere. Anything at the visual horizon (a quarter of the way round from the perspective of any observer, so covering half the sphere in total) will be infinitely redshifted because the light waves get stretched as their orientation relative to the observer increases, and gets stretched by a larger amount the more orientated it is. It's the exact same formula as the one for time dilation and length contraction when adding velocities together.

 

Edit:

Look at how the observed orientation of objects changes as their relative velocity increases. It should be the same.

Edited November 16, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

The wavelength of the light increases from the perspective of observers the further the observed object is round the sphere. Anything at the visual horizon (a quarter of the way round from the perspective of any observer, so covering half the sphere in total) will be infinitely redshifted because the light waves get stretched as their orientation relative to the observer increases, and gets stretched by a larger amount the more orientated it is. It's the exact same formula as the one for time dilation and length contraction when adding velocities together.

 

Edit:

Look at how the observed orientation of objects changes as their relative velocity increases. It should be the same.

That sounded right, I think a prism does the same thing, and centre of pressure shifting by the angle changing the external compression before it enters the prism, the same with raindrops making angular displacement.

 

I  drew this for some reason, 

 

 

added - 

 

 

 

correction to model 

 

t1<t2

Edited November 17, 2015 by xyz

[CraigD]

It can only be fully described with two models, which is absolutely fascinating because it means nobody has yet been able to come up with a conceptual or scientific model for what light is.

Wave particle duality is an intrinsic feature of quantum mechanics, so I’d say it provides a complete theoretical description of what light and matter are.

It also applies to other subatomic particles so it means particle physics is an inaccurate approximation of something that nobody don't really understands.

Quantum particle physics is an exact, not an approximate, theory, except that it doesn’t include a description of gravity. Because it often requires infinite numbers of calculations, predictions made using quantum mechanics must often be approximate, but can be made arbitrarily precise.

 

Another interesting sidenote about light that I'd never thought of until I recently came across it is that there's no such thing as the colour purple.

That's why there's no purple in rainbows. Red and blue are at opposite ends of the visible spectrum so when we see both together our minds invent a completely made up colour, although I suppose you could say that's true of all the colours we see.

Off topic, but color perception is a very nifty scientific domain, especially since we experience it nearly every waking moment.

 

Like the perception of the color white (RGB value 1,1,1), the perception of the color purple (1,0,1) can’t be produces with photons of a single wavelength.

 

The perception of some colors though, the “spectrals”, like red (RGB 1,0,0), green (0,1,0) and blue (0,0,1), and can be, so you can’t say this of all colors we see.

 

Though color perception varies slightly from person to person, and greatly for people with abnormal retinas and/or other vision system parts, on average, any perceived color can be described with an RGB value, and any RGP value produces with photons of 1, 2, or 3 wavelengths. Many different collection of photons of different wavelengths are perceived as the same color.

 

The reason for this is that we perceive color through the firing or 3 kinds of retinal cone cells. Any ensemble of photons that cause the same rate of firing of these cells is perceived as the same color.

 

 

In a connected universe of sufficiently small size and great age, you need only look in any direction with a sufficiently powerful telescope, and you’ll see yourself.

Trying to see objects anywhere on the opposite side of the sphere is impossible because the view of the observer can't go round corners.

This is true for the 2-dimensional surface of a 3-d sphere, torus, or similar objects, but not for the 3-d volumes Weeks, Starkman, Luminet, etc. are describing. In them, light follows straight paths in the 3-d volume.

 

Comparing a 4-d sphere to a 3-d one is only an analogy to help the reader understand the subject by referring to an object he’s intuitively familiar with. Were the universe really 2-d, like the surface of a sphere, light would be constrained to follow paths in/on it

 

If you haven’t yet, I strongly recommend you read at least the Scientific American article I mentioned (subscription/paylink, though free reprints of many Scientific American articles can often be found online with a bit of searching)

 

You can't look through the sphere, in this conceptualisation the inside of the sphere represents the past and outside of it represents the future but it doesn't mean the universe is expanding. It would look like that from any point in time in the same way it looks the same from any point in space.

