Re: Physics for ex-farmers

Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>>
>>>You said it yourself, the blue shift is fictitious and in effect due to
>>>cosmic expansion.
>>
>>The blue shift is measured, hence real.
>
>Yeah, yeah, OK.
>
>>Classically it would correspond
>>to acceleration, but I say the acceleration is fictitious.
>
>Yes.
>
>>It is related
>>to expansion, but appears only in quantum coordinates.
>
>Yes. The implication seems to be that in some sense quantum co-ordinates
>do not see expansion.

Opposite implication. quantum coordinates see expansion amplified:
redshift is doubled (for small redshifts)

>Well, obviously quantum particles do because we
>still have redshift. It would help is you could at this stage write a
>short piece separating redshift and acceleration, a little clear math
>would probably help.

Its just the formula 1+z = a_0^2/a^2(t)
>
>>>Hang on though.
>>>In the galactic rotation curve you associated the apparent inwards
>>>acceleration with a VELOCITY.
>>
>>The inward acceleration of a body in orbit is given by v^2/r.
>
>Yes. So what you are saying is that there is an apparent inward velocity
>proportional to sqrt(r)?

No. The acceleration is inward, the velocity is orbital.

>Or, rather, there is a blueshift (one side)
>redshift (other side) of sqrt(r)?

Yes.
>No, I don't think so.

wrong again.

>I think you are saying something more complex.

I think it is complex. Far too complex for direct analysis, certainly by
me. My argument is that since an illusory acceleration which is measured
we must be measuring an eigenstate of the acceleration observable; i.e.
an illusory rotation for a body in orbit. This means these redshifts
have to show up, equivalent to an illusory orbital velocity.
>
> you are saying that there is a (very large) system (a galaxy).
>It has (in effect) quantumspace time expanding past it radially if you
>take the galaxy centre as your origin.
>But the stars are not moving with this flow which is in some sense
>fictitious.
>A photon is emitted.
>Arriving on earth the photon now interacts.
>It extends a flat quantum co-ordinate system from the star to earth and
>attempts to conserve stuff.
>It scales its energy as per cosmic expansion (redshift)
>But it has a problem with direction.
>There are two. One is where the bound star was, the other the bit of
>(now expanded) quantum co-ordinate it was emitted from. These do not
>match in the x-y direction due to expansion.
>
>Now here things go all hazy....

That's what I mean about too complex for direct analysis.
>
>1) We have an origin centered at galaxy centre.
>2) We want to add in a chunk of energy proportional to sqrt(r) to 'push
>the photon into the right place'.
>3) I get the feeling that for this to work out consistently with
>conservation-type laws this is what is needed.
>
>So the emitted photon, were it emitted on a dust particle (which would
>track these co-ordinates, being unbound) does what?

Like pioneer, the dust particle does not track any particular coords,
but maintains its own, in isolation from other matter, and related to
other matter only by the redshifts of light emitted or absorbed by the
dust particle.
>
>>>>From what I remember this was related to
>>>cosmic expansion.
>>
>>Yes, but in a different way. This is due to acceleration in time, which
>>appears in quantum coordinates. Uniform motion in quantum coordinates is
>>non uniform in real coordinates.
>
>OK, how about some simple 2-D math examples for clarity?

The only way forward is to look at tensors. How much index gymnastics
can you recall? (tensor transformation laws)

>>>I think you are groping your way towards being consistent.
>>>
>>That is the purpose of the exercise. I strongly suspect there is
>>essentially only one possible consistent structure for the universe,
>>perhaps governed by a few parameters. I don't believe the universe can
>>be inconsistent with itself, but its obviously bloody difficult for a
>>human being to be consistent.
>
>Yes.
>
>NB You can't have free gluons so you can't freeze out primordial gluons.
>They wouldn't ever be decoupled from ordinary matter (would very rapidly
>decompose to ordinary matter in fact). This is not the same as neutrinos
>(stable, almost non-interacting) or photons (stable, zero external
>force-field, only interact on contact but space is mostly empty).
>
>A free gluon would soon haul in another gluon/quark since the force law
>is constant.

Is this still true as the universe was cooling rapidly at that point.
Would the gluon not just get so cold that it fails to interact with
anything?

> There would be a resultant blast of particles on
>annihilation.
>
What about glueballs? What if they get too cold to result in such a
blast?

PS. I don't believe in gluons, but I think I ought to know how the model
works. They are, imv, an instance of trying to develop a new theory by
analogy with an old one. Something which Jay Yablon criticised the other
day in the "Basic unification question" thread:

"Unifications have taken many forms over history, and I will second what
Phillip says by saying that a good way to end up on the wrong track
pursuing future unifications is to assume that they will look like the
past ones."



Regards

--
Charles Francis
Please reply by name
.

Relevant Pages

  • full paper: A Novel Hypothesis for Hubble Redshift
    ... Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the ... traveled cosmological distances. ... acceptance of the expansion interpretation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Physics for ex-farmers
    ... measuring apparatus so that the expansion term only appears in the ... >is discussed here as this gives a good fit to current astronomical data. ... >>In the instances of supernova redshift and galactic rotation curves ... >>testing has been done, not through direct statistical analysis, but by ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: full paper: A Novel Hypothesis for Hubble Redshift
    ... widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, ... To explain Exhibit A, ... observed redshift at cosmological scales. ... Consequently, the distances ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time
    ... A galaxy 50 million light years away emits some light. ... Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on ... We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Hubble Redshift is the expansion of time
    ... A galaxy 50 million light years away emits some light. ... Wouldn't it also be possible to determine the expansion rate based on ... We have to accept that Hubble redshift is clear empirical evidence ...
    (sci.physics)