Alternative Models of Cosmology

I am new here, and I was not sure whether to send my question to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. So, I send it to both.

I have found a simple method to calculate alpha (α) based on phi (φ) .007297352569... My question is: An alpha constant based on phi, if true, (I guess only time will tell), would that confirm that alpha (α) is a perfect unchanging constant? Because phi is.

A Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of the Consequences of Special Relativity

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity

---------------------------------------

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity predicts that for objects travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light time dilates. Experimental observations are in agreement with the predictions. For example ordinarily short lived particles such as Muons when at rest are observed by a stationary observer to exist for significantly longer periods when travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Mathematically Speed = Distance/Time

As the speed of light is expected to be constant in any frame of reference (consequent to Maxwell's equations) the mathematical conclusion for the increased lifespan of Muons traveling close to the speed of light would be that the values for distance and/or time have changed.

• In the Muon's inertial frame of reference the distance travelled by the Muons has decreased.

• In the observer's inertial frame of reference time has slowed down for the Muons allowing them to live longer.

The difficulty with understanding such mathematically derived conclusions is that they are counterintuitive (which is not to say that they are wrong). Copious experimental observations illustrate clearly and consistently that clocks slow down when in motion precisely as predicted by Special relativity. Thus for example we can confidently predict that an astronaut travelling at near light speed for a year will return to Earth biologically younger than his twin brother by around thirty years.

A typical explanation of Time Dilation is that time flows at a slower rate for the astronaut than for his twin brother on Earth. The analogy of time flowing conjures up images of water moving along in a river. But as time does not appear in any real sense to be a tangible identifiable substance like water can it truly be said to be flowing at different rates? The passage of time can only be measured indirectly in terms of a perceived interval between events. The most accurate measurement of time is currently in terms of the interval between 2 quantum mechanical conditions of a Cesium 133 atom. But what really is it that we are measuring when we state that we are measuring time?

Does Time exist?

----------------

Physics defines Time as "that which is measured by clocks"; that is all. There is no evidence to substantiate that time exists as part of the fabric of the universe. It is probable that human beings dreamt up the notion of time as a convenient way of 2 or more people being in the same location to share a task. For example an agreement for 2 people to meet for a hunt at sunrise on the bank of a river next to a large rock is in effect a synchronisation of the event of sunrise with 2 people and a unique geographical point on the planet. The human notion of time serves the purpose of accurately synchronising events for a species that owes much of its success to organised cooperative behaviour.

Although today we would associate sunrise with a specific time indicated on a wristwatch (or more accurately an atomic clock) there is no "known" absolute benchmark of time in any inertial frame of reference. i.e. there is no "known" universal standard time anywhere in the universe with or without the relativistic effects of speed and gravity. Significantly the sunrise over our spot on the river will never be precisely at the same local time from any one sunrise to any other sunrise as measured by an atomic clock situated by the rock. This is due in part to perpetual changes in the orbit of the Earth and in part to the uncertainty of the location and velocity of quantum particles. Quantum observations suggest that it may be impossible to predict or measure the precise local time of any event in the universe. Without any direct evidence of its existence as part of the fabric of the universe it is perhaps more useful to think of time as being an imaginary interval between 2 events.

Can there be a more intuitive way of explaining the observations predicted by special relativity?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in one of the following two ways:

1. Muons decay at the same rate regardless of their speed. The speed of a Muon causes time to slow down in its inertial frame of reference so that for a stationary observer for whom time is running faster a high speed Muon appears to decay more slowly than a stationary Muon. "Proper time" is the time experienced by the Muon in its inertial frame of reference being less than the time measured by the stationary observer calculated as per the following expression.

[math]Observer time = (proper time)/square root((1-(velocity/speed of light)squared)[/math]

2. Muons decay at a rate that reduces according to their speed relative to a stationary observer. "Proper events" is the reduced number of decay events experienced by the Muons in their inertial frame of reference as compared with the higher number of decay events observed by the observer calculated as per the following expression.

[math]Observer events = (proper events)/square root((1-(velocity/speed of light)squared)[/math]

The first interpretation founded on Special Relativity is based on the assumption that time is part of the fabric of the universe and that time literally flows at one rate for a stationary observer and at a reduced rate for the particles in motion relative to the stationary observer.

The second (alternative) interpretation assumes that time is merely a human notion and is not part of the fabric of the universe in any real sense. In this case time dilation is no longer a plausible explanation for the increased life span of high speed Muons. Since time dilation can no longer be an explanation the inference is that the high speed Muons last longer than relatively stationary Muons as a direct consequence of their relative speed.

Whilst Particles such as Muons are observed to decay into different particles it is not understood what exactly triggers the change but it is typically characterised as the spontaneous process of one elementary particle transforming into other elementary particles without any apparent external cause. There would seem to be 2 plausible interpretations:

1. Quantum particles decay or transform spontaneously without any external influence.

2. Quantum particles decay or transform due to the influence of quantum events in their vicinity.

In the first interpretation the notion that a fundamental indivisible particle may transform itself with no external influence is both counter-intuitive and inconceivably difficult to conclude from experimental observation, which is not to say that it is necessarily incorrect.

In the second interpretation, from the assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the rate of decay would be governed by the frequency of such quantum events.

From the same assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the frequency of quantum events would be governed by the values of influential properties of the quantum particles such as angular momentum.

Based on observations of particle decay being retarded in a highly predictable way according to the speed of the particles relative to a stationary observer we can further infer that the values of influential properties of quantum particles in a given inertial frame reduce with respect to the speed of the quantum particles. By considering the wave properties of a quantum particle the inference would be that the energy of the wave is reduced through dissipation over a longer distance.

An atomic clock detects an arbitrarily prescribed number of changes between 2 quantum mechanical states of Cesium 133 atoms and registers this as one second of time. A moving atomic clock detects fewer changes than a relatively stationary clock. According to Special Relativity this is due to time slowing down in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock. However in this alternative interpretation where time is no longer considered to be a real variable the conclusion is that there are fewer quantum events occurring in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock as a consequence of its relative speed.

In any given inertial frame of reference the relative frequency of different types of quantum events would be expected to remain constant such that any specific measurement carried out within an inertial frame of reference would be identical to the same measurement carried out within any other inertial frame of reference. Thus for example the same values would be recorded for the average half life of a Muon at rest measured within any inertial frame of reference.

Conclusion

----------

Special Relativity states that relative motion causes time to dilate. The observational evidence is that relative motion causes clocks to slow down and also causes a reduction in the frequency of all events within a moving inertial frame of reference. Thus whilst time is defined as "that which is measured by clocks" the consequences of Special Relativity do not hold clocks to be special. Although these observations can be characterised as Time dilation there is no evidence to substantiate the material existence of time and that which does not exist cannot dilate.

This alternative interpretation is founded on the same set of observations that substantiate Special Relativity but without invoking the assumed variable of time and instead substituting a relative frequency of quantum events.Attachment #1: equation_1.jpgAttachment #2: equation_2.jpg

Greetings, and thank you for making this thread available for new theories. This post supports both the equations and experimental results of special relativity, but indicates that a preferred reference frame can indeed be identified - a fundamental and profound paradigm shift in interpretation of SR. Adjustments are also indicated for relativistic Doppler measurements which may have significant impact on various cosmological studies. I would appreciate any and all comments or critiques.

The following equation of absolute velocity has been discovered, derived directly from the Lorentz transformation equations:

[math] $$ u_x=\left( \frac{\gamma_x}{\gamma_v}-1 \right)\frac{c^2}{v}$$ [/math]

Where

[math] $ \gamma_v \equiv \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} }$ [/math]

and

[math] $ \gamma_x \equiv \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}$ [/math]

u here is the absolute velocity of the observer,

u' is the absolute velocity of the moving clock, and

γx is the measured Lorentz factor of a moving clock on the x-axis based on time dilation.

A quick example; consider an observer on a station traveling at u=0.5c and a clock on a rocket moving away at a relative speed of v=2c/3 in the same direction along the x-axis. Einstein's composition of velocity dictates the actual speed of the clock to be u'=0.875c. The observer will measure the Lorentz factor based on time dilation of the moving clock not as γv, but rather will measure the rocket's time dilation relative to the observer's own time dilation. After removing and accounting for classical Doppler effect, the Lorentz factor can be determined as the effect of time dilation by slowed frequencies

[math]n$$ \frac{f_{station}}{f_{rocket}} = \gamma_x = \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}=\frac{2.065591118}{1.1547005384} = 1.788854382 $$n[/math]

From this measurement, the station's absolute velocity along the axis of observation can be calculated:

[math]n$$ u_x=\left( \frac{1.788854382}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{2c} = 0.5c $$n[/math]

Additional orthogonal measurements of uy and uz would be needed to fully identify absolute velocity u and γu.

Note that this calculation resolves appropriately in the case where the station is actually at rest. In that case, γu = 1, so γx = γu' = γv, and the equation for ux is brought to zero.

