Uncertainty and complementarity in the cosmological redshift by Colin Walker

Dear Colin,

I read your essay with interest, because I too have been trying to find alternative interpretation of the 'cosmological red-shift'.

I agree with you that the energy h H (The product of Planck-constant and Hubble's constant) has some deep significance.

What I have found so far is: Energy of the inter galactic photons get branched out into gravitational potential energy part, and electrostatic potential energy part; and gravitational potential energy part gets subtracted from the photon's energy. As derived in a manuscript titled: "Some criteria for short-listing the cosmological red-shift's explanations", placed at:

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0193

We need to find out the exact mechanism for this branching-out of energies.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

N.B. I will start rating the essays after 15th of February, when most of the essays are posted.

Dear Colin,

I forgot to add one more interesting point, that: As explained in a paper by me, titled, "Wave-Theoretical-Insight into the Relativistic Length-Contraction and Time-Dilation of Super-Novae Light-Curves" (Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics Vol-7, 2013) any mechanism, which can cause the cosmological red-shift, will also cause the time-dilation of super-novae light-curves. So, it is not an UN-surmountable difficulty. The paper is available at:

dx.doi.org/10.12988/astp.2013.39102

Please express your views.

One more point comes to my mind, Dear Colin, that: If we want to propose a fresh explanation for the 'cosmological red-shift', then can we talk of 'Hubble-time' ? We should explain 'Hubble-time' first, and then find the UN-certainty in energy during this 'Hubble-time'. Please correct me, if I am making a mistake.

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Dear Colin,

Interesting essay, and to some extent I agree to your arguments about tired light. Also we need to consider the fact that explanations for some physical observations by math can be different, e.g. compare "post-Newtonian gravity and general relativity", also Einstein argued for point coincidences in this regard.

Furthermore, if we consider general relativity for spacetime curvature around mass (stellar bodies) that causes gravitational lensing, then I would argue for the plasma or dust that exists around luminous stars, and this plasma or dust regardless of its charge would bend the electromagnetic wave as the density of the plasma gets higher when getting closer to the star, which in its turn causes refraction of the light. This was not even touched in general relativity and no corrections are considered either. This means that explaining a physical phenomenon by math doesn't necessarily tells us the whole story. This is also addressed in my article.

Kind Regards

Koorosh

Dear Koorosh,

I am hopeful that a mission like LATOR (Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity) will be able to provide guidance in considering the "truthiness" of competing gravitational theories which satisfy first-order tests. I expect general relativity will fail a second-order test, but as outlined in the Endnotes that does not necessarily mean the end of the theory if it can be suitably modified.

I think LATOR's very high precision measurement of the deflection of laser light could be affected by the mechanism you suggest. I am not familiar with the technical details involved, but it would be unfortunate if the effect was significant. Good point. Definitely something to consider beforehand.

Thanks for your interest.

Colin

Arranged measured thought-process which circumvents on the subject of quantised red-space light, which is an imposing interest.

Great job!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Sir,

Though your essays is not exactly on the required topic, you have brought it in at the end. We thoroughly enjoyed your well written essay and like to suggest some extensions.

Mathematics describes only the quantitative aspect of Nature - how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics.

Time dilation, like length contraction, flow from SR. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Thus, length contraction is only apparent. Time dilation (including that noticed in GPS) is caused due to refraction caused by changing density of local medium (what you call tired light). Time dilation, like light, is density variant and not uniform everywhere. This affects red-shift data also.

Still there is much confusion over the precise value of the Hubble Constant. The expanding universe concept was introduced to explain galactic red-shift. But now blue-shift and galactic mergers have also been confirmed. What if the measurements of the last sixties are also true? Further, it is linked to inflation. It is assumed that it is an open universe that is expanding since big bang 13.7 billion years ago. Ancient Indian astronomers give a much bigger date for it. What if the universe is closed? If you throw a pebble into a circular pond, the waves reach out to the boundary and then reverse. Ancient Indian astronomers described the evolution of the universe like that repeatedly, which can explain the current rate of 'expansion' without inflation. They believed that the universe is rotating on its axis with galaxies like planets around Sun. The orbits are all circular, but appear elliptical because of the moving center. Just like the planets appear to be receding at times to come close at other times, we may be seeing red-shift at some stage and blue-shift at other times. Thus, the galaxy rotation curve needs to be re-looked.