Do you have a link or reference to this conceptualization, A-wal? I don’t recognize it, and it doesn’t make much sense to me. In any case, I don’t think this is what cosmologists and physicists imagine in theories featuring multiply connected finite space.

 

So I'll ask again. Why is redshift not taken as evidence of curvature when it explains far more with far less?

Do you have a link or reference to an scientific paper or article explaining redshift (I assume you mean Hubble’s law) as an effect of curved space :QuestionM:

 

The most obvious evidence that space – that is, as defined by the path light follows – can be curved is gravitational lensing. However, gravitational lensing doesn’t theoretically or observationally result in red or blueshift. Gravitational redshift is a function of the difference in gravitational potential of the emitter and receiver of the light, a precisely theoretically understood and experimentally verified phenomena.

 

In the case of light being gravitationally lensed, the light near the very massive body doing the lensing is blueshifted to a higher frequency/shorter wavelength as it nears the body, then redshifted to a lower frequency/longer wavelength as it travels away from it. When both source and receiver are far from the body, as is the case with gravitational lensing observed from Earth, this shift is negligibly small, even if the curving of the light was great.

[CraigD]

If we were to sprinkle a mixture of individual coloured particles, it would be physically impossible to separate the different colour into individual lines by the sprinkle, so how can a prism separate sprinkles into individual colours.

A glass prism doesn’t separate pigmented sprinkles by color because the color of the sprinkles is not due to their wavelength, but due to pigment in or on them. They’re also too large to pass though glass.

 

Photons are much smaller, and their color is due to their wavelength, so a glass prism separates them by color.

 

It is possible to separate particles other than photons using prisms, though usually diffraction gratings are used instead of prisms. For example, prisms and diffraction grating can separate a stream of electrons just as it does a stream of photons.

 

You question, xyz, points to a key concept of modern physics, wave-particle duality. According to this principle, everything is both particle like – that is, if an experiment is designed to detect it as a discrete particle, it will be detected as one – and wave like – that is an experiment to detect itfollowing optical laws like diffraction will do so.

 

A key formula is for the de Broglie wavelength:

[math]\lambda = \frac{h}{p}[/math], where [math]\lambda [/math] is wavelength, [math]h[/math] is the Planck constant, and [math]p[/math] is the particle’s momentum.

 

This formula describes everything – elementary particle like photons and electrons, very small composite particles like hydrogen or gold atom nuclei, or even very big bodies like cannon balls or planets. Since big bodies have much greater momenta, their de Broglie wavelength are very small, much smaller than their diameters, it’s difficult to experimentally detect. The largest particles for which wave-like behavior has yet been experimentally detected are molecules about 12,596,159 times as massive as an electron.

 

The double slit experiment and effect is observer effect.

Please back up this claim with a link or reference, xyz. :Exclamati

 

I expect when you try to do this, you’ll discover it’s incorrect, and that the double-slit experiment produces the same result whether it is “observed” or not.

 

Are you confusing this experiment with the uncertainty principle?

 

The uncertainty principle is often confused with the observer effect, largely because of its incorrect references to it in non-scientific writing.

 

:naughty: Everybody in this thread needs to be sure to follow our # 1 site rule and back up your claims with links and references. This basic research discipline is critical way to avoid being obviously wrong, and the internet makes it easier to do than ever.

[A-wal]

Wave particle duality is an intrinsic feature of quantum mechanics, so I’d say it provides a complete theoretical description of what light and matter are.

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical description of two models of light. You make it sound as though the observed wave/particle duality nature of light follows naturally from one model of it's behaviour. This isn't the case. Every model is a description but not every description is a model. Quantum mechanics is a description of multiple models. The truth is nobody understands how light can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like characteristics.

 

Quantum particle physics is an exact, not an approximate, theory, except that it doesn’t include a description of gravity. Because it often requires infinite numbers of calculations, predictions made using quantum mechanics must often be approximate, but can be made arbitrarily precise.

