Editor's Choice: The Illusion of the Expanding Universe

amrit,

That's linear history. What becomes truly incomprehensible is trying to fathom the vast sea of interacting relationships. We can only really process our own linear narrative and even those events in our own life that become disconnected from the narrative, get lost and forgotten, much like a dream when we wake up. We are endlessly editing our history in order to give it some logical balance and focus.

AWT doesn't consider the beginning of Universe. It simply doesn't need concept of origin (which brings only questions for another origin and it explains nothing in fact).

The picture illustrates the light spreading in vacuum by splash ripples spreasing at the water surface. These ripples gradually decays and increase their frequency from outer perspective. From inside perspective (i.e. the perspective of observer sitting at the water surface and observing space-time formed by its waves) the perspective would became exactly as opposite. He would see expanding space in omnidirectional way and waves ending their life in background noise in remote distance. He can still interpret such observation as a Big Bang event - but the another, remote observer would see exactly the same thing at the place of first observer!

John,

You said...

"So what if light expands as a field, like the electrons he is describing and only collapses into photons when we measure it. It would not only be a function of the light, but a process of interaction with the measuring device. It might explain lots of things, such as action at a distance, as the entangled particles are fronts of the same wave."

You have just described the essense of Bohmian Mechanics!! Although the photons are always there guided by a pilot wave.

Related to this, photons have energy determined by the emission spectrum of their source and the photoelectric effect proves their "irreducible" nature. It is not quite right to say "When you entangle two photons, you have one packet of energy". Entangled or "combined" photons are still two wave packets, it is just that they are in the same "quantum state", ie same phase, polarisation etc, in the same way as two combined drops of water still have their "irreducible" constituent atoms. In BM it is described as a sort of transformation of the probablility density with the combined wave functions guiding the *positions* of two photons now, which would both be measured with the *same* energy state, assuming no secondary entanglement has occurred after separation. You seem to effectively be saying that combining photons "creates" a new photon? So that light from the sun would be one continuous photon! This implies a continuum spectrum which would revive the "ultraviolet catastrophe" from the early 1900's!!

Amrit,

You said...

"So for the observer that moves in an inertial system with a high speed through the space all change in his inertial system are running slower, velocity of clocks including. He also is getting older slower than his fried in inertial system that move with lower speed.

We measure speed of inertial systems relatively from inertial system A to B and vice versa.

If you are in A and I'm in B and you inform me that in your space-ship clocks run slower than in my space-ship this means that you move with higher speed than me."

It should be remembered that the relativistic effects you are talking about here do *not* occur between relative frames in *constant* motion, regardless of their relative velocities. This only affects simaltaneity, as both frames are on an equal basis as a reference point. Those effects only come about when the relative motion of the frames is *assymetric*, ie one is accelerated and/or moving in a spatially assymetric way. So you cannot say that A is "moving with higher speed" just because A's clock appears to be running slower. From A's point of view, B's clock would also be running slower!

Cheers

Roy: It should be remembered that the relativistic effects you are talking about here do *not* occur between relative frames in *constant* motion, regardless of their relative velocities. This only affects simaltaneity, as both frames are on an equal basis as a reference point. Those effects only come about when the relative motion of the frames is *assymetric*, ie one is accelerated and/or moving in a spatially assymetric way. So you cannot say that A is "moving with higher speed" just because A's clock appears to be running slower. From A's point of view, B's clock would also be running slower!

Amrit

Roy

I do not agree with you. From A's point of view, B's clock would run faster.

SR and GR are connected through the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. In faster inertial system gravity is stronger and clocks run slower. This is a universal rule. Speed of light is a constant in the universe. With this parameter we compare all other speed of inertial systems

The question "What is Time?" is deeply related to the question "Who is the observer?" In physics today observer is searching exclusively outside physical world. He is not searching how his mind influences his experience of physical world. For deeper understanding of physical world observer needs understanding of how his mind influences scientific experience. Scientist perceive physical reality with senses, than perceived information get processed by the mind, finally experience happen. By searching inside observer discovers that his mind functions in a frame of space-time that is mind creation. He becomes aware that physical time is run of clocks merely and that quantum space into which change run is timeless.

This is insight of my research and there is no objection to it. All experimental data support it. Recent brain research is confirming that experience of change consequently in linear time is result of neuronal dynamics of the brain.

Physics should be sincere and drop idea of space-time being fundamental arena of the universe.

I do not say as Barbour says that time is an illusion. I say that the idea space-time being physical reality is an illusion. For me time as a clocks run is man created physical reality and is consistent part of physics and will remain in physics for ever.