All the objects in the universe radiate far more energy compared to the cosmic microwave background. The ancient Indians classified bodies into five categories based on albedo. According to that classification, the CMB is without reflectivity (ajyoti called Parameshthi). It is the universal background structure. It is well known that light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant, but which requires one point to be fixed (tied) to be generated. Sound is a longitudinal wave, which cannot travel without a dense medium. Electromagnetic radiation exhibits both characteristics and the intersection point of the electric and magnetic planes with the medium in the direction of motion (they called it agni-somaatmaka) shows up as photon. Since the background structure does not move, it does not radiate light. But the reflected waves from the big bang interact with each other, which leads to not only evolution of forces (15 types), but also all material formation. It should be noted that though proton and neutron both are said to consist of up quarks and down quarks, in reality, each is a pullulating mass of countless quarks, anti-quarks, and gluons. It is so messy that physicists cannot say exactly how it's most basic properties, such as its mass and spin, emerge from the tangle. We have written about these, dark matter and dark energy variously.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Colin Walker,

Excellent work on your essay. I am glad to read "Black holes and an expanding universe stand out as absurd". I completely agree about black holes but don't have the mathematical wizardry to challenge those who decree the "authorized version" of physics (quoting Jim Baggott in his excellent book, "Farewell to Reality: How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth"). I'm not sure I fully understand it, but thanks for bringing up the idea of tired light, which I was not familiar with. I may want to reference it and your essay in my research, but I humbly disagree about expansion of the universe. I think I have a good model, called the space-time-motion model, (posted at http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0045), that represents space and time as mathematical, conformal projections of motion onto 2 dimensions (also mathematical conceptual models). As such, space is potential that is being transformed into actual units of energy, which give rise to expansion of consciousness. You may enjoy it if you get a chance to read it.

I went a different route for this essay and wrote what I consider a more entertaining twist - sort of a blend of Knights of the Round Table and Lord of the Rings (See Doctors of the Ring - The Power of Merlin the Mathematician to Transform Chaos into Consciousness). It is based on my space-time-motion model, which I invite you to read and let me know what you think (email to stjohntheodore@gmail.com). Of course, I also invite you to read and rate Doctors of the Ring if you get the chance.

Respectfully,

Ted St. John

Dear Colin,

I just want to bring to your attention that the energy ratio (hH /me c^2), where me is mass of the electron, = (Compton wavelength of the electron / radius of the universe)= (G me mp / h c). This may be found useful. May be you are already aware of these relations.

Best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Colin,

See the attached .pdf file. I made a very simple identity to relate conjugate derivatives.

Hope it is useful.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary SimpsonAttachment #1: ColinWalker.pdf

Good work Colin!

You make a very unconventional claim sound quite plausible. Of course; I've heard some of the stories firsthand, or already know about the evidence. I got to hear Paul Steinhardt give the 'Inflationary Cosmology on Trial' lecture at FFP11 in Paris, half a year before his article appeared in Scientific American. I heard Prof. Assis speak at CCC-2 in Port Angeles - as well as Paul Marmet and others who explained a bit about quantum tired light. But you make a good case for Hh being a fundamental constant of sorts.

I have read that one proposed mechanism involves the production of virtual particle pairs possessing unequal velocity, as a quantum relativistic correction for local gravity fields. Perhaps there is a mechanism where this occurs quasi periodically, as an effect of traversing great distances. This would respect the coherency or monotonicity of quantum mechanical systems (a single frequency), but allow for the degradation of energy over time.

Regards,

Jonathan

I wanted to add this..

I wrote a song lyric after CCC-2 about the Big Bang. Here's the first verse:

There was a man named Hubble, who said he had his doubts,

but all the other scientists said 'you've got it figured out.'

A universe expanding; that's the way it's gotta be.

At least that is the picture that we think we want to see.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Dear Colin,

Thank you very much for correcting me; i am very poor in numerical work.

Would you please veryfy the third ratio: whether the energy ratio is correct? i.e. whether (hH /me c^2), where me is mass of the electron, = (Compton wavelength of the electron / radius of the universe) ? By taking: Radius of the universe R = c / Hubble Constant.

With my Best Regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank