Re: Physics for ex-farmers

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>I am more after a long letter to carr.
>>
>>I am not sure how to do that. I suspect that to get anywhere I have to
>>present the paper in a form a physicist will be interested enough to
>>read, and the most it should have is a short covering note.
>
>No. First I want a longish letter setting out pretty well just the
>results. Then, hopefully, he might want the paper(s).

>
>>I am
>>currently holding back on trying to find a collaborator until I think I
>>have this right. Carr, if appropriate, should be approached by you,
>>rather than me.
>
>Yes.
>
Can you base something on the abstract?

>> if it does not make sense to talk of position between
>>measurements then it is also senseless
>
>without sense

yes
>
>>to talk of geodesic motion of a
>>photon emitted from a distant star and detected on Earth.
>
>A teleparallel displacement is be defined which is consistent within a
>subset of possible cosmologies which include the FRW cosmology and is
>thus not inconsistent with our universe.
>
>A theoretical paper setting out the mathematics for the proposal is
>available in XarchiveXXXX
>
Actually enough maths is in this paper for the results. The long paper
is intended as a rigorous development from first principles and imv
demonstrates the theoretical *necessity* of doing things this way.
Unfortunately only very physicists are interested in that; it is a pure
mathematicians or a philosophers perspective on logical argument.
Actually, these days probably only a philosopher's, and then only a good
one. I shall try submitting to a couple of physics journals who do
foundations, and then try philosophy journals. I probably need to get
the results published in this paper first, so that I can reduce them to
a couple of paragraphs in the long one.

>
>>Since the connection is meaningful only at the times of
>>measurement it will be called a teleconnection. Standard general
>>relativity and quantum mechanics are assumed, excepting that wave
>>functions are defined using
>
>particular? unique? 'god-given'?????

I have italicise *quantum coordinates* in the text to indicate that they
are particular coordinates defined in section 2.3. Can't say god given,
as I think they are actually constructed by man as the only
mathematically consistent way of extending our interpretation of the
world around us - but this is a thorny issue with which I hope to occupy
the minds of philosophers for centuries.
>
>>quantum coordinates (section 2.3), not in
>>curved spacetime.
>
>>the
>>prescription reduces to the standard affine connection in the classical
>>correspondence, and that geodesic motion obtains for classical particles
>>and for a beam of light (section 2.4).
>
><Insert the results you intend to use here.>

The result is geodesic motion, section 2.4.

><Probably just the expansion/doppler expression is all that is required>
><Can we just say 'includes a term for expansion in time'?>

I think needs more explanation, or makes no sense. The idea of rescaling
measuring apparatus so that the expansion term only appears in the
quantum domain is very thorny.
>
>>a closed universe with zero cosmological constant
>>>>and no cold dark matter
>
>is discussed here as this gives a good fit to current astronomical data.
>
><Hmmm, that won't do on its own.

see para 2, new version.

>You need to make it clear that your
>proposal alters the interpretation of a number of key astronomical
>observations. As a result you cannot pick and choose between a
>teleparallel interpretation and a conventional semi-classical
>interpretation. You either take one, and use its interpretation, or the
>other.>
>
>A table might be good here.

Possibly. Certainly it would be wanted in a sci-am version. I'll have to
think about it, because it is not as simple as I at first made things
appear. On has to change model (i.e. change cosmological constant) when
going between standard and teleparallel models, which means things don't
relate together in a simple a way.
>
> Standard, Teleconnection
Cosmological constant 0.7 0
Density 0.3 ~1
>Age of universe 14BY 16BY
>Current Expansion rate H_0 H_f = H_0/2 half the rate
>Distance to galaxies (I'll have to look at the actual formula and
proper definitions as they are quite complicated, but off the top of my
head it is something like:
parallax distance same same
redshift distance ~1+z ~sqrt(1+z) (must be a 2 here)
Age of galaxies ~1+z ~sqrt(1+z) (must be a 2 here)

>Pioneer a_anomalous unexplained Expansion in time or Hc
>MOND a_0 arbitrary Expansion in time
> unobserved consistently
> dark matter related to Hc
Topology Open possibly closed

These last are contained in cosmological constant:

>Required dark matter ??lots?? modest
>Required dark energy vast amounts close to zero
>Accelerating universe yes not required
>
>
>
>>Other models are possible but
>>>>up to the accuracy of the tests applied here this simple model is
>>>>consistent with data, gives accounts of observed phenomena which the
>>>>standard model has been unable to explain and makes clear predictions
>>>>with regard to future tests.
>
>The correlation with astronomical data has been done manually and it is
>accepted that detailed computer analysis of original data will
>eventually be required.
>
>In the case of galactic rotation curves the results are consistent with
>an empirical law (MOND) that closely matches detailed statistical
>astronomical data. The 'MOND acceleration' is however shown to be
>fictitious and due to a second order effect of the cosmological
>expansion on the doppler shift due to expansion in time.
>
>[You may care to make that more precise, but the shift IS interpreted as
>a doppler shift.]

The word "Doppler" is used far too casually imv
>
>>In the instances of supernova redshift
>
>
>
>> and
>>>>galactic rotation curves testing has been done, not through direct
>>>>statistical analysis, but by deriving a general law and comparing it
>>>>with an empirical law already established through detailed statistical
>>>>analysis.
>>><add: ie MOND>
>
>
>
>>
>>okay
>>
>>In the instances of supernova redshift and galactic rotation curves
>>testing has been done, not through direct statistical analysis, but by
>>deriving general laws (the magnitude-redshift relation and MOND) and
>>comparing it with an empirical law already established through detailed
>>statistical analysis
>>>>
>>>
>>><more snip>
>>>
>>>>1.3 Comparison with the Standard Model
>>>>The cosmological microwave background defines the reference frame in
>>>>which photons are emitted. This scales coordinates at the time of the
>>>>production of CMB photons and the usual linear red shift law applies.
>>>>The square law applies when all the information about the initial state
>>>>is contained in the detected light, as in the observation of
>>>>astronomical bodies.
>>>
>>>The above is not actually related to the immediately below and so the
>>>above can be deleted.
>>
>>It must be stated, otherwise it appears that the CMB is also subject to
>>the square law, and the analysis becomes totally screwed. It is
>>absolutely critical that in determination of Hubble from redshift the
>>initial state cannot, even in principle, be described in any reference
>>frame other than that determined in the final measurement. This has to
>>be made clear.
>
>This needs to be in the table, above.

Add
Initial absolute density unchanged, calculated from He abundance
Initial rate of expansion calculated from initial density

standard teleparallel
Omega_B (baryon density) 0.02-0.04 (0.025-0.05?) 0.10-0.20
>
>>>>It follows immediately that the rate of expansion
>>>>of the universe is half that predicted by the standard model, the
>>>>universe is twice as old as would be indicated by a linear law, and
>>>>critical density for closure is a quarter of the standard value.
>>>>
>>>>An immediate consequence is that there is no timescale problem for a
>>>>closed universe with greater than critical density and zero cosmological
>>>>constant. If observations at high red shift had revealed the expected
>>>>activity of the early universe it would have falsified the square red
>>>>shift law; in fact it receives support from the observation of mature
>>>>galaxies at z=1.4 and greater (e.g. Mullis et al., 2005; Doherty et al
>>>>2005, and references cited therein).
>>>
>>>I would suggest a longer and more detailed argument for the advantages
>>>of using an older universe over the bodges used to reconcile the above
>>>(extended list) of papers.
>>>
>>>>As described by Glazebrook (2004),
>>>>there is poor agreement between current theoretical models of galaxy
>>>>evolution and empirical data. It has been suggested (Cimatti et. al,
>>>>2004) that the theoretical models may be inaccurate, but there is no
>>>>good theoretical reason to doubt the accuracy of computer simulations
>>>>using classical general relativity. A detailed study is required to
>>>>assess consistency between observation and theory, but in this model
>>>>value of Hubble’s constant h=0.72 places an upper bound on the age of
>>>>the universe of eighteen billion years, so that at redshift 6 the
>>>>universe may already have been up to 4.5 billion years old. Hopefully
>>>>future observation and analysis will be conclusive.
>>>
>>>The above is unspecific as to who is arguing what and why.
>>
>>Glazebrook states poor agreement (non-controversial).
>>Cimatti suggests computer simulations of theoretical models are dodgy.
>>(this seems to be the orthodox position)
>>I point out that we are actually very good at producing computer
>>simulations and that classical general relativity is very well
>>understood, so I question Cimatti's position.
>>
>>Hmmm.
>>
>>As described by Glazebrook (2004), there is poor agreement between
>>current theoretical models of galaxy evolution and empirical data. To
>>explain this it has been suggested (e.g. Cimatti et. al, 2004) that the
>>theoretical models may be inaccurate. This model presents alternative,
>>that a square redshift law means that we have to revise the ages of red
>>galaxies; a value of Hubble’s constant h=0.72 places an upper bound on
>>the age of the universe of eighteen billion years, so that at redshift 6
>>the universe may already have been up to 4.5 billion years old. A
>>detailed study is required to assess consistency between observation and
>>theory, but this certainly appears to alleviate the difficulities.
>>Hopefully future observation and analysis will be conclusive.
>>
>
>I'm lost....
>
>Can you post a revised actual and lose these damned quotes?