It is a big intellectual jump in incomprehension that there is no time behind run of clocks. This simply means that now is eternity itself. All experimental data confirm that fact. So there is no hindrance to accept that as a standpoint of physics. We have to leave behind our idea that Einstein achievements are pillars of physics that will never be improved. He was aware that time do not exists as a physical reality into which change run. He has tried to "hide" to incorporate time in space. Because of that in SR imaginary 4-th coordinate is a product of clock tick t, light speed and imaginary number i

X - i x c x t

Mathematical Imaginary coordinate cannot be physical. But his hidden device did not succeed. Physics today see space-time as physical reality and does not take in consideration that there is no experimental evidence for that. This mistake will be now improved.

yours amrit

Roy,

I should stay away from trying to explain light, but it seems to me that the Hubble Effect would be far more logical as a consequence of distance. In which case we wouldn't need to explain/unquestioningly accept the Singularity, Inflation, or dark energy. It would simply be a matter of trying to explain why redshift is caused by distance. Effectively it would be a cosmological constant, an opposite curvature/expansion of space that would balance gravity. That's why I keep referring to Carver Mead's description of the electron as being its own wave; http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/People/CarverMead.htm

So I'm just proposing the expanding circumference of the light over distance affects the wavelength of individual photons. The mechanics of it are a question, obviously.

One of the issues I keep raising in this regard is how does space itself expand, yet we still have a stable speed of light? It would seem to me that our most fundamental measure of distance would have to be stretched, as space expands, otherwise it is not expanding space, but simply an increasing amount of stable space. In which case, it would appear that we are at the center of the universe, since distant galaxies are all redshifted directly away from us, proportional to distance!

amrit,

I would agree with you on that, as at the speed of light, time is at a stand still, though how I had it explained wasn't because gravity is infinite, but because there is no internal activity within a photon, as it would require faster than light motion by any activity toward the direction of travel. So anything approaching the speed of light necessarily has its atomic activity reduced and thus its clock slowed.

John, yes clocks velocity is reduced in timeless quantum space.

yours amritAttachment #1: FROM_SPACETIME_TO_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.doc

Amrit,

If you are talking about *inertial* frames A and B, you are talking about frames with constant velocity, that is, constant speed in a constant direction. Therefore A and B can both be considered to be "at rest" and so must both observe each other's clocks to be running with the same difference of rate, due to the symmetry of the frames and the constant speed of light. It is only when assymetric motion such as acceleration changes one of the frames that you get the "time dilation" effect. You have actually shown this with your later statement..."In faster inertial system gravity is stronger and clocks run slower." What you are really saying is that in an *accelerated* frame gravity is stronger, as an inertial frame is in free fall, ie *no* gravity. It is the equivalence of gravity and acceleration that is the connection, not the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Equivalently, clocks in "stronger" gravity will run slower relative to co-moving clocks.

If we are to do away with the concept of time, as we all seem to agree we should, then I think the "time dilation" effect needs to be re-interpreted in terms of the space/distance contraction effect which is also a result, but one which tends to be hidden or forgotten in most explanations.

John,

The questions you raise regarding cosmic expansion and red shift are good ones. I'm not sure I completely understand your reasoning, but I would explain things like this. Red shift *on it's own* has nothing to do with distance. It is a consequence of recessional motion. So any red shift is an indication of motion away from us and cosmic observations show that (nearly) all galaxies are receding from us and from *all other* galaxies. Now, when you said "It would seem to me that our most fundamental measure of distance would have to be stretched, as space expands, otherwise it is not expanding space, but simply an increasing amount of stable space", you were right. Light *is* "stretched" and therefore red shifted by the expansion of space. This is evidenced by measuring the wavelength of light from known emission sources eg supernovae, against what the wavelength was when it was first emitted. This is the proof of expansion, the "Hubble Constant" proportional to red shift. Note, the speed of light is not affected, only it's wavelength.

The evidence for the *accelerated* expansion does have to do with distance, as you suggested. By comparing the actual distance to galaxies, again using supernovae from different "times", to what their distance would be after *constant* expansion, the expansion rate can be determined for those "times". The results show that the rate is increasing.

Cheers

Roy J

Roy my understanding of time dilatation is that velocity of events is going down tick of clocks including. There is no some physical time existing that is shrinking.

Regarding inertial systems A and B you are right: inertial systems have a constant speed.

When you say that for example that A is at rest the question arises: at rest to what. For saying that system A is at rest we have to define system B to which A is at rest.

My understanding is that A and B both move or are at rest in timeless quantum space. We measure velocity of A relatively comparing it with velocity of B and vice versa. When clocks run slower in A this means that A moves faster than B. Or I'm wrong?