Quantum mechanics isn't an exact theory at all! How can you say that? It deals almost exclusively in approximations. It tells you the odds of something happening. It tells you those odds extremely accurately but that doesn't mean the theory isn't an approximation. It's a theory made up of approximations of nature.

 

Off topic, but color perception is a very nifty scientific domain, especially since we experience it nearly every waking moment.

 

Like the perception of the color white (RGB value 1,1,1), the perception of the color purple (1,0,1) can’t be produces with photons of a single wavelength.

 

The perception of some colors though, the “spectrals”, like red (RGB 1,0,0), green (0,1,0) and blue (0,0,1), and can be, so you can’t say this of all colors we see.

 

Though color perception varies slightly from person to person, and greatly for people with abnormal retinas and/or other vision system parts, on average, any perceived color can be described with an RGB value, and any RGP value produces with photons of 1, 2, or 3 wavelengths. Many different collection of photons of different wavelengths are perceived as the same color.

 

The reason for this is that we perceive color through the firing or 3 kinds of retinal cone cells. Any ensemble of photons that cause the same rate of firing of these cells is perceived as the same color.

Yea I suppose white's the same but everybody knows that white is R, G and B together. I'd never thought of purple in the same way but it's obvious now that there's no purple in rainbows for the same reason there's no white, because it doesn't really exist.

 

This is true for the 2-dimensional surface of a 3-d sphere, torus, or similar objects, but not for the 3-d volumes Weeks, Starkman, Luminet, etc. are describing. In them, light follows straight paths in the 3-d volume.

Straight paths across a curved object? How? From the perspective of an observer moving around it yea, it's a straight path, but from the perspective of something observing it from a distance it's a curved path in exactly the same way a person walking around the Earth seems to be following a straight path from their own perspective but are actually following a curved path. This applies to any curvature small enough that the observer doesn't notice it. It applies in two, three, four or however many dimensions you like because it's a curved line in two dimension being perceived as a straight one dimensional path by the observer. I would have thought this was obvious.

 

Comparing a 4-d sphere to a 3-d one is only an analogy to help the reader understand the subject by referring to an object he’s intuitively familiar with. Were the universe really 2-d, like the surface of a sphere, light would be constrained to follow paths in/on it

Light is constrained to follow paths on it regardless of the number of dimensions. If the surface is curved light will follow a curved path.

 

If you haven’t yet, I strongly recommend you read at least the Scientific American article I mentioned (subscription/paylink, though free reprints of many Scientific American articles can often be found online with a bit of searching)

It's not free, I'd have to pay for it. I doubt whether there's anything new in it anyway.

 

Do you have a link or reference to this conceptualization, A-wal? I don’t recognize it, and it doesn’t make much sense to me. In any case, I don’t think this is what cosmologists and physicists imagine in theories featuring multiply connected finite space.

That IS the model physicists use when they imagine theories dealing with closed finite space, whether they're aware of it or not. Every time they use the analogy of a sphere they're using a two dimensional surface to represent the three dimensions of space, but it's a three dimensional object so there's a spare spatial dimension. In the big bang model this is exactly analogous to time with inwards representing the past and outwards representing the future. This is obvious too. As you go inwards the universe gets smaller and as you go outwards it gets bigger.

 

The problem with this is that there's a dimension missing so you can't show that because the four dimensions are physically equivalent, at any point in time the sphere is actually the same size, in the same way the the sphere looks the same from any position on the surface of the sphere, ie in space. Look across any of the four dimensions from any point and it will appear to curve in on itself, but not from the perspective of an observer that follows a straight line from their own perspective.

 

Do you have a link or reference to an scientific paper or article explaining redshift (I assume you mean Hubble’s law) as an effect of curved space :QuestionM:

No, they haven't been written yet. That's the point.

 

The most obvious evidence that space – that is, as defined by the path light follows – can be curved is gravitational lensing. However, gravitational lensing doesn’t theoretically or observationally result in red or blueshift. Gravitational redshift is a function of the difference in gravitational potential of the emitter and receiver of the light, a precisely theoretically understood and experimentally verified phenomena.