The rocket's speed can be similarly calculated by measuring time dilation of clock signals from the station:

[math]n$$ u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{1.3416407865}{1.788854382}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c $$n[/math]

The concept here is that if an observer is in motion, then the observer's measurement of time dilation of a moving clock will be affected by the observer's own time dilation, and the measured value will be different than if the observer had been truly at rest. The ratio of the measured Lorentz factor compared to a calculated Lorentz factor if the observer had been at rest provides the information needed to identify absolute speed of the observer along that axis of observation.

Experimental determination of absolute velocity requires two pieces of data; 1) accurate knowledge of the relative velocity of a moving clock, and 2) accurate measurement of that clock's time dilation in the reference frame of the observer. Ives-Stillwell experiments (including modern variants) confirm time dilation and Lorentz invariance without the need to accurately measure relative velocity.

Reference to an absolute frame found within the mathematical structure of special relativity runs deeply counter to common interpretation of SR, but is in fact entailed within that mathematical schema. Importantly, because this equation is derived directly from the Lortentz transformation equations, prediction of full Lorentz invariance for historical experiments is maintained. Indications are however that relativistic Doppler measurements should be modified by substitution of γv with γx.

Full preprint paper is available with further details, here: Absolute_time_from_special_relativity_DACoke_08-jan-2021.pdf .

Full derivation directly from the Lorentz transforms is here: supplemental_ATSR_derivation_DACoke_08-Jan-2021.pdf

As mentioned up front, comments and feedback would be very much appreciated.

The last three equations above have bracketing "n" characters for some reason, not seen in my preview. Apologies for that. Might be from carriage returns, not sure. Let me try once more here to clarify:

[math]$\frac{f_{station}}{f_{rocket}} = \gamma_x = \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}=\frac{2.065591118}{1.1547005384} = 1.788854382$[/math]

[math]$u_x=\left( \frac{1.788854382}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{2c} = 0.5c$[/math]

[math]$u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{1.3416407865}{1.788854382}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c$[/math]

Looks good on my preview, hopefully it posts correctly now.

...and one more mistake to correct. The last equation has cut and paste errors converting to LateX format for the post. Equation should be

[math]$u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{0.5590169944}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c$[/math]

The Speed of the moon and its orbit is changed

Every year the distance between the earth and the moon increases by about 3.8 cm.

Science claims the moon is going faster. This sounds logical at first. But if we look at the orbital speeds of the planets around the sun, we can see that the inner planets are traveling faster than the outer planets. If the orbit speed of the moon increased every year, then after 4.5 billion years the orbit would no longer be so round, or it would have already left the earth.

In my opinion, the orbital speed of the moon is slowing down and the stabilizing force of gravity makes a larger orbit. In order to change an orbit faster you have to overcome the stabilizing force with much higher energy.

Is there anyone who can check the speed difference of the moon in the last years?

Regards

Rüdiger

Hello, happy to see you on FQXi, it is a wonderful platform , regards

Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards

Hi Steve Dufourny, Just wanted to thank you in public for referring me to this group.

THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2,

where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2, where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

lnkd.in/e3wQKBF

Hello Mr Frisina, you are welcome. You are going to like this platform I believe, there are a lot of informations and you can share your ideas and discuss. Best Regards

I ask me how to unify at this cosmological scale, the evolution spherisation of my theory with the past , present, future and the atomic gravitational constant, the classical one, the number of Avogadro, the Boltzmann constant , the GR , the quantum gravitation, the Dark matter cold, the Dark energy for the space vacuum and main codes and the 3D spheres. The magnitudes are important and this evolution also , the redshift and the light emissions also but how to sort the things and how to superimpose the two other ethers ?

In my model of spherisation, I see in a simplistic vue, the cosmological scale and the quantum scale with these spheres a little bit the same , of course with volumes, motions and properties different but there is like a link probably.

So that implies a relevant idea I beleive about the quantum scale and the cosmological scale, if my reasoning is correct and that we have these 3 main series merging to create the ordinary matter , with the codes in the space vacuum of the DE and the DM cold for the mass and gravitation and the photons for the electromagnetism, so we have a relative same logic at this comsological scale, that is why I thought about these supermassive BHs central to galaxies, they are probably kinds of stars of dark energy. It seems relevant considering the properties antigravitational of the DE , and also that implies deep questions philosophical if I can say. For the quantum scale, that implies also a fith force ....

I recently published a modified theory of gravity that I would like feedback on. My theory, the entropy scale factor, proposes that entropy causes time dilation and length dilation, and that these changes underly special relativity, gravity and the expansion of space.