Roy,

I understand redshift as a function of recessional velocity. It's the Doppler effect. The problem is that it is based on recession within a stable frame of reference. As in the train is moving away on the tracks, the tracks are not being stretched. Originally the proposed expansion of the universe was based on this concept, that other galaxies are simply flying away from us, the problem is that they are all redshifted directly away from us, as though we were at the center point of this expansion. The idea was then changed to that it was actually space itself which expands and everything is being carried along with it. The rising loaf of raisin bread analogy.

The Big Bang model first started to bother me when I read that for the universe to be as stable as it is, this expansion is balanced by the force of gravity, effectively contracting space at an equal rate. So if space is essentially falling into gravity wells at the same rate it is expanding between them, it would seem there would be no additional expansion of the overall universe. There seemed to be some form of convection cycle of expanding space/radiation, balanced by a contraction of gravity/mass. Now when gravity collapses mass to sufficient pressure and heat, it ignites and the constituent energy is radiated back out.

So the question would be; What might be the other transition? Obviously any radiation actually contacting mass is absorbed, but is there some mechanism by which energy that has sufficiently cooled, starts to condense out as any form of quantum particulate structure, say the black body radiation of the cosmic background, as it is said to have originated at the edge of the visible universe and so has traveled the furtherest.

The Hubble constant of redshift is that the further away a source is, the faster it (presumably) recedes, until at about 13 billion years out, it is receding at the speed of light and this creates a horizon line over which visible light can't travel. So the question is; hypothetically of course, what if there is some effect of distance, other than actual progressive recession, which causes the spectrum of light to be redshifted? For one thing, it would be a cumulative effect, so that the further away it is, the more the redshift is compounded, so it appears to be receding faster, thus the Hubble constant. It is isomorphic, in that every point would have other light sources redshifted directly away. It would be a consistent counter to gravity, effectively a cosmological constant, so the fact they counteract wouldn't simply be coincidental.

It would do away with having to accept the very large questions raised by the Singularity and Inflation. Dark energy wouldn't be necessary, as the galaxies are not actually moving apart over time, because the "space" is falling back into gravity/mass. Possibly it would exert additional pressure on gravitational systems, since the entire universe isn't being pushed apart and this would explain the excess rotational velocity of galaxies which is ascribed to dark matter.

So this is the basis of my observation: If space is expanding, than when it doubles in size, would two galaxies, which had been a billion light years apart, now be two billion light years apart? If so, that is not expanding space, but an increasing amount of constant space and you are back to the question of why we appear to be at the center of the universe. Otherwise, if the speed of light increases as space expands, so that the distance always appears to be one billion lightyears apart, what is the point of the theory, since there is no apparent recessional velocity?

Amrit,

You are right when you say frame A (or B) can only be considered at rest relative to some other (arbitrary) reference frame. What I am saying is that, because A and B are both inertial frames they have *equal status* to being considered at rest, or in relative motion. You could though, for example, introduce another frame C which is co-moving with B and use that as the "rest" frame and measure the velocity of system A relative to the combined system. Now, due to general covariance, ie physical laws are identical an all inertial frames, the clocks in A and B *must* tick at the same rate. So, even though B sees A's clock running slower, so too does A see B's clock running slower, the situation is symmetric. As I previously said, it is when asymmetries enter the scene, eg acceleration which is absolute not relative, that the "time" dilation effect occurs. So it is Einstein's equivalence principle, ie acceleration and gravity are equivalent, that causes the real time dilation/space contraction in either an accelerated frame or a stronger gravity frame.

I do agree with you that it is not "time shrinking", there is no "time". That's why I have said before that the real effect that appears in the "Twins Paradox" should be explained in terms of the space/length *contraction* which is manifested and the asymmetry of the final configuration when twin A returns to twin B. This may shed more light on a lot of things.

Cheers

Hi Roy

We have experimental data that locks run slower in airplane that moves opposite to earth rotation than on the surface of the earth. Earth is moving in timeless quantum space, clocks are ticking in timeless quantum space. And speed of clocks in the airplane is slower than speed of clocks on the surface of the Earth.

What is your opinion on the Schrödinger cat. I have my own interpretation:

Schrödinger cat in box is an interesting question. In this thought experiment cat remains in a box one hour. Clocks are "ticking" 60x60 seconds and than we open the box.

When atom decay happens cat is dead, until atom decay do not happen cat is alive. Cat in box can not be both simultaneously alive and dead. Cat is alive or dead before we open the box. It is not that with opening box cat will be alive or dead. Opening of the box has no relation to cat life. Relation to the cat life has atom decay. And atom decay has no relation to the opening of the box.