 

In the case of light being gravitationally lensed, the light near the very massive body doing the lensing is blueshifted to a higher frequency/shorter wavelength as it nears the body, then redshifted to a lower frequency/longer wavelength as it travels away from it. When both source and receiver are far from the body, as is the case with gravitational lensing observed from Earth, this shift is negligibly small, even if the curving of the light was great.

At the event horizon of a black hole is light not infinitely redshifted? In the three dimensional spherical analogy the edge of the half of the sphere from the perspective of an observer can be thought of as an event horizon with the singularity consisting of the mass of everything on the other side of the sphere.

 

I expect when you try to do this, you’ll discover it’s incorrect, and that the double-slit experiment produces the same result whether it is “observed” or not.

Huh? Light particle pass through the slits create an interference pattern as you would expect from a wave unless the experiment is set up to observe which slit their going through, in which case they create two lines as you would expect from particles.

 

:naughty: Everybody in this thread needs to be sure to follow our # 1 site rule and back up your claims with links and references. This basic research discipline is critical way to avoid being obviously wrong, and the internet makes it easier to do than ever.

:naughty: Any form of independent thought is prohibited! All views and opinions must be proven to have originated from someone else and been approved by the peer review process prior to their inclusion in any discussion on this board.

Edited November 18, 2015 by A-wal

[xyz]

 

Please back up this claim with a link or reference, xyz. :Exclamati

 

How can you back something up with a reference or link when it as not yet being made a link or is written?  

 

 

New is new after all.    The simplicity is this, shine a light through the slits, an effect is created, remove the slits , there is no effects.   The slits effect the light flow.  Observer effect does not mean just vision, 

''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.''

 

The act of obstructing the light is the act that creates the reaction, I would pretty much say the act is the observer.The observer making the question.

[A-wal]

I'll put this another way.

If an object on a three dimensional sphere (like Earth) looks at the light from an object that's on eighth the way round from the observers perspective that object will be at a 45 degree angle relative to the observer. In this case the object won't be redshifted because the light followed a straight path.

If we now do the same thing in curved and closed universe the light won't be following a straight path, it will be following the curvature of space. In this case it isn't just the object being observed that will appear at a 45 degree angle, the light waves themselves will have been tilted. It's not as if the would orientate themselves as the move across the curved surface so that they would appear untilted as they travel round the sphere. Instead they would travel around the curved surface keeping their original orientation, meaning that an observer one eighth of the way round the sphere from the observed object would see the light waves as well as the object itself tilted by 45 degrees. This would make the light waves stretched from the observers perspective, making the light redshifted.

 

 

How can you back something up with a reference or link when it as not yet being made a link or is written?  

 

 

New is new after all.    The simplicity is this, shine a light through the slits, an effect is created, remove the slits , there is no effects.   The slits effect the light flow.  Observer effect does not mean just vision, 

''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.''

 

The act of obstructing the light is the act that creates the reaction, I would pretty much say the act is the observer.The observer making the question.

The observer dependency referred to in the two slit experiment is the fact the light creates an interference pattern if the equipment isn't set up in a way that can detect which slit the individual particles went through. In this case the wave model of light is the one that correctly describes it, but if the equipment is set up to detect which slit each particle travels through then the interference pattern is replaced by two lines, because they can have to go through one slit or the other. This really amazing thing is that it works exactly the same way if the particles are released one at a time, you still get an interference pattern if you don't know which slit they went through. That's bizarre!

[xyz]

What doesn't happen to the orientation of light as it moves across a curved three dimensional surface: RS1.PNG

 

What does happen: RS2.PNG

 

Why time dilation stretches the wavelength of light as it moves across a curved three dimensional surface in the same way the relative velocity changes the orientation of objects: RS3.PNG

Firstly, the object that the slits are made and angled on/in, are the ''observer'', putting something in the way causes the question. 

 

 

Secondly, your post I have quoted I mostly agree with.   An exception thought , that time dilation is the ''gravity time curvature'' created by the perpendicular motion to the linearity of gravity, bending the linearity .

 

 

Relative to Sarah and Bob, they both observe the experiment through the constant clear of light, they do not observe directed beams of angled light.

