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

    8 days later

    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 Basudeba,

        Thanks for your comment and suggestions. The link between mathematics and physics is sustained by experimental and observational data. My approach to the essay topic was to deal with a specific example, the interpretation of supernova data.

        These data are commonly considered to be evidence of accelerating expansion. I did notice considerable scatter in the luminosity-redshift data shown in ref 6 which might be due to some of the effects you discuss. An examination of outliers (misfit data) could be interesting.

        With respect, if I was to associate something with a "universal background structure" it would not be the CMB, but accumulated zero-point energy (Hh/2) associated with the photon.

        Best regards

        Colin

        -

        Dear Ted,

        Thanks for giving it a read and commenting. At least we agree that black holes are dubious. My attempt in the Endnotes at exposing a flaw in general relativity is fairly primitive, but hopefully someone more skilled than I would be able to incorporate an improvement which avoids black holes.

        By the way, your essay really was entertaining, and a welcome relief.

        Best regards,

        Colin

        11 days later

        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

          Dear Hasmukh,

          A formula relating the Hubble constant to well-known physical constants would be interesting, but something is wrong. Here is a printout showing that the quantities (in MKS units) are far from equal.

          h: 6.626070e-34 .... c: 2.997925e+08 .... G: 6.674230e-11 .... H: 2.280000e-18 .... me: 9.110000e-31 .... mp: 1.670000e-27

          H*h/me/c/c: 1.845147e-38

          G*me*mp/h/c: 5.111629e-43

          They are both dimensionless, so it is not a matter of units. I took mp to be proton mass. Inverse of Hubble constant corresponds to about 14 billion years.

          I hope this helps. Best to you,

          Colin

          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

              Dear Hasmukh,

              This one is fine numerically (ratios are the same) but you would get equal ratios for any mass instead of electron mass. It is a tricky business looking for hidden relations among the physical constants.

              Best wishes,

              Colin

              Thanks Gary. That is an interesting observation. I don't have an application for a quaternion derivative yet, but I can see it would be a requirement for your Calculus 2.0.

              Best wishes

              Colin

              Thanks Jonathan! And thanks again for pointing out Paul Steinhardt's lecture in your 2013 essay blog. Without that link, it would not have occurred to me that a second-order failure of general relativity would also undermine inflation. It was about that time when I made the plot of supernova models versus representative data and concluded tired light could not be ruled out, and then finding consistency with observed time dilation of supernova light curves.

              The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program "Quirks and Quarks" recently featured particle physicist Jon Butterworth talking about the search for the Higgs boson and how the search now is for the smallest particle. If matter is composed of ever smaller turtles, what is the smallest turtle? If we follow the redshift energy, it could be a pair of turtles whose energy adds up to Hh, each perhaps with energy Hh/2. The smallest particle would be the ultimate wave. Beyond that, there is not much more I can guess about the mechanism.

              Maybe someday you can work Fritz Zwicky and Walther Nernst into the song. Zwicky was one of the first to propose energy loss. Anyway, let's see how it goes.

              Best wishes,

              Colin

              Dear Colin,

              Your essay is excellent, innovative and original. I was not involved in explaining the redshift, because it is explained, from you and others, without any expansion of the universe. On irrational explanations, of course I did not waste my time. In your essay also has perhaps the most useful information from all the others. So it is not surprising that there are errors that I would like to draw your attention, in good faith.

              In (6) and (7) the value of Planck's not good which a misprint is probably.

              Beyond that is the sentence "The mass of spherical universe ..." which for me is greater mistake than to say that the Earth is flat.

              In (8) is the result of c^2/2G which means that in natural units (c = 1, G = 1), matching an unnatural value ½.

              In my essay is just 1. I also have no need for the Hubble parameter, but I use the time cycle of the universe 4.30849E Tu =10^17 sec. This way I get the mentioned "four hundred octaves" value 2^401.976959236=1.01653490569 * 10^121, not like you close to 10^120. I call 2*pi times bigger value: the number of Planck's oscillators.

              I would like especially, if you write a comment on my essay.

              Sorry for poor translation.

              Regards,

              Branko

                Dear Branko,

                Thank you for your encouraging comment. I tend to agree with your assessment of expansion, but it is important to try to point out the difficulties.

                I am glad that you noticed the discrepancy with eqs (6)-(8). That was not a misprint but a clumsy attempt on my part to show the symmetry of scale by redefining the Planck scale as the geometric mean of the largest and smallest mass assuming they were known. Unfortunately, I could not arrive at the usual expressions for Planck units by assuming a mass of the universe given by a steady state cosmological model. As well, I wanted (8) to be the same as for Einstein's original cosmology, but I do not know whether these models are compatible or applicable.

                Taking the inverse of your cycle time as Hubble parameter, I see you get 2*pi times the number of oscillators, and mass of the universe twice what I get. That would make each oscillator have energy Hh/(2*pi) instead of Hh/2 which is what the zero-point energy would be in a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the 2*pi was missing in your eq (16) for the number of oscillators, your Planck oscillator would have energy Hh. This would seem more reasonable to me than either of the above, since it would be the smallest energy transition.

                You have an interesting way of addressing the symmetry of scale, among other things. Please give me a day or two to comment on your essay.

                Best regards,

                Colin

                Dear Colin,

                You write:

                If the 2*pi was missing in your eq (16) for the number of oscillators, your Planck oscillator would have energy Hh. This would seem more reasonable to me than either of the above, since it would be the smallest energy transition.

                I say:

                Then it is quantum mechanical oscillator.

                Regards,

                Branko

                Dear Colin,

                Your views on the photon and the normal distribution are interesting. Require a complete separate article. The rest of the text, refer to my place. Best regards,

                Branko

                12 days later

                Dear Mr. Walker

                I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

                I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

                All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

                Joe Fisher