If cat is alive when we open the box this means decay of atom did not happen in one hour.

If cat is dead when we open the box we can do autopsy of the cat and calculate when atom has decayed. Cat biochemical reactions are natural clock "tick". With autopsy we can see when (if) cat as biochemical clock has stopped.

Cat cannot be both simultaneously: alive and dead.

Cat does not live or dies in space-time.

Cat is living and dies in timeless quantum space only.

yours amrit

It seems to me that if time is not a fundamental dimension, than space does amount to an inertial reference frame. What determines the speed of light? Yes, as you approach the speed of light, internal motion and thus the clock slows down, so that light seems to go the same speed, but if the clock is simply a measure of motion, than it is simply internal motion slowed by the effect of traveling close to the speed of light. So a clock would move fastest at rest in inertial space and the speed of light is ultimately relative to this inertial frame. ?

amrit,

The puzzle of Schrodinger's Cat is a juxtaposition of quantum and classical reality, so why not look at both and see where they fit?

In QM, time is somewhat nebulous, since events don't have an entropic order, but as a consequence of motion, time is the atom decaying from one state to the next. If it does, the cat dies. The process of events goes from atom to cat, to observer. Now, from the perspective of the observer, it is the observation which confirms the state of the cat. Think of it as if the observer was an astronomer studying a star that's two thousand lightyears away. A thousand lightyears ago, the star exploded, but for the observer, the star will still be whole for another thousand years. We tend to think of events as happening when we observe them, but by the time we observe them, they are past. Time is the wave of possibility washing toward and collapsing past us, not a series of events from which we move through.

When you have a block time view, in which time is a series along which you travel, then it does branch out into multiple possibilities, because in the future, the atom could be either decayed or not, just as the star could have exploded, or not.

John: It seems to me that if time is not a fundamental dimension, than space does amount to an inertial reference frame. What determines the speed of light? Yes, as you approach the speed of light, internal motion and thus the clock slows down, so that light seems to go the same speed, but if the clock is simply a measure of motion, than it is simply internal motion slowed by the effect of traveling close to the speed of light. So a clock would move fastest at rest in inertial space and the speed of light is ultimately relative to this inertial frame. ?

Amrit: John, Light has same speed in weak and strong gravity field. Clocks run slower in stronger gravity field. This is how universe functions. Do not ask me why because I do not know.

Light is not relative to any inertial system or frame. Light is constant for all. Velocity of change is relative, run (tick) of clocks is relative.

John

Now, from the perspective of the observer, it is the observation which confirms the state of the cat.

Amrit

Yes, but observer has no influence of cat life. The only influence has atom decay. So cat can be alive or dead. Cat cannot be both. Cat life/death and atom decay/no decay are directly related.

Box is closed and we do not know decay of atom happen or not. Our not knowing does not play any role in the whole experiment. Death happens or not, depends on atom decay.

amrit,

"Clocks run slower in stronger gravity field."

Because the rate of atomic activity is slower. Since it is also slowed by motion of the clock through space, than a clock runs fastest when it is motionless and not in the presence of gravity.

"Yes, but observer has no influence of cat life."

The whole universe is made up of quantum phenomena. We don't know what happens until we observe it. Whether it's light from a distant star, or a cat dying. These events are first in our future, then in our past.

John these events are always in timeless quantum space. Before and after is only numerical order of events.

Regarding cat: cat is existing in timeless quantum space and radioactive substance too. If tom decay cat is dead is atom do not decay cat is live.

There is no other option. Cat can not be alive and dead simultaneously.

yours amrit

amrit,

True.

After few month of discussion here I'm wondering why physicists are so "attached" to the idea of space-time. In formula itself X4 = i x c x t there is no inner logic that time would be fourth coordinate of space. Some theoretical physicists argue on space-time being fundamental foam of the universe, basic arena. This foam should be made out of quanta of space QS Volume of Planck. My question here is where are 3 components of space and one component of time in this QS ? We have to open to understanding that universe is timeless. There is no trace of time in the universe. There is only motion.

And clocks are man invention to measure motion. Physical time is "tick" of clock in a timeless quantum space.

I would encourage experts which are convinced space-time being fundamental stage of the universe to actively participate debate here. It is a great opportunity to challenge human capacity to go beyond its limits. In order to build up in physics a new theoretical frame of timeless quantum space we have to recognize space-time being merely math model only that do exactly not correspond to the physical reality. Timeless quantum space is far more accurate approximation of physical reality.