Relative to Sarah's constant ground state rate of time, Bob is moving at a variable rate of time and curving the gravity linearity of time rate. 

Relative to Sarah and Bob, their time is independent of each other, dependent to themselves, and relative to them both, they are both independent 4 dimensions in a 5th dimension of n-dimensional space.

Edited November 20, 2015 by xyz

[A-wal]

Firstly, the object that the slits are made and angled on/in, are the ''observer'', putting something in the way causes the question. 

No. The object that the slits are made and angled on/in is curved space. It shows the orientation of observed light at various distances across the surface of a hypersphere.

 

Secondly, your post I have quoted I mostly agree with.   An exception thought , that time dilation is the ''gravity time curvature'' created by the perpendicular motion to the linearity of gravity, bending the linearity .

You're confusing gravitational time dilation with special relativity again. Time dilation and length contraction (length contraction is badly named, it should be space contraction because length can apply just as easily to time) can occur in the complete absence of gravity! Any two objects, even if they're out in deep space free from any gravitational fields will see the other object as length contracted and time dilated if they're moving at different relative velocities. Special relativity has nothing to do with gravity.

 

air.jpg

That example has nothing to do with it because light follows a straight path locally. The curved path of light only becomes a factor at very large distances.

 

Relative to Sarah and Bob, they both observe the experiment through the constant clear of light, they do not observe directed beams of angled light.

Relative to Sarah's constant ground state rate of time, Bob is moving at a variable rate of time and curving the gravity linearity of time rate. 

Relative to Sarah and Bob, their time is independent of each other, dependent to themselves, and relative to them both, they are both independent 4 dimensions in a 5th dimension of n-dimensional space.

The fourth dimension is time. There's no fifth dimension involved with relativistic effects.

 

I made a mistake on the third sketch. I said that the time between the release of photons would increase but that doesn't cause redshift, it just causes dimming. I should have said the time between the peaks and troughs of the waves increase. I shouldn't have bothered trying to incorporate the particle model of light when I'm not comfortable using that model. I've corrected it now. I'm hoping CraigD or Santus will critique it.

[CraigD]

Ah, sketches! Sketches are good, thank you A-wal. :thumbs_up

What doesn't happen to the orientation of light as it moves across a curved three dimensional surface: RS1.PNG

 

What does happen: RS2.PNG

I understand now your idea about curved light paths causing redshift. I think the idea is wrong, though, due to a critical, fundimental misunderstanding of what electromagnetic waves are.

 

Electromagnetic waves can be thought of as a graph of the force that would be exerted on a stationary charged particle (the electric field) and force (a vector, that is a quantity with a direction) that would be exerted on a moving charged particle (the electric field). The direction of these potential force vectors is always perpendicular to the direction the wave travels. If they were not, Maxwell’s equations and quantum electrodynamics, which a huge amount amount of experimental and practical testing have shown to be correct, would be incorrect. We simply never see a charged particle behave in contradiction to Maxwell’s laws or QED theory.

 

So the “this doesn’t happen” sketch is correct, while the “what does happen” on is not.

 

If you want to avoid classical or quantum theory, you can show this empirically by observing that light that follows a curved path due to gravitational lensing doesn’t exhibit redshift.

[xyz]

 

 

The fourth dimension is time. There's no fifth dimension involved with relativistic effects.

 

 

arghh ok, I clearly see my thinking is not the same as yours.   Good luck.

[A-wal]

I'm using the scientifically accepted special theory of relativity, but I can't criticise you for having a different view considering I don't agree with the general theory of relativity. If you do have a different view to what's described by special relativity though I strongly suggest you look into more. It does make perfect sense and it's surprisingly simple. I wrote a special relativity made simple summary that's non-technical. I think I already linked to it, it's in this section anyway. The only thing a bit dodgy about the special theory of relativity is that it doesn't go into detail about acceleration. If it did I think physicists would realise that there's no need for general relativity.

I've totally hijacked your topic, sorry about that. I'm going to start a new one to go into a bit more depth about what I've been talking about.