Re: FarmingFisicistsFumble

Charles Francis <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>Thus spake Oz <Oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>This is really nice, charles. I wonder if anyone will sit up and take
>>note?
>
>Here is the first section. The first two paras are new, and there has
>been a bit of change in the rest. Could do with criticism.
>>
>Does a Teleconnection between Quantum States account for Missing Mass,
>Galaxy Ageing, Supernova Redshift, MOND, and Pioneer Blue-shift?
>
>
>
>Abstract:
>There have been previous suggestions, notably by Einstein, that the
>affine connection in general relativity might be replaced with a
>teleparallel one. This paper carries out a preliminary investigation of
>the empirical implications of a teleparallel displacement of momentum
>between initial and final quantum states, using conformally flat quantum
>coordinates. An exact formulation is possible in an FRW cosmology in
>which cosmological redshift is given by 1+z = (a_o/a(t))^2.


> This is
>consistent with observation for

Not remotely strong or clear enough.

Given how often you have to tell people that this IS FULLY CONSISTENT
WITH CURRENT OBSERVATIONS BUT RESULTS IN A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION.

>a universe expanding at half the rate
>and twice as old as indicated by a linear law, and

in consequence

>requiring a quarter
>of the critical density for closure. Supernova redshifts

match observations when the universe is

>indicate a
>universe a little over critical density and are consistent with zero
>cosmological constant. Quantum coordinates exhibit an acceleration in
>time,

thought you said this wasn't precise!

>resulting in the

an explanation for the

> anomalous Pioneer blue-shift and in

explains

>the
>flattening of galaxies’ rotation curves. These appear as optical effects
>and do not affect classical motions. Milgrom’s phenomenological law
>(MOND) is precisely obeyed.
>
>
>1 Introduction
>1.1 Background
>There is growing concern in Cosmology about unexplained empirical
>phenomena. The standard model of accelerating expansion is successful in
>matching parameters to observation, but, while there is no true
>reconciliation between general relativity and quantum mechanics, science
>should remain open to the prospect that these phenomena may have some
>deep underlying reason in new physics.

This sentence is irrelevant.

>Any new model of physics should
>adhere to fundamental principles such as the cosmological principle and
>the principle of relativity, but the true test is whether predictions
>match observation, and whether a model is capable of making new
>predictions or providing explanations where previously there were none.

Yes, but do mention you have achieved this.

>This paper carries out a preliminary investigation of the empirical
>implications of a modification to general relativity adhering to
>fundamental principles.

Not quite right.

>It is found that

something stronger than 'observation'.
'current (existing?) astonomical data'?

>observation is consistent with
>a universe of just above critical mass, with no cold dark matter or
>cosmological constant, and no apparent timescale problem (Table 1). As a
>bonus the model predicts

not predict (hint: we know about it)

.... as a bonus it models

>the flattening of galaxies’ rotation curves and
>the observation of Pioneer blue-shift, without requiring either a change
>to Newtonian dynamics or galactic haloes.
>
>Table 1: Properties Compared

using current astronomical data.

>Connection Affine Teleconnection

>Topology Open Any ?? FRW?

>W 0.26+-0.05 1.1+-0.2
>WL 0.74-+0.05 -0.1-+0.2
>WB 0.025-0.05 0.1-0.2
>Age of universe 14X10^9 yrs 16-20X10^9yrs
>Age at z=6 7x10^8yrs 4.5x10^9yrs
>Baryon:Non-baryon ~15:1 4-9:1
>Expansion rate adot/a=H0 adot/a=H0/2
>Pioneer blue shift unexplained ap=H0c
>MOND CDM aM=H0c/8
>wave motion curved space? flat space
>classical motion geodesic geodesic
>
>Table 2: Magnitude-Redshift Relation
>first order comparison
>affine: m-M ~ 5logz + 1.086(1-q)z
>teleconnection: m-M ~ 5logz + 1.086(2-q)z
>
>It is known on theoretical grounds that new physics is required to
>reconcile general relativity and quantum theory (Dirac, 1964). Eppley
>and Hannah (1977) showed that if gravitational measurement causes wave
>function collapse in curved space, violation of the uncertainty
>relationships can only be avoided by giving up conservation of momentum.
>Individual detection of photons from distant stars strongly suggests
>that we cannot be certain of the interpretation of redshift without
>first having a rigorous formulation of quantum motions in curved space
>time. Einstein (1930) found problems with electrodynamics in curved
>space time, and suggested that the affine connection used in general
>relativity might be replaced with a teleparallel connection. Such a
>replacement can be motivated in the orthodox interpretation of quantum
>mechanics; if it does not make sense to talk of position between
>measurements then it is also without sense to talk of geodesic motion of
>a photon emitted from a distant star and detected on Earth. 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
>quantum coordinates (section 2.3), not in curved spacetime. It will be
>seen

seen? are you going to put theory in this and scare the astro's?

Remember, you can now quote the x-archive paper.


>that this can be done consistently in an FRW cosmology, that 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).
>
>For the purpose of analysis

er, no, the following sentence says why.

if you must say it, say it afterwards

>a closed universe with zero cosmological
>constant and no cold dark matter will be discussed. 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 about future tests. In the instance of 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 them with empirical laws already

well established by statistical analysis

>established through
>detailed statistical analysis. The distance-redshift relation has been


reanalysed
>analysed using data sets from Riess (20040 and Astier (2005) and is
>consistent with a universe with just over critical mass and no
>cosmological constant.
>
>1.2 The Teleconnection
>The mathematical description of a teleconnection is given in section 2,
>but it is useful also to develop an intuitive understanding of the
>concept. This is

>not

in bold italic, I hope...

>a teleparallel theory using the Weitzenbröck
>connection (see e.g. Arcos and Pereira, 2004). Torsion will be removed
>as part of wave function collapse and in the classical correspondence
>gravity will be described by curvature, as is normal in general
>relativity. In general relativity it is an assumption that photon
>momentum is parallel transported through large distances. This
>assumption takes no account of the propagation of a photon wave function
>in a curved space-time, which would imply that a photon of precise
>momentum at time of emission would not have precise momentum at
>absorption. Here it is assumed that there exists a coordinate space in
>which plane wave states are defined (2.3.1). Momentum at source is
>teleparallel to momentum at detection, and this determines a connection
>between the initial and final states.
>
>In classical general relativity there is no local meaning to expansion
>because length is defined locally, by an empirical procedure based on
>local matter.

oh ***, I hadn't noticed this before.

>If all matter locally were to “shrink”, including
>ourselves and all the matter contained our measuring apparatus, then our
>fundamental length scales would “shrink” in direct proportion; there
>would be no change in numerical results of local distance measurements
>and there would be no local means to detect the fact. To talk about
>matter shrinking we have to compare a length scale defined here and now,
>using here and now clocks and rulers, with a length scale defined at
>some time in the past. In practice we can do this by studying light from
>the past and analysing redshift provided that we know how light behaves.
>The definition of a teleconnection assumes that if momentum has a
>precise value at one place and time then it also has a precise value
>other places and times and is empirically justified in so far as
>observation yields precise values for cosmological redshift after
>allowing for dispersion due to dust or other known factors. This is a
>fundamental assumption in this model, of equal importance to the
>assumption of the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity.
>Like that assumption, if it were dropped we would be left, not with a
>different theory, but with no known consistent theory.


This para somewhat garbled and a tad cranky

>
>Let Alf be an observer on a space craft or a distant planet, and let
>Beth be an observer on Earth, such that Alf can signal to Beth. At the
>time of emission of a photon passing from Alf to Beth, Alf defines
>synchronous, conformally flat, co-ordinates in 3 dimensions at constant
>cosmic time t. In a closed cosmos the universe can mapped onto a finite
>space, which will be called Alf’s map. Beth defines Beth’s map in
>exactly the same way, to the same scale, at the time of detection of the
>photon, cosmic time t0. For a closed universe in three dimensions Alf’s
>and Beth’s maps each consist of the interior of a sphere. Let a(t) be
>the scale factor and let a0=a(t0). If the universe expands during the
>time of travel of the photon from Alf to Beth, then Beth’s map is larger
>than Alf’s map. Because the maps are conformally flat, they can be
>placed in direct correspondence by enlarging Alf’s map by a factor
>a0/a(t). The teleconnection is defined such that photon momentum is
>represented by an arrow of equal length and direction on Beth’s map and
>on Alf’s enlarged map.
>
>Quantum coordinates define a four dimensional map found by considering
>all the times and positions where Alf and Beth might be, with the time
>axis scaled so that light is shown at 450. This is a Penrose diagram in
>each time-radial plane. In these coordinates the arrow representing
>photon momentum is of constant length and direction everywhere, so that
>plane wave motions obtain for light. Beth can compare the scale of her
>map to that of Alf’s map by studying red shift. There are two scaling
>effects. First Alf’s map has been enlarged by a factor a0/a(t). In
>addition, the scaling on the map changes as you move from one point to
>another. That gives another factor a0/a(t). Thus, the model predicts
>that the cosmological redshift factor varies with the square of the
>expansion parameter 1+z = (a_o/a(t))^2.
>
>On Beth’s map, Alf, and all physical objects in Alf’s locality such as
>rulers, appear enlarged. This is torsion. In measurements in quantum
>mechanics there is both an initial and a final measurement and the
>coordinate system is scaled to the measuring apparatus at the time of
>each measurement. Rescaling coordinates removes torsion and renormalises
>momentum so that in the classical correspondence gravitational redshift
>is as in general relativity, as required by the principle of equivalence
>and for geodesic motion (section 2.4).
>
>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.

I'm not at all sure why. I think you have the right answer, but not for
the right reason.

>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 Wcr to 1 (3.2.2). 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, within the range of values
>which might be accounted for by a massive neutrino.
>
>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. 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). 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
>(Cimatti et. al, 2004) that the theoretical models may be inaccurate.
>This model presents an alternative, that a square redshift law means 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 would have been about
>4.5 billion years old. A detailed study is required to assess
>consistency between observation and theory, but this certainly appears
>to alleviate the difficulties. Hopefully future observation and analysis
>will be conclusive.
>
>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. It is seen as an optical effect due to expansion (section
>3.3). Here wave packets do not follow geodesics and there is disparity
>between the solution of a wave function projected back in time from a
>final measurement and the classical motion of a body. The disparity is
>removed when the wave function collapses and coordinates are rescaled,
>but it leads to an anomalous blue-shift in Doppler measurements of
>stellar objects and the model predicts blue-shift simulating constant
>acceleration toward the origin of coordinates, that is toward the
>observer on Earth. This is a quantum effect; consistent with NASA’s
>findings, there is no corresponding classical acceleration and planetary
>motions are unaffected. 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 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). This
>anomaly appears as an optical effect arising from the treatment of
>redshift, not a change to Newtonian dynamics (section 3.3) or evidence
>of cold dark matter. Similarly 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. The MOND test is particularly important for several reasons.
>Firstly, data fits have been given for over 100 galaxies and thousands
>of stars, secondly, 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, thirdly, because there is no
>other empirical evidence for CDM haloes, fourthly because there is no
>satisfactory theory of CDM in particle physics, and finally because if
>galaxies' rotation curves did not obey MOND it would refute this as a
>‘no CDM’ model.
>
>In standard cosmology a best fit with supernova data is found for the
>concordance model, W_s=0.26, W_Ls=0.76 (Astier 2005, 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 W_s=0.33 and W_Ls=0.67, but examination of residual
>Hubble diagrams, figures 1-3 shows that the fit is better for the lower
>value of Ws, and direct analysis of supernova data indicates a universe
>with slightly more than critical mass.
>
>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-redshift relation. Acceleration depends only on distance and
>time, so that, if the standard model is consistent, a change in the
>distance-redshift relation can be expected to give a consistent change
>in the deceleration parameter in different tests. It is thus to be
>expected that Ws~0.3 corresponds to W~1 in the teleconnection model
>whether it is determined from Supernova or from WMAP and 2dGFS.
>
>The first order analysis of WMAP appears unchanged in the teleconnection
>model, as we expect isotropy and a gaussian random distribution. 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 are caused by higher order corrections in the analysis of data;
>for example it may be necessary to take account of pioneer blue-shift
>when removing foreground contamination.
>>
>
>
>
>Regards
>

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

Use oz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ozacoohdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.

.