Must have been psychic
>
>>>
>>>>For some years the Pioneer spacecraft have been sending back Doppler
>>>>information interpreted as an anomalous acceleration toward the sun
>>>>(Anderson et al., 2002). No accepted explanation has been given for the
>>>>anomalous blue-shift, but if it were not observed it would be fatal to
>>>>this model.
>>>
>>>> the model predicts blue-shift
>>>>simulating constant acceleration toward the origin of coordinates, that
>>>>is toward the observer on Earth. The anomalous Pioneer blue shift is
>>>>seen as an optical effect due to <hubble> expansion (section 3.2).
>>>
>>>
>>>>A future test
>>>>is planned which will determine whether the acceleration is toward the
>>>>Sun, toward the Earth, in the direction of motion of the craft, or along
>>>>the spin axis (Nieto et. al. 2004). If the direction is not toward the
>>>>Earth the test will falsify this model.
>>>
>>>>The Pioneer blue shift is also present in the observation of distant
>>>>galaxies, and precisely accounts for flattening of galaxies’ rotation
>>>>curves consistent with MOND, the phenomenological law found by Milgrom
>>>>(1994). A review of MOND is given by Sanders & McGough (2002). Again the
>>>>anomaly appears as an optical effect arising from the treatment of
>>>>redshift, not a real change to Newtonian dynamics (section 3.3). If
>>>>galaxies’ rotation curves did not obey MOND it would falsify this as a
>>>>no CDM model. The MOND test is particularly important as data fits have
>>>>been given for over 100 galaxies and thousands of stars, because cold
>>>>dark matter does not give any explanation as to why the precisely same
>>>>acceleration law should be found in galaxies of many sizes and types,
>>>>because there is no other empirical evidence for CDM haloes and because
>>>>there is no satisfactory theory of CDM in particle physics.
>>>
>>><The above is good, but needs some more work of a jim nature>
>>
>>Trust you to suggest that when Jim is off line.
>>>
>>>>The accelerations of galaxies in clusters are in the MONDian regime and,
>>>>after revising the redshift-age relation, there is no immediate evidence
>>>>that CDM is necessary for galaxy evolution, but the model does not
>>>>dispense with dark matter. The analyses of big bang nucleosynthesis and
>>>>of decoupling are unaltered, but the density of baryonic matter becomes
>>>>0.064<=Omega_B h^2<=0.096 after normalising Omega_cr to 1 (3.1.4). Thus
>>>>baryonic matter forms 10-20% of critical mass, and at an extreme, the
>>>>ratio of non-baryonic to baryonic matter need only be 4:1 for closure,
>>>>well within the range of values which might be accounted for by a
>>>>massive neutrino.
>>>
>>>We need to discuss this on another thread.
>>
>>Do you want to get the ball rolling?
>>>
>>>>In standard cosmology a best fit with supernova data is found for the
>>>>concordance model, Omega=Omega_M=0.3, Omega_Lambda=0.7 (Reiss et al.,
>>>>2004; Filippenko, 2004, and references cited therein). To first order in
>>>>z, for a closed cosmos with zero cosmological constant the magnitude-
>>>>redshift relation found in section 3.1 is identical to that of the
>>>>standard model with Omega_M=0.41 and Omega_Lambda=0.59. The second order
>>>>correction at z=1 is close to 0.1, giving a good fit, but it remains to
>>>>determine best fit values of Omega and Omega_Lambda using an iterative
>>>>solution.
>>>
>>><Clear conclusion needed>
>>
>>My conclusion is that I need a collaborator who understands the code
>>used to get the redshift magnitude relation, so that we can adapt it and
>>compare the result to the published data. Almost certainly the result
>>won't be conclusive, but a detailed statistical analysis is required to
>>say which is a better fit. (not really my field, too many numbers
>>changing their values when you are not looking). I see this as a
>>separate paper.
>>>
>>>>The concordance model is supported by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
>>>>(Afshordi, Loh & Strauss; 2004; Boughn & Crittendon, 2004; Fosalba et
>>>>al., 2003; Nolta et al., 2004; Scranton et al., 2004) using evidence
>>>>from the Two-Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dFGRS; Pea*** et al.
>>>>2001; Percival et al., 2001; Efstathiou, 2002), and from the Wilkinson
>>>>Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP; Spergal, 2003, and references cited
>>>>therein). In practice these measurements determine cosmological
>>>>parameters rather than test consistency, and they depend on the distance
>>>>scale found from redshift. A distortion in the distance scale will alter
>>>>acceleration in a definite way, so that, if the standard model is
>>>>consistent, the optical distortions due to the square redshift law can
>>>>be expected to give consistent values of Omega and Omega_Lambda in
>>>>different tests at least to first order. However Spergal comments on
>>>>discrepancies in the WMAP data on both the largest and smallest scales,
>>>>and Copi et al (2005) report on unexplained alignments in the data. It
>>>>is not presently possible to say whether these could be caused by higher
>>>>order corrections in the analysis of data; for example it may be
>>>>necessary to take account of pioneer blue shift before removing
>>>>foreground contamination.
>>>
>>><un-nice and needs a rewrite>
>>
>>I was hoping everyone would pass over that bit.
>>
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>
>



Regards

--
Charles Francis
Please reply by name
.

Loading