As the relative velocity of objects increases there are more possible combinations of position and momentum within the moving frame due to the uncertainty principle. This increase in possible microstates represents an increase in entropy, which can be correlated with the time dilation and length dilation of Lorentz transformations.

My paper goes on to show how these changes in scale would result in gravity, and how space would expand as the entropy of the universe increases.

My theory was recently published in Physics Essays. Please visit their site or my homepage for more information and a link to the manuscript. Thank you in advance for your expertise and advice.

May I suggest a paper published last month in "International Journal of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Cosmology" called "Intergalactic Travel, Riemann Hypothesis, Dark Matter, No Big Bang and Other Physics/Mathematics" (link is Intergalactic).

I hesitated to send this since you might not accept suggested papers by a paper's author. However it does offer a scientifically plausible paradigm-shift to many areas of science, including the shift to quantum determinacy where probability is merely superficial and the quantum world follows the Chaos principle of order hidden within seeming disorder (Max Tegmark's mathematical universe is vital here), and the basing of proposed intergalactic travel on an electrical-engineering experiment at Yale University (reported in the journal "Nature Photonics" in 2009). Resulting from quantum certainty is a detailed explanation of why Einstein's time dilation is accurate.

More details - such as immersion of Klein bottles in the 3rd dimension - are in the preprint which I developed from this paper - "Intergalactic Travel and Riemann Hypothesis - featuring Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Higgs Boson, Higgs Field, Electroweak Interaction, No Big Bang, Plus Other Physics and Mathematics". Zenodo

Hi,

I work with an alternative to a cosmology with only a physical universe. With some universes the origins of the physical universe becomes less complicated. The mathematical universe would be an equal to the physical universe. I have discussed the basis for this view in (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y). In short the key to the coexistence of a mathematical universe and a physical universe is cosmological interfaces, or, phrased differently, ontologically heterogeneous domains.

The underlying basic principle is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects.

I will deliver an online talk in August where I briefly note that self consciousness can be construed as a heterogeneous domain. I focus, however, the possibility that a black hole singularity can be viewed as a heterogeneous domain between a mathematical and a physical universe.

Talk: Self-consciousness and Black Hole Singularities - a Formal Link. Online lecture August 5, 15.00-17.00 CET.

Link:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/3611348321?pwd=TjZUUC9yNFBLMWdNejRBMzIyVEh2Zz09

Meeting ID: 361 134 8321

Passcode: j1m7rU

The best,

Johan Gamper

The independent institute of applied metaphysics

Subrosa KB (https://karlpu.org)

Vendelsö, Sweden

My preprint "The Beginning to the End of the Universe and Eternal Space-time " is available at:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202207.0121/v3

In this manuscript I explained the brief history of the universe from the beginning to the end of the Universe. My research suggests that the universe will not continue to expand forever, no need however, for dark energy. The theory of eternal Space-time and it consists of unique properties, which enables us to describe a sequence of events from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch. It appears that we now have two disparate possibilities: It could be that our universe is cyclic and no beginning; there may have been Big Bangs before ours, and a universe with a definite beginning. The ultimate arbiter will be Nature.

Currently, this model is best understood by pictures rather than a large number of equations.

universe is eternal

I can understand and I respect your point of vue, but there still we cannot affirm. The universe can be a finite universe evolving in 3D and a time correlated with the motions. And now we arrive at this philosophy, I consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D like main primary energy and this thing that we cannot define has decided to create like a project for me, so the infinity and eternity are things that we must relativise it seems to me, we arrive still at this primary essence inside the physicality, if you consider that we had for example like god an infinite heat and it was conscious and that this things has fractalised this heat in creating these photons and that after with the GR it oscillates these photons at this planck scale with points or strings in 1D for exapmple and with the mass energy equivalence , so that explains the mass but all this are assumptions and it is there that we interpret philosophically the eternity and infinity correlated inside this physicality like linked like an illuison with the 3D universe and its motions and this irreversible time, all is a question of interpretations ontological ,epistemological, philosophical , we cannot affrim to know the truth due to these said limitations that I explained, we are all persuaded to understand the universe and its origin but we d be very surprised if we knew the real truth.Regards

Don t you see that the universe shows us the truths and that these 3D quantum spheres in a fluidity are probably the foundamental objects instead of strings or points in 1D in this GR . The universe is only generally made of 3D cosmological spheres and this shape is not like the others, there is no angle, it is the perfect equilibrium of forces, it permits the best motions, they can be deformed with the symplectomorphisms, it seems thay are the choice primary of this universe , it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation , an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres. The spherical topological geometrical algebras, the tool that I have invented , it is for this general theory.......